R: Tabula Visum - Funding?
.... finally, we get to talk a bit on the list :)
>patrick lichty said:
>we are living on an edge. now.
>As have we for many years in many eras. However, we live in the history
>of the future, and we are in one of many eras of rapid development. So,
>to consider us that 'unique' or 'edgy' is a matter of scope.
perfect! i agree completely!
my message wasn't about your work.
in my point of view you are not important, nor am i. just as no one else is..
we shouldn't have "important" people. because it doesn't make any sense in
this kind of world.
even better: why don't we all just go anonymous and stop signing what we do?
>we are right in the middle of the evolution of the things we are talking
>Of course! But there is _some_ history to discern our position from.
yes, but everything is always too focused on the "people". and on an obsolete
point of view. when i say _obsolete_ i don't say it because i would love it to
be avantgardist or technologically socially artistically advanced, but just
because it doesn't fit in this world. like the children toys where you stick
geometrical blocks into the holes: it's like trying to stick a cube inside the
>Again, of course - there cannot be a view outside the system one is in.
>With a little self-reflection and acknowledgemtnt as such, should this
>be a problem? As long as the awareness of the problem is understood and
>part of our discussion, this should be the first step to sufficiency.
so what you say is that i should/might just as well settle, relax, take a deep
breath and wait for something to happen... :)
>it was a critique on the way things get shown, funded, pushed.
>FUNDED? FUNDED? FUNDED?
again: the original mesage doesn't talk about _you_.
and that's the whole point. _you_ don't make any sense. _i_ don't either.
neither does anyone else.
i don't have any money either. i usually get money by making security systems
for companies, and use it for me, my dogs and art.
but that's not the problem.
the problem is that new media art (i hate the term) is art. and that it
doesn't make any sense when we say "us" and "them". and thet the "outdated"
"useless" thing is the other one : the institutional contemporary art, the
institutional art world, etcetera...
so why do we mimic them? why do we need stars? (as there are "stars" among new
media artists ... sorry if i throw up if i say n.m.a. again)
the whole attitude (not mine or yours.. the whole) is that of someone who
criticizes sociey/culture/media/... and that uses out_of_the_box
society/culture/media/... to do it. honestly: can i "protest" against war by
making a war, without even distorting a single concept? i focus on _process_,
not on _products_.
many of you create some really astounding things: things that make important
statements, conceptually, aesthetically and in the actions that they perform or
but humans are weak. they need appreciation. _personal_ appreciation.
the whole "system" is based on desire/satisfaction, used as a weapon. with
media acting as the hypnotizing/consensus_forming force.
we put too much emphasis on singularities. we observe all with the eye of
yesterday. we impersonate. we _want to appear_. we _quote_. we refer to a
history that has probabily rewritten a couple of times alltogether.
this is the sense of what i wrote.
>Rhizome isn't rich,
>Neither is Thing, Turbulence, HTTP, and many other new media sources.
>Same for our org, Intelligent Agent.
i know all of this, and i always had the deepest respect for all of you/them,
even by contributing economically whenever i could afford it...
again, to clarify what i wrote with an example: why don't we all resign from
our identities ? it's the only important statement that we can make.