best work with Flash? [ following curt ]

Posted by MTAA | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 3:08 p.m.

twhid wrote:
I agree with most of what Curt writes here and I'm going to add-to or
disagree with small parts of it.

more below:

At 13:17 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>So far in this thread, Mr. Lichty seems the most perspicacious. I'm
>always amazed at the sort of patronizing,
>look-what-the-cat-dragged-in reaction that net artists have toward
>Flash. The tenor of the dialogue usually runs like, "Could this be
>art? Do you think so? Really? No! Could it be?"

++
twhid wrote:
In discussions on RAW, maybe. But one of the most talked about and
exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces. I
would say there is a general acceptance of all networked and
web-based mediums here. Except for Eryk and his 6 rules of course but
he's explained his position on this numerous times and it seems like
a valid place to be coming from to me.

>
>Miltos Manetas forms the Electronic Orphanage around something as
>inconsequential as "works done in flash," and it's greeted as a
>novel movement. Even Lev Manovich gets all happy writing a piece
>about Flash paradigmatics.

++
twhid wrote:
Miltos frames his discussions so that traditional curators may be
brought into web art, he's not that interested in the net art core
which makes up Rhiz IMO.

>
>The implicit assumption that a Java applet is a more legitimate net
>art medium than an .swf file struck me as bizarre the first time I
>heard it, and it still seeems very parochial to me. One may just as
>fruitfully have begun this thread by asking, "what is the best work
>on the Web done in Java?" Pieces by golan levin, casey reas, martin
>wattenberg, and bradford paley come immediately to mind; and then
>I'd be hard-pressed to come up with more. For a NET artist, the
>question is not what the Java programming language will let you do
>in terms of creating stand-alone apps, the question is what will it
>let you do on the net? Particularly on the mac, java BROWSER
>support/implementation is much slower, glitchier, and kludgier than
>Flash plug-in support/implementation.

++
twhid wrote:
I agree with this, partly. Flash was invented for animators,
designers, etc: visual people. One would think that it would lend
itself to visual artists on the net as well. So I find the arg
strange too. But just as Java is aimed at the software INDUSTRY so
that artists need to bend over backwards to get it to work for their
ends, so Flash is aimed at the culture INDUSTRY. It's meant to create
advertisements, web sites, and (recently) 'rich media applications'.
It's tools are meant to create *slick* work. An artist sometimes
needs to bend over backwards to avoid the sheen of the Flash
aesthetic.

One thing that is misleading in the above, as of Mac OSX 10.2 and
Windows XP Java support is much better on the Mac than on Windows.

<snip>

>
>It's facile to say, "I don't like Flash art," or "I do like Flash
>art." Just like it's facile to say, "I don't like internet art," or
>"I do like internet art." Flash has its constraints, as the
>internet has its constraints, as watercolors have their constraints;
>but these constraints still allow a fairly wide berth for stylistic
>approaches and content choices.

++
twhid wrote:
I don't think you can argue with this point (culture critics could
argue i suppose, but we're artists here mostly). Those damn
watercolor paintings! they don't move and their refresh rate is
abysmal! So yeah, every medium has it's constraints. Comparing Java
to Flash is like telling someone who specializes in pencil drawings
that they should use watercolor because it has *color* and her medium
is black and white so it's obviously inferior.

What one chooses to do within the constraints of the medium chosen
for a particular piece is how we tell the good from the bad.

>
>Likewise, it's parochial to say "all Flash art looks the same."
>It's like your grandfather saying, "all that rock & roll noise
>sounds the same!" There are subtle differences within the genre of
>rock & roll that your grandfather either can't discern or doesn't
>value. I should also point out that there is an entire culture of
>Flash-prodigy experimental web designers that visit Rhizome and say,
>"all that net art crap looks the same." But our ideas of
>"legitimate" net art are more "right" than their ideas because...?
>Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80 years ago, our predecessors
>agreed that his doing so mattered, and we assented?

++
twhid wrote:
now this is where i will really disagree. the visual has been in the
mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
the net.

Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.

--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
  • curt cloninger | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 4:32 p.m.
    t:

    > But one of the most talked about and
    > exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
    > Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.

    curt:

    alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
    and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
    and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
    Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
    conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
    gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
    backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.

    t:
    > the visual has been in the
    > mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
    > conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
    > suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
    > work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
    > passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
    > notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
    > essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
    > the net.
    >
    > Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
    > the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
    > is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
    > bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
    > aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
    > medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
    > passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.

    curt:
    Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
    1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
    and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never be
    hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
    there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely what
    makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory medium.
    Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean superior
    art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying Saucer
    Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all gloriously
    4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.

    I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
    concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
    artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
    what can you do? it's the web.
  • MTAA | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 4:54 p.m.
    At 15:38 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
    >t:
    >
    >> But one of the most talked about and
    >> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
    >> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.
    >
    >curt:
    >
    >alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
    >and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
    >and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
    >Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
    >conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
    >gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
    >backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.

    ++
    twhid:
    right. exactly. There is a dialogue in the piece which bridges this
    artificial divide btw the conceptual and the visual. I was simply
    using it to disabuse us of the notion that somehow Rhizome is a more
    conceptually oriented community. Or that the most celebrated net art
    is more conceptually oriented than the main stream. who are the
    biggest names? e8z, extremely visually oriented. yael, also very
    handsome work. napier, ditto. JODI, also visual.. etc. not to say
    there is no 'concept' involved in these artists work, of course there
    is or all the work would be is spin art. who are these entrenched
    conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?

    >
    >
    >t:
    >> the visual has been in the
    >> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
    >> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
    >> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
    >> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
    >> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
    >> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
    >> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
    >> the net.
    >>
    >> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
    >> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
    >> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
    >> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
    >> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
    >> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
    >> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.
    >
    >curt:
    >Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
    >1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
    >and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never
    >be hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
    >there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely
    >what makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory
    >medium. Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean
    >superior art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying
    >Saucer Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all
    >gloriously 4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.

    ++
    twhid:
    c'mon dude, you know what I mean, the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
    when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
    photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
    lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
    may be). The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
    essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
    it's essential nature is networked communication. Whatever conceptual
    bias you're imagining is simply artists working with what they see as
    the essential nature of their medium. granted, the Web added the
    visual to the 'Net, and that is why *web art* as opposed to the more
    generic *net art* is a more visual medium.

    take care,

    >
    >I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
    >concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
    >artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
    >what can you do? it's the web."

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • curt cloninger | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 5:54 p.m.
    t:
    who are these entrenched
    > conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?

    curt:
    part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
    even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
    is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
    influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
    (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
    sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
    most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
    not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
    I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.

    t:
    > the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
    > when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
    > photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
    > lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
    > may be).

    curt:
    I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
    screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
    considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
    is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
    microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
    on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
    But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.

    t:
    The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
    > essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
    > it's essential nature is networked communication.

    curt:

    As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
    http://www.lab404.com/media/
    Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
    "essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
    doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
    "communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
    started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.

    peace,
    curt
    _
    _
  • MTAA | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 6:29 p.m.
    At 16:59 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
    >t:
    >who are these entrenched
    >> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
    >
    >curt:
    >part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
    >even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
    >is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
    >influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous
    >stuff (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr.
    >peppermint and sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from
    >net art news, most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical
    >media." Etc. I'm not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a
    >visual aesthetic, I'm just answering your question regarding
    >entrenched conceptualists.

    ++
    twhid:
    i think you've made my point for me. the state of net art is fairly balanced.

    >
    >t:
    >> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
    >> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
    >> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
    >> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
    >> may be).
    >
    >curt:
    >I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
    >screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
    >considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
    >is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
    >microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
    >on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting
    >limitations. But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
    >

    ++
    twhid:
    my point wasn't that you or I or anyone should care what an oil
    painter thinks of the web, the point was that one who's main
    objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    paintings etc.

    >
    >t:
    >The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
    >> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
    >> it's essential nature is networked communication.
    >
    >curt:
    >
    >As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
    >http://www.lab404.com/media/
    >Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
    >"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
    >doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
    >"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
    >started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
    >

    ++
    twhid:
    right, binary digital info. i don't think of 'text', i think of
    exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
    be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
    visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    essential nature of the net in it's present state. it hasn't changed
    much in the past 6 years in terms of a visual experience. my argument
    will become invalid in the future i hope.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Pall Thayer | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 6:47 p.m.
    Pall:
    I agree with Curt. The limitations of the computer screen is one of the things
    that make this an exciting field to work with visual media. It's exactly the
    same as where this thread started. Why do some artists choose to work in
    Flash when other alternatives may have something more to offer (and I really
    don't think that it's a learning curve thing)? Because a medium that imposes
    restrictions gets the creative juices flowing. This is what I want to do,
    this is what I'm going to use to do it, what are my alternatives whithin this
    medium? It really wouldn't be much fun if I all I had to do was something
    like this:

    twhid:
    my point wasn't that you or I or anyone should care what an oil
    painter thinks of the web, the point was that one who's main
    objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    paintings etc.

    Pall:
    I disagree with twhid. The web has a lot to offer in the creation process of
    visual art. Processes that can't be emulated in any other setting. My main
    concern is a visual aesthetic but I also have a concept, actually more of a
    theory and to create the sort of visual work I'm interested in creating, I
    have to use the internet. Since I have no alternatives, I'm willing to
    sacrifice quality and free-flowing brushstrokes on canvas.

    Pall

    On Wednesday 02 July 2003 20:59, Curt Cloninger wrote:
    > t:
    > who are these entrenched
    >
    > > conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
    >
    > curt:
    > part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
    > even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
    > is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
    > influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
    > (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
    > sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
    > most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
    > not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
    > I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.
    >
    > t:
    > > the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
    > > when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
    > > photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
    > > lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
    > > may be).
    >
    > curt:
    > I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
    > screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
    > considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
    > is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
    > microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
    > on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
    > But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
    >
    >
    > t:
    > The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
    >
    > > essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
    > > it's essential nature is networked communication.
    >
    > curt:
    >
    > As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
    > http://www.lab404.com/media/
    > Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
    > "essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
    > doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
    > "communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
    > started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
    >
    > peace,
    > curt
    > _
    > _
    > + 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

    --
    Pall Thayer
    artist/teacher
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    http://www.this.is/isjs
    http://www.this.is/harmony
    http://130.208.220.190/panse
  • Michael Szpakowski | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 7:41 p.m.
    <hits closer to the
    essential nature of the net in it's present state.>
    I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the
    notion of the "essential nature" of any medium - one
    of the things, but by no means the only thing, that
    disposes me to be interested in an artwork is how well
    the artist overcomes the resistance of the medium.
    Also although I get very tired of posts that say "yawn
    ..we thought this was all settled years ago"
    ( because that's often an excuse for evading the
    subtleties of an argument) and though I like a good
    argument as well as the next person, in this case I
    *do* think there is a very real sense in which a lot
    of this debate is simply about people boosting/dissing
    their favourite/least favourite set of tools - my view
    remains that the test of a creative artist is that if
    they were lost in a deep dark wood with a piece of
    charcoal and a slate they would sooner or later make
    something interesting ( and not necessarily out of the
    slate and charcoal)
    It's horses for courses - tools aren't intrinsically
    anything , the medium isn't intrinsically anything.
    It's what the artist actually *does* in any of the
    areas discussed that is where worthwhile discussion
    begins.
    Perhaps stupidly, personally, my heart sings when I
    see pathetic little lo res images and movies
    struggling for life on the net. I love 'em and I love
    having to compress sound and make harsh & cruel
    decisions about what to keep or reject.
    For me what's nearest to idiomatic is simply the
    channel of communication -I get pathetically excited
    that I can just put the thing up there and people will
    come and look at it. But all that's subjective and I
    don't wish to make it into a general case except in
    the negative sense to say that for me, possibly
    peversely, the net is the best possible place to put
    images.
    best
    michael

    =====
    **DISCLAIMER:
    Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
    East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
    Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
    Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
    Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
    district postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html **

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    http://sbc.yahoo.com
  • curt cloninger | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 8:35 p.m.
    t wrote:
    the point was that one who's main
    > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    > paintings etc.

    ...i think of
    > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
    > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
    > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    > essential nature of the net in it's present state.

    &

    marisa wrote:
    > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
    > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
    > "other" artists are conceptless...

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

    curt writes:
    we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
    high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
    technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
    compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
    his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
    aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
    concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
    objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
    incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
    They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
    "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
    fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
    self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
    separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.

    Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
    converging, and all these different artists from all these different
    perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
    low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
    must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
    symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
    aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
    bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
    concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
    onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
    Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
    the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
    sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.

    Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
    the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
    with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
    audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
    strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
    environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
    many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.

    It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
    discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
    pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
    David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
    discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
    a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
    it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
    decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.

    _
    _
  • marc garrett | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 9:08 p.m.
    You must hate my work Curt...

    marc

    > t wrote:
    > the point was that one who's main
    > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    > > paintings etc.
    >
    > ...i think of
    > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
    > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
    > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
    >
    > &
    >
    > marisa wrote:
    > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
    > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
    > > "other" artists are conceptless...
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > curt writes:
    > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
    > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
    > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
    > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
    > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
    > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
    > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
    > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
    > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
    > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
    > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
    > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
    > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
    > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
    >
    > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
    > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
    > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
    > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
    > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
    > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
    > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
    > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
    > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
    > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
    > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
    > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
    > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
    >
    > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
    > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
    > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
    > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
    > strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
    > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
    > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
    >
    > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
    > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
    > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
    > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
    > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
    > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
    > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
    > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
    >
    > _
    > _
    > + 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 | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 9:34 p.m.
    marc.garrett wrote:
    >You must hate my work Curt...

    Hi Marc,

    we've talked about this before, and I'm not sure whether this is the
    "right answer," but I find your noflesh series an evocative critique
    of the emptiness of sex without intimacy. Those image treatments
    make me very sad.

    cf:
    http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/alltouch.html

    peace,
    curt

    >marc
    >
    >
    > > t wrote:
    > > the point was that one who's main
    > > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    > > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    > > > paintings etc.
    > >
    > > ...i think of
    > > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
    > > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    > > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
    > > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    > > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    > > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    > > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
    > >
    > > &
    > >
    > > marisa wrote:
    > > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
    > > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
    > > > "other" artists are conceptless...
    > >
    > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > >
    > > curt writes:
    > > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
    > > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
    > > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
    > > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
    > > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
    > > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
    > > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
    > > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
    > > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
    > > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
    > > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
    > > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
    > > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
    > > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
    > >
    > > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
    > > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
    > > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
    > > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
    > > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
    > > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
    > > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
    > > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
    > > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
    > > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
    > > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
    > > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
    > > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
    > >
    > > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
    > > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
    > > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
    > > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
    > > strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
    > > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
    > > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
    > >
    > > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
    > > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
    > > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
    > > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
    > > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
    > > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
    > > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
    > > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
    > >
    > > _
    > > _
    > > + 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 Jul 2nd 2003 9:54 p.m.
    HI Curt,

    I think you got the message of the work - it is about people opting for the
    plasticity of life' denying its feral qualities, our primal essence; &
    more...

    Although, since then other work has also been done...

    marc

    > marc.garrett wrote:
    > >You must hate my work Curt...
    >
    >
    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > we've talked about this before, and I'm not sure whether this is the
    > "right answer," but I find your noflesh series an evocative critique
    > of the emptiness of sex without intimacy. Those image treatments
    > make me very sad.
    >
    > cf:
    > http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/alltouch.html
    >
    > peace,
    > curt
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >marc
    > >
    > >
    > > > t wrote:
    > > > the point was that one who's main
    > > > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    > > > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    > > > > paintings etc.
    > > >
    > > > ...i think of
    > > > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information
    could
    > > > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    > > > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to
    other
    > > > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    > > > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    > > > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    > > > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
    > > >
    > > > &
    > > >
    > > > marisa wrote:
    > > > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
    > > > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
    > > > > "other" artists are conceptless...
    > > >
    > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > > >
    > > > curt writes:
    > > > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
    > > > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
    > > > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
    > > > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
    > > > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
    > > > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
    > > > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
    > > > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
    > > > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
    > > > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
    > > > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
    > > > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
    > > > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
    > > > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
    > > >
    > > > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
    > > > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
    > > > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
    > > > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
    > > > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
    > > > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
    > > > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
    > > > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
    > > > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
    > > > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
    > > > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
    > > > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
    > > > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
    > > >
    > > > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
    > > > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
    > > > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
    > > > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
    > > > strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
    > > > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
    > > > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
    > > >
    > > > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
    > > > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
    > > > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
    > > > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
    > > > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
    > > > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
    > > > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
    > > > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
    > > >
    > > > _
    > > > _
    > > > + 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
    >
  • MTAA | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 10:16 p.m.
    below:

    On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

    > t wrote:
    > the point was that one who's main
    >> objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
    >> delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
    >> paintings etc.
    >
    > ...i think of
    >> exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
    >> be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
    >> information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
    >> visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
    >> extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
    >> reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
    >> essential nature of the net in it's present state.
    >
    > &
    >
    > marisa wrote:
    >> ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
    >> of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
    >> "other" artists are conceptless...
    >
    > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >
    > curt writes:
    > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
    > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
    > technical craft and sensory aesthetics.

    i think our main problem in this discussion is our definitions are
    totally different. Not to sound pedantic, but it wasn't 'somewhere' in
    the 20th century, it was exactly in 60s/70s conceptualism that the rift
    occurred (you could argue it occurred much earlier but this is when it
    was definitely torn asunder without a doubt). and it wasn't an accident
    it had very concrete roots in anti-capitalist, pro-marxist philosophies
    and embodies (from lippard) minimal art, idea art, systems art, earth
    art, process art, and site-specific art (i threw site-specific in :-).
    Some of the artists are Kosuth, Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Smithson and
    etc.

    When I talk about conceptualism I'm thinking of this historic work
    along with neo-conceptual strategies in art.

    Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
    aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what? I find it extremely weird that you
    would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys off
    the hook.

    take care,

    > Let's just take Beuys and compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely
    > conceptual, but many of his installations/sculptures/objects still
    > embody craft and sensory aesthetics which (surprise, surprise)
    > substantiate and embody his concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's
    > not even building his own objects. The crafting of his objects has
    > become much more incidental. His objects themselves have become much
    > more incidental. They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less
    > like "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not
    > quite fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and
    > less self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a
    > gradual separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.

    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Wed Jul 2nd 2003 11:42 p.m.
    I would love flash if artists simply asked macromedia to take the
    advertisements away or were at least cognizant of the co-optation of thier
    work that occurs as a result of it. And if it came standard with a browser.
    Until then, it's fine for most pieces, but I am usually grumpy about its
    implementation because of the distraction that comes when everything in the
    planet is branded with a logo. I wish it hadn't happened to net.art.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
    To: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:41 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: best work with Flash? [ following
    curt ]

    > <hits closer to the
    > essential nature of the net in it's present state.>
    > I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the
    > notion of the "essential nature" of any medium - one
    > of the things, but by no means the only thing, that
    > disposes me to be interested in an artwork is how well
    > the artist overcomes the resistance of the medium.
    > Also although I get very tired of posts that say "yawn
    > ..we thought this was all settled years ago"
    > ( because that's often an excuse for evading the
    > subtleties of an argument) and though I like a good
    > argument as well as the next person, in this case I
    > *do* think there is a very real sense in which a lot
    > of this debate is simply about people boosting/dissing
    > their favourite/least favourite set of tools - my view
    > remains that the test of a creative artist is that if
    > they were lost in a deep dark wood with a piece of
    > charcoal and a slate they would sooner or later make
    > something interesting ( and not necessarily out of the
    > slate and charcoal)
    > It's horses for courses - tools aren't intrinsically
    > anything , the medium isn't intrinsically anything.
    > It's what the artist actually *does* in any of the
    > areas discussed that is where worthwhile discussion
    > begins.
    > Perhaps stupidly, personally, my heart sings when I
    > see pathetic little lo res images and movies
    > struggling for life on the net. I love 'em and I love
    > having to compress sound and make harsh & cruel
    > decisions about what to keep or reject.
    > For me what's nearest to idiomatic is simply the
    > channel of communication -I get pathetically excited
    > that I can just put the thing up there and people will
    > come and look at it. But all that's subjective and I
    > don't wish to make it into a general case except in
    > the negative sense to say that for me, possibly
    > peversely, the net is the best possible place to put
    > images.
    > best
    > michael
    >
    >
    >
    > =====
    > **DISCLAIMER:
    > Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
    > East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
    > Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
    > Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
    > Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George
    Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
    > district postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html
    **
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
    > http://sbc.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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 2 a.m.
    t:
    > Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
    > aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what?

    curt:
    I hope I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I'm trying discuss
    in concrete detail, as clearly as possible, specific paradigmatic
    approaches toward net art creation. Yes, I am questioning the value
    of entire movements and approaches that have been accepted as
    established artistic practice in academic, critical, and professional
    art circles since the 60s. I'm wanting to discuss their particular
    merit in terms of our current medium. If this seems quixotic or
    irksome, if you've already settled these issues to your own
    satisfaction, I'm easily dismissed with a few historical references
    and a glib, "Can he be serious?"

    t:
    I find it extremely weird that you
    > would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys
    > off
    > the hook.

    curt:
    You're misreading me. I'm highlighting the devolution of
    conceptualism. Beuys was an earlier conceptualist whose craft and
    sensory aesthetics were more intrinsically related to his concepts.
    Hirst is a later conceptualist whose craft and sensory aesthetics are
    less intrinsically related to his concepts. Beuys is a conceptualist
    whose work I like. I consider him a sculptor and an experimental
    educator. Hirst is a conceptualist whose work I find mildly amusing
    at best. I consider him a well-meaning byproduct of art world
    foppery.

    peace,
    curt
  • Eduardo Navas | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 2:37 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:12 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]

    <--snip-->
    > i think our main problem in this discussion is our definitions are
    > totally different. Not to sound pedantic, but it wasn't 'somewhere' in
    > the 20th century, it was exactly in 60s/70s conceptualism that the rift
    > occurred (you could argue it occurred much earlier but this is when it
    > was definitely torn asunder without a doubt). and it wasn't an accident
    > it had very concrete roots in anti-capitalist, pro-marxist philosophies
    > and embodies (from lippard) minimal art, idea art, systems art, earth
    > art, process art, and site-specific art (i threw site-specific in :-).
    > Some of the artists are Kosuth, Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Smithson and
    > etc.
    <--snip-->

    The above is an excellent point. Something I was wondering if it would ever
    come up.

    The main problem that I see with the current perception of conceptual art in
    general (not just in net-art) is that due to its pro-marxist philosophies
    (as T.Whid correctly pointed out) it now suffers from an extreme
    unfriendliness from artists and critics who are invested in formal
    investigations. This is because Conceptualism was developed to question the
    object of art -- to get rid of it if possible. A good book exploring all of
    these issues is RECONSIDERING THE OBJECT OF ART:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262571110/qid57206387/sr=8
    -1/ref=sr_8_1/103-7087561-2759861?v=glance&s=books&nP7846
    (now out of pring unfortunately)

    Many artists after the seventies adopted conceptual strategies to develop
    artwork that is fully invested in object making. Janine Antoni is perhaps
    one of the best examples of this, where she combines performance,
    installation and appropriation based on conceptualism to develop extremely
    over-invested objects that sell quite well:
    http://www.varoregistry.com/antoni/

    What becomes obvious in her work is that she does only what is absolutley
    necessary to develop the work -- there is no indulgence in the form outside
    of what is necessary for the conceptual appropriation to be effective.

    This is something a conceptual artist from the seventies would never do,
    but this is what happened when artists in the 80s reevaluated the work from
    the seventies. In a way, this is no different from what happened when the
    minimalists took Greenberg's ideas and pushed simple forms to create a
    theatrical set up inside the gallery that could only be completed by the
    viewer. And this, as many on the list may be aware, is what Michael Fried
    reacted to so negatively in his now perhaps over cited essay "Art and
    Objecthood."

    So, in general, at least people who have worked under conceptual artists
    such as Michael Asher (I was his T.A.) learn to question EVERYTHING about
    the object of art. Under a conceptualist methodology everything is
    carefully dissected to understand its role under whatever context the piece
    aims to function in. So, the parameters are dictated by what the piece
    aims to present, not by something that the conceptual approach brings to it.
    It basically goes like this: "What is it claiming to say? Well, is it
    saying it? let's find out by examining all the elements it has used to make
    its proposition." At least this is the critical model that I learned and now
    promote. In short, if the work claims to be beautiful -- under what
    context? does it hold up to what it claims? what signifiers are present that
    would make it valid within such aesthetical realm. etc. Is the work aiming
    to be political, what is its background, is it aware of the history it aims
    to question or is it pretending to do so? etc. This is how criticism
    should function ideally, but of course this is not always the case -- as
    some people will try to say "well, it does not follow this blah, blah" but
    this is no different than in any other field of practice, where some people
    might try to impose what they think, vs. what the object aims to do. This is
    what anyone with a critical mind should be aware of -- bias.

    With this said, a conceptual artist will usually use what is absolutely
    necessary to make the point. No eye candy can be used, unless this proves to
    be necessary to make the conceptual statement. The main thing about
    conceptualism is to develop the project based on what the particular idea
    demands. So formal exploration can be used, but this one is not necessarily
    visual, but rather ideological. That is the process a painter would record
    in a canvas, a conceptual artist will record through the process of
    examination -- critique. Often times, one only sees the end result of a
    conceptual piece, which could be a piece of paper on the wall explaining an
    outcome. But there is a necessary creative process for that paper to get to
    say what it says. So, conceptual art is just another canvas, or another
    GUI. Ideas are objects, ideas are forms developed from other forms. Just
    because we do not see them does not mean they are less interesting or less
    creative, though they may be seen a bit dry in visual culture because, well,
    there is hardly anything visual lots of times. Thus conceptual art is
    simply ART, like anything else in such context. It is just another form of
    communication, and just as slippery as the Flash pieces that have been
    discussed.

    Eduardo Navas
  • Ivan Pope | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 3:44 a.m.
    > curt writes:
    > Let's just take Beuys and
    > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
    > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
    > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
    > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
    > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
    > incidental.

    I note that, while you say of Beuys that 'his installations ... still embody
    craft and sensory aesthetics' you say of Hirst 'he's not even building his
    own objects'. This is not comparing like with like.
    Apart from that, I very much doubt that Beuys built his own objects. I
    remember seeing a piece (called something like Rock Plug) which consisted of
    a large number of huge slabs of rock with plugs drilled into then and plugs
    set into them. I very much doubt that Beuys quarried the rock or transported
    it without help. Further, I doubt that he manually built his large felt room
    pieces without assistants. Etc. I just think your distinction is cheap and
    inaccurate. I am sure that youd find Beuys and Hirst had about the same
    amount of input into getting their work sorted out.
    That is not to say that the work is equal in value, I will not go there.

    But then you dont go on to say what I thought you would say: that hands on
    crafting of network art is more valid than getting third parties to
    construct it.

    Cheers,
    Ivan

    > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
    > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
    > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
    > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
    > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
    > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
    > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
    > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
    > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
    > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
    > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
    > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
    > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
    >
    > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
    > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
    > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
    > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
    > strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
    > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
    > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
    >
    > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
    > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
    > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
    > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
    > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
    > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
    > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
    > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
    >
    > _
    > _
    > + 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 Jul 3rd 2003 10:33 a.m.
    flash does come standard with many browser distros.

    you only see an ad when you install it for the first time after that
    there is only macromedia's name in the contextual (right click) menu
    otherwise it's perfectly clean of any marketing messages.

    Director on the other hand.. does it still give you the logo during
    the loading bar?

    At 22:41 -0400 7/2/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
    >I would love flash if artists simply asked macromedia to take the
    >advertisements away or were at least cognizant of the co-optation of thier
    >work that occurs as a result of it. And if it came standard with a browser.
    >Until then, it's fine for most pieces, but I am usually grumpy about its
    >implementation because of the distraction that comes when everything in the
    >planet is branded with a logo. I wish it hadn't happened to net.art.
    >
    >-e.

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Michael Szpakowski | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 10:44 a.m.
    <Director on the other hand.. does it still give you
    the logo during
    the loading bar?>
    yes!..and I deplore this & I'm not so familiar with
    Flash but if that does something similar at some point
    I deplore that too.
    ..but this is for me an important but seperate
    argument from the one about whether some tools are by
    their nature more suitable for the creation of art
    works on the net than others and the wider but related
    one of what does "idiomatic" mean for the net.
    best
    michael

    =====
    **DISCLAIMER:
    Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
    East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
    Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
    Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
    Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
    District Postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html **

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • MTAA | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 10:50 a.m.
    At 1:05 -0400 7/3/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
    >t:
    >> Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
    >> aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what?
    >
    >curt:
    >I hope I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I'm trying discuss
    >in concrete detail, as clearly as possible, specific paradigmatic
    >approaches toward net art creation. Yes, I am questioning the value
    >of entire movements and approaches that have been accepted as
    >established artistic practice in academic, critical, and
    >professional art circles since the 60s. I'm wanting to discuss
    >their particular merit in terms of our current medium. If this
    >seems quixotic or irksome, if you've already settled these issues to
    >your own satisfaction, I'm easily dismissed with a few historical
    >references and a glib, "Can he be serious?"

    ++
    twhid:
    I'm not trying to dismiss you but simply pin you down so that our
    discussion doesn't fizzle out from misunderstandings due to the fact
    that we're talking about 2 different things. It seemed that that may
    be the case from your examples of conceptualists, you're applying the
    term much more broadly than it's generally used. I don't use it so
    broadly and gave a specific explanation of what I think constitutes
    conceptual art. You seem to apply the term to anything that has a
    goal other than the aesthetic. that definition is way to broad and
    that's not how I would use it (see below).

    >
    >t:
    >I find it extremely weird that you
    >> would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys
    >> off
    >> the hook.
    >
    >curt:
    >You're misreading me. I'm highlighting the devolution of
    >conceptualism. Beuys was an earlier conceptualist whose craft and
    >sensory aesthetics were more intrinsically related to his concepts.
    >Hirst is a later conceptualist whose craft and sensory aesthetics
    >are less intrinsically related to his concepts. Beuys is a
    >conceptualist whose work I like. I consider him a sculptor and an
    >experimental educator. Hirst is a conceptualist whose work I find
    >mildly amusing at best. I consider him a well-meaning byproduct of
    >art world foppery.
    >

    ++
    twhid:
    Yea, but you're not. conceptualism (how it's historically been
    defined) has absolutely *nothing* to do with material craft (not that
    it has nothing to do with craft) except in terms of negating it. it
    has only a tangential relation to sensory or visual aesthetics (see
    Eduardo's excellent post). so there could be no devolution of
    conceptualism in the terms you apply and the artists you highlight as
    your examples aren't conceptual artists anyway.

    perhaps what you mean is that there has been a devolution of art
    quality in general because of conceptual art's influence?
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Jim Andrews | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 10:57 a.m.
    > flash does come standard with many browser distros.
    >
    > you only see an ad when you install it for the first time after that
    > there is only macromedia's name in the contextual (right click) menu
    > otherwise it's perfectly clean of any marketing messages.
    >
    > Director on the other hand.. does it still give you the logo during
    > the loading bar?

    By default, yes. You can axe it if you want. You can also get rid of the right-click menu and
    open your own. You can also prevent the one time logo fest on installation, as I'm sure you can
    in Flash also, by linking the person directly to the installation file for download rather than
    linking them to the macromedia-mediated-through-the-web installation process.

    I choose to link them to the direct file not only to avoid their logofest but because they are
    asked to register and sometimes this rigamarole results in the installation failing. That's all
    adding up to way too much.

    So the answer, not surprisingly, is that if you allow the defaults to rule, they will jump all
    over you. This is a good example of how defaults are inclined to allow the medium to be the
    message.

    ja
  • curt cloninger | Thu Jul 3rd 2003 12:40 p.m.
    twhid:
    > I'm not trying to dismiss you but simply pin you down so that our
    > discussion doesn't fizzle out from misunderstandings due to the fact
    > that we're talking about 2 different things. It seemed that that may
    > be the case from your examples of conceptualists, you're applying the
    > term much more broadly than it's generally used. I don't use it so
    > broadly and gave a specific explanation of what I think constitutes
    > conceptual art. You seem to apply the term to anything that has a
    > goal other than the aesthetic. that definition is way to broad and
    > that's not how I would use it (see below).

    curt:
    OK. I understand. You're right. I'm applying the term broadly.

    1.
    What Eduardo defines as historical conceptualism I think of as pure
    conceptualism or anti-object conceptualism. This is art whose medium
    is the artist statement. I realize "idea" is supposed to be the
    medium, but ideas can't be transfered mind to mind, so the medium in
    fact becomes the artist statement (aka "formalistic prose text").
    Survey says: "Boring Sidney, Boring. Exterminate! Exterminate!"

    2.
    Then there is what I would call object-incidental conceptualism,
    where an object is used as a prop to convey an idea, but there's no
    real aesthetic intention invested in the object. Without the artist
    statement or the title of the piece, the object itself doesn't convey
    much. Survey says: "Are we there yet? I have to go to the bathroom."

    3.
    Then there is object-intentional conceptualism, where the craft and
    cunning invested in the object itself conveys the lion's share of the
    concept. Survey says: "Fix me down a palette on your floor."

    Note also, I doubt there even exists an artistic approach that has an
    exclusively aesthetic goal. Even a landscape painting has some
    concept [here I'm using the English word "concept" to mean
    "concept"]. No art, from Bosch to Klee, is void of concept. And it
    seems to me the great "art" of "art" has generally involved using
    aesthetics to address "concepts" in a less than
    pedantic/didactic/textual/cerebral way. "Art is for all the things
    you can't say out loud." - entropy8

    Visceral, multimedia communication is more technichally possible on
    the web now than it was in 1996. And yet hi-res visuals are still
    not possible. Methinks it is an interesting time to explore work
    that falls toward the object-intentional side of my proposed
    conceptual spectrum. In 1996, a piece like Heath Bunting's "Own, Be
    Owned, Or Remain Invisible" (which falls toward the anti-object end
    of my proposed conceptual spectrum) may have been the best we could
    do given the constraints of the medium. Now we no longer HAVE to go
    that route.

    t:
    > perhaps what you mean is that there has been a devolution of art
    > quality in general because of conceptual art's influence?

    curt:
    Not exactly, although I agree with that too. According to my above
    historically incorrect hack-job definitions, I am considering beuys
    an object-intentional conceptualist. I am considering Hirst an
    object-incidental conceptualist.

    _
    _
  • Christopher Fahey | Mon Jul 7th 2003 12:13 a.m.
    > twhid wrote:
    > ... An artist sometimes
    > needs to bend over backwards to avoid the sheen of the Flash
    > aesthetic.

    Set QUALITY to LOW. Commercial stigma erased!

    -Cf

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