further question on the "rublinda" correspondance

Posted by Michael Szpakowski | Wed Apr 9th 2003 2:21 p.m.

I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
piece by Ivan Pope.
I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
folk think?
http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
best
michael

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
  • joseph mcelroy | Wed Apr 9th 2003 4:53 p.m.
    Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.

    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 Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>:

    > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
    > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
    > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
    > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
    > folk think?
    > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > =====
    > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the
    > sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If
    > you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk
    > of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own
    > virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack
    > is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when
    > emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
    > http://tax.yahoo.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
  • marc garrett | Wed Apr 9th 2003 5:24 p.m.
    HI Joseph,

    That's the whole point - it is supposed to broken in various places...

    marc

    > Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.
    >
    > 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 Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>:
    >
    > > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
    > > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
    > > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
    > > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
    > > folk think?
    > > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
    > > best
    > > michael
    > >
    > > =====
    > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
    the
    > > sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
    way. If
    > > you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the
    risk
    > > of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your
    own
    > > virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this
    lack
    > > is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when
    > > emailing us. District Postmaster.
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > >
    > > __________________________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
    > > http://tax.yahoo.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
    > + 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
    >
  • ruth catlow | Wed Apr 9th 2003 8:55 p.m.
    Hi Michael,
    I think it is different. Fragile does not use images of wounded and maimed civilians as a vehicle for sensational effect and ambiguous purpose. The images are very abstracted, we cannot see their faces, this preserves their anonymity. In the process of understanding the work I experience something about some slow and complex questions of representation rather than the quick effects of sensationalism. The pace of the image allows for reflection rather than activating a reflex which closes down thought.
    cheers
    ruth

    Michael Szpakowski wrote:

    > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
    > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
    > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
    > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
    > folk think?
    > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > =====
    > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
    > http://tax.yahoo.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
  • Ivan Pope | Thu Apr 10th 2003 8:46 a.m.
    > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
    > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
    > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
    > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
    > folk think?
    > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html

    Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked at
    the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
    ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart. I have no
    problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
    I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
    My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
    falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
    based democracy.
    I don't like to make things obvious or easy or to really know what I'm on
    about, so there may be more or less to it than that.
    I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
    in Guantanamo Bay'.
    Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
    I stole the original image and repurposed it.
    I thought the piece might draw some parallels between the process of
    'disappearing' people as practised by various governments around the world.
    As Joseph said 'Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.'
    The parts of the image reside on various crappy free servers around the
    world. I have no idea where they are. Sometimes they just break.
    I like to make work that is so laconic, so half arsed that it just falls off
    the table.
    But, it is always serious.
    I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images of
    serial killers and killers of other types. Check my site. Did I do something
    wrong? There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
    I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
    question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
    nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
    person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
    'Full fathom five thy father lies
    Of his bones are coral made
    These are pearls that were his eyes.
    Nothing of him that does fade,
    but does suffer a sea change
    Into something rich and strange.
    Sea nymphs hourly ring his knell,
    Hark, now I hear them, ding, dong, bell.'

    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • marc garrett | Thu Apr 10th 2003 10:34 a.m.
    Hi Ivan & Michael,

    mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I respect
    people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones...for they have
    fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.

    Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
    (suppozed) meaningful action.

    I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
    misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough...

    But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be for
    a cause or not, who is?

    I'm not going to say much more about this subject matter now for I find it
    hard to be objective about it & could get all angst ridden.

    Do what thou will.....................

    marc

    >
    > > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
    > > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
    > > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
    > > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
    > > folk think?
    > > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
    >
    > Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked
    at
    > the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
    > ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart. I have no
    > problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
    > I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
    > My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
    > falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
    > based democracy.
    > I don't like to make things obvious or easy or to really know what I'm on
    > about, so there may be more or less to it than that.
    > I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
    > in Guantanamo Bay'.
    > Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
    > I stole the original image and repurposed it.
    > I thought the piece might draw some parallels between the process of
    > 'disappearing' people as practised by various governments around the
    world.
    > As Joseph said 'Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.'
    > The parts of the image reside on various crappy free servers around the
    > world. I have no idea where they are. Sometimes they just break.
    > I like to make work that is so laconic, so half arsed that it just falls
    off
    > the table.
    > But, it is always serious.
    > I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images
    of
    > serial killers and killers of other types. Check my site. Did I do
    something
    > wrong? There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
    > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
    > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
    > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
    > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
    > 'Full fathom five thy father lies
    > Of his bones are coral made
    > These are pearls that were his eyes.
    > Nothing of him that does fade,
    > but does suffer a sea change
    > Into something rich and strange.
    > Sea nymphs hourly ring his knell,
    > Hark, now I hear them, ding, dong, bell.'
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Ivan
    >
    > + 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 | Thu Apr 10th 2003 10:59 a.m.
    >Hi Ivan & Michael,

    >
    >But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be for
    >a cause or not, who is?
    >

    everybody else?
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Ivan Pope | Thu Apr 10th 2003 11:08 a.m.
    > mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I respect
    > people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones...for they have
    > fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.
    >
    > Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
    > (suppozed) meaningful action.
    >
    > I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
    > misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough...
    >
    > But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
    for
    > a cause or not, who is?
    > > Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.

    > > I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images
    > of
    > > serial killers and killers of other types.
    >>There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
    > > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
    > > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
    > > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of
    a
    > > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?

    Marc,
    Don't get all angsty. I also respect the dead. I always question my actions.
    Did I say anything to the contrary?
    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • marc garrett | Thu Apr 10th 2003 11:24 a.m.
    Hi Ivan,

    Did I say anything to the contrary?

    No - not really, I think that I need to stear away from the subject matter
    though...it ain't doing my cranium much good..especially after recent events
    in Iraq. (Berlin Wall huh!)

    marc

    >
    > > mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I
    respect
    > > people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones...for they have
    > > fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.
    > >
    > > Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
    > > (suppozed) meaningful action.
    > >
    > > I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
    > > misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough...
    > >
    > > But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
    > for
    > > a cause or not, who is?
    > > > Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
    >
    > > > I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of
    images
    > > of
    > > > serial killers and killers of other types.
    > >>There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
    > > > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
    > > > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died
    in
    > > > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin
    of
    > a
    > > > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
    >
    > Marc,
    > Don't get all angsty. I also respect the dead. I always question my
    actions.
    > Did I say anything to the contrary?
    > Cheers,
    > Ivan
    >
    >
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:11 p.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
    >
    > Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked
    at
    > the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
    > ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart.

    The problem with anarchy is most anarchists don't admit that anarchy is an
    ethical structure- and that the glue that binds a society together under
    anarchist principles is either Darwinian Self-Interest [in which case
    anarchy simply becomes despotism, which annhilates anarchy as soon as
    someone steals from you, forces you to do something, etc] or Personal
    Responsibility- which ends up being completely impossible because human
    beings will resist the word "responsibility" in conjunction w/ thier own
    actions to thier dying day.

    I have no
    > problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
    > I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
    > My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
    > falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
    > based democracy.

    That said, I agree with Ruth Catlow, your piece does not possess the cheap
    and all encompassing exploitation that "rub" did.

    > I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
    > in Guantanamo Bay'.

    If you had, your work would have failed ethically because it didn't
    accomplish that. It did make the connection that you claim to have wanted
    here- and therefore the piece works within the structure that you set up for
    it, anarchist or not. :)

    > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
    > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
    > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
    > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?

    Depends. In the case of political-oriented murder there's a higher degree of
    responsibility w/in people who are "against" that political system to avoid
    using the tactics of such a system in the course of fighting it. Not for any
    moral reason, but simply because being "against something" comes with the
    assumption that you do not want it replaced under a different name. [Unless
    you are not "against war" but rather "want war somewhere else or about
    somthing else"] A nursing home patient is a hypothetical and surely you can
    support details that would make it an appalling display and you could also
    find details that simply make it an odd behavior and yes, even art. Depends
    on what structure you are working with when you make it.

    -e.
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:16 p.m.
    Seems more like a small minority. For the most part all people ever say
    about art is "yeah that's cool dude." If anyone ever does question the
    artists responsibility there is usually violent opposition to the idea that
    artists have any responsibilities, even if that responsibility is simply to
    "stay true to one self as an artist." Ie, to actually accomplish what you
    set out to do, particularly in political statements. There is a
    responsibility to make more than simple angst expressions, of course the
    consequences for not doing this range from merely creating utterly
    disposable art all the way up to making effective propaganda "for" the party
    you want to be "against."

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:53 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: further question on the "rublinda" correspondance

    > >Hi Ivan & Michael,
    >
    > >
    > >But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
    for
    > >a cause or not, who is?
    > >
    >
    >
    > everybody else?
    > --
    > <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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:41 p.m.
    this piece seems somehow pertinent:
    http://www.WatchMeDance.com/war/

    i realize it's merely a remix of his earlier work:
    http://www.watchmedance.com/episode7/episode7qt.mov

    and not as provocative/gender-ambivalent as his mid-era work:
    http://www.watchmedance.com/episode14/episode14qt.mov

    still, i think it raises some important issues.

    curt

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    > >Hi Ivan & Michael,
    >
    > >
    > >But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it
    > be for
    > >a cause or not, who is?
    > >
    >
    >
    > everybody else?
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
  • D42 Kandinskij | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:42 p.m.
    Or is everybodi fit to be an artist?

    When the very adorable fluxus artists
    complimented the audience as their artwork
    + offered them liberation from the
    institutionalized prisons of museums
    which are constructs of their delusions

    the very unadorable audience respondi:

    "we should build our own 'world'"

    thusly demonstrating their inner lack
    + ability to accept compliment
    + status of absolutely undesirable
    princesses
    + flippantly + idolatrously destroying
    their "fathers"

    + demanding a double-secure imprisonment
    both in their own perversion + that of museum

    01 spartacus spoke: je suis ici to liberate vous
    from the imprisonment of
    the museum-stone grave of
    blind physical manifestation

    the ignorant audiensz responded: nei! we are going to change
    the unchangeable
    destroy + revolt

    +hensz spartacus was killed

    01 jesus spoke: have come to liberate toi

    + the ignorant audiensz perverted his words into religion

    +hensz jesus was crucified

    "freedom is impoooooooooooooossible"

    bleat the ignorant + masochistic masses screaming

    (breaking the laws is ultra "fashionable"
    since 6576 AD)

    + bashing down those who try to act apropos
    the laws of consciousness

    the "responsibility" of the artist is to face itself
    in all its cowardice + filth + its contribution to
    world misery

    only then + then, when he truly sees + faces himself
    as he is_ can he begin la creacion of that which is
    capable of genuine good
    --
    -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
    vivienn@fastmail.fm

    --
    http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
  • D42 Kandinskij | Thu Apr 10th 2003 1:56 p.m.
    On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:41:06 -0400, "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
    said:

    > still, i think it raises some important issues.

    du think

    + continue to think that you think

    + lies, lies, lies

    however, you're not thinking

    tra le la

    who holds your hand when you type

    likely a fly

    voila: 21c humanity

    ridden by dustbunnies + vermin
    --
    -IID42 Kandinskij @27+
    vivienn@fastmail.fm

    --
    http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... fastmail
  • Michael Szpakowski | Thu Apr 10th 2003 2:24 p.m.
    Hmmm -I agree it's an altogether slower burning and
    more complex piece of work than Josephs' which are
    essentially very effective bits of agitprop, and I do
    like Ivan's work a lot, but I can't see that the
    substance is different - Ivan is using images of
    people who have been detained by the US government
    without any recourse to any sort of law, subjected to
    humiliating and degrading treatment and what one could
    call either pressure or torture.
    Actually, despite Ivan's protestations, one of the
    ways that the piece works for me is that it reminds of
    the *fragility* of those human beings, those lives, in
    the face of the might if the US state, and therefore
    it does read to me to some extent like a "protest
    piece" (and I'm glad Ivan has the confidence in his
    work not to tell us what we should be thinking in
    advance -this seems to me to be an admirable quality.)
    I'm not being remotely disingenuous here when I say
    I'm genuinely interested in what people think; after
    the initial spat I think it's been a valuable
    discussion and I entirely endorse Eryk's point that we
    should think about and discuss critically the work we
    see more.
    (I would prefer however that we were as civil as
    possible to our fellow artists outside of the polemic
    itself.)
    best
    michael

    --- ruth catlow <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org> wrote:
    > Hi Michael,
    > I think it is different. Fragile does not use images
    > of wounded and maimed civilians as a vehicle for
    > sensational effect and ambiguous purpose. The images
    > are very abstracted, we cannot see their faces, this
    > preserves their anonymity. In the process of
    > understanding the work I experience something about
    > some slow and complex questions of representation
    > rather than the quick effects of sensationalism. The
    > pace of the image allows for reflection rather than
    > activating a reflex which closes down thought.
    > cheers
    > ruth
    >
    > Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >
    > > I'm interested to know what people make then, of
    > this
    > > piece by Ivan Pope.
    > > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good,
    > but
    > > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers"
    > discussion
    > > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What
    > do
    > > folk think?
    > > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
    > > best
    > > michael
    > >
    > > =====
    > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is
    > for the use is that of the sender and does not bind
    > the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If
    > you copy or distribute this by software viruses
    > email. We have taken the risk of transmitting
    > software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
    > your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
    > email that you observe this lack is not a secure
    > communication medium, and we advise of security when
    > emailing us. District Postmaster.
    > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > >
    > > __________________________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
    > forms, and more
    > > http://tax.yahoo.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
    >

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
    http://tax.yahoo.com
  • Ivan Pope | Thu Apr 10th 2003 5:30 p.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>

    > I can't see that the
    > substance [of Ivan's work, Fragile] is different - Ivan is using images of
    > people who have been detained by the US government
    > without any recourse to any sort of law, subjected to
    > humiliating and degrading treatment and what one could
    > call either pressure or torture.

    I'm interested in how images work, how we use them and how we can use them.
    I don't quite understand how images that we assume to be of dead and
    injured people, and that we assume to be of people killed very recently
    (though Joseph may well have pulled images from some historic massacre for
    all we really know, or even be using images of his friends and family play
    acting dead) are the same in substance as images of shrouded and manacled
    people that we can easily recognise as being of a specific time, place and
    action (though of course these could also be my friends acting out the
    scene, how would we know?).
    In what way is the substance the same?
    1. Images of people used without their knowledge or permission.
    2. Said images used by western 'artists' in the furtherance of their own
    agendas.
    3. These images are all of people who are not from the western world.
    These are undeniable, but don't get us very far.
    4. It is abusive to use images of powerless people in this way.
    5. It furthers the agenda of the dominating west to use these images in this
    way.
    6. It's bad art or at least bad practice to use images in this way.
    These are moot. They may be starting points for criticism, but they are more
    to do with politics or ethical standpoints than to do with art.
    There are probably more ways in which use of these images make the substance
    of the pieces the same, but I can't go that far.
    In essense I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make good art criticism
    to bring ethical or political points to bear, even though it may make us
    feel better.

    > Actually, despite Ivan's protestations, one of the
    > ways that the piece works for me is that it reminds of
    > the *fragility* of those human beings, those lives, in
    > the face of the might if the US state, and therefore
    > it does read to me to some extent like a "protest
    > piece"

    Well, it is called Fragile for a bunch of reasons. I try to make work that
    has a bunch of layers, and hopefully some that I haven't gone into. I was
    aware of the fragility of the people in the image, in fact that was almost
    certainly what started the piece and what sparked its title. As for being a
    protest piece, I would like to think all my work is protest work. In fact,
    one thing that I spend a lot of time pondering is where the sensible line is
    between overt protest and art. I mean, I would hate to make a direct
    political point in the same way as I would hate to make a simply pretty
    image. But I try to subsume the protest in the work, to make it fight for
    air. And what am I protesting about? The fact that we have to live, that we
    live in an unfair world, that we are hypocritical about it, that there is no
    sense to it, that we all have to die yet we fight death. I believe that the
    personal is political but I also believe in a load of existentialist stuff,
    because it eases my thinking.

    > I'm not being remotely disingenuous here when I say
    > I'm genuinely interested in what people think; after
    > the initial spat I think it's been a valuable
    > discussion and I entirely endorse Eryk's point that we
    > should think about and discuss critically the work we
    > see more.

    I enjoy the robust discourse and I try to be civil at all times while being
    robust in my argument :-)
    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri Apr 11th 2003 3:54 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
    > In essense I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make good art criticism
    > to bring ethical or political points to bear, even though it may make us
    > feel better.

    Actual ethical considerations only challenge people and never really make
    them feel better unless they rise to thier own self defined challenge.
    Political points are a different story.
Your Reply