not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.

Posted by Zev Robinson | Mon Dec 19th 2005 2:18 a.m.

a few comments -

pixar has a long line of enjoyable and entertaining, and witty and clever,
works that have stood multiple viewings (with my kids). Many things that I
have seen in galleries and museums and cinemas under the banner of art are
none of the above.

should museums be showing works that are easily accessable elsewhere?
Preferably not, but then should they be hosting fashion exhibitions and be
charging 20 dollars to get in, following art world trends, be influenced by
commercial and financial considerations, etc, which are much bigger issues,
and like high and low art, never simple nor clear cut.

Art (and artist) are terms that fluctuate culturally and historically, mean
different things ad have different values at different times. One could look
at artists (Giotto, Reubens, Warhol) also as working for someone else's
profits and power (whatever the personal gains that they made), and also
look at the art world's mythology of success, and why it might not be in the
student's best interest to buy into it, and also look into the art world's
mythologies of high and low art.

There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that
is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be
contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical
knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time....

just my 2 cents worth.

Zev

Zev Robinson
www.artafterscience.com
www.zrdesign.co.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "mark cooley" <flawedart@yahoo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.

> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging themselves.
> it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the frustrations i have as a
> teacher, and sad to see that the pixar flu is an epidemic (one would like
> to think that it's only at one's own school and the grass is somehow
> greener, or a little less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do
> think that it is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high
> and low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is
> tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick commenting
> on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why it might not be in
> the student's best interest (regardless of the hype) to even think twice
> about working as a human machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact
> is that many art students don't care about being artists and much of my
> time in the classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists.
> hence, the frustration.
>
> mark
>
>
> patrick lichty wrote:
>
>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night, and I
>> thought more about this converstation.
>>
>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be people
>> who create someone else's vision.
>>
>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an artist
>> is
>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
>> realizing
>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of realization.
>>
>>
>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
>>
>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
>> know
>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.
>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the
>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
>> kids
>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for
>> any
>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from
>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term,
>> in
>> tems of the students.
>>
>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can
>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they can
>> have creative freedom.
>>
>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you
>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
>> sense
>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical
>> school?
>>
>> Therefore:
>> The dream of Pixar:
>> 1: Short-term
>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media that
>> judges its merit on market success)
>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
>> production paradigm.
>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is driven by
>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still have
>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
>> extremely
>> hard to pass.
>>
>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
>>
>> Pick your poison.
>>
>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
>>
>>
> +
> -> 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 | Mon Dec 19th 2005 7 a.m.
    >
    > There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and
    > if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe
    > they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or
    > gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive
    > on their own time....

    Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something
    that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
    being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
    going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
    Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
    into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
    practice on the side.

    Pall

    >
    > just my 2 cents worth.

    Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.

    >
    > Zev
    >
    > Zev Robinson
    > www.artafterscience.com
    > www.zrdesign.co.uk
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark cooley" <flawedart@yahoo.com>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.
    >
    >
    >> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging
    >> themselves. it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the
    >> frustrations i have as a teacher, and sad to see that the pixar
    >> flu is an epidemic (one would like to think that it's only at
    >> one's own school and the grass is somehow greener, or a little
    >> less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do think that it
    >> is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high and
    >> low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is
    >> tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick
    >> commenting on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why
    >> it might not be in the student's best interest (regardless of the
    >> hype) to even think twice about working as a human machine for
    >> someone elses profit. The sad fact is that many art students
    >> don't care about being artists and much of my time in the
    >> classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists.
    >> hence, the frustration.
    >>
    >> mark
    >>
    >>
    >> patrick lichty wrote:
    >>
    >>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night,
    >>> and I
    >>> thought more about this converstation.
    >>>
    >>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be
    >>> people
    >>> who create someone else's vision.
    >>>
    >>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an
    >>> artist
    >>> is
    >>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
    >>> realizing
    >>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
    >>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
    >>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of
    >>> realization.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
    >>>
    >>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
    >>> know
    >>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.
    >>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the
    >>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
    >>> kids
    >>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
    >>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
    >>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for
    >>> any
    >>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from
    >>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term,
    >>> in
    >>> tems of the students.
    >>>
    >>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can
    >>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they
    >>> can
    >>> have creative freedom.
    >>>
    >>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you
    >>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
    >>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
    >>> sense
    >>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical
    >>> school?
    >>>
    >>> Therefore:
    >>> The dream of Pixar:
    >>> 1: Short-term
    >>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
    >>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media
    >>> that
    >>> judges its merit on market success)
    >>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
    >>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
    >>> production paradigm.
    >>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
    >>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
    >>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is
    >>> driven by
    >>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still
    >>> have
    >>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
    >>> extremely
    >>> hard to pass.
    >>>
    >>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
    >>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
    >>>
    >>> Pick your poison.
    >>>
    >>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
    >>>
    >>>
    >> +
    >> -> 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
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • joy garnett | Mon Dec 19th 2005 8:09 a.m.
    With all due respect Pall, et al.:

    As far as I know, being a fully engaged "devoted artist" requires working
    and juggling a full-time job -- most anywhere, but certainly here in the NYC
    coffee-grinder, aka "art market central" (with the notable exceptions of
    trust-fund babies and blue-chippers). There are zillions of artists who live
    this crazy struggle out of neccessity without making a tenth of what we
    would if we worked for Pixar.

    Much of the discussion here (with a few exceptions such as Zev's post) waxes
    nostalgic for an avant garde that hasn't existed in yonks... I'd say the
    stuff to toss out are the trite "starving artist" cliches and those stale
    post-modern (ie: "dead") moralistic orthodoxies of "hi-lo" culture... okay,
    back to work; wake me when it's over.

    On 12/19/05, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and
    > > if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe
    > > they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or
    > > gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive
    > > on their own time....
    >
    > Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something
    > that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    > hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
    > being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
    > going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
    > Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
    > into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
    > practice on the side.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    > >
    > > just my 2 cents worth.
    >
    > Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.
    >
    > >
    > > Zev
    > >
    > > Zev Robinson
    > > www.artafterscience.com
    > > www.zrdesign.co.uk
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark cooley" <flawedart@yahoo.com>
    > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
    > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.
    > >
    > >
    > >> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging
    > >> themselves. it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the
    > >> frustrations i have as a teacher, and sad to see that the pixar
    > >> flu is an epidemic (one would like to think that it's only at
    > >> one's own school and the grass is somehow greener, or a little
    > >> less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do think that it
    > >> is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high and
    > >> low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it is
    > >> tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that patrick
    > >> commenting on the mythologies of success (in pixar terms) and why
    > >> it might not be in the student's best interest (regardless of the
    > >> hype) to even think twice about working as a human machine for
    > >> someone elses profit. The sad fact is that many art students
    > >> don't care about being artists and much of my time in the
    > >> classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists.
    > >> hence, the frustration.
    > >>
    > >> mark
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> patrick lichty wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night,
    > >>> and I
    > >>> thought more about this converstation.
    > >>>
    > >>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be
    > >>> people
    > >>> who create someone else's vision.
    > >>>
    > >>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an
    > >>> artist
    > >>> is
    > >>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
    > >>> realizing
    > >>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
    > >>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
    > >>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of
    > >>> realization.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
    > >>>
    > >>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
    > >>> know
    > >>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.
    > >>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the
    > >>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
    > >>> kids
    > >>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
    > >>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
    > >>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for
    > >>> any
    > >>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from
    > >>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term,
    > >>> in
    > >>> tems of the students.
    > >>>
    > >>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can
    > >>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they
    > >>> can
    > >>> have creative freedom.
    > >>>
    > >>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you
    > >>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
    > >>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
    > >>> sense
    > >>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical
    > >>> school?
    > >>>
    > >>> Therefore:
    > >>> The dream of Pixar:
    > >>> 1: Short-term
    > >>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
    > >>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media
    > >>> that
    > >>> judges its merit on market success)
    > >>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
    > >>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
    > >>> production paradigm.
    > >>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
    > >>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
    > >>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is
    > >>> driven by
    > >>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still
    > >>> have
    > >>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
    > >>> extremely
    > >>> hard to pass.
    > >>>
    > >>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
    > >>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
    > >>>
    > >>> Pick your poison.
    > >>>
    > >>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> +
    > >> -> 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
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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 | Mon Dec 19th 2005 9:13 a.m.
    I never said it was a hobby.

    so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of their art
    to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/or are wealthy
    enough not to have to, are artists?

    I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people working
    full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own time. Primo Levi
    worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the weekends. Andy Warhol was
    an illustrator.

    I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the early
    eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by your own
    definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an artist? nor are any
    of the other staff

    I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years, but have
    played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of stress, and wouldn't
    recommend it to anyone else.

    all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less "art" than a
    lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a necessary motto is these
    intolerant times, whether that means zilch to you or not.

    with all due respect, and with a tip of the hat to concordia,

    Zev

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>
    To: "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:00 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.

    > >
    >> There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if
    >> that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll
    >> be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some
    >> technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own
    >> time....
    >
    > Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something that
    > you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a hobby.
    > Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but being an
    > artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not going to muster
    > if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar. Sure, if that's what
    > you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you're
    > going to be able to have a meaningful art practice on the side.
    >
    > Pall
    >
    >>
    >> just my 2 cents worth.
    >
    > Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.
    >
    >>
    >> Zev
    >>
    >> Zev Robinson
    >> www.artafterscience.com
    >> www.zrdesign.co.uk
    >>
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark cooley" <flawedart@yahoo.com>
    >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
    >> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
    >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.
    >>
    >>
    >>> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging
    >>> themselves. it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the frustrations i
    >>> have as a teacher, and sad to see that the pixar flu is an epidemic
    >>> (one would like to think that it's only at one's own school and the
    >>> grass is somehow greener, or a little less well rendered at least,
    >>> somewhere else). i do think that it is important not to revert to
    >>> modernist assumptions of high and low art and to judge Pixaritis on
    >>> such a basis (although it is tempting at times). that's why i'm happy
    >>> to see that patrick commenting on the mythologies of success (in pixar
    >>> terms) and why it might not be in the student's best interest
    >>> (regardless of the hype) to even think twice about working as a human
    >>> machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact is that many art
    >>> students don't care about being artists and much of my time in the
    >>> classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be artists. hence, the
    >>> frustration.
    >>>
    >>> mark
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> patrick lichty wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last night, and I
    >>>> thought more about this converstation.
    >>>>
    >>>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to be people
    >>>> who create someone else's vision.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an artist
    >>>> is
    >>>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
    >>>> realizing
    >>>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
    >>>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
    >>>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of realization.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
    >>>>
    >>>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
    >>>> know
    >>>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about Technopoly.
    >>>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with the
    >>>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
    >>>> kids
    >>>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
    >>>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
    >>>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource requirements' for
    >>>> any
    >>>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people from
    >>>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short term,
    >>>> in
    >>>> tems of the students.
    >>>>
    >>>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so they can
    >>>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where they can
    >>>> have creative freedom.
    >>>>
    >>>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell are you
    >>>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
    >>>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
    >>>> sense
    >>>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a technical
    >>>> school?
    >>>>
    >>>> Therefore:
    >>>> The dream of Pixar:
    >>>> 1: Short-term
    >>>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
    >>>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment media that
    >>>> judges its merit on market success)
    >>>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
    >>>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
    >>>> production paradigm.
    >>>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
    >>>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
    >>>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is driven by
    >>>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You still have
    >>>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
    >>>> extremely
    >>>> hard to pass.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
    >>>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
    >>>>
    >>>> Pick your poison.
    >>>>
    >>>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> +
    >>> -> 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
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Pall Thayer
    > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    > http://www.this.is/pallit
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Dec 19th 2005 10:08 a.m.
    actually, i thought this post seemed extremely reasonable. not at all unrealistic. and a helpful attitude.

    being an artist, making (and certainly losing a lot of) money at it, it would be tempting to say it was a "career". it is just a fact that there is only an illusion (at least in the US) of there being a "career artists". the chelsea gallery scene and broadway theaters are among the few places on earth that are art for profit. depending where you draw the line, pixar is one of the others. only a handful of choreographers out of the millions could actually live off dance. we don't teach in our spare time, we teach to eat and if there is time left to us, we CHOOSE to make creative things.

    kids out of school, don't have nearly the pressure to earn, so art is a more viable option. or there are some who max out their credit cards, pay with more than they have. they may think art is a career, but see this is not a long term situation. the "i will spend anything i need to further my career" attitude is completely common, but eventually self-destructive.

    for the vast vast majority art as a career is just not realistic. it's an activity one can toss expendable cash at (and doing so is absolutely fine, beats drugs. some collect and learn to maintain antique cars, some become gourmets, study in Italy and keep an impressive wine seller. everyone wants to be an expert/brilliant.).

    yeah it probably will piss people off to even try to burst that bubble, but bubbles are the abusive boyfriend of the art scene. whether they are good deep down or not, for our own safety, we gotta get out of there. no one likes it in the short term, but sometimes medicine just tastes bad. there are things to fix and getting rid of these grand illusions is the first step.

    (i pasted the original reply below just cuz i liked it so much, then the reply to that reply.)

    >>a few comments -

    pixar has a long line of enjoyable and entertaining, and witty and clever, works that have stood multiple viewings (with my kids). Many things that I have seen in galleries and museums and cinemas under the banner of art are none of the above.

    should museums be showing works that are easily accessable elsewhere? Preferably not, but then should they be hosting fashion exhibitions and be charging 20 dollars to get in, following art world trends, be influenced by commercial and financial considerations, etc, which are much bigger issues, and like high and low art, never simple nor clear cut.

    Art (and artist) are terms that fluctuate culturally and historically, mean different things ad have different values at different times. One could look at artists (Giotto, Reubens, Warhol) also as working for someone else's profits and power (whatever the personal gains that they made), and also look at the art world's mythology of success, and why it might not be in the student's best interest to buy into it, and also look into the art world's mythologies of high and low art.

    There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time....

    just my 2 cents worth.

    Zev

    Zev Robinson
    www.artafterscience.com
    www.zrdesign.co.uk

    >On Dec 19, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:

    >>There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator, and if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them, maybe they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film, and/or gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and subversive on their own time....

    >Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't something that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar. Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art practice on the side.

    >Pall

    >>just my 2 cents worth.

    >Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.

    >>Zev

    >>Zev Robinson
    >>www.artafterscience.com
    >>www.zrdesign.co.uk
  • joy garnett | Mon Dec 19th 2005 10:29 a.m.
    hee! this is hot, very hot:

    > bubbles are the abusive boyfriend of the art scene. whether they are good
    deep down or not, for our own safety, we gotta get out of there.<

    ;-0

    On 12/19/05, Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> wrote:
    >
    > actually, i thought this post seemed extremely reasonable. not at all
    > unrealistic. and a helpful attitude.
    >
    > being an artist, making (and certainly losing a lot of) money at it, it
    > would be tempting to say it was a "career". it is just a fact that there=
    is
    > only an illusion (at least in the US) of there being a "career
    > artists". the chelsea gallery scene and broadway theaters are among the =
    few
    > places on earth that are art for profit. depending where you draw the li=
    ne,
    > pixar is one of the others. only a handful of choreographers out of the
    > millions could actually live off dance. we don't teach in our spare time,
    > we teach to eat and if there is time left to us, we CHOOSE to make creati=
    ve
    > things.
    >
    > kids out of school, don't have nearly the pressure to earn, so art is a
    > more viable option. or there are some who max out their credit cards, pay
    > with more than they have. they may think art is a career, but see this is
    > not a long term situation. the "i will spend anything i need to further my
    > career" attitude is completely common, but eventually self-destructive.
    >
    > for the vast vast majority art as a career is just not realistic. it's an
    > activity one can toss expendable cash at (and doing so is absolutely fine,
    > beats drugs. some collect and learn to maintain antique cars, some become
    > gourmets, study in Italy and keep an impressive wine seller. everyone wa=
    nts
    > to be an expert/brilliant.).
    >
    > yeah it probably will piss people off to even try to burst that bubble,
    > but bubbles are the abusive boyfriend of the art scene. whether they are
    > good deep down or not, for our own safety, we gotta get out of there. no
    > one likes it in the short term, but sometimes medicine just tastes
    > bad. there are things to fix and getting rid of these grand illusions is
    > the first step.
  • Pall Thayer | Mon Dec 19th 2005 1:28 p.m.
    On 19.12.2005, at 11:11, Zev Robinson wrote:

    > I never said it was a hobby.
    No, you didn't but you did say that people can "do something hip and
    subversive on their own time".
    >
    > so what you're saying, Pall, is only people who can sell enough of
    > their art to pay their rent, food, and art and living expenses and/
    > or are wealthy enough not to have to, are artists?
    I didn't say anything about selling art. I was just talking about
    making art. I didn't even suggest in the mildest sense that an artist
    can live off their art. I even said that artists may have to hold
    down a job on the side to pay the bills.
    >
    > I can think of a few examples off of the top of my head of people
    > working full time and doing some pretty good stuff on their own
    > time. Primo Levi worked as a chemist, I believe, and wrote on the
    > weekends. Andy Warhol was an illustrator.
    There are always exceptions to everything.
    >
    > I see your email is at Concordia U, where I studied painting in the
    > early eighties. You wouldn't be teaching there in which case, by
    > your own definition, you're not doing art full time, ergo not an
    > artist? nor are any of the other staff
    I'm a student but in regards to a personal art practice, you can't
    compare being an art professor to being an animator at Pixar. I think
    that most universities require that their professors maintain a
    personal art practice. It's part of the job. What I'm talking about
    is the frame of mind. You can work a full-time job and still maintain
    a view that it is the "on the side" thing. I was doing it for seven
    years before I decided to go back to school. I'm happy when my art
    practice manages to pull in a couple of dollars but I can't count on
    it, so I'm an artist with a job on the side to pay the bills. But
    some jobs are better for this than others. A couple of years I turned
    down a job that would have meant a hefty salary boost but I when I
    realized how much it would interefere with my art, I had to turn it
    down.
    >
    > I've been lucky enough to do art almost full time for twenty years,
    > but have played financial russian roulette, lived with a lot of
    > stress, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
    >
    > all i'm saying is that I'm not going to say that pixar is less
    > "art" than a lot of "Art", and that live and let live is a
    > necessary motto is these intolerant times, whether that means zilch
    > to you or not.

    I think if we try to tell young undergraduate art students who are
    interested in an art practice that, "Sure, you should try to get a
    job with Pixar and then you can make your art in your spare time"
    it's a bit misleading. Because most people I know who have gone into
    that type of work don't have time for a meaningful art practice.
    >
    > with all due respect, and with a tip of the hat to concordia,

    Sorry if I offended. I guess my previous response was a bit rude and
    I appologize. But I still think you're wrong and we shouldn't by any
    means be telling anyone to do their art "on their own time".

    Pall
    >
    > Zev
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pall Thayer"
    > <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>
    > To: "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>
    > Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 3:00 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream
    > of Pixar.
    >
    >
    >> >
    >>> There are worse jobs in the world than being a Pixar animator,
    >>> and if that is what someone wants to do, then good luck to them,
    >>> maybe they'll be contributing to another enjoyable pixar film,
    >>> and/or gain some technical knowledge and do something hip and
    >>> subversive on their own time....
    >>
    >> Comments like this always get to me. Being an artist isn't
    >> something that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job.
    >> It's not a hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay
    >> the bills but being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion
    >> that you're not going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to
    >> 10 pm job at Pixar. Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But
    >> don't fool yourself into thinking that you're going to be able to
    >> have a meaningful art practice on the side.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >>
    >>>
    >>> just my 2 cents worth.
    >>
    >> Sorry, but to me that comment dropped the worth to zilch.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Zev
    >>>
    >>> Zev Robinson
    >>> www.artafterscience.com
    >>> www.zrdesign.co.uk
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "mark cooley"
    >>> <flawedart@yahoo.com>
    >>> To: <list@rhizome.org>
    >>> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 5:50 AM
    >>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> i'm sympathetic with the view that students are shortchanging
    >>>> themselves. it's nice to see patrick sum up a lot of the
    >>>> frustrations i have as a teacher, and sad to see that the pixar
    >>>> flu is an epidemic (one would like to think that it's only at
    >>>> one's own school and the grass is somehow greener, or a little
    >>>> less well rendered at least, somewhere else). i do think that
    >>>> it is important not to revert to modernist assumptions of high
    >>>> and low art and to judge Pixaritis on such a basis (although it
    >>>> is tempting at times). that's why i'm happy to see that
    >>>> patrick commenting on the mythologies of success (in pixar
    >>>> terms) and why it might not be in the student's best interest
    >>>> (regardless of the hype) to even think twice about working as a
    >>>> human machine for someone elses profit. The sad fact is that
    >>>> many art students don't care about being artists and much of my
    >>>> time in the classroom is spent assuming that they do want to be
    >>>> artists. hence, the frustration.
    >>>>
    >>>> mark
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> patrick lichty wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> My colleagues and I went to see Chronicles of Narnia last
    >>>>> night, and I
    >>>>> thought more about this converstation.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The sadness of all this is that the students are aspiring to
    >>>>> be people
    >>>>> who create someone else's vision.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is what I feel is the tragedy of it all. To me, being an
    >>>>> artist
    >>>>> is
    >>>>> about generating your own ideas, vision, etc. It isn't about
    >>>>> realizing
    >>>>> someone else's. I'm not talking about the Modernist view of the
    >>>>> artist-as-genius, but I am talking about the functional difference
    >>>>> between being a generator of ideas and merely an agent of
    >>>>> realization.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One requires a lot more thought than the other.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In the US, kids are taught to want to learn just what they need to
    >>>>> know
    >>>>> to get a job. This is where Postman was so right about
    >>>>> Technopoly.
    >>>>> Results-based learning gears expectations to be complacent with
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> pigeonhole, more or less. The problem is that they don't tell the
    >>>>> kids
    >>>>> that the pigeonhole could be eliminated by outsourcing, market
    >>>>> pressures, or any number of factors that could cause a bottom-line
    >>>>> conscious corporation to 'shift its human resource
    >>>>> requirements' for
    >>>>> any
    >>>>> number of reasons, including the hiring of more creative people
    >>>>> from
    >>>>> global labor pools in the future. The dream of Pixar is short
    >>>>> term,
    >>>>> in
    >>>>> tems of the students.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Some will say that the idea is to get them into industry so
    >>>>> they can
    >>>>> start getting experience so they can rise to the point where
    >>>>> they can
    >>>>> have creative freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I understand we all have to eat. However, then why the hell
    >>>>> are you
    >>>>> going to art school? To merely master a set of perceptual and
    >>>>> realization skills so you can actualize them LATER? This makes no
    >>>>> sense
    >>>>> to me. Why are you going to an art school than going to a
    >>>>> technical
    >>>>> school?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Therefore:
    >>>>> The dream of Pixar:
    >>>>> 1: Short-term
    >>>>> 2: Driven by corporate entertainment media cash
    >>>>> 3: Results-driven (productivity of 'creative' entertainment
    >>>>> media that
    >>>>> judges its merit on market success)
    >>>>> 4: short-changes the individuality/vision of the artist,
    >>>>> 5: Subjugates students to an unstable/uncertain corporate media
    >>>>> production paradigm.
    >>>>> 6: Is intellectually bereft / discourages critical engagement /
    >>>>> discourages thought/reflection to emphasize entertainment.
    >>>>> 7: Is elitist as a high art paradigm, but Pixar's elitism is
    >>>>> driven by
    >>>>> the industrial/entertainment sector, not high culture. You
    >>>>> still have
    >>>>> to have the same sorts of levels of validation, which are also
    >>>>> extremely
    >>>>> hard to pass.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's as if the students were going to extraordinary lengths not to
    >>>>> think, when they might actually find it easier to do so.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Pick your poison.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I can come up with a few more, I'm sure.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> +
    >>>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Pall Thayer
    >> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    >> http://www.this.is/pallit
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> +
    >> -> 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
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Rhizomer | Wed Dec 21st 2005 5:49 a.m.
    I understand, and in a large part relate to the thread starters concerns. However, as many have pointed out, art rarely pays the bills. The reality is most art students I've met recently are looking for jobs in advertising, frankly I think a career at Pixar is preferable to that ambition ;). yep, blah, blah, number of genuine 'career artists' is small etc, etc. Thing is I think its very important to point out how CG art is different to other mediums at the moment. Most mediums require some technical skill; from sculpture, painting to video art. Technique though is not art, obviously. What I would be interested to know is how much of the technical aspect you all would consider to be the art, personally I don't think any of it is, it is a given to me. This is not the attitude of most people working in CG however.

    All art has an element of problem solving to to it, there are technical problems the artist has to solve to achieve the expression/aesthetic art they want, and solving these can be a rewarding intellectual challenge. They aren't important to the audience, and don't contribute to the artistic weight. Not so with conceptual art, which on the whole can be seen as transferring these problems to somebody else to solve. Which could be seen as actually subsuming the artist to being merely the same as a middle manager in and advertising company passing on their vision to a bunch of creatives to realise, or in extremis passing it on to the audience to work out.

    CG is highly technical, everything needs working out, and everything requires technical knowledge above and beyond artistic ability. The models (polygon, nurbs or SubDs, topology decisions), the materials (properties, methods, displacements), the way it renders (illumination approaches, layered passes, compositing), the lights, the (virtual) camera lens, the rig on the models, the animation methods etc, etc. As a result in a company like pixar everything is demarcated (sp?), and seriously so too. Modellers, texture artists, lighting artist, animators and a TD to oversee the whole pipeline. You are just another cube dweller in a pipe to make that shot. There is no other rational way of working. It's a job though, it's a creative job, and it's all about problem solving. Is it an artists job though ? Is the TD the artist or the modeller, or the guy who wrote the script, or drew the storyboard or the etc... You get the idea. It's an artistic collective, always. It's like
    working in any other creative industry, even, advertising.

    Now, yep, there are a few CG artist who are technically good enough in all areas of the CG pipeline to produce entire works by themselves. Takes a hell of a lot longer, but can be done. It's not relevant though is it ? What is though is the problem with how much technical knowledge is required. This is why art schools have to spend the vast majority of their teaching time (in regards to CG) making sure the students have the technical knowledge and very little on, for want of a better term, artistic ability, or more accurately, the ability to SEE differently.. So, therefore its not surprising that such students end up more concerned, and turned on to, the problem solving side of the art and less about the actual artistic message.

    CG is still an extremely young medium. There are some genuine artists in CG with something to say, artists to whom the fact the work is realise in CG is totally immaterial (and immaterial really to the audience). However, I'm sick of seeing female nudes in fantasy settings, or arch viz of photo realistic living rooms built with CG tools. But thats the way its going to be for quite a few years yet. CG artists need jobs, and those kind of images show off their technical ability, and it's the technical ability (and the ability to fit into a pipeline) thats going to pay the rent. Sure, the artists who are capable of unique visions and aesthetics get all the props and are most sought after, but even they cannot afford to pick and chose the work they do. Its always skills that pay the bills really. It's no different to painters a couple of hundred years ago relying on sponsors paying for portraits is it ? Nothing has changed, and CG is just following the same paths that
    every other medium has. It does still however have a problem over other mediums in that the technical knowledge required to make a piece is a lot higher than other mediums. Trouble is, if that changes, as in the tools get easier to use to speak, all of us working in CG will start bitching about losing artistic control over our creations and the software houses 'owning' our art.

    ---------------------------------
    Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now
    ---------------------------------
  • Jim Andrews | Tue Dec 27th 2005 11:29 p.m.
    > Being an artist isn't something
    > that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    > hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
    > being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
    > going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
    > Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
    > into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
    > practice on the side.
    >
    > Pall

    Some arts are not this way. Wallace Stevens (poet) was an insurance
    executive. William Carlos Williams (poet) was a doctor, though not a very
    good one, I gather. He wrote poems between patients. Geez I can't read this
    prescription. What does it say? "A poem is a machine made out of words"???
    Can someone help me with this??

    But with the sort of work some of us do, yeah, it's more time consuming and
    demanding of different types of full concentration than some other job
    permits.

    You may have heard this one only with a different name and situation, I'm
    thinking:

    So Margaret Atwood is at some cocktail party talking with a brain surgeon.
    He tells her that he loves writing and plans to become a novelist when he
    retires. "Isn't that funny," she replies, "I plan to become a brain surgeon
    when I retire."

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • joy garnett | Wed Dec 28th 2005 9 a.m.
    Damn right.
    ...and here's that story about Somerset Maugham to add to the mix; he was a
    doctor, and he eventually quit medicine to pursue his writing, er, "full
    time." When asked later in life if he had any regrets, he replied that
    quitting medicine was the worst thing he could have done -- for his writing.

    j
    http://joygarnett.com

    On 12/28/05, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:

    >
    > So Margaret Atwood is at some cocktail party talking with a brain surgeon.
    > He tells her that he loves writing and plans to become a novelist when he
    > retires. "Isn't that funny," she replies, "I plan to become a brain
    > surgeon
    > when I retire."
    >
    >
    >
  • Plasma Studii | Wed Dec 28th 2005 11:03 a.m.
    check yer dates. WS and WCW weren't living in today's economy.

    though most art can be made as cheaply as you want (particularly
    poetry, but not computer art), it's the time that gets expensive.
    but most artists aren't too resourceful and will spend a fortune on
    their "careers", materials, presentations, marketing, etc. whereas a
    mediocre doctor, with his head elsewhere, just is not going to
    compete. nowadays, to make a living requires focusing, and except in
    super rare cases, art is not making anyone a living. teaching art
    isn't making art. and an artist is only a person making art. great
    to get teaching gigs, but during those hours, for all practical
    purposes, you aren't an artist.

    i don't mean to be discouraging. but obviously, the system favors
    art by kids who's parents support them. those same parents probably
    keep institutions like the MoMA and art schools afloat. it isn't the
    artists. it's a messed up system. i'd personally love to see it
    collapse, but i'm a devout anarchist. when the kids can start
    supporting the institutions, it's because they discarded putting all
    their effort into art.

    the only folks who can make art are the ones with idle cash. folks
    who don't have to do double shifts pumping gas just to pay rent on a
    slum apartment. art is a luxury akin to crossword puzzles. it's a
    nice way to waste time if you have spare time to waste. not many
    do. we're lucky to have discovered and managed to squeeze into
    loopholes. it's important not to loose sight of that. most of us
    will be squeezed right back out and it's something we all have to
    face daily.

    when an artist becomes too hungry, they do lousy work. play time's
    over.

    On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:29 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    >
    >> Being an artist isn't something
    >> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    >> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
    >> being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
    >> going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
    >> Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
    >> into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
    >> practice on the side.
    >>
    >> Pall
    >
    > Some arts are not this way. Wallace Stevens (poet) was an insurance
    > executive. William Carlos Williams (poet) was a doctor, though not
    > a very
    > good one, I gather. He wrote poems between patients. Geez I can't
    > read this
    > prescription. What does it say? "A poem is a machine made out of
    > words"???
    > Can someone help me with this??
    >
    > But with the sort of work some of us do, yeah, it's more time
    > consuming and
    > demanding of different types of full concentration than some other job
    > permits.
    >
    > You may have heard this one only with a different name and
    > situation, I'm
    > thinking:
    >
    > So Margaret Atwood is at some cocktail party talking with a brain
    > surgeon.
    > He tells her that he loves writing and plans to become a novelist
    > when he
    > retires. "Isn't that funny," she replies, "I plan to become a brain
    > surgeon
    > when I retire."
    >
    > 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
    >
  • joy garnett | Wed Dec 28th 2005 11:18 a.m.
    that makes sense for "art" that gets pulled out of someone's ass maybe,
    since they'd have no connection to anything outside themselves except
    through their careers. this is just naive, or just part of the problem...

    On 12/28/05, judsoN <office@plasmastudii.org> wrote:
    >
    > check yer dates. WS and WCW weren't living in today's economy.
    >
    > though most art can be made as cheaply as you want (particularly
    > poetry, but not computer art), it's the time that gets expensive.
    > but most artists aren't too resourceful and will spend a fortune on
    > their "careers", materials, presentations, marketing, etc. whereas a
    > mediocre doctor, with his head elsewhere, just is not going to
    > compete. nowadays, to make a living requires focusing, and except in
    > super rare cases, art is not making anyone a living. teaching art
    > isn't making art. and an artist is only a person making art. great
    > to get teaching gigs, but during those hours, for all practical
    > purposes, you aren't an artist.
    >
    > i don't mean to be discouraging. but obviously, the system favors
    > art by kids who's parents support them. those same parents probably
    > keep institutions like the MoMA and art schools afloat. it isn't the
    > artists. it's a messed up system. i'd personally love to see it
    > collapse, but i'm a devout anarchist. when the kids can start
    > supporting the institutions, it's because they discarded putting all
    > their effort into art.
    >
    > the only folks who can make art are the ones with idle cash. folks
    > who don't have to do double shifts pumping gas just to pay rent on a
    > slum apartment. art is a luxury akin to crossword puzzles. it's a
    > nice way to waste time if you have spare time to waste. not many
    > do. we're lucky to have discovered and managed to squeeze into
    > loopholes. it's important not to loose sight of that. most of us
    > will be squeezed right back out and it's something we all have to
    > face daily.
    >
    > when an artist becomes too hungry, they do lousy work. play time's
    > over.
    >
    >
    >
    > On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:29 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >> Being an artist isn't something
    > >> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    > >> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
    > >> being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
    > >> going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
    > >> Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
    > >> into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
    > >> practice on the side.
    > >>
    > >> Pall
    > >
    > > Some arts are not this way. Wallace Stevens (poet) was an insurance
    > > executive. William Carlos Williams (poet) was a doctor, though not
    > > a very
    > > good one, I gather. He wrote poems between patients. Geez I can't
    > > read this
    > > prescription. What does it say? "A poem is a machine made out of
    > > words"???
    > > Can someone help me with this??
    > >
    > > But with the sort of work some of us do, yeah, it's more time
    > > consuming and
    > > demanding of different types of full concentration than some other job
    > > permits.
    > >
    > > You may have heard this one only with a different name and
    > > situation, I'm
    > > thinking:
    > >
    > > So Margaret Atwood is at some cocktail party talking with a brain
    > > surgeon.
    > > He tells her that he loves writing and plans to become a novelist
    > > when he
    > > retires. "Isn't that funny," she replies, "I plan to become a brain
    > > surgeon
    > > when I retire."
    > >
    > > 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
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Fri Dec 30th 2005 9:56 p.m.
    Plasma Studii wrote:

    > though most art can be made as cheaply as you want (particularly
    > poetry, but not computer art), it's the time that gets expensive.
    > but most artists aren't too resourceful and will spend a fortune on
    > their "careers", materials, presentations, marketing, etc. whereas a
    >
    > mediocre doctor, with his head elsewhere, just is not going to
    > compete. nowadays, to make a living requires focusing, and except in
    >
    > super rare cases, art is not making anyone a living. teaching art
    > isn't making art. and an artist is only a person making art. great
    > to get teaching gigs, but during those hours, for all practical
    > purposes, you aren't an artist.
    >
    > i don't mean to be discouraging. but obviously, the system favors
    > art by kids who's parents support them. those same parents probably
    > keep institutions like the MoMA and art schools afloat. it isn't the
    >
    > artists. it's a messed up system. i'd personally love to see it
    > collapse, but i'm a devout anarchist. when the kids can start
    > supporting the institutions, it's because they discarded putting all
    > their effort into art.
    I don't think being a devout anarchist is necessary here.
    Anyone with money can produce "important" works.
    Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major financial backing. Isn't being an avant gardist by nature an economic filter?
    To be one, for any extended period of time requires major economic commitment. I almost admire Eric Fischl, he had to sell actual paintings! What a scam that must be.

    But making art needn't be a luxury.
    Anyone with an IQ over 110 can work out a method that can contain the pressues of the market, yet still manage to produce relevant works (at least to themselves).
    Think of poor Ponge, one poem a day (during the 1/2 hour between work and sleep)
    If it needs to made, it will be.
    It's not fair, but who remembers the works of "privelged artists" from years gone by. They are usually relegated to the aftermarket of ideas.

    > >> Being an artist isn't something
    > >> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    > >> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills

    Yes it is.
    And there are too many examples of great art made part time.
    I doubt that Ponge, Irwin, Brainard, Cornell, Artschwager etc. and a host of others ever thought that devoting all their energy really made the art better.
    Sometimes the best works are made in 5 minutes after the fact( or act).

    The Art world is a business, that has very little to do with Art.
    Always was, always will be that way.
    Sell your art investments now, before everyone else forgets about them.
    And good luck.
    A Knowledge based telepresence will out them all...., I promise.
    Eric
  • Plasma Studii | Fri Dec 30th 2005 10:54 p.m.
    so clarify for me, i'm not getting you. "Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff
    Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major
    financial backing." ... "who remembers the works of "privelged
    artists" from years gone by". or like michaelangelo (from earlier in
    this thread)?

    i do tend to agree with a lot of this though. had an art teacher
    years ago who tried to emphasize how difficult it is to be wildly
    imaginative for a few hours and then switch on cue and be practical
    at a job. it's probably possible to do it, but bet a lot of folks
    find it hard. particularly if they come home from a job too beat to
    shlep over to the studio after they eat, visit with the kids, etc.
    bet a lot of artists and their work gets lost/forgotten that way.

    am not sure what you mean by "relevant" either though.

    doubt i have an IQ of 10, much less 110. can i still make art?

    > I don't think being a devout anarchist is necessary here.
    > Anyone with money can produce "important" works.
    > Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff Wall, and any number of avant avant
    > avant gardists who have major financial backing. Isn't being an
    > avant gardist by nature an economic filter?
    > To be one, for any extended period of time requires major economic
    > commitment. I almost admire Eric Fischl, he had to sell actual
    > paintings! What a scam that must be.
    >
    > But making art needn't be a luxury.
    > Anyone with an IQ over 110 can work out a method that can contain
    > the pressues of the market, yet still manage to produce relevant
    > works (at least to themselves).
    > Think of poor Ponge, one poem a day (during the 1/2 hour between
    > work and sleep)
    > If it needs to made, it will be.
    > It's not fair, but who remembers the works of "privelged artists"
    > from years gone by. They are usually relegated to the aftermarket
    > of ideas.
    >
    >>>> Being an artist isn't something
    >>>> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
    >>>> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills
    >
    > Yes it is.
    > And there are too many examples of great art made part time.
    > I doubt that Ponge, Irwin, Brainard, Cornell, Artschwager etc. and
    > a host of others ever thought that devoting all their energy really
    > made the art better.
    > Sometimes the best works are made in 5 minutes after the fact( or
    > act).
    >
    > The Art world is a business, that has very little to do with Art.
    > Always was, always will be that way.
    > Sell your art investments now, before everyone else forgets about
    > them.
    > And good luck.
    > A Knowledge based telepresence will out them all...., I promise.
    > Eric
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Fri Dec 30th 2005 10:55 p.m.
    by the way,
    William Carlos Williams was Robert Smithsons Doctor (handled the birth, I think). He was the Smithsons early GP.
    And a good one from what has been recorded.

    Eric
  • Eric Dymond | Fri Dec 30th 2005 11:50 p.m.
    Plasma Studii wrote:

    > so clarify for me, i'm not getting you. "Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff
    >
    > Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major
    > financial backing." ... "who remembers the works of "privelged
    > artists" from years gone by". or like michaelangelo (from earlier in
    >
    > this thread)?
    well, these are "expensive works" made by expensive artists.
    They have a sheen that only money can buy, and the artistic merit is a second thought, I'm sure. How much would it cost to make one of these artists work.
    Could you do it on a teachers salary? answer... no.
    You might have to be at leats a lwyer or investment counsellor.
    A dentist or doctor would do.
    The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
    And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
    Could you afford the expense of creating works the way these 2 artists do?
    If so, then hey, could you lend me a few?
    > am not sure what you mean by "relevant" either though.
    >
    > doubt i have an IQ of 10, much less 110. can i still make art?
    no..., probably not
    well you had to ask.
    Eric
  • Plasma Studii | Sat Dec 31st 2005 1:04 a.m.
    kinda agree. evolution favors presentation above any other quality
    you might consider "quality". and presentation gets expensive. it's
    too discouraging to go into though.

    hence, the anarchy thing. can't wait til the whole system
    collapses. and odds of that look great. already most of the soho
    gallery scene has gone under. it's just a matter of time.

    On Dec 31, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Eric Dymond wrote:

    > Plasma Studii wrote:
    >
    >> so clarify for me, i'm not getting you. "Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff
    >>
    >> Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major
    >> financial backing." ... "who remembers the works of "privelged
    >> artists" from years gone by". or like michaelangelo (from earlier in
    >>
    >> this thread)?
    > well, these are "expensive works" made by expensive artists.
    > They have a sheen that only money can buy, and the artistic merit
    > is a second thought, I'm sure. How much would it cost to make one
    > of these artists work.
    > Could you do it on a teachers salary? answer... no.
    > You might have to be at leats a lwyer or investment counsellor.
    > A dentist or doctor would do.
    > The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
    > And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
    > Could you afford the expense of creating works the way these 2
    > artists do?
    > If so, then hey, could you lend me a few?
    >> am not sure what you mean by "relevant" either though.
    >>
    >> doubt i have an IQ of 10, much less 110. can i still make art?
    > no..., probably not
    > well you had to ask.
    > Eric
    >
    > +
    > -> 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 | Sat Dec 31st 2005 3:42 a.m.
    > The Art world is a business, that has very little to do with Art.
    > Always was, always will be that way.
    > Sell your art investments now, before everyone else forgets about them.
    > And good luck.
    > A Knowledge based telepresence will out them all...., I promise.
    > Eric
    > +

    Business is a part of it, as it is a part of many other endevours.

    But that isn't all there is to it. The 'markets' of ideas, insights, song, poetry, dance, emotion, feeling, belief, faith, human generosity, color, the vivid...are at least as much about these things as about business, and are more worthwhile, are sustained by these.

    Sufis say 'easier to be a sage on the mountaintop than in the marketplace.' living near the marketplace is where most of us live, and it's an important challenge to an artist--and sustaining--but not so much because of the business and competition as the human vitality, the ideas, insights, song...

    There's a wonderful book by the Hungarian poet George Faludy called My Happy Days in Hell. It's about his days in a Hungarian concentration camp after the communists came to power after WWII. The ones who survived were the ones who kept up their art, or their intellectual interests, or their religious practice, whatever it was, for them, that sustained them inwardly.

    Business is usually a part of art, but there is more to it than that. I think you're right that "the Art world is a business that has very little to do with Art," but it does have *something* to do with Art, which cannot be so easily said for many other businesses, though of course the cosmic drama is omnipresent in why people do what they do.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Zev Robinson | Sat Dec 31st 2005 3:44 a.m.
    good points, Eduardo, especially -

    >To be
    > entertained is to be passive, it is to be a consumer. This proposition
    > of entertainment is what I believe appears problematic to some people on
    > this thread. This is problematic based on theories by people like
    > Adorno, as well as other theorists like Benjamin who demand that the
    > individual be a producer and not a consumer, that the viewer be a
    > reflective recycler of things to put them back out for further
    > reflection. Entertainment, according to such notions of resistance of
    > the culture industry can never do this, while art is expected to always
    > demand self-reflection. This separation is what I still see here at
    > play, while I do believe that the lines of separation between this
    > disciplines are becoming more and more complex in contemporary culture.

    Not much to disagree in principle, but when you look at individual cases,
    the line gets blurred and confused. Where does that place the best of
    Hollywood like Orson Welles, or a formalist painting, or a critical (active)
    response to a mindless movie? or a mindless trip thru a museum? or a work of
    "art" by a artist lacking self-criticism?

    also, Benjamin and Adorno were writing in different times. I recently read
    Magnum, Fifty years in the front line of history, enjoyed it very, very
    much. Time were harder for people them, but there was also an optimism that
    the world would become a better place, and that art was part of that.

    Zev

    Zev Robinson
    www.artafterscience.com
    www.zrdesign.co.uk
  • Zev Robinson | Sat Dec 31st 2005 3:45 a.m.
    > The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
    > And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.

    I have to disagree very stongly with you on this Eric. all sorts of art can
    be presented, made and displayed without it being very expensive, nor does
    it lose its appeal (at least not to me). graffitti art, web art, new media,
    video art, photography, public interventions, all can be done, not without
    any expense, but without it being prohibitively expensive. You just have to
    see art as something that exists beyond the art world and its mythologies
    (as well as with in it, too).

    Zev
  • Eduardo Navas | Sat Dec 31st 2005 5:58 a.m.
    Hi Zev,

    The issue of blurring of discipline is what I also point out. What I
    tried to explain was the historical thread that allows for a cultural
    problematic to arise when a show at MoMA supports an apparently
    commercial practice. And yest Adorno and Benjamin wrote in a different
    time, but again, the point here is to show how the notions of
    vanguardism that demand criticality have been created by what others
    wrote in the past. Yes, times have changed, and that is exactly why
    Pixar is at MoMA...

    e.

    > -------- Original Message --------
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the
    > dream of Pixar.
    > From: "Zev Robinson" <zr@zrdesign.co.uk>
    > Date: Sat, December 31, 2005 3:44 am
    > To: <eduardo@navasse.net>, "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>,
    > <list@rhizome.org>
    >
    > good points, Eduardo, especially -
    >
    > >To be
    > > entertained is to be passive, it is to be a consumer. This proposition
    > > of entertainment is what I believe appears problematic to some people on
    > > this thread. This is problematic based on theories by people like
    > > Adorno, as well as other theorists like Benjamin who demand that the
    > > individual be a producer and not a consumer, that the viewer be a
    > > reflective recycler of things to put them back out for further
    > > reflection. Entertainment, according to such notions of resistance of
    > > the culture industry can never do this, while art is expected to always
    > > demand self-reflection. This separation is what I still see here at
    > > play, while I do believe that the lines of separation between this
    > > disciplines are becoming more and more complex in contemporary culture.
    >
    > Not much to disagree in principle, but when you look at individual cases,
    > the line gets blurred and confused. Where does that place the best of
    > Hollywood like Orson Welles, or a formalist painting, or a critical (active)
    > response to a mindless movie? or a mindless trip thru a museum? or a work of
    > "art" by a artist lacking self-criticism?
    >
    > also, Benjamin and Adorno were writing in different times. I recently read
    > Magnum, Fifty years in the front line of history, enjoyed it very, very
    > much. Time were harder for people them, but there was also an optimism that
    > the world would become a better place, and that art was part of that.
    >
    > Zev
    >
    > Zev Robinson
    > www.artafterscience.com
    > www.zrdesign.co.uk
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
  • Plasma Studii | Sat Dec 31st 2005 10:38 a.m.
    graffiti is a great example. one way around the presentation biases
    is to completely alter the context. in graffiti, the wall doesn't
    have the same context as the portfolio. an impressive (usually
    expensive looking) portfolio gets attention and the work inside gets
    a free ride. an ugly portfolio just doesn't. ideally everyone would
    appreciate inner beauty too, but that's not the real world. in the
    real world, not everyone is so enlightened. and everyone contributes
    to or diminishes from your (outward) "success".

    inner success needs no portfolio at all, fancy or makeshift. and
    those artists who've achieved it need not show their work to anyone,
    subscribe to listservs of other artists, or even mention the word
    "art". the rest of us have to deal with the real human race. and
    humans just don't always behave ideally. (particularly when pack
    mentality takes over, when they see themselves as part of a
    (conceptual) grouping.)

    but more and more even the new context is unexpectedly replaced.
    part of what makes graffiti more interesting is that it keeps showing
    up in unexpected places. there's something written on the inner
    doors of our elevator. the sides of overpasses. how the hell did
    they get there?

    computer art examples are horrible only because the hardware costs,
    software costs and hourly rate would add up to a fortune. but the
    same principal applies. web art that looks like a professional job,
    gets more interest than a sloppy looking page. i personally disagree
    with the popular aesthetics of web art, the look that says
    "professional". looks really ugly to me. but it still influences us
    all subconsciously. some just make an effort to decide too over-ride
    that.

    there's also a good book about why good looking things are more
    useful. "The Design of Everyday Things" (or maybe it was the one
    Donald Norman wrote before that one? probably both though). cost
    dosn't equal quality. but money + skill gets you a good result
    almost every time while a lack of money + eagerness will almost never
    help.

    about the holocaust survivors (another post). art saved some, not
    all certainly. the Frankl book is interesting. he was one too and
    says it's when people have something to strive for, can see light at
    the end of the tunnel. no matter how bad the tunnel stinks. if you
    have a goal, you can see past and survive most anything. making art
    can be your goal. but not everyone is going to agree it's worth
    living through a concentration camp for. many did it for family.
    everyone wants to have artistic ideas worth that much to them.

    but that's putting the cart before the horse. just enjoy, be glad
    your not in a concentration camp, and in life, be open to feeling
    everything can be important to you. you can't artificially generate
    importance any more than you can convince a cat to let you keep
    petting it. it will decide on it's own, don't drive yourself crazy
    trying to will these things. if art is important (to us) or not,
    it's not at all related to enjoying the particular processes, not our
    concern.

    On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:45 AM, Zev Robinson wrote:

    >
    >> The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
    >> And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
    >
    > I have to disagree very stongly with you on this Eric. all sorts of
    > art can be presented, made and displayed without it being very
    > expensive, nor does it lose its appeal (at least not to me).
    > graffitti art, web art, new media, video art, photography, public
    > interventions, all can be done, not without any expense, but
    > without it being prohibitively expensive. You just have to see art
    > as something that exists beyond the art world and its mythologies
    > (as well as with in it, too).
    >
    > 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
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Sat Dec 31st 2005 8:05 p.m.
    Zev Robinson wrote:

    >
    > > The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
    > > And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
    >
    > I have to disagree very stongly with you on this Eric. all sorts of
    > art can
    > be presented, made and displayed without it being very expensive, nor
    > does
    > it lose its appeal (at least not to me). graffitti art, web art, new
    > media,
    > video art, photography, public interventions, all can be done, not
    > without
    > any expense, but without it being prohibitively expensive. You just
    > have to
    > see art as something that exists beyond the art world and its
    > mythologies
    > (as well as with in it, too).
    >
    > Zev
    >
    actually I was making an observation on most of the "big" shows of late.
    They have been dominated by very expensive installation art.
    I scratch my head and wonder "couldn't we drop all the drama and do all this DIY?"
    I do spend more time looking at online art, interventions, and texts (and have for 10 years) than I do visiting Brick and Mortars these days. I don't miss the Museum Walls. I'm not knocking those works howerver. Expensive people should have expensive art. I'm so cheap.

    Eric
  • Eric Dymond | Sun Jan 1st 2006 1:03 a.m.
    and speaking about spending time online looking at networked pieces.
    I was completely engaged with Marisa Olson's and abe linkoln's work at:

    http://universalacid.net/
    and life is good again
    I feel expensive in the new year
    I'm not so cheap after all.
    seriousely, make and they will come.
    thank you both,
    Eric
Your Reply