when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

Posted by MTAA | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.

preface: this little text started out very casually, then grew a bit
organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
serious attempt at commentary.

Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
artists to do?
++

reading this story in the nytimes recently:

"Postcards From Planet Google"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html

from the article:
"AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
receptionist's desk: animacion japonese Harry Potter pensees et poemes
associacao brasileira de normas tecnicas.

The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
tracks.

Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
collective consciousness of the world stream by. "

this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
are their functions evolving?

in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
what is left for the artist to do?

it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
millisecond.

thinking about google's Live Query
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.
    Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of net.art.

    We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as interesting net.art via
    this aesthetic also, do we not?

    A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.

    Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.

    Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as entertainment, but there
    are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by entertainment. I find art more
    entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue to think to continue.
    Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can even give the code away.

    ja
  • MTAA | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.
    hi jim,

    On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    > Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
    > net.art.
    >
    > We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
    > interesting net.art via
    > this aesthetic also, do we not?

    no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
    definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.

    you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
    possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
    element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
    interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
    interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
    interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
    license.

    >
    > A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.

    i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
    a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
    'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
    manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
    natural', than you can have art.

    there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
    art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
    air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
    art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
    case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
    Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
    captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
    just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
    (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
    ever witnessed (including my own).

    take care, thank you for your thoughts.

    >
    > Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
    >
    > Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
    > entertainment, but there
    > are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
    > entertainment. I find art more
    > entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
    > to think to continue.
    > Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
    > even give the code away.
    >
    > ja
  • Jim Andrews | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.
    > there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
    > art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
    > air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
    > art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
    > case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
    > Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
    > captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
    > just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
    > (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
    > ever witnessed (including my own).

    O come on t.whid, blow me another line. you're mesmerized by all that data.

    ja
  • yasir~ | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi t.whid,
    I find your comments very interesting and intriguing:
    Thanks, the zeitgeist page was great. here are some observations and
    links to some contexts, may be even explanations of some things.

    You said:
    (1) i know, i know, it's not the entire world, but it seems to me that
    the sample is large enough that searches wouldn't change much if you
    added EVERYONE to the mix.

    > I'd say, don't be fascinated by the data. It is a tiny tiny amount of
    the diversity of data that exists on this planet. And diverse doesn't
    mean just non-white, it means not just one country but one in 235 (or
    whatever number of countries in the world) With thiyusands of languages,
    and millions of kinds of people under combinations of places,
    Conditions, climates, continents....(think of any thing).. the world
    is actually very very ... very big. And disconnected also. Not just
    physically but mentally culturally.

    The data might be good for [marketing strategies for the same population
    that uses the internet, but just what is

    the number/proportion of people on the planet who
    have access to the internet : those who do NOT have access to a
    telephone?
    Proportion 1:109
    Numbers44 million : 3600 million (people)
    for non-high income countries[, (world dev report 98-99, world bank)

    You are absolutely right when you say: ....Or perhaps lots more
    USAians use Google.

    I'm inclined to say that the data itself will be close to what you have
    on the [mainstream media], because, the internet reflects the [presence]
    of the dominant ideas, the mass/the averaged acceptable ideas, for mass
    consumption, which constitute the heavy hegemony of the mainstream, that
    is US media. As you can see on the google/zeitgeist page
    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html, the entries are mostly
    brands, or what's in the news or what season it is [in the US, UK],
    rather than something more [a lttle meaningful, even a tiny bit?] so,
    its not zeitgeist that's there at all, because that's at a deeper level:
    this is just mainstream-mass-media, making its rounds in peoples heads,
    and making them act in a somewhat predictable way, if they decide to
    look up the very same thing that was hot on tv.

    The data is still deeply facscinating, you can see whole waves going up
    and down, if you look at last year's Year-End Google Zeitgeist
    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2001.html. This becomes amply clear
    from the timeline for 2001 http://www.google.com/press/timeline.html

    The world media, including local forms is there, but the US model is
    supreme and becoming stranger when adopted locally, or commented on by
    its audiences worldwide. It works because there isn't enough innovation,
    creativity in the media. Its yet to become truly inclusive, which is
    much more than just democratic. A local paper over the past 2 years has
    started bringing out about 20 different types of supplements a week up,
    from about 3-5, but I have to say, no, still a long long way to go.

    Googles data might be big in volume compared to others, but still I can
    organize it. Its not chaotic. It has distinctly easily discernable
    patterns.

    So art has plenty of capital in the Bank of Diversity, plus its
    value-added ness is incomparable, although some of it has been valued
    [!] or even overvalued over time [!]. I mean just empirically look at
    [who advises these people] in how to [value] things: the institutions!

    When you say:
    i feel that we've strayed to far into their world in some areas; we
    can't compete when it comes to the 'awe' factor.

    I think I would strongly disagree with this despite the impression that
    the technology leaves. Science and technology are overvalued in this.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of t.whid
    Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:25 PM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece,
    what are the artists to do?

    preface: this little text started out very casually, then grew a bit
    organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
    seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
    serious attempt at commentary.

    Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
    artists to do?
    ++

    reading this story in the nytimes recently:

    "Postcards From Planet Google"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html

    from the article:
    "AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
    lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
    receptionist's desk: animaciOn japonese Harry Potter pensEes et poEmes
    associaUCo brasileira de normas tEcnicas.

    The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
    people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
    terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
    Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
    tracks.

    Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
    collective consciousness of the world stream by. "

    this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
    about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
    of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
    are their functions evolving?

    in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
    essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
    this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
    takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
    the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
    what is left for the artist to do?

    it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
    consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
    artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
    obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
    even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
    millisecond.

    thinking about google's Live QueryT (check out google's zeitgeist for a
    taste: http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html (2)) i start to
    imagine what an artist might do with the information. especially if the
    artist could get the info in a realtime stream. but, then, i think
    about most of the data visualization projects i've seen (Carnivore
    clients as an example) and they don't do all that much for me. they are
    simply formal exercises which, though are interesting in their
    random-seeming behavior, don't have a visual richness to command my awe
    (a limitation of screens and projectors) and don't possess a depth
    conceptually to make me go, 'aaahh'.

    what could an artist add to the GoogleT Live QueryT? How could one make
    it any more sublime than it is? the artist could add nothing. when the
    data-set ITSELF is so conceptually fascinating there is no more to do.
    any sort of visualization would simply be distraction. simply KNOWING
    that the data is flowing in and stored on some magnetic media somewhere
    is enough for me. it's fun to see it stream-in i suppose, but the
    knowledge of it's creation and archival is much more than fun; it's
    sublime.

    Google has achieved the net art masterpiece. there has not been
    anything created in net art that comes close to it and i don't foresee
    anything coming from the arts that could rival it. the arts are
    underfunded. the arts don't have access to the same resources. the
    technologists will always win in this game of art and tech. i feel that
    we've strayed to far into their world in some areas; we can't compete
    when it comes to the 'awe' factor. sure, we can 'comment', 'criticize',
    and 'tweak,' but it mostly comes out thin compared to our market
    cousins: the Googles, the Ids, the Pixars, the Rockstar Games. we
    simply don't have the tech that they play with and will always be
    behind in that area; we can't compete FORMALLY with the commercial
    side. though our projects my be much deeper conceptually, the form or
    aesthetic allows people to step into the work, if it doesn't stack up
    against the commercial counterpart, it's easy for the audience to
    ignore it.

    To be precise, there are a few areas where artists are going to be
    hard-pressed to compete. Those areas are 3D gaming, 'virtual' worlds
    and 3D animation; and realtime data visualization and manipulation.

    The worlds created in the Sims, Grand Theft Auto, Toy Story, Quake and
    etc are complex and exciting in ways which their artworld counterparts
    can't match up. They are larger, easier to navigate, more exciting to
    interact with, have more sophisticated visuals, are more entertaining,
    and are surprising in their level of freedom to interact (the audience
    has more options). And why shouldn't they be more interesting? They've
    got large teams of developers working on them, they can test the
    interaction in focus groups and have almost unlimited pools of capital
    to draw from. What individual artist could compete with that?

    in realtime data collection and manipulation, IMO, the strength of the
    work comes from the intriguing data. the visual representations of this
    data should help us comprehend interesting data. if the data isn't
    interesting, neither is the piece no matter how interesting the visuals
    may be. Research firms, search engines, polling companies create
    interesting and therefor very valuable data to the market. There will
    always be a technological advantage fueled by capital to the market
    technologists as opposed to the artists. They have the capital to put
    together interesting data in ways that artists can't compete with.

    One area where the artists and the industry can compete head-to-head is
    in *web art*(3), this is an area where artists are ahead of industry,
    IMO. Web *presentation* technologies (CSS, XHTML, DHTML Flash,
    Director, etc) are more readily available so this makes sense. It's an
    area where artists are able to achieve technological parity. It's also
    the area that is the most similar to traditional art practice; it lends
    itself to the individual creator working with limited means.

    So what should be done? More funding for the arts is one answer.
    Collectives of pooled technology and economic resources would be a
    great way to go. Korean immigrants in NYC join credit clubs where
    everyone pays into a central pool and they can then receive loans to
    start businesses. This model could work for artists working in
    technology.

    it will be very hard to compete it some of these areas however. if
    there is no pay-off in the end, capitalists won't put money behind
    projects. public funding is almost non-existent, subject to it's own
    opaque rules, and wouldn't be enough to achieve technological parity in
    any case.

    +++
    (1) i know, i know, it's not the entire world, but it seems to me that
    the sample is large enough that searches wouldn't change much if you
    added EVERYONE to the mix.

    (2 ) Looking over the google zeitgeist makes one a bit sick by it's
    heavy tilt toward USAian pop cultural obsessions. They may be filtering
    the data for this page to suit western viewers. Or perhaps lots more
    USAians use Google.

    (3) I make this distinction btw net art and web art: net art needs to
    use a network as an integral part of the medium. if one takes the
    network out of the piece, the piece ceases to function either literally
    or conceptually. web art simply uses the web for distribution (ie one
    can run it without a network connection and it works fine), is
    presented through a browser (most of the time), and/or uses web
    technologies (HTML, Flash etc).

    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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
  • James Allan | Fri Nov 29th 2002 1 a.m.
    t.whid wrote,

    > in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    > consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk
    ...
    > what is left for the artist to do?

    Dealing with 'the collective consciousness of the world' has never been one
    of my creative concerns but maybe I lack ambition. Naked data is dull. It
    leaves nothing to the imagination. Is it surprising that sex and candy are
    important parts of daily life? I don't need Google to remind me. In the end
    it's just another customer survey scaled really, really big. Information is
    just another 2 bits in the jukebox.
  • Jim Andrews | Sat Nov 30th 2002 1 a.m.
    Google
    > captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
    > just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
    > (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
    > ever witnessed (including my own).

    The idea of Google's marketing department + engineers producing definitive works of net.art
    would probably fly in advertising circles. Like the idea that an artist without a gallery is
    nothing would fly in gallery circles.

    ja
  • Christophe Bruno | Sat Nov 30th 2002 1 a.m.
    Yahoo isn't bad either
    http://www.unbehagen.com/fascinum

    chris

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:25 PM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what
    are the artists to do?

    > preface: this little text started out very casually, then grew a bit
    > organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
    > seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
    > serious attempt at commentary.
    >
    > Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
    > artists to do?
    > ++
    >
    > reading this story in the nytimes recently:
    >
    > "Postcards From Planet Google"
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html
    >
    > from the article:
    > "AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
    > lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
    > receptionist's desk: animacion japonese Harry Potter pensees et poemes
    > associacao brasileira de normas tecnicas.
    >
    > The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
    > people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
    > terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
    > Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
    > tracks.
    >
    > Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
    > collective consciousness of the world stream by. "
    >
    > this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
    > about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
    > of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
    > are their functions evolving?
    >
    > in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    > consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
    > essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
    > this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
    > takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
    > the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
    > what is left for the artist to do?
    >
    > it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
    > consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
    > artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
    > obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
    > even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
    > millisecond.
    >
    > thinking about google's Live Query
  • James Allan | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    t.whid wrote,

    > in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    > consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk
    ...
    > what is left for the artist to do?

    Dealing with 'the collective consciousness of the world' has never been one
    of my creative concerns but maybe I lack ambition. Naked data is dull. It
    leaves nothing to the imagination. Is it surprising that sex and candy are
    important parts of daily life? I don't need Google to remind me. In the end
    it's just another customer survey scaled really, really big. Information is
    just another 2 bits in the jukebox.

    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of net.art.

    We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as interesting net.art via
    this aesthetic also, do we not?

    A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.

    Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.

    Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as entertainment, but there
    are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by entertainment. I find art more
    entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue to think to continue.
    Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can even give the code away.

    ja

    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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
  • yasir~ | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi t.whid,
    I find your comments very interesting and intriguing:
    Thanks, the zeitgeist page was great. here are some observations and
    links to some contexts, may be even explanations of some things.

    You said:
    (1) i know, i know, it's not the entire world, but it seems to me that
    the sample is large enough that searches wouldn't change much if you
    added EVERYONE to the mix.

    > I'd say, don't be fascinated by the data. It is a tiny tiny amount of
    the diversity of data that exists on this planet. And diverse doesn't
    mean just non-white, it means not just one country but one in 235 (or
    whatever number of countries in the world) With thiyusands of languages,
    and millions of kinds of people under combinations of places,
    Conditions, climates, continents....(think of any thing).. the world
    is actually very very ... very big. And disconnected also. Not just
    physically but mentally culturally.

    The data might be good for [marketing strategies for the same population
    that uses the internet, but just what is

    the number/proportion of people on the planet who
    have access to the internet : those who do NOT have access to a
    telephone?
    Proportion 1:109
    Numbers44 million : 3600 million (people)
    for non-high income countries[, (world dev report 98-99, world bank)

    You are absolutely right when you say: ....Or perhaps lots more
    USAians use Google.

    I'm inclined to say that the data itself will be close to what you have
    on the [mainstream media], because, the internet reflects the [presence]
    of the dominant ideas, the mass/the averaged acceptable ideas, for mass
    consumption, which constitute the heavy hegemony of the mainstream, that
    is US media. As you can see on the google/zeitgeist page
    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html, the entries are mostly
    brands, or what's in the news or what season it is [in the US, UK],
    rather than something more [a lttle meaningful, even a tiny bit?] so,
    its not zeitgeist that's there at all, because that's at a deeper level:
    this is just mainstream-mass-media, making its rounds in peoples heads,
    and making them act in a somewhat predictable way, if they decide to
    look up the very same thing that was hot on tv.

    The data is still deeply facscinating, you can see whole waves going up
    and down, if you look at last year's Year-End Google Zeitgeist
    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2001.html. This becomes amply clear
    from the timeline for 2001 http://www.google.com/press/timeline.html

    The world media, including local forms is there, but the US model is
    supreme and becoming stranger when adopted locally, or commented on by
    its audiences worldwide. It works because there isn't enough innovation,
    creativity in the media. Its yet to become truly inclusive, which is
    much more than just democratic. A local paper over the past 2 years has
    started bringing out about 20 different types of supplements a week up,
    from about 3-5, but I have to say, no, still a long long way to go.

    Googles data might be big in volume compared to others, but still I can
    organize it. Its not chaotic. It has distinctly easily discernable
    patterns.

    So art has plenty of capital in the Bank of Diversity, plus its
    value-added ness is incomparable, although some of it has been valued
    [!] or even overvalued over time [!]. I mean just empirically look at
    [who advises these people] in how to [value] things: the institutions!

    When you say:
    i feel that we've strayed to far into their world in some areas; we
    can't compete when it comes to the 'awe' factor.

    I think I would strongly disagree with this despite the impression that
    the technology leaves. Science and technology are overvalued in this.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of t.whid
    Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:25 PM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece,
    what are the artists to do?

    preface: this little text started out very casually, then grew a bit
    organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
    seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
    serious attempt at commentary.

    Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
    artists to do?
    ++

    reading this story in the nytimes recently:

    "Postcards From Planet Google"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html

    from the article:
    "AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
    lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
    receptionist's desk: animaciOn japonese Harry Potter pensEes et poEmes
    associaUCo brasileira de normas tEcnicas.

    The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
    people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
    terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
    Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
    tracks.

    Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
    collective consciousness of the world stream by. "

    this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
    about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
    of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
    are their functions evolving?

    in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
    essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
    this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
    takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
    the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
    what is left for the artist to do?

    it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
    consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
    artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
    obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
    even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
    millisecond.

    thinking about google's Live QueryT (check out google's zeitgeist for a
    taste: http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html (2)) i start to
    imagine what an artist might do with the information. especially if the
    artist could get the info in a realtime stream. but, then, i think
    about most of the data visualization projects i've seen (Carnivore
    clients as an example) and they don't do all that much for me. they are
    simply formal exercises which, though are interesting in their
    random-seeming behavior, don't have a visual richness to command my awe
    (a limitation of screens and projectors) and don't possess a depth
    conceptually to make me go, 'aaahh'.

    what could an artist add to the GoogleT Live QueryT? How could one make
    it any more sublime than it is? the artist could add nothing. when the
    data-set ITSELF is so conceptually fascinating there is no more to do.
    any sort of visualization would simply be distraction. simply KNOWING
    that the data is flowing in and stored on some magnetic media somewhere
    is enough for me. it's fun to see it stream-in i suppose, but the
    knowledge of it's creation and archival is much more than fun; it's
    sublime.

    Google has achieved the net art masterpiece. there has not been
    anything created in net art that comes close to it and i don't foresee
    anything coming from the arts that could rival it. the arts are
    underfunded. the arts don't have access to the same resources. the
    technologists will always win in this game of art and tech. i feel that
    we've strayed to far into their world in some areas; we can't compete
    when it comes to the 'awe' factor. sure, we can 'comment', 'criticize',
    and 'tweak,' but it mostly comes out thin compared to our market
    cousins: the Googles, the Ids, the Pixars, the Rockstar Games. we
    simply don't have the tech that they play with and will always be
    behind in that area; we can't compete FORMALLY with the commercial
    side. though our projects my be much deeper conceptually, the form or
    aesthetic allows people to step into the work, if it doesn't stack up
    against the commercial counterpart, it's easy for the audience to
    ignore it.

    To be precise, there are a few areas where artists are going to be
    hard-pressed to compete. Those areas are 3D gaming, 'virtual' worlds
    and 3D animation; and realtime data visualization and manipulation.

    The worlds created in the Sims, Grand Theft Auto, Toy Story, Quake and
    etc are complex and exciting in ways which their artworld counterparts
    can't match up. They are larger, easier to navigate, more exciting to
    interact with, have more sophisticated visuals, are more entertaining,
    and are surprising in their level of freedom to interact (the audience
    has more options). And why shouldn't they be more interesting? They've
    got large teams of developers working on them, they can test the
    interaction in focus groups and have almost unlimited pools of capital
    to draw from. What individual artist could compete with that?

    in realtime data collection and manipulation, IMO, the strength of the
    work comes from the intriguing data. the visual representations of this
    data should help us comprehend interesting data. if the data isn't
    interesting, neither is the piece no matter how interesting the visuals
    may be. Research firms, search engines, polling companies create
    interesting and therefor very valuable data to the market. There will
    always be a technological advantage fueled by capital to the market
    technologists as opposed to the artists. They have the capital to put
    together interesting data in ways that artists can't compete with.

    One area where the artists and the industry can compete head-to-head is
    in *web art*(3), this is an area where artists are ahead of industry,
    IMO. Web *presentation* technologies (CSS, XHTML, DHTML Flash,
    Director, etc) are more readily available so this makes sense. It's an
    area where artists are able to achieve technological parity. It's also
    the area that is the most similar to traditional art practice; it lends
    itself to the individual creator working with limited means.

    So what should be done? More funding for the arts is one answer.
    Collectives of pooled technology and economic resources would be a
    great way to go. Korean immigrants in NYC join credit clubs where
    everyone pays into a central pool and they can then receive loans to
    start businesses. This model could work for artists working in
    technology.

    it will be very hard to compete it some of these areas however. if
    there is no pay-off in the end, capitalists won't put money behind
    projects. public funding is almost non-existent, subject to it's own
    opaque rules, and wouldn't be enough to achieve technological parity in
    any case.

    +++
    (1) i know, i know, it's not the entire world, but it seems to me that
    the sample is large enough that searches wouldn't change much if you
    added EVERYONE to the mix.

    (2 ) Looking over the google zeitgeist makes one a bit sick by it's
    heavy tilt toward USAian pop cultural obsessions. They may be filtering
    the data for this page to suit western viewers. Or perhaps lots more
    USAians use Google.

    (3) I make this distinction btw net art and web art: net art needs to
    use a network as an integral part of the medium. if one takes the
    network out of the piece, the piece ceases to function either literally
    or conceptually. web art simply uses the web for distribution (ie one
    can run it without a network connection and it works fine), is
    presented through a browser (most of the time), and/or uses web
    technologies (HTML, Flash etc).

    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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

    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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
  • D42 Kandinskij | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, James Allan wrote:

    > > in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
    > > consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk
    > ...
    > > what is left for the artist to do?

    As if the artist displays 'the collective consciousness'.
    As if consciousness can_ be 'collective'.
  • MTAA | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    hi jim,

    On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

    > Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
    > net.art.
    >
    > We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
    > interesting net.art via
    > this aesthetic also, do we not?

    no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
    definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.

    you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
    possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
    element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
    interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
    interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
    interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
    license.

    >
    > A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.

    i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
    a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
    'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
    manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
    natural', than you can have art.

    there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
    art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
    air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
    art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
    case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
    Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
    captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
    just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
    (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
    ever witnessed (including my own).

    take care, thank you for your thoughts.

    >
    > Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
    >
    > Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
    > entertainment, but there
    > are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
    > entertainment. I find art more
    > entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
    > to think to continue.
    > Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
    > even give the code away.
    >
    > ja

    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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
  • Christophe Bruno | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    >>> "Whatever it is (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the
    net art i've ever witnessed (including my own)."

    I almost agree with Tim .. but just try to let your thoughts freely flow out
    (if you can ever do that), and if you are lucky you may be surprised and
    fascinated as well, as if they did come from somebody else, from an Other
    place.

    THIS is "more interesting than all the net art i've ever witnessed "

    You don't need Google for that. But of course with Google it's easier and
    absolutely fascinating.

    An other good one is

    http://www.metaspy.com

    last year I discovered this and I stayed one whole day watching

    Christophe Bruno
    http://www.unbehagen.com
    http://www.iterature.com

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:24 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece,
    what are the artists to do?

    > hi jim,
    >
    >
    > On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >
    > > Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
    > > net.art.
    > >
    > > We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
    > > interesting net.art via
    > > this aesthetic also, do we not?
    >
    > no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
    > definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.
    >
    > you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
    > possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
    > element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
    > interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
    > interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
    > interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
    > license.
    >
    > >
    > > A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.
    >
    > i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
    > a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
    > 'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
    > manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
    > natural', than you can have art.
    >
    > there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
    > art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
    > air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
    > art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
    > case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
    > Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
    > captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
    > just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
    > (art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
    > ever witnessed (including my own).
    >
    > take care, thank you for your thoughts.
    >
    > >
    > > Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
    > >
    > > Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
    > > entertainment, but there
    > > are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
    > > entertainment. I find art more
    > > entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
    > > to think to continue.
    > > Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
    > > even give the code away.
    > >
    > > ja
    >
    > + the internet is not your life.
    > -> 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
    > + the internet is not your life.
    > -> 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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Tue Dec 3rd 2002 1 a.m.
    Hey Tim,

    I just read your article and haven't been following the subsequent dialogue, so if I say something someone's already said before, just chalk it up to the fact that I'm a dumb lazy redneck.

    Yoshi Sodeoka did an front-end interface to the google search querry stream here:
    http://www.whitney.org/artport/gatepages/february02.shtml
    He's adding a personal fascination with lo-fi interfaces to the data stream, which I think brings something to the raw data stream. So you can dig the piece on two levels. I think it's cooler than the carnivore model (although I like other things about carnivore like its open invitation for collaboration).

    Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" ( http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little to what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about conceptual net art.

    Then there are the following novel uses of google's database that aren't calling themselves "art," but could be considered art given the right bullshit artist statement:
    http://www.googlism.com/
    http://www.googlefight.com/
    http://www.googlewhack.com/

    It seems the "art" of database art lies in the cleverness of the interface paradigm, which makes database artists akin to information architects. Examples:
    http://www.textarc.org/
    http://manovich.net/cinema_future/toc.htm

    In experimental web design circles, I'm observing a trend toward hand illustration. When everybody can use 3dsMax, then how do you distinguish yourself from the crowd? You return to actual craft, a hand moving a pencil across a piece of paper.

    Likewise, in net art, you're asking a pertinent question -- when all is about tech, and corporations have the tech, what's left? Some might then say what's left is to conceptually recontextualization the existing tech. But if you mean to approach conceptualism minimistically, you rightly observe that there's not much to add to google's live querry.

    I think the best net art is still narrative in some way, and personal. The work to which I'm referring is what you're calling web art, but that doesn't demean it any to me.

    Why is Beuys work more interesting than his contemporaries'? He was making art that was personal to him, he was using physical materials that meant something to him. His purpose was not to get notariety or to be novel. He wasn't even trying to "tell humans what humans were thinking about, obsessing over, loving, hating." As I read it, he was trying to convey his personal vision of a righter world in order to help bring that world about.

    I'd like to see more net art that's personal and exploratory and idiosynchratic. Less artists sitting around trying to come up with a novel artistic concept as if they were developing a winning business plan for a new tech startup or brainstorming the creation of the next boy band supergroup. It doesn't have to be the next new thing. It just has to engage.
  • Christophe Bruno | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    > Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
    http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
    conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little to
    what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
    conceptual net art.

    Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
    cos i'm a lame ass as well

    thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"

    Christophe Bruno
    >>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
    http://www.unbehagen.com
    http://www.iterature.com/adwords
  • brad brace | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, curt cloninger wrote:

    > I'd like to see more net art that's personal and
    > exploratory and idiosynchratic. Less artists sitting
    > around trying to come up with a novel artistic concept as
    > if they were developing a winning business plan for a new
    > tech startup or brainstorming the creation of the next boy
    > band supergroup. It doesn't have to be the next new
    > thing. It just has to engage.

    Amen!

    (We can fault the institutionalization of art on the net --
    the resurgence of the old abusive artworld -- coupled with
    the "funded art/artist as new-tech demo-promo" trend, for
    the current disorientation.)

    The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project >>>> since 1994 <<<<

    + + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
    + + + eccentric ftp://ftp.idiom.com/users/bbrace
    + + + continuous hotline://artlyin.ftr.va.com.au
    + + + hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
    + + + imagery ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace

    News: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr alt.binaries.pictures.misc
    alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.misc alt.12hr

    . 12hr email
    subscriptions => http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html

    . Other | Mirror: http://www.eskimo.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
    Projects | Reverse Solidus: http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/
    | http://bbrace.net

    { brad brace } <<<<< bbrace@eskimo.com >>>> ~finger for pgp
  • MTAA | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    >Hey Tim,
    >
    >I just read your article and haven't been following the subsequent
    >dialogue, so if I say something someone's already said before, just
    >chalk it up to the fact that I'm a dumb lazy redneck.
    >
    >Yoshi Sodeoka did an front-end interface to the google search querry
    >stream here:
    >http://www.whitney.org/artport/gatepages/february02.shtml
    >He's adding a personal fascination with lo-fi interfaces to the data
    >stream, which I think brings something to the raw data stream. So
    >you can dig the piece on two levels. I think it's cooler than the
    >carnivore model (although I like other things about carnivore like
    >its open invitation for collaboration).

    t:
    this would be the 'tweaking' and 'commenting' i complained about in
    my post. yoshi sodeoka is very talented (word.com had the best design
    :-) but sticking an interface on the meat of Google doesn't equate to
    something as awesome in scope as Google itself.

    >
    >Then there are the following novel uses of google's database that
    >aren't calling themselves "art," but could be considered art given
    >the right bullshit artist statement:
    >http://www.googlism.com/
    >http://www.googlefight.com/
    >http://www.googlewhack.com/
    >
    >It seems the "art" of database art lies in the cleverness of the
    >interface paradigm, which makes database artists akin to information
    >architects. Examples:
    >http://www.textarc.org/
    >http://manovich.net/cinema_future/toc.htm

    t:
    ah, that's were i would differ. interfaces are interchangeable (tho,
    you could make one set of data seem like numerous sets depending on
    the interface) it's the scope and definition of the data that makes
    net art interesting. when i come across a 'net thing' like Google
    (lets call it art) with such a monstrous scope and 'heroic' scale
    (Google truly defines the heroic period of net art) i can't help but
    seeing the rest of the net art canon as a bit thin.

    >
    >In experimental web design circles, I'm observing a trend toward
    >hand illustration. When everybody can use 3dsMax, then how do you
    >distinguish yourself from the crowd? You return to actual craft, a
    >hand moving a pencil across a piece of paper.
    >
    >Likewise, in net art, you're asking a pertinent question -- when all
    >is about tech, and corporations have the tech, what's left? Some
    >might then say what's left is to conceptually recontextualization
    >the existing tech. But if you mean to approach conceptualism
    >minimistically, you rightly observe that there's not much to add to
    >google's live querry.
    >
    >I think the best net art is still narrative in some way, and
    >personal. The work to which I'm referring is what you're calling
    >web art, but that doesn't demean it any to me.

    t:
    i don't think web art is lesser than net art. they simply seem like
    two completely different thing to me. why would i call a chair a
    table? because they both have four legs and a flat surface to put
    things on? web art and net art share many features but are completely
    different. one isn't better than the other. actually i think it might
    be wiser for artists working with these technologies to focus *more*
    on web art because in that field at least they can achieve
    technological parity with their commercial cousins.

    not to say there isn't a lot of ground to cover in net art, we simply
    need to keep Google in mind as we go about it.

    c-ya

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, { brad brace } wrote:

    > Amen!
    >
    > (We can fault the institutionalization of art on the net --
    > the resurgence of the old abusive artworld -- coupled with
    > the "funded art/artist as new-tech demo-promo" trend, for
    > the current disorientation.)

    Abusive artworld : result of abusive pseudo-artists
    and a new 'breed' of ever more 'effective' leeches
    attempting to pass themselves off as 'curators' + 'critics'.

    However as demonstrable, this is largely due to
    lack of actual interest in art, as well as actual
    interest in examining the nature + effects of the medium.

    You ask for the increasing number of genuine artistic work.
    However, evidence demonstrates that for every person willing
    to do such, there are 500 net.artist waiting to 'exploit'.
    Reality is that as of current, net.art is turning into little
    but a trap-whole for suffocation of life-force exhibiting
    individuals.

    What a shame that is the case for humanity overall.
    The only ay to real with this is to genuinely address
    + examine what is going on.

    Until then : tra le la.

    One is encouraged further + further to create only for
    private investors, capable of appreciating artwork,
    and create private networks of intelligent individuals_.

    Which is something that NN understood quite well.
    As well as Monsieur McLuhan.

    Without realizationof the unhealthy + harmful effects
    of 'communities' there shall be no evolution in net.art.

    Regards.
  • clement Thomas | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    I hire these two lame ass windCuivres for my Lame Songs rythmic section

    --
    OG
    -/ dansez sur moi ! /-

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>
    To: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:53 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

    >
    > > Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
    > http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
    > conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little
    to
    > what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
    > conceptual net art.
    >
    > Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
    > cos i'm a lame ass as well
    >
    > thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"
    >
    > Christophe Bruno
    > >>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
    > http://www.unbehagen.com
    > http://www.iterature.com/adwords
    >
    >
    >
    > + the internet is not your life.
    > -> 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
    >
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    > One is encouraged further + further to create only for
    > private investors, capable of appreciating artwork,
    > and create private networks of intelligent individuals_.

    Horse refuse from the digestive system - you all are just too damn arrogant and
    lazy to attempt an education process.

    "Look at the people - how stupid they are!!! Ignore them or spit on them and
    stick with the 'right' kind"

    joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
    frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

    go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
    call me 646 279 2309

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
    CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, { brad brace } wrote:
    >
    > > Amen!
    > >
    > > (We can fault the institutionalization of art on the net --
    > > the resurgence of the old abusive artworld -- coupled with
    > > the "funded art/artist as new-tech demo-promo" trend, for
    > > the current disorientation.)
    >
    > Abusive artworld : result of abusive pseudo-artists
    > and a new 'breed' of ever more 'effective' leeches
    > attempting to pass themselves off as 'curators' + 'critics'.
    >
    > However as demonstrable, this is largely due to
    > lack of actual interest in art, as well as actual
    > interest in examining the nature + effects of the medium.
    >
    > You ask for the increasing number of genuine artistic work.
    > However, evidence demonstrates that for every person willing
    > to do such, there are 500 net.artist waiting to 'exploit'.
    > Reality is that as of current, net.art is turning into little
    > but a trap-whole for suffocation of life-force exhibiting
    > individuals.
    >
    > What a shame that is the case for humanity overall.
    > The only ay to real with this is to genuinely address
    > + examine what is going on.
    >
    > Until then : tra le la.
    >
    > One is encouraged further + further to create only for
    > private investors, capable of appreciating artwork,
    > and create private networks of intelligent individuals_.
    >
    > Which is something that NN understood quite well.
    > As well as Monsieur McLuhan.
    >
    > Without realizationof the unhealthy + harmful effects
    > of 'communities' there shall be no evolution in net.art.
    >
    > Regards.
    >
    >
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > t h i n g i s t
    > message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
    > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    > and write "info thingist" in the message body
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

    > Horse refuse from the digestive system

    No, dearest. This is what you_ do.

    > - you all are just too damn arrogant

    No, dearest. There is no arrogance in our behavior.
    Your delusional hallucinations are simply your own problem.

    > lazy to attempt an education process.

    The only one LAZY here is you, love. You've never worked a day in your
    life. Tak + tak.

    Reality is just. It reveals itself to those who are worthy of it.

    You_ dearest are an egotistical, flippant, lazy ape
    who wants everything served on a plate without_ working
    for it, and if it's not SERVED RIGHT AWAY and EXPLAINED
    to the simpleton, it is the other's fault.

    Ah no, Joseph, dearest.

    It's your_ fault.

    > "Look at the people - how stupid they are!!!

    Nothing that we have done.

    > Ignore them or spit on them and stick with the 'right' kind"

    Tak. This is merely reflective of your behavior.

    There are no 'people'. Reality is a game from which you'll get exactly
    in proportion to personal efforts.

    You want to have it served to you or ELSE SOB the 'people'.

    We have faith in every human's ability to achieve its
    full capacity. However NOBODY can do that for ANYBODY ELSE.
    For an anti-religious idiot, you're simply preaching
    and begging for luv, peace, the people, and salvation.

    Peddle your shit elsewhere, ignorant idiot.
  • yasir~ | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    Agree 200%. Its despicable! Utterly, utterly. ...

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of { brad brace }
    Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:31 PM
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

    On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, curt cloninger wrote:

    > I'd like to see more net art that's personal and
    > exploratory and idiosynchratic. Less artists sitting
    > around trying to come up with a novel artistic concept as
    > if they were developing a winning business plan for a new
    > tech startup or brainstorming the creation of the next boy
    > band supergroup. It doesn't have to be the next new
    > thing. It just has to engage.

    Amen!

    (We can fault the institutionalization of art on the net --
    the resurgence of the old abusive artworld -- coupled with
    the "funded art/artist as new-tech demo-promo" trend, for
    the current disorientation.)

    The 12hr-ISBN-JPEG Project >>>> since 1994 <<<<

    + + + serial ftp://ftp.eskimo.com/u/b/bbrace
    + + + eccentric ftp://ftp.idiom.com/users/bbrace
    + + + continuous hotline://artlyin.ftr.va.com.au
    + + + hypermodern ftp://ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace
    + + + imagery ftp://ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace

    News: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr alt.binaries.pictures.misc
    alt.binaries.pictures.fine-art.misc alt.12hr

    . 12hr email
    subscriptions => http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html

    . Other | Mirror: http://www.eskimo.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html
    Projects | Reverse Solidus: http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/
    | http://bbrace.net

    { brad brace } <<<<< bbrace@eskimo.com >>>> ~finger for pgp

    + the internet is not your life.
    -> 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
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    > Nothing that we have done.

    Uh oh, he goes for the 'we' - those delusions just grow grander and grander
    don't they.

    Jerry Falwall and you need to get togethor for tea.

    joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
    frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

    go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
    call me 646 279 2309

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
    CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
    >
    > > Horse refuse from the digestive system
    >
    > No, dearest. This is what you_ do.
    >
    > > - you all are just too damn arrogant
    >
    > No, dearest. There is no arrogance in our behavior.
    > Your delusional hallucinations are simply your own problem.
    >
    > > lazy to attempt an education process.
    >
    > The only one LAZY here is you, love. You've never worked a day in your
    > life. Tak + tak.
    >
    > Reality is just. It reveals itself to those who are worthy of it.
    >
    > You_ dearest are an egotistical, flippant, lazy ape
    > who wants everything served on a plate without_ working
    > for it, and if it's not SERVED RIGHT AWAY and EXPLAINED
    > to the simpleton, it is the other's fault.
    >
    > Ah no, Joseph, dearest.
    >
    > It's your_ fault.
    >
    > > "Look at the people - how stupid they are!!!
    >

    > > Ignore them or spit on them and stick with the 'right' kind"
    >
    > Tak. This is merely reflective of your behavior.
    >
    > There are no 'people'. Reality is a game from which you'll get exactly
    > in proportion to personal efforts.
    >
    > You want to have it served to you or ELSE SOB the 'people'.
    >
    > We have faith in every human's ability to achieve its
    > full capacity. However NOBODY can do that for ANYBODY ELSE.
    > For an anti-religious idiot, you're simply preaching
    > and begging for luv, peace, the people, and salvation.
    >
    > Peddle your shit elsewhere, ignorant idiot.
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

    > Uh oh, he goes for the 'we'

    No dearest. We go for the we.

    > - those delusions just grow grander and grander don't they.

    The only one delusional here is you love.
    We lack any delusions.
    Nor are you capable of perceiving anything but_ delusions.

    Tak.

    + You have attempted a pitiful jab in order to pretend
    that what was written about your idiocy isn't there.

    The only thing you're capable of Joseph,
    is delusional + defensive ego drivel.

    Tell us about the people again.
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > No dearest. We go for the we.

    Oh cute, you found a friend (and I thought I was the only one)

    Are you two going to form a 700 club like Pat Robertson?

    joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
    frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

    go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
    call me 646 279 2309

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
    CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
    >
    > > Uh oh, he goes for the 'we'
    >
    > No dearest. We go for the we.
    >
    > > - those delusions just grow grander and grander don't they.
    >
    > The only one delusional here is you love.
    > We lack any delusions.
    > Nor are you capable of perceiving anything but_ delusions.
    >
    > Tak.
    >
    > + You have attempted a pitiful jab in order to pretend
    > that what was written about your idiocy isn't there.
    >
    > The only thing you're capable of Joseph,
    > is delusional + defensive ego drivel.
    >
    > Tell us about the people again.
  • D42 Kandinskij | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

    > Oh cute, you found a friend (and I thought I was the only one)

    Drivel.

    > Are you two going to form a 700 club like Pat Robertson?

    And more psychopathic drivel.

    For how much longer are you going to project
    your own pseudo-religious cultural conditioning
    as something of 'ours' love?
  • Christophe Bruno | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    deal

    Christophe Bruno
    http://www.iterature.com

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:27 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

    > I hire these two lame ass windCuivres for my Lame Songs rythmic section
    >
    > --
    > OG
    > -/ dansez sur moi ! /-
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>
    > To: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:53 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    > masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
    >
    >
    > >
    > > > Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
    > > http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
    > > conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very little
    > to
    > > what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
    > > conceptual net art.
    > >
    > > Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
    > > cos i'm a lame ass as well
    > >
    > > thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"
    > >
    > > Christophe Bruno
    > > >>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
    > > http://www.unbehagen.com
    > > http://www.iterature.com/adwords
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > + the internet is not your life.
    > > -> 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
    > >
    >
    > + the internet is not your life.
    > -> 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
    >
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Dec 4th 2002 1 a.m.
    > For how much longer are you going to project
    > your own pseudo-religious cultural conditioning
    > as something of 'ours' love?

    you getting tired my friend?

    joseph (cor e form art) + (porat per ance ist)
    frank + lyn - mc + El + roy

    go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
    call me 646 279 2309

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
    CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

    Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>:

    > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:
    >
    > > Oh cute, you found a friend (and I thought I was the only one)
    >
    > Drivel.
    >
    > > Are you two going to form a 700 club like Pat Robertson?
    >
    > And more psychopathic drivel.
    >
    > For how much longer are you going to project
    > your own pseudo-religious cultural conditioning
    > as something of 'ours' love?
  • clement Thomas | Thu Dec 5th 2002 1 a.m.
    ca va chauffer !!!!

    a one, a two ...

    --
    OG

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>
    To: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:10 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    masterpiece, what are the artists to do?

    > deal
    >
    > Christophe Bruno
    > http://www.iterature.com
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "clement Thomas" <ctgr@free.fr>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:27 PM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    > masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
    >
    >
    > > I hire these two lame ass windCuivres for my Lame Songs rythmic section
    > >
    > > --
    > > OG
    > > -/ dansez sur moi ! /-
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "unbehagen.com" <chris@unbehagen.com>
    > > To: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:53 AM
    > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: when Google has achieved the net art
    > > masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > Then you've got Valery Grancher's lame ass "search art" (
    > > > http://www.nomemory.org/search/index2.html ), which is just a thin
    > > > conceptual gimmick added to somebody else's tech. It brings very
    little
    > > to
    > > > what you can already do at google and represents all I loathe about
    > > > conceptual net art.
    > > >
    > > > Valery Grancher AND Christophe Bruno's lame ass "search art"
    > > > cos i'm a lame ass as well
    > > >
    > > > thanks for the "thin" , I would have prefer "infra thin"
    > > >
    > > > Christophe Bruno
    > > > >>> chat with me on http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat
    > > > http://www.unbehagen.com
    > > > http://www.iterature.com/adwords
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > + the internet is not your life.
    > > > -> 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
    > > >
    > >
    > > + the internet is not your life.
    > > -> 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
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • D42 Kandinskij | Thu Dec 5th 2002 1 a.m.
    On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, joseph (yes) wrote:

    > you getting tired my friend?

    Meaningless jab.
    Go peddle your ego elsewhere, ape.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    t h i n g i s t
    message by "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <death@zaphod.terminal.org>
    archive at http://bbs.thing.net
    info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
    and write "info thingist" in the message body
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
  • Mark Tribe | Sun Dec 22nd 2002 1 a.m.
    apologies if someone already brought this up in connection with tim's
    google post, but one net art installation that i find more successful and
    interesting *as art* than google's live query is mark hansen and ben
    rubin's listening post
    <http://www.earstudio.com/projects/listeningPost.html>, currently on view
    at the whitney museum (through march 8). like live query, this project taps
    into the global zeitgeist. but it also transforms the captured data into a
    profoundly moving visual and musical experience.

    from the project web site:

    What does the collective voice of the internet sound like? Countless others
    are with you when you browse the web, some reading the same words at the
    same time, and yet you have no way of sensing their presence. Listening
    Post gives voice to this vast, silent world, transforming collective online
    activity and communication into a multi-layered sound installation. This
    uniquely designed space monitors thousands of online exchanges in real
    time, revealing the patterns and rhythms of people communicating with each
    other.

    The visible and audible text in this installation is live, collected in
    real-time from tens of thousands of chat rooms, forums, newsgroups,
    bulletin boards, and other public online communication channels.
    Statistical analysis organizes the messages into topic clusters based on
    their content, tracking the ebb and flow of communication on the Web. A
    tonal soundscape underlies the spoken text, its pitches and timbres
    responding to changes in the flow and content of the messages.

    At 02:09 PM 3/1/2003 -0500, Jim Andrews wrote:
    >Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of net.art.
    >
    >We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
    >interesting net.art via
    >this aesthetic also, do we not?
    >
    >A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.
    >
    >Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
    >
    >Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
    >entertainment, but there
    >are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
    >entertainment. I find art more
    >entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue to
    >think to continue.
    >Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can even
    >give the code away.
    >
    >ja
    >
    >
    >
    >+ the internet is not your life.
    >-> 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
    >+ the internet is not your life.
    >-> 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