Cremaster web site

http://www.cremaster.net
True to form, every frame is beautiful….

Comments

, void void

He must have a really CREATIVE web master.



say CHEESE!
AE03.
http://www.atomicelroy.com

, marc garrett

He must have really creative accountant…

marc


>
> He must have a really CREATIVE web master.
>
>
>
> say CHEESE!
> AE03.
> http://www.atomicelroy.com
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

, Jim Andrews

> He must have really creative accountant…
>
> marc

I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay for
it?

ja

, void void

what's next,

A Bjork video?






SAY CHEESE!
AE03
atomicelroy.com

, Lee Wells

on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at [email protected] wrote:

>
>> He must have really creative accountant…
>>
>> marc
>
> I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay for
> it?
>
> ja
>

It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.

Lee

>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Jim Andrews

> >> He must have really creative accountant…
> >>
> >> marc
> >
> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
> > the end is to pay for it?
> >
> > ja
>
> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>
> Lee

And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.

ja

, MTAA

These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.

Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
is a decent independent film budget.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
recall.)

This web site is great at giving folks some clue as to the narrative
and background of his films which can be a bit.. opaque?

Personally I like his objects more than his movies which can be a bit
long and boring. Most art video/film has a tendency to linger way to
long on a particular shot and unfortunately Barney falls into this
trap. I can forgive him this for two reasons, first, it seems a
symptom of his genuine love of the images he's creating and secondly
perhaps it's a reaction to the fast-cut aesthetic of the dominant
media (to which I've been trained to enjoy so perhaps it's my fault I
find it boring).

But, I think the real key to Barney's work is that he's an extremely
traditional artist, conservative in a way. I think he bemoans the
loss of meta-narrative in our culture, that is, the place the Bible
once held in western culture. He decided that to make art objects he
needed to reference a meta-narrative so he created his own using the
dominant narrative media of contemporary culture, film. So, instead
of Jesus on the cross, we get Fion MacCumhail: The Case of the
Entered Apprentice.

The web site itself is a bit lame IMO. It could be much easier to
navigate and there is no way to link to specific pages but that's
flash for ya…

At 1:31 AM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>> >> He must have really creative accountant…
>> >>
>> >> marc
>> >
>> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
>> > the end is to pay for it?
>> >
>> > ja
>>
>> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>>
>> Lee
>
>And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.
>
>ja


<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

, marc garrett

Hi T.Whid,

When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?

And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
evenly spread.

(no dis on the work tho…)

marc

> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
>
> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
> is a decent independent film budget.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
> didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
> his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
> recall.)
>
> This web site is great at giving folks some clue as to the narrative
> and background of his films which can be a bit.. opaque?
>
> Personally I like his objects more than his movies which can be a bit
> long and boring. Most art video/film has a tendency to linger way to
> long on a particular shot and unfortunately Barney falls into this
> trap. I can forgive him this for two reasons, first, it seems a
> symptom of his genuine love of the images he's creating and secondly
> perhaps it's a reaction to the fast-cut aesthetic of the dominant
> media (to which I've been trained to enjoy so perhaps it's my fault I
> find it boring).
>
> But, I think the real key to Barney's work is that he's an extremely
> traditional artist, conservative in a way. I think he bemoans the
> loss of meta-narrative in our culture, that is, the place the Bible
> once held in western culture. He decided that to make art objects he
> needed to reference a meta-narrative so he created his own using the
> dominant narrative media of contemporary culture, film. So, instead
> of Jesus on the cross, we get Fion MacCumhail: The Case of the
> Entered Apprentice.
>
> The web site itself is a bit lame IMO. It could be much easier to
> navigate and there is no way to link to specific pages but that's
> flash for ya…
>
> At 1:31 AM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >> >> He must have really creative accountant…
> >> >>
> >> >> marc
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at
> >> > the end is to pay for it?
> >> >
> >> > ja
> >>
> >> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
> >>
> >> Lee
> >
> >And a rich buyer who likes vaseline.
> >
> >ja
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

, MTAA

Hi Mark,

good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
you know how this stuff works..

If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
intensive projects.

My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
I see.

It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
point yet.


At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
>Hi T.Whid,
>
>When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
>enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
>that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
>needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
>dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
>
>And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
>could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
>evenly spread.
>
>(no dis on the work tho…)
>
>marc
>
>> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
>>
>> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
>> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
>> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
>> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
>> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
>> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
>> is a decent independent film budget.


<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

, Eryk Salvaggio

Concerning this:

> >> He must have really creative accountant…
> >>
> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
for
> > it?
>
> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.


I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to actually
go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you would
like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt the
system is doesn't count.

Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately ugly
aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful and
challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study in
order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer you
deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.

Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to try"
train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
watching this conversation.

Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be slow
to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
yours.

-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
To: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site


> on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >> He must have really creative accountant…
> >>
> >> marc
> >
> > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
for
> > it?
> >
> > ja
> >
>
> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>
> Lee
>
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Lee Wells

One less bomber a year injected into the national arts budget could go a
long way. California almost completely eradicated its state funding for the
arts to a measly $1,000,000. That includes the opera, theatre, ballet and
museums. How much of that do you think is going to fund some socio-political
net-artist much less a painter or sculptor?

We are lucky to be in New York where when it comes to funding its
practically raining opportunities. Unfortunately, unlike the 80's an artist
that works in any media must be very good at what they do to gain access to
the booty$$$.

Barney and Gladstone are not looking for a handout from the NEA or NYFA.
Gladstone doesn't have a problem acquiring the money for Barney's crazy
ideas fr4om her very established client base. I would love a copy of her
database. Gallery interns unite.

For an artist (what??) 36 I think he is doing alright. I look forward to see
what he is doing 25 years from now.


Cheers,
Lee

on 10/20/03 10:56, t.whid at [email protected] wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
> on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
> put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
> by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
> prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
> you know how this stuff works..
>
> If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
> might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
> bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
> intensive projects.
>
> My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
> dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
> irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
> disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
> think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.
>
> It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
> funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
> millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
> point yet.
>
>
> At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
>> Hi T.Whid,
>>
>> When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
>> enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that during
>> that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
>> needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
>> dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
>>
>> And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
>> could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
>> evenly spread.
>>
>> (no dis on the work tho…)
>>
>> marc
>>
>>> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather pathetic.
>>>
>>> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
>>> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
>>> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
>>> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
>>> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
>>> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
>>> is a decent independent film budget.

, Lee Wells

Two Thumbs Up

Lee


on 10/20/03 12:18, Eryk Salvaggio at [email protected] wrote:

> Concerning this:
>
>>>> He must have really creative accountant…
>>>>
>>> I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
> for
>>> it?
>>
>> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>
>
> I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
> imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to actually
> go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
> opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
> raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
> complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
> aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you would
> like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt the
> system is doesn't count.
>
> Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
> It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately ugly
> aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful and
> challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
> become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
> talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
> something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study in
> order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer you
> deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.
>
> Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
> Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to try"
> train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
> watching this conversation.
>
> Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be slow
> to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
> yours.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
> To: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site
>
>
>> on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> He must have really creative accountant…
>>>>
>>>> marc
>>>
>>> I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to pay
> for
>>> it?
>>>
>>> ja
>>>
>>
>> It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> 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

Hi T.Whid,

I also think part of the issue here is that a meidated culture is much more
vulnerable to more 'spectacled' sensations, not as a totality more in terms
of information. Thus not actually going to be interested in subtext, context
and things that demand a little more time to view or explore; not an option
when one does not know how to. For mediation is a dictatory format therefor
what is given is what is supposed to be.

> My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
> dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
> irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
> disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
> think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.

Like yourself, I am very pro art. Which is one of the reasons why I like to
see a redistirbution of the power of art facility and practise, potentially
funding as well. Which is kind of happening for some groups in the UK
gadually (perhaps in the US as well) for those who have formed outside of
institutional environments. Yet one (or group) has to be stubborn like
ourselves to get to that point. Which brings about change for others as well
in a 'soft group' capacity. Widening the field for all who wish to get
involved in a more flexible level rather than structuralist based or
centralized way.

Of course many have just got fed up with trying to wait for that funding
cheque and have decidied to stay totally independent of applying which can
work also. We ended up funding ourselves independently just by designing and
programming web sites and other bits, since 97 and survived without any cash
quite chirpily for a while just so the site would run its own course without
having to ask for anything - this means that if you apply for projects for
cash and you don't get anyhting the site stays up and still active. We
still work by this principle. So who ever is involved kind of has to believe
in what they are up to in a collective sense because they, us will not earn
anything out of it - but this also means that the site remains free for art
to be seen without the confusion of cash crossing the wrong palms.

In respect of artists getting cash for projects in the UK - I believe that
we are a little more lucky here, for it is possible. You just have to get
pass the usual suspects who are well connected institutionally who get all
the art grants, which takes time if you do not wish to lick smelly brown
holes - which we do not. So it has taken us longer because we have not
compromised our bleliefs or art thiking or pratise to get stuff going.
Truely a D.I.Y group. The other thing is, if you are around long enough
sooner or later you are bound to be seen, which is not necessarily a
positive reflection on the state of affairs regarding such issues but it
does seem to happen over here.

And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.

I applaud crossover also - but I would prefer a more grass roots crossover
also - it effects more artists and empowers others more, rather than
sungular cultural anomoly. I should add here that I do not mean just artists
I also mean creative types who do not always fit into various canon based
trajectories…

> It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
> funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
> millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
> point yet.

I think it can be done and it is happening, the net art experience is very
much part of that wave…as in organizational set ups, and every now and
then cash comes their way as well. But yes, money is not everything - but it
can go a long way, and it needs to be spread out more thinly than in just a
few clumpy, sweaty hands.

marc


















> Hi Mark,
>
> good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
> on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
> put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
> by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
> prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
> you know how this stuff works..
>
> If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
> might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
> bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
> intensive projects.
>
> My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
> dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
> irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
> disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
> think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.
>
> It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
> funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
> millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
> point yet.
>
>
> At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
> >Hi T.Whid,
> >
> >When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
> >enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that
during
> >that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
> >needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
> >dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
> >
> >And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
> >could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
> >evenly spread.
> >
> >(no dis on the work tho…)
> >
> >marc
> >
> >> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather
pathetic.
> >>
> >> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
> >> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
> >> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
> >> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
> >> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
> >> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
> >> is a decent independent film budget.
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, void void

WOW!
I thought we were talking about a web site! ( which has been up for quite a while, btw.)

why are artists so defensive about Barney's work? Yes it's massive, yes it's rich, yes no one else in film is doing the exact same stuff. To me it represents the SUPERSIZE mentality that sweeps the nation. The hollywood seduction. Peter Greenaway, I think, is more adpet at it, even if he's not in Barney's generation! Tulse Luper's Suitcases is just as massive, well shot with just as many STARS dahlink!

to make such a big deal about a purple dinosaur, what's the world comming to!

say cheese!
AE03.
atomicelroy.com

, marc garrett

Hi Eryk,

When I visited the exhibition itself I thought that the multi-narrative was
amazing, yet a niggling doubt was forging its way in my cranium regarding a
rather over-blown fluffed up bunny…still it's beautiful and that is the
main thing.

marc

> Concerning this:
>
> > >> He must have really creative accountant…
> > >>
> > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
pay
> for
> > > it?
> >
> > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>
>
> I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
> imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to
actually
> go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
> opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
> raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
> complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
> aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you
would
> like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt
the
> system is doesn't count.
>
> Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
> It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately
ugly
> aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful
and
> challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
> become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
> talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
> something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study
in
> order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer
you
> deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.
>
> Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
> Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to
try"
> train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
> watching this conversation.
>
> Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be
slow
> to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
> yours.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
> To: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site
>
>
> > on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> He must have really creative accountant…
> > >>
> > >> marc
> > >
> > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
pay
> for
> > > it?
> > >
> > > ja
> > >
> >
> > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, Jim Andrews

> I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
> didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
> his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
> recall.)

I don't live in New York or the States, so Barney's work is kind of low on
my radar. "Greatest artist of his generation." Sounds pretty rhetorical to
me, t.whid. What I saw of the web site so far, I've seen many better web
sites. It is well done, though. I watched the film on the site. 'Ultra
American?' Homage to excess? The notion of "beauty" I see there is
excessive. Ziegfield follies etc.

But will have another look.

ja

, Jim Andrews

> I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
> didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
> his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
> recall.)

i recall reading, some years ago, in the intro to a south african anthology
of poetry (edited by uli bier if i recall correctly) something like 'without
making any pathetic generalizations, it must be acknowledged that there is
now a world poetry.'

yet for the most part, art is a local phenomenon. eternally local. yet there
is on the net a kind of internationalist approach in net.art. not to suggest
that we know the same net.artists. we don't. but one is bound to know of
more foreign net.artist from a wider range of countries than in arts where
communications are not as easily international. four degrees of freedom,
say, rather than eight in print.

some years ago i wrote a thing i titled 'the impossibility of the mere
existence of the great works of the late twentieth century'. not that there
isn't exciting, 'great' work being done, but what makes sense and is 'great'
in one place may not be so great elsewhere.

dispersion. proliferation. synthesis. fracture. connection.

i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
example.

'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to me,
t.whid.

ja

, marc garrett

Hi Jim,

>i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
example.

Yes, I kind of have the same feeling as the above…this for is very much
the crux of the matter.

marc


>
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
> > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
> > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
> > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
> > recall.)
>
> i recall reading, some years ago, in the intro to a south african
anthology
> of poetry (edited by uli bier if i recall correctly) something like
'without
> making any pathetic generalizations, it must be acknowledged that there is
> now a world poetry.'
>
> yet for the most part, art is a local phenomenon. eternally local. yet
there
> is on the net a kind of internationalist approach in net.art. not to
suggest
> that we know the same net.artists. we don't. but one is bound to know of
> more foreign net.artist from a wider range of countries than in arts where
> communications are not as easily international. four degrees of freedom,
> say, rather than eight in print.
>
> some years ago i wrote a thing i titled 'the impossibility of the mere
> existence of the great works of the late twentieth century'. not that
there
> isn't exciting, 'great' work being done, but what makes sense and is
'great'
> in one place may not be so great elsewhere.
>
> dispersion. proliferation. synthesis. fracture. connection.
>
> i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
> example.
>
> 'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to
me,
> t.whid.
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

, MTAA

Hi Jim,

it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.

it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

cya

>> I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
>> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
>> didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
>> his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
>> recall.)
>
>I don't live in New York or the States, so Barney's work is kind of low on
>my radar. "Greatest artist of his generation." Sounds pretty rhetorical to
>me, t.whid. What I saw of the web site so far, I've seen many better web
>sites. It is well done, though. I watched the film on the site. 'Ultra
>American?' Homage to excess? The notion of "beauty" I see there is
>excessive. Ziegfield follies etc.
>
>But will have another look.
>
>ja


<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

, MTAA

At 4:51 PM -0700 10/20/03, Jim Andrews wrote:

>'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to me,
>t.whid.
>
>ja
>

more like american art spam.

cya


<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

, void void

if there is a greater
>> artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
>> didn't want to like Barney, ( THEN DON"T it's ok.)

I've seen his work… I like him, but he's just not that great!

the whole AMERIspam idea is right on!
IT"S FRICKIN PUBLICITY written by a FRICKEN publicist. ( who is a true artist in their own right, perhaps the best publicist of their generation, eh?)

here is a LIST of a few equal or greater artists ( of the time based media vein) "of his generation" … like being of the same general age makes a frickin dif. well i suppose it does to a publicist.

Laurie Anderson
Bill Viola
Paul Pfeiffer
Janett Caradiff

And what the media considers film makers:
Peter Greenaway

Now do you mean greater as in has greater exposure, greater publicity, no then you are correct, he is "THE GREATEST"

say cheese!
AE03
Atomic Elroy
CHAOS Studios
http://www.atomicelroy.com

, Jim Andrews

> Hi Jim,
>
> it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
> reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
> criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
> magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.

Hi t.whid,

It would be great if the web site were the real thing. I tend to like those
sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to expect the real thing from the greatest
artist of his generation? All the time and everywhere? Yet I am not
outraged.

> it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art spam? isn't
the implication that it's known across the land?

ja

, MTAA

At 11:26 PM -0700 10/21/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> it's strange that you criticize the work without having seen it.
>> reactionary? using the web site as reference for criticism is like
>> criticizing paintings that you've only seen reproduced in books or
>> magazines. You simply haven't experienced the work.
>
>Hi t.whid,
>
>It would be great if the web site were the real thing. I tend to like those
>sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to expect the real thing from the greatest
>artist of his generation? All the time and everywhere? Yet I am not
>outraged.

Yes. It is an unreasonable expectation. It is unreasonable to judge a
thing which is meant to be a brochure for the art (more or less) as
the art. And it's not just unreasonable, it's also just plain silly.

If you can't discern the difference I can't help you.

It's also unreasonable to criticize an artist for work you think they
should make.

>
>> it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.
>
>I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art spam? isn't
>the implication that it's known across the land?
>
>ja

I don't understand what you mean by the above. I was simply giving a
smart-ass reply to your (fairly obnoxious) post. The post was
insulting. I'm not employed by anyone to publicize their work and
it's an insulting insinuation. (I suppose because I called the
financial pot-shots 'pathetic' you felt you were within your rights.)

I will amend my earlier comment; I should have said that Barney is
the greatest american artist of his generation.

disclaimer: this is only my opinion and I have no power either
through post of rhetorical talent to force this opinion on anyone who
may feel otherwise. happy?

<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

, Jim Andrews

> >It would be great if the web site were
> the real thing. I tend to like those
> >sorts of sites. Am I unreasonable to
> >expect the real thing from the greatest
> >artist of his generation? All the time
> >and everywhere? Yet I am not outraged.
>
> Yes. It is an unreasonable expectation. It is unreasonable to judge a
> thing which is meant to be a brochure for the art (more or less) as
> the art. And it's not just unreasonable, it's also just plain silly.
>
> If you can't discern the difference I can't help you.
>
> It's also unreasonable to criticize an artist for work you think they
> should make.

Ah, well, not having experienced the work of the greatest artist of his
generation in the media it was truly created for, I am sentenced to
experience only the brochure version. And should remain silent.

> >> it wasn't really a rhetorical statement, just my opinion.

Cool, as long as it's your opinion, t.whid, as an independent intellectual.

> >I thought you said it was american art spam, not new york art
> >spam? isn't the implication that it's known across the land?

> I don't understand what you mean by the above.

You said "more like american art spam."

> I was simply giving a
> smart-ass reply to your (fairly obnoxious) post.

I'd say it was tit for tat then t.whid.

> The post was
> insulting. I'm not employed by anyone to publicize their work and
> it's an insulting insinuation.

To call something art spam is not necessarily to say it's being paid for.

>(I suppose because I called the
> financial pot-shots 'pathetic' you felt you were within your rights.)

Look, you like his work and that's great, you enjoy it, and you think he's
doing important work. but as a critical statement, to say someone is the
greatest artist of their generation just reads to me like ad-minded drivel,
t.whid, salesman talk. I expect more from you and i expect more from great
artists than a brochure site.

> I will amend my earlier comment; I should have said that Barney is
> the greatest american artist of his generation.
>
> disclaimer: this is only my opinion and I have no power either
> through post of rhetorical talent to force this opinion on anyone who
> may feel otherwise. happy?

Last i heard you are still free in your country to speak your mind.

ja

, Christopher Fahey

What's so great about the Cremaster web site? Looks like it has a lot of
nice movie stills and some videos from the films, and it's certainly
well designed, but it's only documentation of the films. It's not a
unique work like the "Artificial Intelligence" and "Requiem for a Dream"
movie web sites. Nor, honestly, does it look like it cost very much to
make.

http://www.requiemforadream.com/
http://dontcloseyoureyes.warnerbros.com/
http://www.donniedarko.com/
http://cloudmakers.org

I like film web sites that are *better* than the films they are intended
to promote.

-Cf

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

, curt cloninger

I agree. When I finally got around to seeing the Aronofsky film, it paled in comparison to the web site.

more:
http://www.otnemem.com

http://www.spunthemovie.com/spun/valley/spun.html

http://www.trailerparkboys.com/shit/instruct.html

and
http://www.titler.com
ironically culls much source material from this documentary:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1586640054/

instead of web sites promoting movies and movies based on comic books & video games, what about a movie based on a web site? Miramax Films and Amblin Entertainment present "Superbad, The Movie," directed by Spike Jonze and starring Billy Bob Thornton as Uncle Jay.
http://superbad.com/1/turkey/turkey.html

curt
_


Christopher Fahey wrote:

> What's so great about the Cremaster web site? Looks like it has a lot
> of
> nice movie stills and some videos from the films, and it's certainly
> well designed, but it's only documentation of the films. It's not a
> unique work like the "Artificial Intelligence" and "Requiem for a
> Dream"
> movie web sites. Nor, honestly, does it look like it cost very much to
> make.
>
> http://www.requiemforadream.com/
> http://dontcloseyoureyes.warnerbros.com/
> http://www.donniedarko.com/
> http://cloudmakers.org
>
> I like film web sites that are *better* than the films they are
> intended
> to promote.
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>
>

, M. River

I've been hesitant to respond to this thread, but I'd
like to add a few thoughts.

I worked on the C3 set at the Guggenheim as well as
installed Barny's show at the Guggenheim. As a person,
I found him to be smart, polite, and funny. He's a bit
punk in a positive sense. In production, he and his
crew work hard…harder than most I've seen. They
sweat the details. The studio, as his lead fabricator
Ryle points out, often disappoints visitors for being
a workshop not the fashion studio they expect.

I say this to point out that what one perceives an
artist to be is often distorted. He is successful, I
believe, because he makes interesting work. He is
successful because he works his ass off (so to speak).

As for the work, regardless of how one likes to rate
him as an artist, the Cremaster Cycle is an undeniably
massive work full of innovation and depth. It may well
stand as a major artwork in our time. Intentional
hubris.

The website, on the other hand, is a document. It only
points to the artwork. To look at it in relation to
net art/ net design shorts both. Apples and oranges.

Why it was placed in the NAN I'm not sure. I do think
is that it is useful to look at a range of artworks
and approaches to content on the net. It may help
clarify what we make.


=====
http://mteww.com
http://tinjail.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

, Dyske Suematsu

Measuring of artistic values, such as "the greatest artist of …", is a
paradoxical proposition. We all know that it is not measured by how many
people appreciate a particular work of art. If we went only by the number of
votes, someone like Madonna would be the greatest artist (or musician) in
the world. We all know that, in the end, art is subjective. But then is it
really?

Some artists claim that they do not care what other people think of their
work, that they are only concerned with what they believe to be good. But
this too is impossible, and is logically nonsensical. I cannot, for
instance, define who I am without defining who everyone else is. Who I am is
defined by what the others are not. So, if I say, *I* don't care what other
people think of my work, and that *I* only care about what *I* believe to be
good, how do I define this "I" without contrasting it with the values of the
others?

Whether you go by popularity or your own personal beliefs, the problem of
artistic value does not get solved. In fact, it can never be. Whenever I
come across issues like this where it is logically impossible to have an
answer, I question the question itself. More specifically I question the
motive, what drives me to ask this question.

I am not against measuring, comparing, or competing. I believe they are
important aspects of productive life. If I play chess, I play to win,
because that is what makes the game fun. Problems arise when you reverse
this process. That is, if you start to believe that it is fun because you
win. The game should be fun whether you win or lose. Having fun or feeling
joy from striving to achieve higher regardless of the outcome is what makes
life worth living.

The same goes for artistic values. Works of art can be compared and
measured. In many ways, comparison is what makes the whole practice of art
more fun and beneficial. But when you reverse this process, and believe that
it is being better than others that makes practicing of art fun and
worthwhile, that's when the trouble starts.

Dyske

, sean

I agree that whining about Matthew Barney getting money is really pathetic and childish. Do you really this he is taking money from other artists? Maybe if you had something compelling and were able to present it properly you could find a benefactor of some sort?
Or should we just give you money because you want it really bad?

I wish artists weren't so jaded and poisoned by thier Marxists teachers in college.

, Jim Andrews

Well said. I hope I am able to see it one of these days, and visit New York.
It's evident from the support it gets on the list that the experience is
crucial. As one would expect. Information is not experience.

As for money and art, they are somewhat independent of one another, aren't
they. Pound said 'It's true there's no money in poetry. But then there's no
poetry in money, either." Hard to buy love and hard to create art by dint of
money. Yet it is hard without it, also. It's just plain hard, however you
look at it.

What makes art possible in a particular place is usually in strong relation
to what makes it so improbable there, also.

ja

> I've been hesitant to respond to this thread, but I'd
> like to add a few thoughts.
>
> I worked on the C3 set at the Guggenheim as well as
> installed Barny's show at the Guggenheim. As a person,
> I found him to be smart, polite, and funny. He's a bit
> punk in a positive sense. In production, he and his
> crew work hard…harder than most I've seen. They
> sweat the details. The studio, as his lead fabricator
> Ryle points out, often disappoints visitors for being
> a workshop not the fashion studio they expect.
>
> I say this to point out that what one perceives an
> artist to be is often distorted. He is successful, I
> believe, because he makes interesting work. He is
> successful because he works his ass off (so to speak).
>
> As for the work, regardless of how one likes to rate
> him as an artist, the Cremaster Cycle is an undeniably
> massive work full of innovation and depth. It may well
> stand as a major artwork in our time. Intentional
> hubris.
>
> The website, on the other hand, is a document. It only
> points to the artwork. To look at it in relation to
> net art/ net design shorts both. Apples and oranges.
>
> Why it was placed in the NAN I'm not sure. I do think
> is that it is useful to look at a range of artworks
> and approaches to content on the net. It may help
> clarify what we make.

, Jim Andrews

o yes let's do come to the rescue of capitalism and the american way, by all
means, including art.

ja

> I agree that whining about Matthew Barney getting money is really
> pathetic and childish. Do you really this he is taking money from
> other artists? Maybe if you had something compelling and were
> able to present it properly you could find a benefactor of some sort?
> Or should we just give you money because you want it really bad?
>
> I wish artists weren't so jaded and poisoned by thier Marxists
> teachers in college.

, void void

hey what about us artistes that didn't go to kollege?
Can't we grow up to be Mathew Barney?

this thread is totaly looney now.
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Deranged in Denver wants to know:

How can I ballance my Marxist views and still retain my love/hate relatiionship with Mathew barney, even if he isn't the "GREATEST" living artist of his generation?

Nihilists in New York said:
blabla art is the new dada art!
didn't you know…. everyone in NY says so!

have a laugh… at art's expense…

this is a funny link
http://www.despair.com



SAY CHEESE!
AE03
http://www.atomcielroy.com