NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA

Posted by MTAA | Fri Dec 16th 2005 7:48 a.m.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html

Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:

"Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more
visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord
with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual
disciplines, especially design."

To which he added this commentary:

"Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What
the two share is Design."

...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.

--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • Plasma Studii | Fri Dec 16th 2005 8:51 a.m.
    i agree. but while maybe half (probably less than) is "visual
    culture", there's another half that's theoretical culture. art that is
    satisfying in both is rare, but art that satisfies in experience
    culture (interactivity, the visual or theoretical being secondary to
    the experience created) or anything other than visual or theoretical
    (traditional ways of seeing "art") is even more rare.

    am in school, watching younger people, people who've never had much
    previous experience in programming, electronics or interactivity. who
    actually have a lot stronger intuitive sense of it that many of the
    teachers of a previous generation. gallery owners, curators, funders,
    etc. tend to even be a few generations behind that. it's certainly not
    always the case, but the vast majorityy. it will just be a waiting
    game, when the enlightened of today take over the decision making
    positions.

    oh well. masterpieces don't become masterpieces until we're dead. so
    there's no hurry. just make a bunch now while we still can, so we
    leave them with something. the economics are a little ahead of the
    culture part in this respect. the economics is just a game but one
    that's slightly more savvy.

    judsoN
  • MTAA | Fri Dec 16th 2005 9:48 a.m.
    Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to consider...

    On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >
    > who? example?
    >
    > jason
    >
    > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    > >
    > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    > >
    > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more
    > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord
    > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual
    > > disciplines, especially design."
    > >
    > > To which he added this commentary:
    > >
    > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What
    > > the two share is Design."
    > >
    > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    > >
    > > --
    > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • marc garrett | Fri Dec 16th 2005 10:01 a.m.
    'most art says nothing to most people'...

    h.bunting :-)

    I said it also, but he put on a billboard...

    marc

    >Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to consider...
    >
    >On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>who? example?
    >>
    >>jason
    >>
    >>On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    >>>
    >>>Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    >>>
    >>>"Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more
    >>>visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord
    >>>with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual
    >>>disciplines, especially design."
    >>>
    >>>To which he added this commentary:
    >>>
    >>>"Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    >>>Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What
    >>>the two share is Design."
    >>>
    >>>...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>><twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >>>
    >>>+
    >>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>+
    >>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>--
    >>Jason Van Anden
    >>http://www.smileproject.com
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >--
    ><twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Jason Van Anden | Fri Dec 16th 2005 10:25 a.m.
    What would Jackson do?
    There are so many artists making so many different things that I haveto wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
    Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art(VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, itis the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To sayotherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world atany point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that thesesuper talented few have opted to waste their talent making VisualCulture instead of Visual Art.
    If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today - would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead ofmaking expressive paintings?
    Jason Van Andenwww.smileproject.com

    On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:> Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to consider...>> On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:> > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.> >> > who? example?> >> > jason> >> > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html> > >> > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:> > >> > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more> > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord> > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual> > > disciplines, especially design."> > >> > > To which he added this commentary:> > >> > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual> > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What> > > the two share is Design."> > >> > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.> > >> > > --> > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>> > >> > > +> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > > +> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> > >> >> >> > --> > Jason Van Anden> > http://www.smileproject.com> >>>> --> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>>> +> -> post: list@rhizome.org> -> questions: info@rhizome.org> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>

    --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com
  • MTAA | Fri Dec 16th 2005 10:39 a.m.
    On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
    > What would Jackson do?
    >
    > There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
    > to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
    >
    > Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
    > (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
    > is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
    > otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
    > any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
    > super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
    > Culture instead of Visual Art.

    I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
    it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
    Pixar as opposed to PS1.

    I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
    the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
    content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
    Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
    form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
    representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
    beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
    content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
    critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.

    Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
    the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
    doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
    just damn good entertainers.

    >
    > If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
    > would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
    > making expressive paintings?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    > > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to consider...
    > >
    > > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    > > >
    > > > who? example?
    > > >
    > > > jason
    > > >
    > > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    > > > >
    > > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    > > > >
    > > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more
    > > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord
    > > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual
    > > > > disciplines, especially design."
    > > > >
    > > > > To which he added this commentary:
    > > > >
    > > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    > > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What
    > > > > the two share is Design."
    > > > >
    > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > > > >
    > > > > +
    > > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > > > +
    > > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Jason Van Anden
    > > > http://www.smileproject.com
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • Jason Van Anden | Fri Dec 16th 2005 11:14 a.m.
    Hey t.
    I thought that the "relevant thing for some in this forum to consider"was whether we are making Visual Culture instead of Visual Art.
    No?
    Jason

    On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:> On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:> > What would Jackson do?> >> > There are so many artists making so many different things that I have> > to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.> >> > Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art> > (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it> > is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say> > otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at> > any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these> > super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual> > Culture instead of Visual Art.>> I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that> it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at> Pixar as opposed to PS1.>> I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that> the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and> content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).> Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the> form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D> representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way> beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and> content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or> critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.>> Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have> the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar> doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're> just damn good entertainers.>> >> > If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -> > would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of> > making expressive paintings?> >> > Jason Van Anden> > www.smileproject.com> >> >> > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:> > > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to consider...> > >> > > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:> > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.> > > >> > > > who? example?> > > >> > > > jason> > > >> > > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:> > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html> > > > >> > > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:> > > > >> > > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more> > > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord> > > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual> > > > > disciplines, especially design."> > > > >> > > > > To which he added this commentary:> > > > >> > > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual> > > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What> > > > > the two share is Design."> > > > >> > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.> > > > >> > > > > --> > > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>> > > > >> > > > > +> > > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org> > > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org> > > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > > > > +> > > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > > > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > --> > > > Jason Van Anden> > > > http://www.smileproject.com> > > >> > >> > >> > > --> > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>> > >> > > +> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > > +> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> > >> >> >> > --> > Jason Van Anden> > http://www.smileproject.com> >>>> --> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • patrick lichty | Fri Dec 16th 2005 12:39 p.m.
    Here's the problem with this show-
    BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
    which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
    reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o

    (or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
    art!)

    Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
    home for that time.

    When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
    PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
    shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
    to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
    through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
    as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
    creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
    sale management...

    Two points here.
    One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
    the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
    problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
    the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".

    Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
    close, though.

    Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
    Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
    Falcon, out the door...

    I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
    that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
    that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
    another small notch down, IMO.

    I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
    the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
    see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)

    I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
    sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
    that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.

    But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
    challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
    for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.

    Patrick Lichty
    Editor-In-Chief
    Intelligent Agent Magazine
    http://www.intelligentagent.com
    1556 Clough Street, #28
    Bowling Green, OH 43402
    225 288 5813
    voyd@voyd.com

    "It is better to die on your feet
    than to live on your knees."

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of T.Whid
    Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
    MoMA

    On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
    > What would Jackson do?
    >
    > There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
    > to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
    >
    > Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
    > (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
    > is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
    > otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
    > any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
    > super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
    > Culture instead of Visual Art.

    I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
    it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
    Pixar as opposed to PS1.

    I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
    the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
    content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
    Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
    form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
    representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
    beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
    content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
    critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.

    Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
    the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
    doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
    just damn good entertainers.

    >
    > If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
    > would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
    > making expressive paintings?
    >
    > Jason Van Anden
    > www.smileproject.com
    >
    >
    > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    > > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
    consider...
    > >
    > > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    > > >
    > > > who? example?
    > > >
    > > > jason
    > > >
    > > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    > > > >
    > > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    > > > >
    > > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
    more
    > > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
    accord
    > > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
    visual
    > > > > disciplines, especially design."
    > > > >
    > > > > To which he added this commentary:
    > > > >
    > > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    > > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
    What
    > > > > the two share is Design."
    > > > >
    > > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > > > >
    > > > > +
    > > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > > > +
    > > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > > > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Jason Van Anden
    > > > http://www.smileproject.com
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Jason Van Anden
    > http://www.smileproject.com
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Rob Myers | Fri Dec 16th 2005 1:26 p.m.
    On 16 Dec 2005, at 19:39, patrick lichty wrote:

    > I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
    > sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
    > that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.

    In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?

    > But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
    > challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
    > broccoli
    > for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.

    Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.

    - Rob.
  • ryan griffis | Fri Dec 16th 2005 2:22 p.m.
    On Dec 16, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
    >
    > In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?

    In what way does it? i'm not gonna argue either way, but it seems the
    burden of proof, whether PIXAR or <your favorite conceptual artist
    here>, is to make a case for its discursiveness. if one thinks there
    should be a burden at all, anyway.
    of course, anything can be discursive. my refrigerator has an
    interesting history, i'm sure.
    >
    > Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.

    there's discursive for you.
    my problem with the PIXAR thing is that it's already everywhere, it
    doesn't need explanation - as the "look at the work" statement makes
    clear. i'm sure lots of nice critical essays can be and have been
    written about the role of pixar and popular animation in larger global
    culture. and i'm also sure that there are plenty of interesting
    connections with contemporary and historical art that can be made. but
    is the exhibition doing this at all?
    it seems an obvious blockbuster, bring-in-the-movie-audience move.
    in that way, i'm with Patrick and twhid... why should we want to see a
    cultural institution (of a specific mission) use its resources to
    support something that arguably doesn't need its support in the least.
    maybe i'll learn something extremely fascinating about pixar, but if
    it's about their work... well, i can get it from just about any bog box
    store/video rental place/free on network TV.
    unless they've done some really groundbreaking or critical work that
    would never make it in their usual market, i don't know why i'd care.
    best,
    ryan
  • Jack Stenner | Fri Dec 16th 2005 2:32 p.m.
    I empathize, similar experience here. I forwarded the article to our
    department email list this morning, since earlier in the week the
    show was triumphantly announced. The majority of undergraduate and
    graduate students here (Texas A&M Visualization Lab) clamor for
    internships and eventual jobs at ILM, Pixar, Blue Sky, etc. It's a
    struggle to communicate the breadth of creative opportunity available
    outside the scope of entertainment. There's a constant battle
    between those who want anything creatively produced to be afforded
    the title of art, and those who have something more specific in mind.

    You watch as a mass of creative potential blindly follows the pied
    piper into the wilderness. Hopefully a few take a different course.
    While I agree the MOMA has focused on design in the past, I think
    they have a responsibility to be clear about the distinction......or
    is that solely the critics job?

    (just my opinion)
    Jack

    On Dec 16, 2005, at 1:39 PM, patrick lichty wrote:

    > Here's the problem with this show-
    > BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
    > which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've
    > been
    > reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o
    >
    > (or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
    > art!)
    >
    > Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my
    > happy
    > home for that time.
    >
    > When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
    > PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
    > shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
    > to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
    > through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time.
    > Almost
    > as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
    > creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in
    > bake
    > sale management...
    >
    > Two points here.
    > One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the
    > 'Art of
    > the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my
    > drift. The
    > problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
    > the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".
    >
    > Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some
    > are
    > close, though.
    >
    > Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
    > Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
    > Falcon, out the door...
    >
    > I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
    > that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
    > that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
    > another small notch down, IMO.
    >
    > I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star
    > Wars at
    > the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I
    > had to
    > see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)
    >
    > I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
    > sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
    > that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
    >
    > But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
    > challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
    > broccoli
    > for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
    >
    >
    >
    > Patrick Lichty
    > Editor-In-Chief
    > Intelligent Agent Magazine
    > http://www.intelligentagent.com
    > 1556 Clough Street, #28
    > Bowling Green, OH 43402
    > 225 288 5813
    > voyd@voyd.com
    >
    > "It is better to die on your feet
    > than to live on your knees."
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    > Of T.Whid
    > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
    > To: list@rhizome.org
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
    > MoMA
    >
    > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> What would Jackson do?
    >>
    >> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
    >> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
    >>
    >> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual
    >> Art
    >> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to
    >> blame, it
    >> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
    >> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
    >> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that
    >> these
    >> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
    >> Culture instead of Visual Art.
    >>
    >
    > I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
    > it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
    > Pixar as opposed to PS1.
    >
    > I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
    > the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
    > content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
    > Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
    > form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
    > representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
    > beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
    > content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
    > critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.
    >
    > Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
    > the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
    > doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
    > just damn good entertainers.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
    >> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
    >> making expressive paintings?
    >>
    >> Jason Van Anden
    >> www.smileproject.com
    >>
    >>
    >> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
    >>>
    > consider...
    >
    >>>
    >>> On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> who? example?
    >>>>
    >>>> jason
    >>>>
    >>>> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
    >>>>>
    > more
    >
    >>>>> visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
    >>>>>
    > accord
    >
    >>>>> with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
    >>>>>
    > visual
    >
    >>>>> disciplines, especially design."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To which he added this commentary:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    >>>>> Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
    >>>>>
    > What
    >
    >>>>> the two share is Design."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> +
    >>>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>>>>
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >
    >>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>>>> +
    >>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >>>>>
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Jason Van Anden
    >>>> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >>>
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >
    >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >>> +
    >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >>> Membership Agreement available online at
    >>>
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jason Van Anden
    >> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >
    >
  • patrick lichty | Fri Dec 16th 2005 2:58 p.m.
    I only sent this to rob.
    However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's
    still big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I
    might say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly)
    because it challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if
    only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief.

    This is the difference (challenge vs. lull) which is the difference.

    My original answer is as follows.

    In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?

    Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual
    culture element, and it says something about culture through the way
    they use technology and the range of stories they use.

    > But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
    > challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
    > broccoli
    > for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.

    Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.

    In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay.

    Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment
    ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of
    virtuosity in form.

    Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim?
    Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met?
    Does Pixar belong in the MoMA?
    We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses
    if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks,
    Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous
    conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses.

    If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they
    should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to
    Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting
    argument.

    Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney
    extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big
    art money.

    If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like
    "All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than
    The Incredibles.

    Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today.
  • Rob Myers | Fri Dec 16th 2005 4 p.m.
    If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
    show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
    the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.

    But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
    the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
    Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
    a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .

    As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
    their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
    And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
    how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.

    - Rob.
  • Eric Dymond | Fri Dec 16th 2005 11:14 p.m.
    Rob Myers wrote:

    > If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
    >
    > show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
    >
    > the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
    >
    > But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
    > the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
    > Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
    > a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
    >
    > As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
    > their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
    > And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
    >
    > how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
    >
    > - Rob.
    I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts students) for the past semester.
    It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning in art while still maintaining a level of currency.
    I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th century academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".
    What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new students, a holy grail.
    It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more important than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur grant cuts no ice with them.
    It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?
    The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students is very hard to overcome.
    What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them.
    I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is overwhelming arts instructors at every major college and University.
    Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I am right.
    Eric Dymond
  • Eric Dymond | Sat Dec 17th 2005 12:09 a.m.
    I should add, that in a consumaer driven education system, there is push from many directions to "connect with the student". This comes at great cost.
    One of our profs, showed the students Sid Meier's video to make a connection.They were very impressed.
    This validation from the mainstream media creates division.
    In the eyes of most new art students, validation from Pixar, ILM, EAE sports, and Blizzard, overwhelms validation from their parents brick and mortar institutions such as MOMA SFMOMA etc..And generations divide the art world.
    If the majority choose the former, then undergound may become, buried under the ground. Soon forgotten.
    Watch your relavence,
    It can kill you.
    Eric
  • Plasma Studii | Sat Dec 17th 2005 4:38 a.m.
    i think you're onto something important. we may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little like granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or lawrence welk. rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift, commercially motivated, etc too. but even we would never argue it isn't art. why would pixar be any different?

    good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but remember, the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door. People who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority. This show'll probably end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring in nearly the traffic but we find more Artistic. and i'm sure their funding hinges on traffic not just ticket price.

    in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5 parts/instruments. By (pre-50's) jazz and classical standards, calling this "music" is a joke. but what changed had nothing to do with that criteria and much more to do with hair cuts. Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong element(s).

    - judsoN

    Eric Dymond wrote:

    > Rob Myers wrote:
    >
    > > If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow
    > blockbuster
    > >
    > > show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums
    > in
    > >
    > > the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries
    > up.
    > >
    > > But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
    >
    > > the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
    > > Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
    >
    > > a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
    > >
    > > As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
    > > their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
    > > And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument
    > over
    > >
    > > how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
    > >
    > > - Rob.
    > I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year
    > arts students) for the past semester.
    > It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual
    > underpinning in art while still maintaining a level of currency.
    > I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th
    > century academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".
    > What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new
    > students, a holy grail.
    > It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more
    > important than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur
    > grant cuts no ice with them.
    > It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?
    > The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new
    > students is very hard to overcome.
    > What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to
    > them.
    > I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is
    > overwhelming arts instructors at every major college and University.
    > Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't
    > think I am right.
    > Eric Dymond
  • patrick lichty | Sat Dec 17th 2005 5:54 a.m.
    I have to leave for Break soon, but I'm off on this one.

    >We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little
    like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or
    lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,
    commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it
    isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?

    Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple
    cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the
    opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing
    what they already believe and to kill their individuality. There are
    pieces that are just as technically masterful which are great art video.
    Chris Cunningham, Michel Gondry, Chris Landreth
    (http://www.popmatters.com/film/reviews/r/ryan-the-special-edition.shtml
    ) vs. Pixar/Dreamworks/Square/ENIX. Murakami vs. Sailor Moon.

    >good point that they hardly deserve attention from the MoMA. but
    remember, >the MoMA is just trying to get folks through the door.

    Not an excuse for an institution like the MoMA, IMO. They can do better
    than this. There are far more worthy candidates that could get bucks.

    >People who aren't interested in Pixar are in the minority.

    Is that the best argument, given the venue/context?

    >This show'll probably end up paying indirectly for 3 that don''t bring
    in >nearly the traffic but we find more Artistic.

    That's a really seductive argument, and IMO, an excuse for doing more
    unchallenging 'popular' shows to finance the 'unpopular' ones. I think
    that it's necessary to try to do the risky route - the challenging
    'popular' show. I had to wait 4 weeks to get the "Little Boy" catalogue
    from the Japan Society because of the backlog.

    >in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5
    >parts/instruments.

    But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the
    Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three
    minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so.
    That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it
    was beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique. It fell short
    and had a completely predictable storyline.

    Honestly, Tron was better, and still is.
    I would probably ague to elevate that movie to an art status, because of
    the profound effect that was born from the exceptional vision it had.

    >Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but
    >probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong
    element(s).

    If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This
    sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and
    magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the
    MoMA.
  • Pall Thayer | Sat Dec 17th 2005 7:16 a.m.
    I've been thinking long and hard about this thread. There are a few
    things that I'm having a hard time with. It feels a bit like anyone
    who was disappointed in the Guggenheim for the Armani exhibit (I
    was), should be disappointed with this exhibit. It's basically the
    same thing, right? But there's still something about that line of
    thought that doesn't sound right. I like the idea of "Visual
    Culture" as opposed to "Visual Art". But I think the thing was that
    Armani isn't exactly about "Visual Culture", even. It's about
    "Consumer Culture". I mean, if someone's wearing an Armani (and
    you're into that sort of thing), does it really matter what it looks
    like? I've never been to the MoMA and don't know much about it. I
    don't feel, as an artist, that a PIXAR exhibit there is like the
    Easter Bunny showing up at my Christmas party. More like a Bob Ross
    showing up at my opening. He doesn't appear out of place, but he
    doesn't really add much either. I'm still thinking about this.

    Pall

    On 16.12.2005, at 09:48, T.Whid wrote:

    > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    >
    > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    >
    > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is more
    > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in accord
    > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of visual
    > disciplines, especially design."
    >
    > To which he added this commentary:
    >
    > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art. What
    > the two share is Design."
    >
    > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
    > subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
    > 29.php
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Mark Napier | Sat Dec 17th 2005 7:44 a.m.
    At 07:53 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:
    > >We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little
    >like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or
    >lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,
    >commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it
    >isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?
    >
    >Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple
    >cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the
    >opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing
    >what they already believe and to kill their individuality.

    I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He
    paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of an
    all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into reinforcing
    what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful
    institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical
    mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same
    story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.

    Although I suppose you could say the Sistine Chapel was a secretive homage
    to homosexuality. After all God is super buff, and Adam looks like he
    could use a pick-me-up. And that finger touch gesture could raise an
    eyebrow or two.

    Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work and
    art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was
    considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art
    because it has endured beyond it's original context.

    mark
  • patrick lichty | Sat Dec 17th 2005 8:16 a.m.
    Napier Wrote:

    I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He
    paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of
    an
    all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into
    reinforcing
    what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful
    institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical
    mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same

    story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.

    ...

    Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work
    and
    art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was
    considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art
    because it has endured beyond it's original context.

    Mark,
    Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time
    had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are
    a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. Both
    were commercial. However, the nature of the culture of the time and the
    contextual functions of the given art in the given institution is quite
    different (or so I think; I'm always open to discussion).

    Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If
    that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.
  • Gregory Little | Sat Dec 17th 2005 8:26 a.m.
    can't resist jumping in here, as this "master" has also been
    "unshackled", but not so much from the "polishing" process of his MFA
    candidates ;).....(FYI it is interesting to have at least one who
    perceives himself as a "gem", another word that comes to my mind is
    "pill", LOL).....I feel happily more unshacked from administrivia and
    amateur psychology...

    However, what patrick sez is IMO correct, we in digital arts at Bowling
    Green State University have built what was at one point a year or two
    ago a BFA program with over 270 majors in digital art...built entirely
    on the desire of a generation of kids to do the Pixar thing...with 60%
    of the faculty in digital and 100% in the school of art finding the
    pixar industry thing to be NOTART, actually dangerous and corrosive of
    (A)rt. A very conflicted situation, as I benefited from a zeitgeist
    that I found somewhat evil...so the strategy became to subvert..we will
    get them into the program and reprogram them, expose them to "real" art,
    as most of them have not really seen "realart", as it is not on
    television often, and turn around their motivations; or at least put
    thinking critical, even tactical minds into industry to potentially
    change it...... I have since found the strategy to be largely
    ineffective. I have concluded that most of the students have no desire
    to make discursive work, they have nothing really to contextualize or
    express, they just like the work and want to see their names on the big
    screen, and simply what to be a part of something powerful with a large
    audience...I am seeing the work, 3d animation that is, in the context of
    other functional or decorative arts like jewelry, pottery, etc. Now the
    same thing is happening with the gaming meme, which will likely be the
    next MOMA-like exhibition.

    However, the question that comes to mind for me is this--as some have ob
    served the effect of a museum show on a genre, for example netart in the
    Whitney being the "death" of netart, what is the effect of Pixar at the
    moma?

    Greg

    my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
    >which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
    >reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o

    >
    >Here's the problem with this show-
    >BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
    >which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
    >reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o
    >
    >(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
    >art!)
    >
    >Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
    >home for that time.
    >
    >When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
    >PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
    >shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
    >to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
    >through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
    >as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
    >creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
    >sale management...
    >
    >Two points here.
    >One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
    >the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
    >problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
    >the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".
    >
    >Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
    >close, though.
    >
    >Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
    >Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
    >Falcon, out the door...
    >
    >I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
    >that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
    >that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
    >another small notch down, IMO.
    >
    >I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
    >the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
    >see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)
    >
    >I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
    >sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
    >that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
    >
    >But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
    >challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
    >for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
    >
    >
    >
    >Patrick Lichty
    >Editor-In-Chief
    >Intelligent Agent Magazine
    >http://www.intelligentagent.com
    >1556 Clough Street, #28
    >Bowling Green, OH 43402
    >225 288 5813
    >voyd@voyd.com
    >
    >"It is better to die on your feet
    >than to live on your knees."
    >
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    >Of T.Whid
    >Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
    >To: list@rhizome.org
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
    >MoMA
    >
    >On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> What would Jackson do?
    >>
    >> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
    >> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
    >>
    >> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
    >> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
    >> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
    >> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
    >> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
    >> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
    >> Culture instead of Visual Art.
    >
    >I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
    >it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
    >Pixar as opposed to PS1.
    >
    >I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
    >the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
    >content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
    >Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
    >form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
    >representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
    >beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
    >content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
    >critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.
    >
    >Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
    >the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
    >doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
    >just damn good entertainers.
    >
    >>
    >> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
    >> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
    >> making expressive paintings?
    >>
    >> Jason Van Anden
    >> www.smileproject.com
    >>
    >>
    >> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    >> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
    >consider...
    >> >
    >> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
    >> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >> > >
    >> > > who? example?
    >> > >
    >> > > jason
    >> > >
    >> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
    >> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
    >> > > >
    >> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
    >> > > >
    >> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
    >more
    >> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
    >accord
    >> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
    >visual
    >> > > > disciplines, especially design."
    >> > > >
    >> > > > To which he added this commentary:
    >> > > >
    >> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
    >> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
    >What
    >> > > > the two share is Design."
    >> > > >
    >> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
    >> > > >
    >> > > > --
    >> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >> > > >
    >> > > > +
    >> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> > > > +
    >> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
    >http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> > > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > --
    >> > > Jason Van Anden
    >> > > http://www.smileproject.com
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >> >
    >> > +
    >> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> > +
    >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> > Membership Agreement available online at
    >http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jason Van Anden
    >> http://www.smileproject.com
    >>
    >
    >
    >--
    ><twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    ---------End of Included Message----------

    Gregory Little
    Assistant Professor
    Digital Art
    School of Art
    Bowling Green State University
    Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
    glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu
  • patrick lichty | Sat Dec 17th 2005 8:38 a.m.
    can't resist jumping in here, as this "master" has also been
    "unshackled", but not so much from the "polishing" process of his MFA
    candidates ;).....(FYI it is interesting to have at least one who
    perceives himself as a "gem", another word that comes to my mind is
    "pill", LOL)...

    Well, Greg -

    Any institution would like to think of their graduating students as
    exemplars of their program/process, right? We know I'm definitely much
    more the pill (but a fun one)... It always matters whether you're
    shaping diamond, or flint. Some are better for jewelry, others are
    better for making sparks.

    Respectfully,
    Your loving advisee :P

    Patrick
  • Rob Myers | Sat Dec 17th 2005 8:43 a.m.
    On 17 Dec 2005, at 12:53, patrick lichty wrote:

    > Honestly, Tron was better, and still is.

    This is a very interesting argument and one that I do agree with.
    It's not just nostalgia. I have just bought the deluxe Tron DVD and
    the thing that strikes me about it is the technical incompetences and
    intellectual failures of the project *that make it an aesthetic and
    critical (discursive) success*.

    If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script
    is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film
    production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents
    very successfully as a finished work.

    Tron is problematic and carries a high risk of failure yet is an
    aesthetic and contentual (to make up a word) success. Is this
    Bourriaud's realisation of new technical content in an old medium?
    Well, no. Both backlit animation and computer graphics were rocket
    science at the time.

    And Tron was also much harder work than a Pixar movie. The backlit
    animation was hand-painted and hand-composited onto film stock
    specially manufactured by Kodak just for that film. The computer
    animation was rendered a frame at a time by animators keying hundreds
    of numbers into a teletype connected to a server over a phone line.
    By four different companies with incompatible software (some were CSG
    based, some mesh-based, and so on).

    I like "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc", and I think it is wrong to
    discount the creativity of the individuals that worked on those
    projects in favor of grant-funded discourse illustrators.

    My pitch to students seduced by the surfaces of what Pixar does would
    be this:

    Yeah it looks good. Now imagine making *art* with those tools.

    http://www.renderman.org/

    - Rob.
  • Gregory Little | Sat Dec 17th 2005 8:49 a.m.
    seduce audiences into
    >reinforcing
    >what they already believe"

    Regardless of whether you are Agnostic, aetheist, baptist or buddhist,
    Mich's painting does deal with some fairly massive, inter-religious
    questions, without answering them in a simplistic way, ie
    goodguysbadguys....

    And, on an aesthetic level Pixar owes a massive debt to Mikie (using
    Mikie as a representative)...there is certainly nothing "aesthetically"
    groundbreaking about the incredibles.

    ---------Included Message----------
    >Date: 17-Dec-2005 10:22:08 -0500
    >From: "patrick lichty" <voyd@voyd.com>
    >To: <thingist@bbs.thing.net>, <list@rhizome.org>
    >Subject: RE: [thingist] RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >
    >Napier Wrote:
    >
    >I agree about Pixar and seduction, but then look at Michaelangelo. He
    >paints a propaganda piece on the Sistine Chapel with seductive images of
    >an
    >all-powerful god, certainly designed to "seduce audiences into
    >reinforcing
    >what they already believe", and paid for by one of the most powerful
    >institutions on earth (for their own benefit of course). And technical
    >mastery is a large part of the success of that work. Certainly the same
    >
    >story was painted thousands of times, less successfully.
    >
    >...
    >
    >Not to dis Mikey, but I'm not so sure the line between commercial work
    >and
    >art is that clear. Much of the greatest art of the western world was
    >considered craft when it was made, and has been elevated to fine art
    >because it has endured beyond it's original context.
    >
    >Mark,
    >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time
    >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are
    >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA. Both
    >were commercial. However, the nature of the culture of the time and the
    >contextual functions of the given art in the given institution is quite
    >different (or so I think; I'm always open to discussion).
    >
    >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If
    >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.
    >
    >
    >
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    ---------End of Included Message----------

    Gregory Little
    Assistant Professor
    Digital Art
    School of Art
    Bowling Green State University
    Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
    glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu
  • Gregory Little | Sat Dec 17th 2005 9:08 a.m.
    >If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script
    >is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film
    >production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents
    >very successfully as a finished work.

    Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating.
    PLichty discovered the other day during a class where I had tron playing
    as background ambience, that polygonal modeling was first developed
    during the making of tron.

    However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development
    of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality.

    So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic, it is
    as if cubism, futurism, duchamp, etc etc etc never happened--for obvious
    reasons.

    >
    >> Honestly, Tron was better, and still is.
    >
    >This is a very interesting argument and one that I do agree with.
    >It's not just nostalgia. I have just bought the deluxe Tron DVD and
    >the thing that strikes me about it is the technical incompetences and
    >intellectual failures of the project *that make it an aesthetic and
    >critical (discursive) success*.
    >
    >If you know even the smallest amount about computers, Tron's script
    >is nonsensical. If you know even the smallest amount about film
    >production, Tron is a train wreck. Yet it resonates and represents
    >very successfully as a finished work.
    >
    >Tron is problematic and carries a high risk of failure yet is an
    >aesthetic and contentual (to make up a word) success. Is this
    >Bourriaud's realisation of new technical content in an old medium?
    >Well, no. Both backlit animation and computer graphics were rocket
    >science at the time.
    >
    >And Tron was also much harder work than a Pixar movie. The backlit
    >animation was hand-painted and hand-composited onto film stock
    >specially manufactured by Kodak just for that film. The computer
    >animation was rendered a frame at a time by animators keying hundreds
    >of numbers into a teletype connected to a server over a phone line.
    >By four different companies with incompatible software (some were CSG
    >based, some mesh-based, and so on).
    >
    >I like "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc", and I think it is wrong to
    >discount the creativity of the individuals that worked on those
    >projects in favor of grant-funded discourse illustrators.
    >
    >My pitch to students seduced by the surfaces of what Pixar does would
    >be this:
    >
    >Yeah it looks good. Now imagine making *art* with those tools.
    >
    >http://www.renderman.org/
    >
    >- Rob.
    >+
    >-> post: list@rhizome.org
    >-> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >+
    >Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
    ---------End of Included Message----------

    Gregory Little
    Assistant Professor
    Digital Art
    School of Art
    Bowling Green State University
    Bowling Green OH 43403 USA
    glittle@bgnet.bgsu.edu
  • Rob Myers | Sat Dec 17th 2005 9:23 a.m.
    On 17 Dec 2005, at 16:08, Gregory Little wrote:

    > Rob, your description of the process of making tron is fascinating.

    The two-disk DVD set has lots of documentaries and preparatory work
    on the second DVD, which goes into all the making and design in
    detail. I do recommend it.

    > However, where I find tron to be most successful is in the development
    > of a formal aesthetic for inhabitable digitality.

    Yes, it's a wonderful aesthetic solution to a social problem (the
    impact of computer technology). Very Adorno. :-)

    > So much of pixar relies entirely on a pre-impressionist aesthetic,
    > it is
    > as if cubism,

    [Mr. Potato Head rearranges his facial features crazily]
    Mr. Potato Head: Hey, Hamm. Look, I'm Picasso.
    Hamm: I don't get it.
    Mr. Potato Head: You uncultured swine.

    > futurism,

    I'd wanted to do a futurist CG movie for ten years now. You could use
    a modified voxel system to get that vortex effect.

    > duchamp, etc etc etc never happened--for obvious
    > reasons.

    Imagine a Pixar Duchamp movie. Perhaps it was "Geris Game"? :-)

    - Rob.
  • Plasma Studii | Sat Dec 17th 2005 10:31 a.m.
    On Dec 17, 2005, at 7:53 AM, patrick lichty wrote:

    >> We may feel work x is more "Art" than Pixar. But isn't it a little
    like >granny saying rock-n-roll isn't REAL music like sinatra or
    lawrence welk. >rap could easily be seen as a pop culture shift,
    commercially motivated, >etc too. but even we would never argue it
    isn't art. why would pixar be >any different?

    > Because Elvis was an iconoclast; a rebel. He was upsetting the apple
    cart. Same for the Beatles, Rap, etc. Pixar is doing exactly the
    opposite - cute cuddly monsters to seduce audiences into reinforcing
    what they already believe and to kill their individuality.

    haha did you think elvis or the beatles would have been hits without all those screaming teenage girls thinking they were cute and cuddly? pixar does upset the apple cart of feature animation. the simpsons is now mainstream, but it's still anti-disney.

    there is nothing too innovative in Toy Story (much less TS2 and both got Prix Ars). But Monsters Inc really is innovative (like sesame street was long ago). I think Shrek was pixar too? anyway, nickelodeon started the ball rolling, but then you might as well argue if bracht or picasso deserve kudos for "cubism".

    >> in the 50's every song went G-Em-C-D over and over. generally under 5
    parts/instruments.

    > But that's a technical argument, not an aesthetic one. Look at the
    Ramones - they were amazing, and basically used three chords for three
    minutes. This idea of "more chords, better music" ain't necessarily so.
    That's like saying Final Fantasy: Spirits within was great because it
    was beautiful and took inordinate amounts of technique.

    not that more chords IS better music, but that there was a time when A. the technical complexity was paramount, the cultural effects went un-noticed until long after it had a profound effect B. no one thought R&R was impressive given the then current criteria. it's always too easy to project our current ideas , in retrospect, onto what was at one time new and judgment unsettled.

    the ramones are anti-beatles. joey's perspective is not paul's (back when he wore a leather jacket too. but our generation (loosely defined fourth wave of net artists?) has to acknowledge the difference in attitudes. or be left behind in a nostalgic dust cloud.

    it's easier to see now it was a change of fashions, know where to look. we are using old criteria and not looking at what will probably seem inescapably obvious ten years from now. folks will have a hard time NOT seeing it, like now we think anti-establishment means anti-corporate or anti-fashion.

    >> Pixar may not be as impressive on one level we are accustomed to, but
    probably if we feel that way, we are surely looking at the wrong
    element(s).

    > If the MoMA is showing it, maybe we aren't looking hard enough? This
    sounds like The Emperor's New Clothes. Sure, Pixar is beautiful and
    magical, but it also isn't art _in the context_ of a place like the
    MoMA.

    not at all. if the kids are psyched about it, perhaps we're missing something. (even if it's not exactly what those same kids see) the MoMA may have picked up on it, but more likely it's just a sellout. who cares either way.

    in fact, it would sound as if many people here are being let down by their faith in looking to the MoMA for integrity and leadership. too bad. we are all hit and miss. and the older the institution, the more likely it is to miss. but everyone hits once in a while.
  • Mark Napier | Sat Dec 17th 2005 1:12 p.m.
    At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:
    >Mark,
    >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time
    >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are
    >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA.
    >.......
    >
    >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If
    >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.

    These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part
    of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not
    that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400.

    Power is distributed differently now so it's hard to compare
    directly. Paradigms are different but I don't see the differences as that
    great. The Sistine Chapel was arguably the most advanced rendering of it's
    time, and told a popular story in visual terms that anybody could follow.
    It was placed in a public space. This isn't Pollack. It's much closer to
    Star Wars.

    Granted, MoMA is supposed to be about Pollack, not the Sistine Chapel, but
    it wouldn't be the first time in history that these categories have changed.

    mark
  • MTAA | Sat Dec 17th 2005 1:46 p.m.
    Hi all,

    responding inline:

    On 12/17/05, napier <napier@potatoland.org> wrote:
    > At 10:16 AM 12/17/2005 -0500, patrick lichty wrote:
    > >Mark,
    > >Good point. However, we're conflating eras here. Michelangelo's time
    > >had totally different paradigms than ours, and the Sistine Paintings are
    > >a totally different context and function than Pixar in the MoMA.
    > >.......
    > >
    > >Or is Pixar showing us the Deity of our time (money/Entertainment)? If
    > >that's where you're going, then I might agree with you.
    >
    > These movies (Pixar, Dreamworks, Lucas) tell popular stories that are part
    > of our culture and are about our culture. In the broad sense they're not
    > that far from the religious stories of the church circa 1400.

    The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century
    Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture -- they
    gave the pope his power and authority because people *believed* them.
    Or at least pretended too, but the cultural and social effect is the
    same.

    There is so much different culturally, economically and politically
    from today to the renaissance that I find the comparison of the
    Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to
    contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of
    worthlessness.

    Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist
    and tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol
    that isn't were it's greatness lies. The argument becomes then, is
    there a sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from
    entertainments to a sort of greatness? Mark, I know as a Dad you'd
    probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments
    they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of
    the TV, but do you see anything great in them? Your current work, when
    compared to a Pixar movie on a formal or technical level, is absurdly
    simple, yet, it's impact on an intellectual and emotional level is,
    IMHO, much greater. And that's because you're an artist and they are
    merely entertainers.

    >
    > Power is distributed differently now so it's hard to compare
    > directly. Paradigms are different but I don't see the differences as that
    > great. The Sistine Chapel was arguably the most advanced rendering of it's
    > time, and told a popular story in visual terms that anybody could follow.
    > It was placed in a public space. This isn't Pollack. It's much closer to
    > Star Wars.
    >
    > Granted, MoMA is supposed to be about Pollack, not the Sistine Chapel, but
    > it wouldn't be the first time in history that these categories have changed.
    >
    > mark
    >

    --
    <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
  • Mark Napier | Sat Dec 17th 2005 2:49 p.m.
    At 03:46 PM 12/17/2005 -0500, T.Whid wrote:
    >The biblical stories weren't just 'popular stories' in 15th century
    >Europe, they were the defining beliefs for the entire culture

    Yes it's hard to beat the power of religious belief. But I don't mean
    'popular' as 'likable'. I mean these are stories held and believed by the
    broad population, that had a deep formative impact on society. For the US
    a common word is "freedom" which is a recurring story/belief/myth in our
    culture. That story is told by Bush in his speeches, and also by Lucas
    through the Star Wars series. "Freedom" is to the US(2005) what "faith" was
    to the church(1400).

    >I find the comparison of the
    >Sistine chapel or Mich's David (a more apt comparison IMHO) to
    >contemporary Hollywood to be problematic almost to the point of
    >worthlessness.

    How about the comparison of Michaelangelo to Pollack? As a painter I find
    that one a much longer stretch.

    >Popular entertainments at the Hollywood level just simply didn't exist
    >and tho Mich's David was meant to be a populist (nationalist) symbol
    >that isn't were it's greatness lies.

    We've had a lot of time to discover the greatness of Mich's work. And now
    the context of his work is "art" when at the time he was essentially a
    commercial artist.

    >The argument becomes then, is
    >there a sub-text to Pixar films that could bring them up from
    >entertainments to a sort of greatness?

    Probably not with Pixar, and I can relate to Patrick's upset about Pixar in
    MoMA. Maybe I'm switching topics here to talk about this in more general
    terms. The general idea of a big budget popular movie being seen as art is
    not only possible in the future, I'd say it's likely. Over time people
    will forget the context and just remember whatever makes the experience
    great. So Mich's work lasts and moves us today, and we call it art, even
    though other work done in the same context is forgotten or written off as
    just craft.

    >Mark, I know as a Dad you'd
    >probably give Pixar your right thumb for the quiet domestic moments
    >they've probably provided you while the youguns sat rapt in front of
    >the TV, but do you see anything great in them?

    Maybe not Pixar. I would vote for Shrek 2 myself (Dreamworks).

    The point being that popular film can achieve this lasting "greatness", and
    centuries from now no one will realize or care that it was part of a
    cultural propaganda campaign. As Mich's work outlived it's context, so can
    film (or other popular forms), and that will change the way these things
    are categorized (ie. as art).

    mark
  • Eric Dymond | Sat Dec 17th 2005 11:44 p.m.
    and we should be surprised that a generation (now entering Art School) exposed to digital art in games, movies and the web from the time they were 5 years old has a different understanding for the meaning of the word "Art"?
    and we should be surprised that they trust Pixar, and distrust the older generations institutions and philosophies? And why is Pixar less trustworthy than older institutions (Universities, Museums, Galleries) which also promote political, economic and cultural agendas that are equally suspect?
    Well of course, what a surprise!
    They don't like the way things work.
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Dec 20th 2005 12:01 a.m.
    this thread has been very interesting. one thing that strikes me as odd
    about it is that the thread, like so many others, is phrased in terms of the
    NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional bodies. as though it
    is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does not contain
    discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do determine
    what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Zev Robinson | Tue Dec 20th 2005 1:34 a.m.
    if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.

    but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture or
    cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV programs,
    books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more egalitarian and
    less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and mythologies, and
    get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would have us believe.

    Zev

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    exhibition at MoMA

    > this thread has been very interesting. one thing that strikes me as odd
    > about it is that the thread, like so many others, is phrased in terms of
    > the
    > NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional bodies. as though
    > it
    > is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does not contain
    > discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do
    > determine
    > what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    >
    > ja
    > http://vispo.com
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Dec 20th 2005 3:54 a.m.
    > if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.

    as silent as a mirror is believed, realities plunge in silence by.

    i think it can't be helped only in interzones 5, 37b, and 45.

    and of course it would be particularly tough in ny.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Dirk Vekemans | Tue Dec 20th 2005 5:32 a.m.
    Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never heard of or seen
    a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of assumptions and
    mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still moderately priced
    would you please wrap it up and send it over so i can give it to myself for
    xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally through
    with all the art nonsense...
    Thanks,
    dv

    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
    > Namens Zev Robinson
    > Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 9:34
    > Aan: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
    > Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    > reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >
    > if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >
    > but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word
    > culture or cultures, and the objects found in them
    > (paintings, films, TV programs, books, etc) then you get to
    > look at things differently, more egalitarian and less
    > hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and
    > mythologies, and get a different set of values than MoMA and
    > papa would have us believe.
    >
    > Zev
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    > Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    > exhibition at MoMA
    >
    >
    > > this thread has been very interesting. one thing that
    > strikes me as odd
    > > about it is that the thread, like so many others, is
    > phrased in terms of
    > > the
    > > NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional
    > bodies. as though
    > > it
    > > is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does
    > not contain
    > > discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do
    > > determine
    > > what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    > >
    > > ja
    > > http://vispo.com
    > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at
    > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Lee Wells | Tue Dec 20th 2005 7:44 a.m.
    You cant pay for this type of advertising.

    On 12/20/05 3:34 AM, "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> wrote:

    > if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >
    > but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture or
    > cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV programs,
    > books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more egalitarian and
    > less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and mythologies, and
    > get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would have us believe.
    >
    > Zev
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    > Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    > exhibition at MoMA
    >
    >
    >> this thread has been very interesting. one thing that strikes me as odd
    >> about it is that the thread, like so many others, is phrased in terms of
    >> the
    >> NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional bodies. as though
    >> it
    >> is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does not contain
    >> discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do
    >> determine
    >> what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    >>
    >> ja
    >> http://vispo.com
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    917 723 2524
  • ryan griffis | Tue Dec 20th 2005 8:17 a.m.
    sure you can.
    http://moma.org/support/corporate/membersroster.html

    On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Lee Wells wrote:

    > You cant pay for this type of advertising.
    >
    >
    > On 12/20/05 3:34 AM, "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >>
    >> but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture
    >> or
    >> cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV
    >> programs,
    >> books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more
    >> egalitarian and
    >> less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and
    >> mythologies, and
    >> get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would have us
    >> believe.
    >>
    >> Zev
  • Lee Wells | Tue Dec 20th 2005 9:46 a.m.
    Ok your right.

    On 12/20/05 10:17 AM, "Ryan Griffis" <ryan.griffis@gmail.com> wrote:

    > sure you can.
    > http://moma.org/support/corporate/membersroster.html
    >
    > On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:43 AM, Lee Wells wrote:
    >
    >> You cant pay for this type of advertising.
    >>
    >>
    >> On 12/20/05 3:34 AM, "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >>>
    >>> but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word culture
    >>> or
    >>> cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV
    >>> programs,
    >>> books, etc) then you get to look at things differently, more
    >>> egalitarian and
    >>> less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and
    >>> mythologies, and
    >>> get a different set of values than MoMA and papa would have us
    >>> believe.
    >>>
    >>> Zev
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    917 723 2524
  • Zev Robinson | Tue Dec 20th 2005 10:14 a.m.
    no, not a mystic, thanks for asking, tho. an artist of sorts, maybe. you may
    be right that all values are bubbling with assumptions and mythologies, but
    I hope that you're wrong in saying that they are all abusive bubbles. could
    some bubbles not be anti-abusive?

    and if you are wrong, then sets are still available, but you'll have to make
    it yourself.

    merry xmas, happy holidays.

    Zev

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>
    To: "'Zev Robinson'" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>; "'Jim Andrews'" <jim@vispo.com>;
    <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:32 PM
    Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    exhibition at MoMA

    > Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never heard of or
    > seen
    > a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of assumptions and
    > mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still moderately priced
    > would you please wrap it up and send it over so i can give it to myself
    > for
    > xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally
    > through
    > with all the art nonsense...
    > Thanks,
    > dv
    >
    >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    >> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
    >> Namens Zev Robinson
    >> Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 9:34
    >> Aan: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
    >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    >> reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >>
    >> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >>
    >> but if you stop using the word art, and start using the word
    >> culture or cultures, and the objects found in them
    >> (paintings, films, TV programs, books, etc) then you get to
    >> look at things differently, more egalitarian and less
    >> hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of assumptions and
    >> mythologies, and get a different set of values than MoMA and
    >> papa would have us believe.
    >>
    >> Zev
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
    >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    >> exhibition at MoMA
    >>
    >>
    >> > this thread has been very interesting. one thing that
    >> strikes me as odd
    >> > about it is that the thread, like so many others, is
    >> phrased in terms of
    >> > the
    >> > NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional
    >> bodies. as though
    >> > it
    >> > is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does
    >> not contain
    >> > discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though they truly do
    >> > determine
    >> > what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    >> >
    >> > ja
    >> > http://vispo.com
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > +
    >> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> > +
    >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> > Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> >
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> +
    >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >>
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
  • Dirk Vekemans | Tue Dec 20th 2005 1:04 p.m.
    anti-abusive bubbles would be anti-bubble denouncing their bubbleness when
    inflated. some recent neoist negative constructs would qualify i suppose,
    but Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite already had some apophatic bubbles
    floating around in the 5th century. That's why i was wondering, jokingly.
    Otherwise values bubble abusively because they only contain recursive
    ideosynchronised instances of the bubble they are floating in and can thus
    only abuse their surroundings by enforcing their meaning on them. Art is
    aggressive, most noticably when shown in institutions that allegedly promote
    art, but any art is de facto, by claiming itself to be art, abusive to other
    bubbles, just like Bush brings freedom to Irak.

    What you proposed sounded like reducing all art production to material
    objects of culture, which to me is the same as negating art, denying the
    activity itself, saying it never happened and that all the art garbage you
    can find in museums just miraculously materialised, claiming what we're all
    working on here is the mere production of sellable objects that can only be
    promoted through market strategies. Now i see you have some very nice
    paintings over at your site, i don't think you'd consider those to be merely
    sellable objects, otherwise you could have suffised with running a webshop
    selling acrylic paint in profitable portions. The activity is not abusive,
    and if you want the anti-abusive: there it is/was happening. While art
    happens, it outbubbles itself autopoetically.

    All this rhetoric, discussions like these, although they tend to get tedious
    because they're just bubbles within bubbles, are inescapable. It's part of
    the art of art. You can't escape them by saying they're not (supposed to
    be)about art. And they have some importance: some big bubble might explode
    any second, others might shower in offering the illusion of an eternal
    fabric of foam while some slippery youngsters glide to their 7,5 minutes of
    fame. I think it's quite a spectacle seeing all these young talents
    relishing in their creativity while producing in the service of power
    institutions. Apparantly it's the choice of a part of a generation, and you
    can't judge choices like that. But you can't attribute any other value to
    them than what they proclaim themselves, within their industrial power
    bubble, some iconic extra's perhaps or a few subversive gags from within the
    system approved and nullified by the system, but not much more without being
    insultingly aggressive to us very sanguine poetic worms stuck in the frozen
    root of oblivion.

    It's a fun thing though, gnawing at roots, just gotta look out for them
    media seagulls going me me me all the time.

    Happy nuyear 2u2, & btw: don't forget to extend your best wishes to the
    world through Regina's map at http://arteonline.arq.br/mapa.htm. All of you
    rhizomers should be there by now! 32 members! Shameful. Too busy are you?
    Afraid it will affect your ahartistic careers adversely? Can't figure out
    the Frappr app? Fearing you'll catch the virus formerly known as human
    empathy? Come on!

    dv, floating @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
    http://www.vilt.net/nkdee

    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:zr@zrdesign.co.uk]
    > Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 17:20
    > Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Jim Andrews'; list@rhizome.org
    > Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    > reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >
    > no, not a mystic, thanks for asking, tho. an artist of sorts,
    > maybe. you may be right that all values are bubbling with
    > assumptions and mythologies, but I hope that you're wrong in
    > saying that they are all abusive bubbles. could some bubbles
    > not be anti-abusive?
    >
    > and if you are wrong, then sets are still available, but
    > you'll have to make it yourself.
    >
    > merry xmas, happy holidays.
    >
    > Zev
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>
    > To: "'Zev Robinson'" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>; "'Jim Andrews'"
    > <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:32 PM
    > Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews
    > Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >
    >
    > > Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never
    > heard of
    > > or seen a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of
    > assumptions
    > > and mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still
    > moderately
    > > priced would you please wrap it up and send it over so i
    > can give it
    > > to myself for
    > > xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally
    > > through with all the art nonsense...
    > > Thanks,
    > > dv
    > >
    > >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > >> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens
    > >> Zev Robinson
    > >> Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 9:34
    > >> Aan: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
    > >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    > reviews Pixar
    > >> exhibition at MoMA
    > >>
    > >> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    > >>
    > >> but if you stop using the word art, and start using the
    > word culture
    > >> or cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV
    > >> programs, books, etc) then you get to look at things differently,
    > >> more egalitarian and less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of
    > >> assumptions and mythologies, and get a different set of
    > values than
    > >> MoMA and papa would have us believe.
    > >>
    > >> Zev
    > >>
    > >> ----- Original Message -----
    > >> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    > >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    > >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    > >> exhibition at MoMA
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> > this thread has been very interesting. one thing that
    > >> strikes me as odd
    > >> > about it is that the thread, like so many others, is
    > >> phrased in terms of
    > >> > the
    > >> > NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional
    > >> bodies. as though
    > >> > it
    > >> > is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does
    > >> not contain
    > >> > discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though
    > they truly do
    > >> > determine what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    > >> >
    > >> > ja
    > >> > http://vispo.com
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > +
    > >> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > >> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > >> > +
    > >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > >> > Membership Agreement available online at
    > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> +
    > >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > >> +
    > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > >> Membership Agreement available online at
    > >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    > > -> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > > +
    > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > > Membership Agreement available online at
    > > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    > >
    >
    >
  • Zev Robinson | Tue Dec 20th 2005 9:22 p.m.
    actually, I agree with most of what you say, and I'm not trying to reduce
    art production nor negate art's existence, just that changing terms around
    helps see things a bit differently, situates art in a wider cultural
    context, and avoids the narrow definitions of art that are prevalent and
    often self serving in the art world. But some historians and critics have
    done this while still using the word art.

    as you rightly pointed out, it is xmas time, and there are plenty of
    different bubbles to choose from, unless youre a Buddhist, in which case you
    can celebrate xmas without a bubble.

    Zev

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>
    To: "'Zev Robinson'" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:03 PM
    Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    exhibition at MoMA

    > anti-abusive bubbles would be anti-bubble denouncing their bubbleness when
    > inflated. some recent neoist negative constructs would qualify i suppose,
    > but Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite already had some apophatic bubbles
    > floating around in the 5th century. That's why i was wondering, jokingly.
    > Otherwise values bubble abusively because they only contain recursive
    > ideosynchronised instances of the bubble they are floating in and can thus
    > only abuse their surroundings by enforcing their meaning on them. Art is
    > aggressive, most noticably when shown in institutions that allegedly
    > promote
    > art, but any art is de facto, by claiming itself to be art, abusive to
    > other
    > bubbles, just like Bush brings freedom to Irak.
    >
    > What you proposed sounded like reducing all art production to material
    > objects of culture, which to me is the same as negating art, denying the
    > activity itself, saying it never happened and that all the art garbage you
    > can find in museums just miraculously materialised, claiming what we're
    > all
    > working on here is the mere production of sellable objects that can only
    > be
    > promoted through market strategies. Now i see you have some very nice
    > paintings over at your site, i don't think you'd consider those to be
    > merely
    > sellable objects, otherwise you could have suffised with running a webshop
    > selling acrylic paint in profitable portions. The activity is not abusive,
    > and if you want the anti-abusive: there it is/was happening. While art
    > happens, it outbubbles itself autopoetically.
    >
    > All this rhetoric, discussions like these, although they tend to get
    > tedious
    > because they're just bubbles within bubbles, are inescapable. It's part of
    > the art of art. You can't escape them by saying they're not (supposed to
    > be)about art. And they have some importance: some big bubble might explode
    > any second, others might shower in offering the illusion of an eternal
    > fabric of foam while some slippery youngsters glide to their 7,5 minutes
    > of
    > fame. I think it's quite a spectacle seeing all these young talents
    > relishing in their creativity while producing in the service of power
    > institutions. Apparantly it's the choice of a part of a generation, and
    > you
    > can't judge choices like that. But you can't attribute any other value to
    > them than what they proclaim themselves, within their industrial power
    > bubble, some iconic extra's perhaps or a few subversive gags from within
    > the
    > system approved and nullified by the system, but not much more without
    > being
    > insultingly aggressive to us very sanguine poetic worms stuck in the
    > frozen
    > root of oblivion.
    >
    > It's a fun thing though, gnawing at roots, just gotta look out for them
    > media seagulls going me me me all the time.
    >
    > Happy nuyear 2u2, & btw: don't forget to extend your best wishes to the
    > world through Regina's map at http://arteonline.arq.br/mapa.htm. All of
    > you
    > rhizomers should be there by now! 32 members! Shameful. Too busy are you?
    > Afraid it will affect your ahartistic careers adversely? Can't figure out
    > the Frappr app? Fearing you'll catch the virus formerly known as human
    > empathy? Come on!
    >
    > dv, floating @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
    > http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
    >
    >
    >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    >> Van: Zev Robinson [mailto:zr@zrdesign.co.uk]
    >> Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 17:20
    >> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Jim Andrews'; list@rhizome.org
    >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    >> reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >>
    >> no, not a mystic, thanks for asking, tho. an artist of sorts,
    >> maybe. you may be right that all values are bubbling with
    >> assumptions and mythologies, but I hope that you're wrong in
    >> saying that they are all abusive bubbles. could some bubbles
    >> not be anti-abusive?
    >>
    >> and if you are wrong, then sets are still available, but
    >> you'll have to make it yourself.
    >>
    >> merry xmas, happy holidays.
    >>
    >> Zev
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>
    >> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>; "'Jim Andrews'"
    >> <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:32 PM
    >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews
    >> Pixar exhibition at MoMA
    >>
    >>
    >> > Are you a mystic of sorts Zev, 'cause personally i've never
    >> heard of
    >> > or seen a set of values that is *not* an abusive bubble of
    >> assumptions
    >> > and mythologies? So if you have such a set and it's still
    >> moderately
    >> > priced would you please wrap it up and send it over so i
    >> can give it
    >> > to myself for
    >> > xmas;- i think my family would be delighted to see that i'm finally
    >> > through with all the art nonsense...
    >> > Thanks,
    >> > dv
    >> >
    >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    >> >> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens
    >> >> Zev Robinson
    >> >> Verzonden: dinsdag 20 december 2005 9:34
    >> >> Aan: Jim Andrews; list@rhizome.org
    >> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic
    >> reviews Pixar
    >> >> exhibition at MoMA
    >> >>
    >> >> if you speak of art, Jim, it really can't be helped.
    >> >>
    >> >> but if you stop using the word art, and start using the
    >> word culture
    >> >> or cultures, and the objects found in them (paintings, films, TV
    >> >> programs, books, etc) then you get to look at things differently,
    >> >> more egalitarian and less hierarchal, pop that abusive bubble of
    >> >> assumptions and mythologies, and get a different set of
    >> values than
    >> >> MoMA and papa would have us believe.
    >> >>
    >> >> Zev
    >> >>
    >> >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> >> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
    >> >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
    >> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:00 AM
    >> >> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT art critic reviews Pixar
    >> >> exhibition at MoMA
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> > this thread has been very interesting. one thing that
    >> >> strikes me as odd
    >> >> > about it is that the thread, like so many others, is
    >> >> phrased in terms of
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > NYT, Pixar, and MoMA, large corporate or institutional
    >> >> bodies. as though
    >> >> > it
    >> >> > is hard to get peoples' attention if the conversation does
    >> >> not contain
    >> >> > discussion of these sorts of large bodies, as though
    >> they truly do
    >> >> > determine what is of value and what isn't in matters of art.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > ja
    >> >> > http://vispo.com
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > +
    >> >> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> >> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> >> > +
    >> >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> >> > Membership Agreement available online at
    >> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> +
    >> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> >> +
    >> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> >> Membership Agreement available online at
    >> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > +
    >> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
    >> > -> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    >> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    >> > +
    >> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    >> > Membership Agreement available online at
    >> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
Your Reply