Artbase: Joe Zane

Posted by Christopher Fahey | Thu Mar 20th 2003 12:28 p.m.

> http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?15163
> http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?15164
> http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?15165
> http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?15166
> http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?15167

Five artbase works in under 20 minutes, congratulations! :-)

I don't mean to be petty here - I took a look at them and I kinda like
Joe Zane's works - but they really do not seem appropriate for the
rhizome artbase. Is the artbase now accepting "linked art objects" that
are simply web-based documentation of sculptures and installations? Yes,
he may use digital technologies in the actual works, but they are not
net-based or net-accessible any more than the Mona Lisa is.

I am attracted to the idea of the artbase being very inclusive, but I
also see the value in some curation. This is not necessarily about the
quality of the work -- it's about the *nature* of the work. Rhizome has
a particular mission (net-based art) and somebody has to make sure that
works in the artbase at least fit that description.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • jon davey | Thu Mar 20th 2003 12:56 p.m.
    On Thursday 20 Mar 2003 4:29 pm, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
    <snip>
    > Five artbase works in under 20 minutes, congratulations! :-)
    > I don't mean to be petty here - I took a look at them and I kinda like
    > Joe Zane's works - but they really do not seem appropriate for the
    > rhizome artbase. Is the artbase now accepting "linked art objects" that
    > are simply web-based documentation of sculptures and installations? Yes,
    > he may use digital technologies in the actual works, but they are not
    > net-based or net-accessible any more than the Mona Lisa is.
    > I am attracted to the idea of the artbase being very inclusive, but I
    > also see the value in some curation. This is not necessarily about the
    > quality of the work -- it's about the *nature* of the work. Rhizome has
    > a particular mission (net-based art) and somebody has to make sure that
    > works in the artbase at least fit that description.
    > -Cf
    Are you not interested in photographys inherent relationship with painting
    tho? and photographs translate very well to computers.
    There some Art historians who have proved that some of our most lauded works
    in painting were produces using pin hole camera technology.
    What I find interesting in net art is it's potential for finding bridiges
    between the real and the hyperreal.........sculptures are pretty real in a
    concrete way and although photographing them and uploading the jpegs to a
    server is a ruff and clumsy solution it neverthe less links the old with the
    new which is undeniably important in art.......innit : )
    So even if someone sets up some monitors with nice coulors on them in a
    gallery space and posts an mpeg of that instillation to their web space it's
    a solution....of sorts....maybe....
    Jon
  • Christopher Fahey | Thu Mar 20th 2003 7:12 p.m.
    Jon Davey wrote:
    > So even if someone sets up some monitors with nice
    > coulors on them in a gallery space and posts an mpeg
    > of that instillation to their web space it's a solution....
    > of sorts....maybe....

    It's his solution, but is it his art? IMHO, a web site that contains
    only pictures and videos can certainly be considered net-based art. In
    the case of the Joe Zane work, however, the web pages in question appear
    to present themselves explicitly as *documentation* of works of art, not
    as works of art in themselves.

    Plenty of art is documentation of other art, of course. But with the
    works in question, it doesn't seem like that is his intention. He
    doesn't seem to want us to consider these web sites to be art works in
    themselves. Even the Rhizome artbase pages describe the actual
    sculptures, not the sites-about-the-sculptures. If he *does* intend
    these little pop-up windows and quicktime movies (which by the way crash
    my browser) to be stand-alone art objects, then to me they are a bit
    disappointing. The sculptures are much more interesting, but I don't see
    how they could/should fit into Rhizome's domain, which I thought was
    about net-based art. Even under a broad definition of net-based art,
    sculptures that don't have network connections clearly do not belong.

    Note that this is not in any way perjorative to Joe Zane's work!! Gary
    Hill and Bill Viola don't belong in Rhizome either, but I love their
    tehnology-based installations. A good deal of the technology-based
    sculptural works of John Simon, the McCoys, Perry Hoberman, Keith Tyson,
    Julia Scher, etc (people who work on both net.art and realworld.art)
    also don't belong in Rhizome. Rhizome needs to focus on it's net.art
    mission if the collection is to be meaningful, useful, and/or
    historically important.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • Alena Williams | Mon Mar 24th 2003 3:59 p.m.
    Hi Christopher:

    The scope of the ArtBase was expanded in March of 2002 to include forms of
    new media art (including software art, computer games, and documentation of
    new media performance and installation), which had previously been excluded
    from the archive.

    This new policy was adopted in order to allow room for work of potential
    historical significance which at one time may not have met our selection
    criteria because it was not networked--even though this work was in most
    cases as sophisticated as the networked projects in the archive.

    Joe Zane's recent submissions were accepted into the ArtBase as new media
    art, with the information provided on his website serving to document the
    work.

    Best,
    Alena

    > Jon Davey wrote:
    >> So even if someone sets up some monitors with nice
    >> coulors on them in a gallery space and posts an mpeg
    >> of that instillation to their web space it's a solution....
    >> of sorts....maybe....
    >
    > It's his solution, but is it his art? IMHO, a web site that contains
    > only pictures and videos can certainly be considered net-based art. In
    > the case of the Joe Zane work, however, the web pages in question appear
    > to present themselves explicitly as *documentation* of works of art, not
    > as works of art in themselves.
    >
    > Plenty of art is documentation of other art, of course. But with the
    > works in question, it doesn't seem like that is his intention. He
    > doesn't seem to want us to consider these web sites to be art works in
    > themselves. Even the Rhizome artbase pages describe the actual
    > sculptures, not the sites-about-the-sculptures. If he *does* intend
    > these little pop-up windows and quicktime movies (which by the way crash
    > my browser) to be stand-alone art objects, then to me they are a bit
    > disappointing. The sculptures are much more interesting, but I don't see
    > how they could/should fit into Rhizome's domain, which I thought was
    > about net-based art. Even under a broad definition of net-based art,
    > sculptures that don't have network connections clearly do not belong.
    >
    > Note that this is not in any way perjorative to Joe Zane's work!! Gary
    > Hill and Bill Viola don't belong in Rhizome either, but I love their
    > tehnology-based installations. A good deal of the technology-based
    > sculptural works of John Simon, the McCoys, Perry Hoberman, Keith Tyson,
    > Julia Scher, etc (people who work on both net.art and realworld.art)
    > also don't belong in Rhizome. Rhizome needs to focus on it's net.art
    > mission if the collection is to be meaningful, useful, and/or
    > historically important.
    >
    > -Cf
    >
    > [christopher eli fahey]
    > art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    > sci: http://www.askrom.com
    > biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • Andrei Thomaz | Mon Mar 24th 2003 8:59 p.m.
    Alena Williams wrote:

    >Hi Christopher:
    >
    >The scope of the ArtBase was expanded in March of 2002 to include forms of
    >new media art (including software art, computer games, and documentation of
    >new media performance and installation), which had previously been excluded
    >from the archive.
    >
    >This new policy was adopted in order to allow room for work of potential
    >historical significance which at one time may not have met our selection
    >criteria because it was not networked--even though this work was in most
    >cases as sophisticated as the networked projects in the archive.
    >
    >
    but maybe this kind of work - not networked - can already have room in
    another "museus". I think that the most singular thing in Rhizome
    ArtBase it is that is the biggest and the most important selection of
    net art works - and these work still have no room in another places.
    These "not networked works" woud have? Maybe yes, maybe not.

    That is a question; another question is that, in time of low resources,
    wouldn't be best keep the focus in networked works? Or these new works
    don't represent a significative cost for Rhizome?

    bye, and congratulations for Rhizome ArtBase,
    andrei

    --
    "First of all you can't be subversive without being subversive to yourself, that's very important. You miss something crucial if you think subversion means to have clearly defined enemies and act against them. The enemy always is always you, too and in the first place."
    http://www.koreawebart.org/2001/0100101110101101org.html

    andreithomaz@bol.com.br
    fone: 92067436
    url: http://www.lelic.ufrgs.br/andrei/
    url: http://www.atravesdoespelho.hpg.com.br/
  • Christopher Fahey | Mon Mar 24th 2003 11:57 p.m.
    > The scope of the ArtBase was expanded in March of 2002 to
    > include forms of
    > new media art (including software art, computer games, and
    > documentation of
    > new media performance and installation), which had previously
    > been excluded from the archive.

    Oh, okay, cool! :)

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
Your Reply