Dia article in NYTimes Mag

Posted by MTAA | Sun Apr 6th 2003 5:04 p.m.

xposter and i don't care
+++

The Dia Generation
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/magazine/06DIA.html

++

It was nice to see an art story on the cover of the NYTime's Magazine
this week though we're all very troubled about the war and the Bush
administration's imperial ambitions (see this article for a great
overview:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html).

The article covers the history of The Dia center from it's inception in
the early 70s to the opening of a major new museum in upstate NY, Dia:
Beacon, which focuses on 60s/70s minimalism, conceptualism, Earth Art
and etc.

The article was a bit dry with the history of the infighting and
whatnot, but what's interesting is how the early Dia acted like
Renaissance patrons.

from the article:
'Friedrich compared what he was doing -- now with his wife's fortune --
to the Medicis. ''Dia didn't tap something new; it tapped something
old,'' he said at the time. ''Our values are as powerful as those in
the Renaissance.'' For emphasis, he added that Dan Flavin ''is as
important as Michelangelo.'''

They handpicked a few artists and supported them extravagantly for some
years giving them everything they needed to create work with no
constraints of economy, time, or space.

I wonder what our contemporary net, web, and new media artists could do
with the money, time, and space that were given to the Dia's lucky
chosen few.

permanent link to this post:
http://www.mteww.com/cgi/mtaa-rr.pl/twhid/dia_article.html
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
  • alex galloway | Mon Apr 7th 2003 12:32 a.m.
    > I wonder what our contemporary net, web, and new media artists could
    > do with the money, time, and space that were given to the Dia's lucky
    > chosen few.

    yes, considering the llama net art that dia has been commissioning. no
    art critics will be praising Dia's net art collection thirty years from
    *now* that's for sure ;-)

    if you remember, Mirapaul talked about Dia in his last column:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/arts/columns/31MATT.html

    of Dia's twenty net art commissions
    (http://www.diacenter.org/rooftop/webproj/index.html), nine of them are
    the first web-based projects by the artists. that's a yawn of a
    curatorial strategy. Olia & Dragan and Jim Buckhouse are the only names
    on the list that have any experience with the net art scene. hmmm.
    Lynne Cooke, let's do lunch. we need to talk.
  • Christopher Fahey | Mon Apr 7th 2003 3:37 a.m.
    Alex Galloway wrote:
    > of Dia's twenty net art commissions
    > (http://www.diacenter.org/rooftop/webproj/index.html), nine
    > of them are the first web-based projects by the artists. that's
    > a yawn of a curatorial strategy. Olia & Dragan and Jim
    > Buckhouse are the only names on the list that have any
    > experience with the net art scene. hmmm. Lynne Cooke,
    > let's do lunch. we need to talk.

    That's for sure. My jaw dropped to the floor when I read this in
    Mirapaul's article:
    Lynne Cooke, the Dia's curator, said the center
    favored artists unfamiliar with the Internet. "Artists
    who work with something where they don't know
    the rules beforehand are more inclined to push the
    envelope than those who are already very dextrous,"
    she said.

    I wouldn't know where to begin punching holes in the logic behind that
    statement. Maybe it's just a fancy way of saying "we don't really know
    any net artists", but it felt like a big fat middle finger to all the
    hard-working, mega-innovative, and mad-skilled net artists I know. I
    like some of the Dia commissions, but as a whole they're not really
    envelope-pushing to anyone who gets around the web much.

    Also, it seems like many of these 'traditional-artists-cum-net-artists'
    seem to end up having a bunch of assistants and volunteers build the
    projects for them anyway. I don't have a problem with that per se (I
    look forward to the day where I can hire better programmers to help
    build my net art for me) but it makes Lynne Cooke's statement that much
    more difficult to swallow.

    I don't think I know the 'rules of painting'. Maybe I should apply for a
    painting commission and hire 'dextrous' young painters to build my
    'envelope-pushing' painting ideas.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • MTAA | Mon Apr 7th 2003 10:26 a.m.
    >Alex Galloway wrote:
    >> of Dia's twenty net art commissions
    >> (http://www.diacenter.org/rooftop/webproj/index.html), nine
    >> of them are the first web-based projects by the artists. that's
    >> a yawn of a curatorial strategy. Olia & Dragan and Jim
    >> Buckhouse are the only names on the list that have any
    >> experience with the net art scene. hmmm. Lynne Cooke,
    >> let's do lunch. we need to talk.
    >
    >That's for sure. My jaw dropped to the floor when I read this in
    >Mirapaul's article:
    > Lynne Cooke, the Dia's curator, said the center
    > favored artists unfamiliar with the Internet. "Artists
    > who work with something where they don't know
    > the rules beforehand are more inclined to push the
    > envelope than those who are already very dextrous,"
    > she said.
    >
    >I wouldn't know where to begin punching holes in the logic behind that
    >statement. Maybe it's just a fancy way of saying "we don't really know
    >any net artists", but it felt like a big fat middle finger to all the
    >hard-working, mega-innovative, and mad-skilled net artists I know.

    truth. i think it's a way of saying, "we don't understand the net art
    that pushes the envelope so we'll give a commission to someone who is
    safe to make net art which seems to push the envelope if you don't
    understand the medium."

    anyway, my point was that at the time the Dia was founded they had a
    visionary who understood that there were some artists doing something
    new that needed major backing and gave it to them. I wonder what net,
    web new media artists could do with that sort of backing.

    do we have ideas of 'heroic' scale that need that sort of backing or
    do all we need is a t1 line, a phat server, a screaming workstation
    and lots of software licenses?

    >like some of the Dia commissions, but as a whole they're not really
    >envelope-pushing to anyone who gets around the web much.
    >
    >Also, it seems like many of these 'traditional-artists-cum-net-artists'
    >seem to end up having a bunch of assistants and volunteers build the
    >projects for them anyway. I don't have a problem with that per se (I
    >look forward to the day where I can hire better programmers to help
    >build my net art for me) but it makes Lynne Cooke's statement that much
    >more difficult to swallow.
    >
    >I don't think I know the 'rules of painting'. Maybe I should apply for a
    >painting commission and hire 'dextrous' young painters to build my
    >'envelope-pushing' painting ideas.

    i see a whole new career for you chris.
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Christopher Fahey | Mon Apr 7th 2003 11:50 a.m.
    > at the time the Dia was founded they had a
    > visionary who understood that there were
    > some artists doing something new that needed
    > major backing and gave it to them. I wonder
    > what net, web new media artists could do with
    > that sort of backing.
    >
    > do we have ideas of 'heroic' scale that need
    > that sort of backing

    Do we? Hell yeah. I've got a shitload of net art projects that I can't
    even begin to work on without $50,000-$1,000,000 in funding. Games,
    multiuser virtual performances, generative animation, information
    recontextualizations, social networking, etc, etc.

    It's not uncommon for a small commercial web site to cost $100,000 to
    build. Are we surprised that a lot of net art comes across as conceptual
    one-liners? Is it any wonder why net art mostly looks like (IMHO) sloppy
    crap? I'm not just talking about the graphics, animation, and design,
    but also just about the technology: most net art only works on the
    OS/browser that the artist used. None of us can afford to (or have the
    skills to) make sure our shit works on multiple platforms. We could use
    some moolah.

    By the way, it's interesting that t.whid's used the word 'heroic' to
    describe a kind of big-budget net art that is the polar opposite of the
    home-brewed DiY cobbled-together stuff from the mid 90's that has been
    referred to on this list in recent weeks as the 'heroic era' of net art.

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • marc garrett | Mon Apr 7th 2003 3:07 p.m.
    lots of software licenses?

    Nooooooo..........

    marc

    > >Alex Galloway wrote:
    > >> of Dia's twenty net art commissions
    > >> (http://www.diacenter.org/rooftop/webproj/index.html), nine
    > >> of them are the first web-based projects by the artists. that's
    > >> a yawn of a curatorial strategy. Olia & Dragan and Jim
    > >> Buckhouse are the only names on the list that have any
    > >> experience with the net art scene. hmmm. Lynne Cooke,
    > >> let's do lunch. we need to talk.
    > >
    > >That's for sure. My jaw dropped to the floor when I read this in
    > >Mirapaul's article:
    > > Lynne Cooke, the Dia's curator, said the center
    > > favored artists unfamiliar with the Internet. "Artists
    > > who work with something where they don't know
    > > the rules beforehand are more inclined to push the
    > > envelope than those who are already very dextrous,"
    > > she said.
    > >
    > >I wouldn't know where to begin punching holes in the logic behind that
    > >statement. Maybe it's just a fancy way of saying "we don't really know
    > >any net artists", but it felt like a big fat middle finger to all the
    > >hard-working, mega-innovative, and mad-skilled net artists I know.
    >
    > truth. i think it's a way of saying, "we don't understand the net art
    > that pushes the envelope so we'll give a commission to someone who is
    > safe to make net art which seems to push the envelope if you don't
    > understand the medium."
    >
    > anyway, my point was that at the time the Dia was founded they had a
    > visionary who understood that there were some artists doing something
    > new that needed major backing and gave it to them. I wonder what net,
    > web new media artists could do with that sort of backing.
    >
    > do we have ideas of 'heroic' scale that need that sort of backing or
    > do all we need is a t1 line, a phat server, a screaming workstation
    > and lots of software licenses?
    >
    >
    > >like some of the Dia commissions, but as a whole they're not really
    > >envelope-pushing to anyone who gets around the web much.
    > >
    > >Also, it seems like many of these 'traditional-artists-cum-net-artists'
    > >seem to end up having a bunch of assistants and volunteers build the
    > >projects for them anyway. I don't have a problem with that per se (I
    > >look forward to the day where I can hire better programmers to help
    > >build my net art for me) but it makes Lynne Cooke's statement that much
    > >more difficult to swallow.
    > >
    > >I don't think I know the 'rules of painting'. Maybe I should apply for a
    > >painting commission and hire 'dextrous' young painters to build my
    > >'envelope-pushing' painting ideas.
    >
    > i see a whole new career for you chris.
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + 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
    >
  • MTAA | Mon Apr 7th 2003 4:56 p.m.
    >> at the time the Dia was founded they had a
    >> visionary who understood that there were
    >> some artists doing something new that needed
    >> major backing and gave it to them. I wonder
    >> what net, web new media artists could do with
    >> that sort of backing.
    >>
    >> do we have ideas of 'heroic' scale that need
    >> that sort of backing
    >
    >Do we? Hell yeah. I've got a shitload of net art projects that I can't
    >even begin to work on without $50,000-$1,000,000 in funding. Games,
    >multiuser virtual performances, generative animation, information
    >recontextualizations, social networking, etc, etc.

    OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my google/net
    art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make something
    that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.

    So...

    How do we find a funder on that level? John Johnson is doing
    something over at Eyebeam, but they don't have the kind of dough
    we're talking about. Creative Capital is too broad in scope, they're
    not really a net/web/new media funder.

    Is it something we can prod along? or do we have to wait for the
    patron to fall out of the sky and hope she lands on us?

    >
    >By the way, it's interesting that t.whid's used the word 'heroic' to
    >describe a kind of big-budget net art that is the polar opposite of the
    >home-brewed DiY cobbled-together stuff from the mid 90's that has been
    >referred to on this list in recent weeks as the 'heroic era' of net art.
    >

    well, the 'heroic' era of net art is tongue-in-cheek.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • marc garrett | Mon Apr 7th 2003 8:14 p.m.
    HI T.Whid...

    >
    > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my google/net
    > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make something
    > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    >

    One would hope that it might take more than how big one's techno-wallet is
    for net/web/new media to gain a 'genuine' influence on the Art World.
    Creative Captial is kool - but it by no means is the only way.

    Yet, it does worry me that institutions are beginning to sculpt the Internet
    Art scene in their own reflection. This sort of function shuts doors on
    others
    whom have been getting on with their creative net thang already. No surprise
    there...

    > How do we find a funder on that level? John Johnson is doing
    > something over at Eyebeam, but they don't have the kind of dough
    > we're talking about. Creative Capital is too broad in scope, they're
    > not really a net/web/new media funder.

    Alternative strategies are called for, outside art circles - More connexions
    beyond the converted - Less uneccessary Jargon~Real networking...the medium
    is no longer the message.

    >
    > Is it something we can prod along? or do we have to wait for the
    > patron to fall out of the sky and hope she lands on us?

    Never wait for a patron, they are really just rich stylists hiding a bad,
    bad hairdo. Why don't we become our own patrons, start something genuine,
    something that really crosses borders & not rely on net mythology (divide
    us) to get us
    all by. Create our own paths. Take these institutions on - bruise em' a
    little so they know what's happening for real. Form alternatives - net
    funded by our own
    'share holder' businesses, our own investments into companies that kick -
    scum companies butts. Might be a place worth exploring...

    > well, the 'heroic' era of net art is tongue-in-cheek.

    http://art.teleportacia.org/about/about_alexei.html/
    nothing heroic about this text ...
    you're right, it is a joke.
    But it's a double whammy
    more real than the joke ironicly alludes...

    marc
  • joseph mcelroy | Mon Apr 7th 2003 10:22 p.m.
    > >
    > > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my google/net
    > > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make something
    > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    > >

    The Open Source model, such as Linux has proven capable of competing on the
    technical level. You need to get a few dozens or hundreds of net.art
    programmers to cooperate.

    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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 "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:

    > HI T.Whid...
    >
    > >
    > > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my google/net
    > > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make something
    > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    > >
    >
    > One would hope that it might take more than how big one's techno-wallet is
    > for net/web/new media to gain a 'genuine' influence on the Art World.
    > Creative Captial is kool - but it by no means is the only way.
    >
    > Yet, it does worry me that institutions are beginning to sculpt the Internet
    > Art scene in their own reflection. This sort of function shuts doors on
    > others
    > whom have been getting on with their creative net thang already. No surprise
    > there...
    >
    >
    > > How do we find a funder on that level? John Johnson is doing
    > > something over at Eyebeam, but they don't have the kind of dough
    > > we're talking about. Creative Capital is too broad in scope, they're
    > > not really a net/web/new media funder.
    >
    > Alternative strategies are called for, outside art circles - More connexions
    > beyond the converted - Less uneccessary Jargon~Real networking...the medium
    > is no longer the message.
    >
    > >
    > > Is it something we can prod along? or do we have to wait for the
    > > patron to fall out of the sky and hope she lands on us?
    >
    > Never wait for a patron, they are really just rich stylists hiding a bad,
    > bad hairdo. Why don't we become our own patrons, start something genuine,
    > something that really crosses borders & not rely on net mythology (divide
    > us) to get us
    > all by. Create our own paths. Take these institutions on - bruise em' a
    > little so they know what's happening for real. Form alternatives - net
    > funded by our own
    > 'share holder' businesses, our own investments into companies that kick -
    > scum companies butts. Might be a place worth exploring...
    >
    > > well, the 'heroic' era of net art is tongue-in-cheek.
    >
    > http://art.teleportacia.org/about/about_alexei.html/
    > nothing heroic about this text ...
    > you're right, it is a joke.
    > But it's a double whammy
    > more real than the joke ironicly alludes...
    >
    > marc
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > + 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
  • MTAA | Tue Apr 8th 2003 2:35 p.m.
    > > >
    > > > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my
    > google/net
    > > > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make
    > something
    > > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    > > >
    >
    > The Open Source model, such as Linux has proven capable of competing
    > on the
    > technical level. You need to get a few dozens or hundreds of net.art
    > programmers to cooperate.
    >

    I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to work for artwork. the purposes of an artwork aren't usually as easily defined as a software project. you can argue about how best to implement a web server, but everyone is in agreement that what you're building is a web server. One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to making art and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants everyone to toe the line re: subject and content of an artwork. an artwork is less objective and it's goals aren't as quantifiable as software programs built to perform certain tasks. it's easy for meritricious code to bubble to the top on the strength of it's logic, it just works better. obviously these sorts of distinctions are harder to make when it comes to creating a piece of a whole in an artwork.

    having said that, there are artworks which are massively collaborative that are interesting, but they're a genre, they all end up being very similar: the collaborative story, the collaborative sentence, etc. the only way these collaborations work is to make them very open and unfocused, the subject is always partially the collaboration.

    but who knows? maybe an open source 'toy story' or 'doom 3' is possible? it has yet to appear.
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Apr 8th 2003 3:21 p.m.
    T.whid wrote
    > > > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.

    > I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to
    > work for artwork.One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to
    > making art and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants everyone to toe
    > the line re: subject and content of an artwork.

    Note the key term I was responding to was - technical level - like there are
    many disparant and individual uses for a database, but a group can get togethor
    to make the database engine. On the subject of content, I might point to
    independent movies that regulary compete with the big boys and are made by
    teams of people on very small budgets (comparatively speaking). Once you have
    the engines, it doesn't really take that big of team to build dynamite content.
    Yes, you need some sort of directing vision, but no, it does not preclude each
    individual from the team from having a rewarding and creative experience.

    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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 "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:

    > > > >
    > > > > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my
    > > google/net
    > > > > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make
    > > something
    > > > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    > > > >
    > >
    > > The Open Source model, such as Linux has proven capable of competing
    > > on the
    > > technical level. You need to get a few dozens or hundreds of net.art
    > > programmers to cooperate.
    > >
    >
    > I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to
    > work for artwork. the purposes of an artwork aren't usually as easily defined
    > as a software project. you can argue about how best to implement a web
    > server, but everyone is in agreement that what you're building is a web
    > server. One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to making art
    > and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants everyone to toe the line
    > re: subject and content of an artwork. an artwork is less objective and it's
    > goals aren't as quantifiable as software programs built to perform certain
    > tasks. it's easy for meritricious code to bubble to the top on the strength
    > of it's logic, it just works better. obviously these sorts of distinctions
    > are harder to make when it comes to creating a piece of a whole in an
    > artwork.
    >
    >
    > having said that, there are artworks which are massively collaborative that
    > are interesting, but they're a genre, they all end up being very similar: the
    > collaborative story, the collaborative sentence, etc. the only way these
    > collaborations work is to make them very open and unfocused, the subject is
    > always partially the collaboration.
    >
    > but who knows? maybe an open source 'toy story' or 'doom 3' is possible? it
    > has yet to appear.
    >
    > + 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
  • MTAA | Tue Apr 8th 2003 3:57 p.m.
    i see yer point, but then one is just collaborating on software
    applications at that point, no? one is collaborating on tools and
    parts to build a work and not on a work. as an analogy, it's as if a
    painter got some dedicated crafts people to weave some linen and
    grind some paint for her.

    i was imagining something where the technical aspects of a piece
    aren't so easily separated from the subject and content. once these
    technical aspects get intertwined more closely into a work (like
    needing a game engine to render shadows in some specific way unique
    to an artist's game) than you will find many fewer people willing to
    give away their labor for free.

    there are some open source game engines out there, but how do they
    compete against quake or unreal? i'm no expert, but probably not very
    well.

    we shall see. John Ippolito is working on a project that looks to
    'open source' contemporary art production (with an emphasis on
    net/web/new media). it may be just crazy enough to work ;-)

    At 18:21 +0000 4/8/03, joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) wrote:
    >T.whid wrote
    >> > > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    >
    >> I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to
    >> work for artwork.One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to
    >> making art and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants
    >>everyone to toe
    >> the line re: subject and content of an artwork.
    >
    >Note the key term I was responding to was - technical level - like there are
    >many disparant and individual uses for a database, but a group can
    >get togethor
    >to make the database engine. On the subject of content, I might point to
    >independent movies that regulary compete with the big boys and are made by
    >teams of people on very small budgets (comparatively speaking). Once you have
    >the engines, it doesn't really take that big of team to build
    >dynamite content.
    >Yes, you need some sort of directing vision, but no, it does not preclude each
    >individual from the team from having a rewarding and creative experience.
    >
    >

    re: independent film, a good comparison but the system in place there
    works much differently than the open source software model. an
    independent director can get free labor, but those folks get to build
    resumes and connections into the film industry. a net/web/new media
    artist can't offer anything like that.

    >
    >joseph & donna

    >
    >Quoting "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:
    >
    >> > > >
    >> > > > OK, that's what I was thinking. This goes back a bit to my
    >> > google/net
    >> > > > art masterpiece post. It's practically impossible to make
    >> > something
    >> > > > that competes with the industrial world on a technical level.
    >> > > >
    >> >
    >> > The Open Source model, such as Linux has proven capable of competing
    >> > on the
    >> > technical level. You need to get a few dozens or hundreds of net.art
    >> > programmers to cooperate.
    >> >
    >>
    >> I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to
    >> work for artwork. the purposes of an artwork aren't usually as
    >>easily defined
    >> as a software project. you can argue about how best to implement a web
    >> server, but everyone is in agreement that what you're building is a web
    >> server. One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to making art
    >> and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants everyone to toe the line
    >> re: subject and content of an artwork. an artwork is less objective and it's
    >> goals aren't as quantifiable as software programs built to perform certain
    >> tasks. it's easy for meritricious code to bubble to the top on the strength
    >> of it's logic, it just works better. obviously these sorts of distinctions
    >> are harder to make when it comes to creating a piece of a whole in an
    >> artwork.
    >>
    >>
    >> having said that, there are artworks which are massively collaborative that
    >> are interesting, but they're a genre, they all end up being very
    >>similar: the
    >> collaborative story, the collaborative sentence, etc. the only way these
    >> collaborations work is to make them very open and unfocused, the subject is
    >> always partially the collaboration.
    >>
    >> but who knows? maybe an open source 'toy story' or 'doom 3' is possible? it
    >> has yet to appear.
    >>
    >> + 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
    >+ 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

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Ivan Pope | Tue Apr 8th 2003 4:27 p.m.
    >
    > re: independent film, a good comparison but the system in place there
    > works much differently than the open source software model. an
    > independent director can get free labor, but those folks get to build
    > resumes and connections into the film industry. a net/web/new media
    > artist can't offer anything like that.
    >
    Dont see why not, at least in the near future. Ivan
  • MTAA | Tue Apr 8th 2003 4:51 p.m.
    one big reason is economics.

    the film industry is a multi-billion dollar one. the new media art
    world? ha, not even multi-million.

    and if you expand the definition by saying that it could lead to jobs
    in the software or web industry my response would be that people who
    would be interested in those types of resume items would prefer to
    build relationships in those industries and not in the rarified new
    media art world.

    another reason is glitz and glamor.

    In the nyc art world it's easy to find cheap labor because people so
    much want to be part of that world (same for the publishing world,
    fashion, etc). unfortunately net/web/new media art doesn't have the
    same cultural muscle.

    hopefully it will in the near future as you say.

    >>
    >> re: independent film, a good comparison but the system in place there
    >> works much differently than the open source software model. an
    >> independent director can get free labor, but those folks get to build
    >> resumes and connections into the film industry. a net/web/new media
    >> artist can't offer anything like that.
    >>
    >Dont see why not, at least in the near future. Ivan

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • patrick lichty | Tue Apr 8th 2003 5:08 p.m.
    At 03:45 PM 4/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
    >one big reason is economics.
    >
    >the film industry is a multi-billion dollar one. the new media art world?
    >ha, not even multi-million.

    Hah. Not even multi-thousand, most times.

    In many ways, I feel as if the New Media art scene reflects elements of
    global capitalism; as if the ephemeral artists are unpaid workers of a
    cultural Free Economic Zone. Of course, the kinds of conditions that
    workers in sweatshops have to endure are not really comparable, but can it
    be said that in many cases, independent New Media artists are similar to
    the Maquiladoras of the art world?

    I think that there are distinct possibilities here.

    The gift economy should be _optional_.
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Apr 8th 2003 5:32 p.m.
    Quoting "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:

    > i see yer point, but then one is just collaborating on software
    > applications at that point, no? one is collaborating on tools and
    > parts to build a work and not on a work. as an analogy, it's as if a
    > painter got some dedicated crafts people to weave some linen and
    > grind some paint for her.

    Not only that but painters can work on each others paintings. I believe that
    Van Dyke used to paint the animals on Ruben's paintings, did he not? An artist
    can recognize what they are good at (in Rubens case - composition and painting
    people) and not (painting animals) and get a peer (or assistant) to do the bad
    part for them. We don't have to be good at everything to be a good artist.
    >
    > i was imagining something where the technical aspects of a piece
    > aren't so easily separated from the subject and content. once these
    > technical aspects get intertwined more closely into a work (like
    > needing a game engine to render shadows in some specific way unique
    > to an artist's game) than you will find many fewer people willing to
    > give away their labor for free.

    There is a skill to convincing people to working for free, but it is entirable
    possible and is probably the basis for every successful enterprise, independent
    film project, and non-profit. One has to calculate the value one has available
    (expertise, contacts, vision, reputation, etc) and demonstrate to a prospective
    free laborer how they will benefit. One has to be sure to deliver on the
    promises or the word gets around. The biggest hurdle to getting someone to
    work for free is asking them.

    >
    > there are some open source game engines out there, but how do they
    > compete against quake or unreal? i'm no expert, but probably not very
    > well.

    Probably because nobody has decided to make it their mission to make one. Or,
    more likely, every individual wants to control the one they are working on. The
    keep to getting a group to work on a project like that is to allow some of the
    control to belong to each part of the group. I do know that there are several
    game engines out there, some fairly sophisticated that have gotten stalled
    along the way. Just needs an impetus of dedicated persons to move them
    forward.

    >
    > we shall see. John Ippolito is working on a project that looks to
    > 'open source' contemporary art production (with an emphasis on
    > net/web/new media). it may be just crazy enough to work ;-)

    do you mean creative commons?

    >
    > >
    >
    > re: independent film, a good comparison but the system in place there
    > works much differently than the open source software model. an
    > independent director can get free labor, but those folks get to build
    > resumes and connections into the film industry. a net/web/new media
    > artist can't offer anything like that.

    Sure they can. MTEWW is an example of an ideal setup to get volunteers to help
    progress a vision. We set up Corporate Performance Artist
    (www.corporatepa.com) to attract a community of artists dedicated to creative
    projects. Already have 7 artists working with us on performances and
    technology. We are busy producing Art in Technology education programs using
    the cult of the corporate performance artist landscape as a base (we already
    have acceptance in educational programs and we just started in January).
    Essentially, as an artist we produce content. We need to see the creative ways
    to leverage that content. As a technology based artist, there is a Huge
    untapped audience eager for what we produce. The gallery/institution system
    will not support us nor recognize our value - though we do not have to abandon
    them. Just break out of the paradigm of the superstar spectacle producer to
    get our finacial rewards. Us technology geeks are not particularly suited to
    being flamboyant or charismatic stage performers. And playing the dedicated
    scientist role will only get us used and abused, since there are no huge
    government grants for the artist-scientist.

    >
    > >

    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Apr 8th 2003 5:39 p.m.
    > one big reason is economics.
    >

    There is a huge cultural base used to consuming writing and paintings as
    creative content. Not so with Art in Technology (note my use of branding :),
    it will take a dedicated effort to create that cultural base. Though the online
    games market is helping quite a bit.

    >
    > another reason is glitz and glamor.
    >
    > In the nyc art world it's easy to find cheap labor because people so
    > much want to be part of that world (same for the publishing world,
    > fashion, etc). unfortunately net/web/new media art doesn't have the
    > same cultural muscle.

    The economies of the gallary/institution will never support Art in Technology
    in a glitzy fashion. To married to the physical object. And they have no
    reason to change.

    >
    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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 "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:

    > one big reason is economics.
    >
    > the film industry is a multi-billion dollar one. the new media art
    > world? ha, not even multi-million.
    >
    > and if you expand the definition by saying that it could lead to jobs
    > in the software or web industry my response would be that people who
    > would be interested in those types of resume items would prefer to
    > build relationships in those industries and not in the rarified new
    > media art world.
    >
    > another reason is glitz and glamor.
    >
    > In the nyc art world it's easy to find cheap labor because people so
    > much want to be part of that world (same for the publishing world,
    > fashion, etc). unfortunately net/web/new media art doesn't have the
    > same cultural muscle.
    >
    > hopefully it will in the near future as you say.
    >
    > >>
    > >> re: independent film, a good comparison but the system in place there
    > >> works much differently than the open source software model. an
    > >> independent director can get free labor, but those folks get to build
    > >> resumes and connections into the film industry. a net/web/new media
    > >> artist can't offer anything like that.
    > >>
    > >Dont see why not, at least in the near future. Ivan
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + 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
  • MTAA | Tue Apr 8th 2003 5:41 p.m.
    At 20:32 +0000 4/8/03, joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) wrote:
    >Quoting "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:

    >
    >>
    >> we shall see. John Ippolito is working on a project that looks to
    >> 'open source' contemporary art production (with an emphasis on
    >> net/web/new media). it may be just crazy enough to work ;-)
    >
    >do you mean creative commons?
    >
    >>

    he's got something else cookin'. similar to creative commons, but
    focused more on net/web/new media artists.
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Apr 8th 2003 5:51 p.m.
    > In many ways, I feel as if the New Media art scene reflects elements of
    > global capitalism; as if the ephemeral artists are unpaid workers of a
    > cultural Free Economic Zone. Of course, the kinds of conditions that
    > workers in sweatshops have to endure are not really comparable, but can it
    > be said that in many cases, independent New Media artists are similar to
    > the Maquiladoras of the art world?

    We have to repurpose our content outside of the art world. We already live life
    as spouse, teacher, artist, etc. Add small businessperson to our title.
    Unfortunately, the traditional sales channels for artists are not working for
    new media artists (unless you produce traditional objects). No one will invent
    one either, until we do.

    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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 Patrick Lichty <voyd@voyd.com>:

    > At 03:45 PM 4/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
    > >one big reason is economics.
    > >
    > >the film industry is a multi-billion dollar one. the new media art world?
    > >ha, not even multi-million.
    >
    > Hah. Not even multi-thousand, most times.
    >
    > In many ways, I feel as if the New Media art scene reflects elements of
    > global capitalism; as if the ephemeral artists are unpaid workers of a
    > cultural Free Economic Zone. Of course, the kinds of conditions that
    > workers in sweatshops have to endure are not really comparable, but can it
    > be said that in many cases, independent New Media artists are similar to
    > the Maquiladoras of the art world?
    >
    > I think that there are distinct possibilities here.
    >
    > The gift economy should be _optional_.
    >
    >
    > + 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
  • ryan griffis | Tue Apr 8th 2003 6:16 p.m.
    hi all,
    regarding "alternative" models of cultural production, esp new genre and media, critical art ensemble has done quite a bit of theorizing for working while we wait on a more inclusive sysytem (that may never be allowed to realize anyway).
    interstingly it uses the theory of "cellular" production, an unfortunate connection to anti-terrorist terminology.
    but their discussion of models is a pretty good reading of the situation as well as ways of working within it. they also talk about the institutional desire for "monumental" new media work.
    best,
    ryan
  • MTAA | Tue Apr 8th 2003 7:55 p.m.
    hi all,

    Sorry I keep harping on this but I don't think what I was originally
    questioning was addressed.

    Lets put aside all the collaborative, open source, community oriented,
    and yet-to-be-invented models of cultural production and remember what
    the Dia did for these lucky artists in the early 70s. They gave them
    the time and means to pursue their grandest visions without
    encumbrance. They didn't have to worry about raising money from
    investors, writing grant proposals, organizing teams to build parts of
    their work; they simply had to worry about their vision.

    The Dia attempted to remove all obstacles btw the artist and his
    vision. The artists were free to ascend the ivory tower and live in
    intellectual, abstract realms. Would this sort of ivory tower be
    beneficial for net/web/new media artists? Should net/web/new media
    artists have the daily drudgery swept away? Does the daily hubbub
    inform our art in a essential way? Do artists need to mix with the hoi
    polloi?
    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Apr 8th 2003 8:09 p.m.
    > The Dia attempted to remove all obstacles btw the artist and his
    > vision. The artists were free to ascend the ivory tower and live in
    > intellectual, abstract realms. Would this sort of ivory tower be
    > beneficial for net/web/new media artists?

    For the production of tools and formal elements - yes, it would be extremely
    beneficial to have an R&D facility.
    For the production of content - neither beneficial or detrimental - unless
    ivory tower is the only life lived, in which case detrimental.

    joseph & donna
    www.electrichands.com
    joseph franklyn mcelroy
    corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

    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 "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>:

    > hi all,
    >
    > Sorry I keep harping on this but I don't think what I was originally
    > questioning was addressed.
    >
    > Lets put aside all the collaborative, open source, community oriented,
    > and yet-to-be-invented models of cultural production and remember what
    > the Dia did for these lucky artists in the early 70s. They gave them
    > the time and means to pursue their grandest visions without
    > encumbrance. They didn't have to worry about raising money from
    > investors, writing grant proposals, organizing teams to build parts of
    > their work; they simply had to worry about their vision.
    >
    > The Dia attempted to remove all obstacles btw the artist and his
    > vision. The artists were free to ascend the ivory tower and live in
    > intellectual, abstract realms. Would this sort of ivory tower be
    > beneficial for net/web/new media artists? Should net/web/new media
    > artists have the daily drudgery swept away? Does the daily hubbub
    > inform our art in a essential way? Do artists need to mix with the hoi
    > polloi?
    > --
    > <t.whid>
    > www.mteww.com
    > </t.whid>
    >
    > + 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
  • D. Jean Hester | Wed Apr 9th 2003 3:21 p.m.
    I am not sure why someone, given the chance, would NOT want the daily
    drudgery, etc etc, swept away so that they could focus on their art. Isn't
    that the impetus behind artist retreats, to have time to focus, away from
    the ringing phone, the day job, the gas bill that needs paying? Isn't that
    one of the things that drives people into grad school programs, that promise
    of TIME to focus? (At least that is the primary attraction of grad school
    for me...) Isn't that the dream/fantasy driving the purchase of lottery
    tickets?

    Yes the daily grind does inform the work, yes daily life is a crucial
    element. But being able to change the balance from 80% daily grind/20% art
    to the opposite would be nirvana (at least for me).

    That said, being free of the worries of rent is not the same thing as
    "ascending the ivory tower to live in intellectual, abstract realms". The
    way I approach my work, the ideas I am interested in, the processes I use,
    what I believe in, would not change were I suddenly given a patron with deep
    pockets. I would just spend one hell of a lot more time on my art, and a
    lot less at the evil day job.

    If anyone knows of a patron who needs a starving media artist to make their
    life fuller and of more value, send them my way... ;)

    -- D. Jean Hester
    www.divestudio.org
    Interviewer: "Must an artist be a programmer to make truly original online
    art?"
    John Simon: "Truly original? You Modernist! Whether you make art or not,
    understanding programming is an amazing understanding."
    from "Code as Creative Writing: An Interview with John Simon"

    >From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    >Reply-To: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    >To: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    >CC: list@rhizome.org
    >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Dia article in NYTimes Mag
    >Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:54:33 -0400
    >
    >hi all,
    >
    >Sorry I keep harping on this but I don't think what I was originally
    >questioning was addressed.
    >
    >Lets put aside all the collaborative, open source, community oriented, and
    >yet-to-be-invented models of cultural production and remember what the Dia
    >did for these lucky artists in the early 70s. They gave them the time and
    >means to pursue their grandest visions without encumbrance. They didn't
    >have to worry about raising money from investors, writing grant proposals,
    >organizing teams to build parts of their work; they simply had to worry
    >about their vision.
    >
    >The Dia attempted to remove all obstacles btw the artist and his vision.
    >The artists were free to ascend the ivory tower and live in intellectual,
    >abstract realms. Would this sort of ivory tower be beneficial for
    >net/web/new media artists? Should net/web/new media artists have the daily
    >drudgery swept away? Does the daily hubbub inform our art in a essential
    >way? Do artists need to mix with the hoi polloi?
    >--
    ><t.whid>
    >www.mteww.com
    ></t.whid>
    >
    >+ 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

    _________________________________________________________________
    Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?pagethatures/junkmail
  • MTAA | Wed Apr 9th 2003 3:48 p.m.
    Hi Jean,

    At 11:21 -0700 4/9/03, D. Jean Hester wrote:
    >I am not sure why someone, given the chance, would NOT want the
    >daily drudgery, etc etc, swept away so that they could focus on
    >their art.

    ++
    t: Yah. I thought it was a very simple question. Though I've never
    considered a applying for a retreat or residency that lots of my
    friends and colleagues take as I'm afraid there will be no TV or Net
    access. In college I thought my work suffered because I didn't have a
    television.

    ++
    J:
    Isn't that the impetus behind artist retreats, to have time to focus,
    away from the ringing phone, the day job, the gas bill that needs
    paying? Isn't that one of the things that drives people into grad
    school programs, that promise of TIME to focus? (At least that is
    the primary attraction of grad school for me...) Isn't that the
    dream/fantasy driving the purchase of lottery tickets?
    >
    >Yes the daily grind does inform the work, yes daily life is a
    >crucial element. But being able to change the balance from 80%
    >daily grind/20% art to the opposite would be nirvana (at least for
    >me).
    >
    >That said, being free of the worries of rent is not the same thing
    >as "ascending the ivory tower to live in intellectual, abstract
    >realms". The way I approach my work, the ideas I am interested in,
    >the processes I use, what I believe in, would not change were I
    >suddenly given a patron with deep pockets. I would just spend one
    >hell of a lot more time on my art, and a lot less at the evil day
    >job.
    >
    >If anyone knows of a patron who needs a starving media artist to
    >make their life fuller and of more value, send them my way... ;)
    >
    >
    >-- D. Jean Hester

    >>From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>

    >>
    >>hi all,
    >>
    >>Sorry I keep harping on this but I don't think what I was
    >>originally questioning was addressed.
    >>
    >>Lets put aside all the collaborative, open source, community
    >>oriented, and yet-to-be-invented models of cultural production and
    >>remember what the Dia did for these lucky artists in the early 70s.
    >>They gave them the time and means to pursue their grandest visions
    >>without encumbrance. They didn't have to worry about raising money
    >>from investors, writing grant proposals, organizing teams to build
    >>parts of their work; they simply had to worry about their vision.
    >>
    >>The Dia attempted to remove all obstacles btw the artist and his
    >>vision. The artists were free to ascend the ivory tower and live in
    >>intellectual, abstract realms. Would this sort of ivory tower be
    >>beneficial for net/web/new media artists? Should net/web/new media
    >>artists have the daily drudgery swept away? Does the daily hubbub
    >>inform our art in a essential way? Do artists need to mix with the
    >>hoi polloi?

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • D42 Kandinskij | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:22 p.m.
    It's very simple: quality is not a constant of quantity. That is:
    quality's source is irrelevant to physical manifestations. Your
    "arguments" are all steeped in "material brain calculations". As
    such ++full of cliches. fallacious + programmatic connections.
    .assumptions .erroneous nonsense .idolatry of words.

    On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:21:45 +0000, "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) "
    <joseph@electrichands.com> said:

    > > I don't think that the open source model of software engineering is going to
    > > work for artwork.One doesn't have this sort of certainty when it comes to
    > > making art and who wants to freely follow a tyrant that wants everyone to toe
    > > the line re: subject and content of an artwork.

    Subject + content of the artwork as "appropriate" cannot be perceived
    by
    everyone, and not by beginners. "Your" idea of a "tyrant" is anyone who
    doesn't let you knee-jerk in whatever fashion you're accustomed to.

    "Do as you please. You are an individual. Born that way".

    --
    -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
    vivienn@fastmail.fm

    --
    http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free
Your Reply