finding net.art in the rhizome artbase

David – Mind meld!

Feisal Ahmad, who has been working as an intern for us for the last
year, just started TODAY as Rhizome's official Content Coordinator.
It's not a full-time job, but one of his biggest tasks will be to
develop programs, such as the one you suggest, to make the ArtBase
easier to use.

We want to develop a number of tools/programs to make the ArtBase more
vital, visible and user-friendly. In fact, we have grant pending that
we'll hear about in the next two months that will make this much easier
to accomplish.

But, I think the top 5 idea is great. Maybe you want to wrangle these
together and we can publish them somewhere on the site?


– Rachel



On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 04:16 AM, David Goldschmidt wrote:

> hi all-
>

I'd be glad to Rachel. And thanks fo rthe opportunity to work with Rhizome=
. You guys are great.

Feisal, would you please query your database and send me a list of the werk=
s that were added to the artbase during its first three months? Thanks.

I'll work on coordinating the vote.

My first thought is
1. To publish the list Feisel generates.
2. Ask Rhizome's RAW and RARE community to send us their favorites
3. Then put the top twenty to a vote by the entire Rhizome community
4. Publish the TOP FIVE

If anyone has any ideas they'd like to contribute please voice them.


david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv
www.mediatrips.com



—– Original Message —–
From: Rachel Greene
To: David Goldschmidt
Cc: [email protected] ; Feisal
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase


David – Mind meld!

Feisal Ahmad, who has been working as an intern for us for the last year,=
just started TODAY as Rhizome's official Content Coordinator. It's not a f=
ull-time job, but one of his biggest tasks will be to develop programs, suc=
h as the one you suggest, to make the ArtBase easier to use.

We want to develop a number of tools/programs to make the ArtBase more vi=
tal, visible and user-friendly. In fact, we have grant pending that we'll h=
ear about in the next two months that will make this much easier to accompl=
ish.

But, I think the top 5 idea is great. Maybe you want to wrangle these tog=
ether and we can publish them somewhere on the site?


– Rachel



On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 04:16 AM, David Goldschmidt wrote:


hi all-

I have an idea.

I have been a rhizomer "forever" and, as many others have pointed out, =
searching for net.art by artist or alphabetically is a rather painful exper=
ience.

I would like to suggest a third option.

Going back in time, I would like the rhizome community to vote for the =
5 "best" net.art werks for a given period (say three months). For example,=
we would go back and look at all the art that was "released", created, etc=
from January 1998 to March 1998 and pick the top 5 werks.

And then Rhizome could let people use the "top five" lists to find grea=
t net.art that is in their database.

Also, I think this approach is a great way to see how net.art has chang=
ed over time.

Unleash the egos and let the debate begin! This could be fun.

Best,

david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv
www.mediatrips.com

This is sort of facetious but it might be quite fun to
do the same exercise for pieces that were *rejected*
for the Artbase in any given three month period.
Not that I'm volunteering ( except I'd be happy to
forward my two rejection notes)
best
michael
— David Goldschmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd be glad to Rachel. And thanks fo rthe
> opportunity to work with Rhizome. You guys are
> great.
>
> Feisal, would you please query your database and
> send me a list of the werks that were added to the
> artbase during its first three months? Thanks.
>
> I'll work on coordinating the vote.
>
> My first thought is
> 1. To publish the list Feisel generates.
> 2. Ask Rhizome's RAW and RARE community to send us
> their favorites
> 3. Then put the top twenty to a vote by the entire
> Rhizome community
> 4. Publish the TOP FIVE
>
> If anyone has any ideas they'd like to contribute
> please voice them.
>
>
> david goldschmidt
> www.personify.tv
> www.mediatrips.com
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: Rachel Greene
> To: David Goldschmidt
> Cc: [email protected] ; Feisal
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the
> rhizome artbase
>
>
> David – Mind meld!
>
> Feisal Ahmad, who has been working as an intern
> for us for the last year, just started TODAY as
> Rhizome's official Content Coordinator. It's not a
> full-time job, but one of his biggest tasks will be
> to develop programs, such as the one you suggest, to
> make the ArtBase easier to use.
>
> We want to develop a number of tools/programs to
> make the ArtBase more vital, visible and
> user-friendly. In fact, we have grant pending that
> we'll hear about in the next two months that will
> make this much easier to accomplish.
>
> But, I think the top 5 idea is great. Maybe you
> want to wrangle these together and we can publish
> them somewhere on the site?
>
>
> – Rachel
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 04:16 AM, David
> Goldschmidt wrote:
>
>
> hi all-
>
> I have an idea.
>
> I have been a rhizomer "forever" and, as many
> others have pointed out, searching for net.art by
> artist or alphabetically is a rather painful
> experience.
>
> I would like to suggest a third option.
>
> Going back in time, I would like the rhizome
> community to vote for the 5 "best" net.art werks for
> a given period (say three months). For example, we
> would go back and look at all the art that was
> "released", created, etc from January 1998 to March
> 1998 and pick the top 5 werks.
>
> And then Rhizome could let people use the "top
> five" lists to find great net.art that is in their
> database.
>
> Also, I think this approach is a great way to
> see how net.art has changed over time.
>
> Unleash the egos and let the debate begin! This
> could be fun.
>
> Best,
>
> david goldschmidt
> www.personify.tv
> www.mediatrips.com
>
>


=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

I like this idea much better. But perhaps rather than having a guest decide
what goes in and does not, why not have them put together "shows" of current
and archived (it is the artbase, after all) work, based on various themes -
be them concept, time, file size, technology, etc? This would not be a
competition (best or worst art?), but a curatorial project using both a
collection (again, artbase), and placing a call for new work (new artbase
submissions, based on theme of show - this should not exclude other work
from being submitted to the artbase, outside of the show's perimeters);
these online exhibitions would also be archived, making the artbase a bit
easier to surf, and perhaps slightly more interesting to those not
in-the-know of "what to look for."

2cents,

nathaniel
http://nathanielstern.com


Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly stated
the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:

> I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid point.
>
> Another possible artbase idea that we've been kicking around is the 'guest
> curator' concept, where we get one specific person to serve the curatorial
> function and give them a time window to do so— not to to choose on the
> supposed 'best in show' of what's already in the artbase but to help decide
> what actually goes in when it comes to new submissions.
>
> My questions to you all are, do you feel that this could be a feasible
> proposition? Is it moving towards an Artbase Superuser capability, and if so,
> would that be a good or bad thing in your eyes? Best,
>
> = Feisal
> +
> -> 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


nathaniel
http://nathanielstern.com

re: competition

Eryk's point, that one shouldn't be made to compete without one's
consent, makes sense; but the rest of the comments regarding
competition don't address his main point: being roped into a
competition without consent.

There is nothing wrong with judging art on it's quality. Some of it is
good, some of it sucks.

Artists attempting to make a career of it need to get used to people
judging your work, it happens all the time. You apply for grants,
residencies, galleries and etc and someone judges you at that point.

MTAA has been judged poorly by many people many times. These people are
wrong. But tho we've been treated poorly time and again by these judges
we understand that it is something one must endure in order to create
art that gets noticed. It can even help one grow when one is judged
mediocre of a failure.

So, I would be interested in a competition within the artbase (tho
MTAA's strongest work isn't represented). But Eryk's point needs to be
addressed before we go forward.

> Can we not have a format without the competitive
> element?

On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:55 AM, nathaniel stern wrote:

> This would not be a
> competition (best or worst art?),
>
> Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
> stated
> the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
>
>> I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
>> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
>> point.

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

I think the guest curator is a good idea, but to act more as a guest filter, to cull together favorites from the current artbase, not to act as a curator for new entries. Let the current standard criteria for new entries remain (whatever it is), and this guest curator thing is just one more level of meta-ness to draw attention to current works in the artbase that might not otherwise be noticed by contextualizing these artworks from a personal perspective.

A practical analogy:
At the apple iTunes online store, they ask guest musicians to put together a "mix CD" of sorts and explain their thoughts behind it. Then each track is sold for their going rate of 99 cents or whatever it is. So I can download and burn myself the same mix CD that Michael Stipe or Paul Simon or whomever chose.

This draws attention to and endorses musicians in their database that might not otherwise get heard by someone just randomly browsing. Because I trust the artist making the mix tape, I give his suggestions a try. If I like one of the musicians in their mix, I'll go check out her other work.

The same could happen with these types of "filterships" at rhizome. (Except the art is free because net artists are bound to be poor and give all their work away for free.)

Yes, "filtership" is off the top of my head. Yes, feel free to use it. [memes-r-us]

For more on the concept of filtering vs. curating, cf:
http://intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html


——-

nathaniel stern wrote:

> I like this idea much better. But perhaps rather than having a guest
> decide
> what goes in and does not, why not have them put together "shows" of
> current
> and archived (it is the artbase, after all) work, based on various
> themes -
> be them concept, time, file size, technology, etc? This would not be
> a
> competition (best or worst art?), but a curatorial project using both
> a
> collection (again, artbase), and placing a call for new work (new
> artbase
> submissions, based on theme of show - this should not exclude other
> work
> from being submitted to the artbase, outside of the show's
> perimeters);
> these online exhibitions would also be archived, making the artbase a
> bit
> easier to surf, and perhaps slightly more interesting to those not
> in-the-know of "what to look for."
>
> 2cents,
>
> nathaniel
> http://nathanielstern.com
>
>
> Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
> stated
> the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
>
> > I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
> > 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
> point.
> >
> > Another possible artbase idea that we've been kicking around is the
> 'guest
> > curator' concept, where we get one specific person to serve the
> curatorial
> > function and give them a time window to do so— not to to choose on
> the
> > supposed 'best in show' of what's already in the artbase but to help
> decide
> > what actually goes in when it comes to new submissions.
> >
> > My questions to you all are, do you feel that this could be a
> feasible
> > proposition? Is it moving towards an Artbase Superuser capability,
> and if so,
> > would that be a good or bad thing in your eyes? Best,
> >
> > = Feisal

I also agree that there is nothing wrong in people coming to their own
conclusions about what they like and what they think is important. That
is what is up!! I just don't want the context to be a competition.



On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:25 AM, t.whid wrote:

> re: competition
>
> Eryk's point, that one shouldn't be made to compete without one's
> consent, makes sense; but the rest of the comments regarding
> competition don't address his main point: being roped into a
> competition without consent.
>
> There is nothing wrong with judging art on it's quality. Some of it is
> good, some of it sucks.
>
> Artists attempting to make a career of it need to get used to people
> judging your work, it happens all the time. You apply for grants,
> residencies, galleries and etc and someone judges you at that point.
>
> MTAA has been judged poorly by many people many times. These people
> are wrong. But tho we've been treated poorly time and again by these
> judges we understand that it is something one must endure in order to
> create art that gets noticed. It can even help one grow when one is
> judged mediocre of a failure.
>
> So, I would be interested in a competition within the artbase (tho
> MTAA's strongest work isn't represented). But Eryk's point needs to be
> addressed before we go forward.
>
>> Can we not have a format without the competitive
>> element?
>
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:55 AM, nathaniel stern wrote:
>
>> This would not be a
>> competition (best or worst art?),
>>
>> Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
>> stated
>> the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
>>
>>> I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
>>> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
>>> point.
>
> ===
> <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
>

I was pleased to read your earlier reassurances
Rachel.
For what it's worth I thought Nathaniel's recent
contribution was both constructive and measured.
As for Tim's point, of course we all currently exist
in a competitive context -I enter loads of things, I'm
not unhappy about having my work judged in general, if
you can't stand the heat &c-point taken, point taken!
The competitive principle just seems to me a
hideously inappropriate way to organise or relate to
the artbase ( especially were it to be introduced it
now, without any question of prior informed consent) &
it doesn't actually broaden access or make it more
interesting in any way in my view.
What's encouraging are the positive ideas that a
number of people have put forward - guest
curatorships, thematic shows &c. I have no problem
whatsoever with these.

best
michael

— Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
> I also agree that there is nothing wrong in people
> coming to their own
> conclusions about what they like and what they think
> is important. That
> is what is up!! I just don't want the context to be
> a competition.
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 11:25 AM, t.whid
> wrote:
>
> > re: competition
> >
> > Eryk's point, that one shouldn't be made to
> compete without one's
> > consent, makes sense; but the rest of the comments
> regarding
> > competition don't address his main point: being
> roped into a
> > competition without consent.
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with judging art on it's
> quality. Some of it is
> > good, some of it sucks.
> >
> > Artists attempting to make a career of it need to
> get used to people
> > judging your work, it happens all the time. You
> apply for grants,
> > residencies, galleries and etc and someone judges
> you at that point.
> >
> > MTAA has been judged poorly by many people many
> times. These people
> > are wrong. But tho we've been treated poorly time
> and again by these
> > judges we understand that it is something one must
> endure in order to
> > create art that gets noticed. It can even help one
> grow when one is
> > judged mediocre of a failure.
> >
> > So, I would be interested in a competition within
> the artbase (tho
> > MTAA's strongest work isn't represented). But
> Eryk's point needs to be
> > addressed before we go forward.
> >
> >> Can we not have a format without the competitive
> >> element?
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:55 AM, nathaniel stern
> wrote:
> >
> >> This would not be a
> >> competition (best or worst art?),
> >>
> >> Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @
> [email protected] online, so boldly
> >> stated
> >> the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
> >>
> >>> I think we understand your feelings on the
> potential downside of the
> >>> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's
> definitely a valid
> >>> point.
> >
> > ===
> > <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
> >
>
> +
> -> 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


=====
*** QuickTime large QuickTime NUMBER, it is small, office being nearly office OF the office OF the COMMANDS office OF the film or many nearly time the small order where that, that is the office OF the office OF the COMMANDS QuickTime when into the film, is given, it gives the office OF the
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ ***

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Tim, we don't need a lesson in bucking up. Eryk's point is taken, however
the point of disagreeing with organizing a historical record into a best-of
based upon a finite (and small) set of opinions accumulated during a finite
(and small) period of time is mine.

I like the curatorial record, giving named body to the opinion to eliminate
the "authoratative" voice of "us" who exist (disembodied) to judge best-of.

joseph

—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase


> re: competition
>
> Eryk's point, that one shouldn't be made to compete without one's
> consent, makes sense; but the rest of the comments regarding
> competition don't address his main point: being roped into a
> competition without consent.
>
> There is nothing wrong with judging art on it's quality. Some of it is
> good, some of it sucks.
>
> Artists attempting to make a career of it need to get used to people
> judging your work, it happens all the time. You apply for grants,
> residencies, galleries and etc and someone judges you at that point.
>
> MTAA has been judged poorly by many people many times. These people are
> wrong. But tho we've been treated poorly time and again by these judges
> we understand that it is something one must endure in order to create
> art that gets noticed. It can even help one grow when one is judged
> mediocre of a failure.
>
> So, I would be interested in a competition within the artbase (tho
> MTAA's strongest work isn't represented). But Eryk's point needs to be
> addressed before we go forward.
>
> > Can we not have a format without the competitive
> > element?
>
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:55 AM, nathaniel stern wrote:
>
> > This would not be a
> > competition (best or worst art?),
> >
> > Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
> > stated
> > the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
> >
> >> I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
> >> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
> >> point.
>
> ===
> <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
>

What's so important about getting one's art noticed?

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome artbase


> re: competition
>
> Eryk's point, that one shouldn't be made to compete without one's
> consent, makes sense; but the rest of the comments regarding
> competition don't address his main point: being roped into a
> competition without consent.
>
> There is nothing wrong with judging art on it's quality. Some of it is
> good, some of it sucks.
>
> Artists attempting to make a career of it need to get used to people
> judging your work, it happens all the time. You apply for grants,
> residencies, galleries and etc and someone judges you at that point.
>
> MTAA has been judged poorly by many people many times. These people are
> wrong. But tho we've been treated poorly time and again by these judges
> we understand that it is something one must endure in order to create
> art that gets noticed. It can even help one grow when one is judged
> mediocre of a failure.
>
> So, I would be interested in a competition within the artbase (tho
> MTAA's strongest work isn't represented). But Eryk's point needs to be
> addressed before we go forward.
>
> > Can we not have a format without the competitive
> > element?
>
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 10:55 AM, nathaniel stern wrote:
>
> > This would not be a
> > competition (best or worst art?),
> >
> > Feisal Ahmad, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
> > stated
> > the following, on 11/7/03 5:15 PM:
> >
> >> I think we understand your feelings on the potential downside of the
> >> 'competitive nature' of such an idea and it's definitely a valid
> >> point.
>
> ===
> <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
>

hi erik
i'm shy [and argentine, that's to say doubly shy] to post to this list
but i have some things to say.
i think that subjectivity is a condition [as much as objectivity] in any
kind of decision. even more, the splitting between subjectivity and
objectivity belongs to the metaphysical culture that the authors of the
book the name of rhizome comes from fight against.
i think you put some very interesting points that i'd like to discuss.
my works have been in both situations -accepted and not- and it would
have been interesting that you made a statement [as you ask for to the
artists] about the acceptance or rejection of the work [instead of the
automatic 'congratulations' or 'the work doesn't fit the criteria of
selection' [i don't remember the exact terms]

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

>
>Your point that the rhizome admission process is pretty much arbitrary and
>defined by a rather dynamic set of criteria is a good one, and part of the
>artbase's problem has always been figuring out what is and is not
>"historically relevant".
>
well, i think that is some kind of riddle. what means 'historically
relevant' is hard to guess. either you have to accept works that history
[that's to say some important peiod of time] made relevant [what remains
argumentable] or you have a concept of history that [even if it could be
the best we can imagine] has to be checked out.[i say you because you
were part of the staff and therefore accepted this criteria]

> I've moaned about how I believe the submission
>process should be done, but to little avail and it doesn't matter I suppose.
>I stinted as an artbase intern, which did give me a lot of opportunity to
>figure out what got in and what didn't. I was personally very selective but
>fair- it was based on a measure of A) how much discussion the work merited,
>and how often I had seen it brought up,
>
apologies, it must have to do with my poor english but i don't
understand the point. discussed by whom? by the staff of the artbase?
and the same for 'brought up'. i think that, dispite of my poor english,
it remains subjective [except that you think subjectivity as a sinonym
of individuality]. if not, you remain very subjective because some works
[by some artists] have very much more opportunities to be discussed than
some by other artists, you know. in that sense i have to recognize the
crew of artbase [i don't know if you were part of it at that moment]
took my work in consideration [indeed alena made me notice that one of
my works didn't work well on some systems] but it had have to do with
some other item of the criteria because my works were too much recent at
the time to be 'historicaly relevant'. even now they aren't [at least i
wish ;-)]

> B) date of creation- my rule was,
>all net.art prior to 1997 was accepted.
>
i can't agree with such a point. you think that all past time was
better? if not which authority does time have to legitimate a work of art?

> The rest was judged by standard a
>and: C) How new the aesthetics or concept of the piece were for net art of
>its era, and how many spin offs or variations on code, technique or concept
>it inspired.
>
i think it's a good point [and of course, subjective-objective], except
for the concept of new. is it a value to decide about art [in a
after-postmodern period]? i don't know because it might mean so much
different things. and if you think about the period in which new were a
fundamental concept, one of the most 'historicaly relevant' artistic
movement was built upon the discovering of the african sculptures by
picasso and friends which were anything but new. ok, cubism was 'new'
but at least it should make you think about it. and, of course, it
relates to the concept of 'originality'. i liked so much a very
educational discussion in this list about two works that looked very
similar [even the same]. nevertheless, i don't think i'd like so much to
see the same work repeated a thousand times in the artbase signed by a
thousand different artists [well, i'm not quite sure].

perhaps all what i said is bullshit, but that's it.
best
rechen

Eryk Salvaggio, who can be found @ [email protected] online, so boldly
stated the following, on 11/8/03 9:48 AM:

>
>
> What do net.artists gain from increased exposure?
>
> -e.

Perhaps this is a question that should be posed to Agricola's "my mission."
Personally (and not devoid of some pretence that I am uneasily aware of), I
see the art I most appreciate attempting "provocations as a public service."
How can we do that without exposure?


nathaniel
http://nathanielstern.com