aGalloway, FlashFormalism and Complexification

On Friday, October 08, 2004, at 10:50AM, bensyverson <[email protected]> wrote:

>It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex
>Galloway.

Now we're getting somewhere. :-) Replace "conceptual" with "aesthetic" and "surveillance" with "brown". We'll have to change Alex's name as well I suppose, but you get the idea.

>At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and
>shameless his carreeristNarcissism is.

Koons' work is the most socially literate American art I've seen since I don't know when. The guy Gets It, can Explain It, and has done so through and in his work. Popples, the basketballs, the balloon dog, the pr0n, all are conceptually steeped aesthetic nightmares to beat class culture over the head with. All of which goes through and with the fact that he's a shameless careerist.

>Do you believe everything Warhol told you about
>his work?

Yes. Particlarly the bit about other people making most of it. ;-)

>> Brian Eno:
>> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.
>
>Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust,

Is FF?

>yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique
>of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical
>discussion.

If criticism is beyond criticism then it is surely worthless: for criticism the mark of value is being an object of criticism.

>> And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning
>> job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to
>> look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and
>> immediately dialogue-able.
>
>Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a
>problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool
>brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead…

I'm afraid this has been part of my argument as well. The virtue you seek does not have the virtue you seek. That is, an art that is obviously critical of something else that we can all agree with the criticism of and feel the virtue of criticising without ourselves being touched by that criticism is not particularly critical. It is an aesthetic of criticism rather than an ethic of criticism.

>All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)

If this list had a .sig that'd get my vote for it. :-)

- Rob.

Goooood Morning Ben! Shall we?…

Ben:
T H E New Media Art Resource. The one, as in [Gnostic/Matrix]
mythology, as in THE one. You think they didn't consider that? That's
calculated. So if they're going to claim definitiveness, I will hold
them to it. Rhizome and the ArtBase are thus representatives of
newMedia as a whole, and should be approached as such.

curt:
excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm the man.



Ben:
How about from a logical perspective? I define abstract as either
non-representational or so obscurely representational as to be
indistinguishable from non-representational. This is a fairly
controversial distinction, but I believe in it. I think squares moving
around the screen randomly is essentially the same as squares moving in
the same manner but driven by stock prices.

curt:
excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so extremely out of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly controversisal distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that I am the man. That's THE man.



curt:
> But data visualization is inherently abstraction.

ben:
In that case, a book is abstract art, because language is an
abstraction of thought (which may be an abstraction of chemistry &&
physics?). Where do we stop? We get into stonerDiscussionLand.

curt:
Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze. [cf: http://www.larrycarlson.com for the accompanying screensaver ]



curt:
> The artist is literally abstracting data (from text to animation in
> the first piece and from sound to shapeForm in the second). The
> artists could have abstracted the data any number of ways, but they
> chose to abstract it in very specific ways, not just to achieve
> accurate representation, but to achieve an abstract, aesthetic effect.

ben:
It's an aesthetic effect all right, but it's in no way abstract. Unless
you're going to count sheet music as abstract as well. Of course in one
sense (like language) it is, but as you can see, that's not a very
productive avenue of discussion, is it?

curt:
this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [ http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg ]. if you disasgree then we disagree.




curt:
> The pieces work not just because they are useful or accurate (indeed,
> neither are terribly useful), but also because they look interesting.

ben:
Now who's using Marxist && scientific terminology? Who gives a fsck if
they're "useful" or "accurate?" That's not at all what makes them
interesting to me.

curt:
yech. me either. we agree.




ben:
What I find fascinating about them is the way that
they pose questions about navigation and representation, and attempt to
answer those questions. They are indeed interesting-looking – they're
fascinating shapes when you realize how they describe and navigate
concepts and relationships.

curt:
me too! we agree.




ben:
If you stripped away the conceptual
element, and I only had the visuals, I would absolutely disagree that
they were interesting-looking.

curt:
not me! we disagree.



curt:
> Furthermore, the way in which they look interesting is intrinsically
> related to the data they are abstracting, but not merely arbitrarily
> driven by it.

ben:
Exactly! As you say, they are interesting in their way exactly because
of the concepts happening. If the MIDI files in Shape of Song merely
determined the amount to offset transparent squares, my interest
wouldn't hold.

curt:
nor mine! we agree.




curt:
> Regarding carnivore ( http://www.rhizome.org/carnivore ) the genius of
> the piece is precisely that it farms out the last-mile aesthetics to
> "artisans" (if you must) who enjoy and are skillful at visual
> representation.

ben:
You say genius, I say Galloway was making a considered move to maintain
distance from this world of newFormalism while leveraging it to his
advantage. This project allowed him to use the kind of splashy
abstraction that gets people's attention without actually giving up his
Conceptualist membership card.

curt:
Actually, alex is a fan of the sensual. cf: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Projects/samyninterview.html



curt:
> Galloway tackled the obligatory political concept and coding. The
> political concept (surveilance) was/is very en vogue and thus a
> shoe-in for gallery-ization, but there's nothing terribly sexy about
> that aspect of it to me.

ben:
Nor to me. I find Galloway's work to have a fairly repellent tension
between Hipsterism, Careerism and Hackerism. The thin concepts that do
make their way into his work are, as you describe, unrelated to the
ulterior motives that drive it. But they are indeed an easy sell to
overEager galleries and institutions.

curt:
but I'm not dissing Alex, nor would I define him as a careerrist. RSG is a collective, and they are the ones credited with the work. Furthermore, Alex is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival recognition with all the people who wrote the modules. Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art fame (an amusing notion in and of itself). If anything, alex will be remembered first and foremost as a new media theorist and educator. Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist?




curt:
> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (
> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo. Hamada
> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly
> dissed.]

ben:
You're right – I didn't spend enough time examining the Rhizome logo.
Let's look at it together! Hmm. I see lines. No, let's dig deeper!
Lines, as in linearity, as in 1-dimensionality, as in locked in a
to-and-fro proto-Flatland hell (AbbottStyle). Deeper still! Okay, I see
a hub and spoke, suggesting centrality, unification, Modernism. Deeper
still! Wait, they seem to be different colors, so there must be
multiple elements coming together in the same place! Like a city, which
grows rapidly before calcifying into stone. Deeper still! What's that?
You say these lines aren't simply random, but based on some… data?
What kind of data? Oh, 11 herbs and spices, eh? Well, a secret's a
secret – I'll take your word that the lines are based on Something!
What's that? You want a final analysis?

It seems that this "Rhizome" is some sort of unified location for…
Modernist secretDataPictures?

There. I've just given the logo more thought than most Rhizomers
probably [have/would care to]. Is there something deeper I should be
"getting," or am I just not appreciating it enough somehow?

curt:
You're evaluating it by the wrong criteria. It's a logo, which is a graphic design element used for branding a corporation. In corporate america, you're logo can't change every time you use it or you've defeated your own purpose (although now you've got animated avatars like the Xingular logo that do change a bit, but that's off topic). So Rhizome's logo is intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to remember about it is that it's not the same, which is a cool way to [de/anti/un]-brand a net art resource called rhizome. So as generative art, it's not much, but as a logo, it's right clever.




<dead horse>

curt:
> You say, "whether or not they agree." They categorically disagree,
> and that's my point. You may assimilate them into your current
> historical paradigm to your own intellectual satisfaction, but if they
> were here today, they wouldn't go so quietly.

ben:
I hate to say this, but if we start relying on the artists to interpret
their own work, intellectual discourse in the art community will
largely wither and die. Do you believe everything Warhol told you about
his work? Of course not, you look at the work and you draw your own
conclusions.

curt:
they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with their work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting their personal opinions about art and life, and their opinions disagree with your opinions.

</dead horse>




> Brian Eno:
> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.

ben:
Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust, but
rather fullOn engagement. If you really want to withdraw from the
artWorld in disgust, unsubscribe and truly disEngage.

curt:
must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk, occasionally dropping the cryptic science and every now and then getting into the odd three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN SYVERSON? I'd like to think so!




curt:
> cf: http://www.rhizome.org/print.rhiz?7261 (a summary of my position
> regarding contemporary new media criticism).

ben:
yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique
of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical
discussion.

curt:
what's even more curious is that I wrote that piece over two years ago on THIS VERY LIST! Hmmmmmmm.




ben:
> http://www.complexification.net/gallery/machines/interAggregate/
> index.php

This piece doesn't interest me, and to be honest, I don't really like
looking at it. But let's skip past that.

curt:
twist my arm.




ben:
To pose a question that "Plasma Studii" raised, how much of your
analysis is the kind of critical rhetoric you so despise, and how much
do you really get out of the work?

curt:
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. It's not my favorite job, but somebody's got to do it because the trees can't speak for themselves. In my most forthcoming confessional tone, I hostly derived those insights from the piece itself. With other peices of lesser aesthetic merit, I may have had to conjure up something to impose on them (which would have been fair game according to some but critically disingenuous to me). But not with this piece.




ben:
I'm fairly attuned to all of the
fields of interest that you raise, but when I look at this piece, I can
only get to a few of these concepts, and only when I really push
myself. And afterwards I have the dirty feeling that intellectually, I
just squeezed blood from a stone, and I might as well have been looking
at a Hallmark card or a block of wood. It's like an artSchool exercise:
write the artist's statement for the blackVelvet dolphinPainting. Lest
this get into a personal quibble over what two people get from a single
work, let me ask you this: if, as a hypothetical viewer, I'm not moved
or impressed enough by a piece to give it even a few minutes of
thought, will you really blame me?

curt:
sure I'll blame you. "Shame on you, Mr. President!" Laurie Anderson talks about giving memorized concerts in French and then going out on the streets of Paris with great confidence as a bi-linguist only to realize that she doesn't speak a word of French. I've always liked that story. Anyay, where were we?

Ben:
Can you really point the finger at me for not "grokking" it, and accuse
me of intellectualSnobbery for asking why I see so many things like it?

curt:
You're seeing things that are superficially like it and lumping them all together.




ben:
How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool
brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead…

curt:
http://playdamage.org/58.html




ben:
I'm simply
making a small point about the overAbundance of FlashFormalism, and
raising the issue of why there isn't more critical thought and
discourse around it. You (and others) seem to agree that more critical
engagement is desirable. So what, in precise terms, are we disagreeing
about?

curt:
If this is your small point, I can't wait to see your large point.




ben:
Besides, you say "masturbation" like its a dirty and shameful word, but
when I think about it, there is no better word to describe art!
* Both are immensely pleasurable (unless you have "issues" as they call
them)
* Both are frowned upon in society (except by the enlightened few) –
even though *everybody* does it
* Both have no "productive" purpose, yet, oddly, seem to stimulate
those in production.
* Both can take place in public, alone, in pairs, in groups, or with
lubrication (see matthewBarney)
* Both can be either invigoratingly expressive and sensual, or
depressingly uninspired.
* Both are necessary and fascinating
* It's always weird when someone tries to teach you how to do either.

All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)

woody allen:
Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love.

hip hop don't stop,
the artist formerly known as el hombre

> Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist?

i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;)

> curt:
>> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (
>> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo.

the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness.

>> Hamada
>> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly
>> dissed.]

the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild
of surface.de.

> curt:
>> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada (
>> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the carnivore logo.

alex:
the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness.

curt:
Danged. I knew that. But it still proves my point that ds9rz r kewl.

curt:
>> Hamada
>> is the same designer who designed the rhizome logo you so flippantly
>> dissed.]

alex:
the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and Frank Hausschild
of surface.de.

curt:
then what of this?:
http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/portfolio/work/screenother/rhizome.html

>> Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist net.artist?

> i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;)



so I guess though careerism is certainly an art not *every* careerist is
an artist.

;-)

On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:57 AM, curt cloninger wrote:

> excellent! Also, I don't know whether I mentioned this yet, but I'm
> the man.

Sounds good to me, but now you have the burden of claiming to be The
Man. In other words, now I'll look at you and get uncomfortable about
your self-aggrandizement, unsure whether I should just move on whilst
rolling my eyes, or if I should ask those around me whether they think
you are, in fact, The Man. And now you can see my relationship to
Rhizome.org.

> excellent! I define breathing as doubled over wheezing and so
> extremely out of breath as to not be able to speak. This is a fairly
> controversisal distinction, but I believe in it. Also, I define that
> I am the man. That's THE man.

Okay, looks like this is my last round on the discoursePhunCarousel…

> Dooood, we've been in stonerDiscussionLand for the last three daze.
> [cf: http://www.larrycarlson.com for the accompanying screensaver ]

Man, I didn't realize… See, I thought I was raising some fairly
direct and realWorld questions about the quality of discourse on RAW
revolving around formalism. I didn't realize this discussion was that
deep…

> this piece is abstract and pretty in and of itself [
> http://www.bitforms.com/images_ex/watt_napier5.jpg ]. if you
> disasgree then we disagree.

It's really funny – knowing what it represents, it's pretty to me.
However, if I hadn't ever seen Shape of Song, I wouldn't like that
image – it would just seem kind of 70s newModernism to me, definitely
not the kind of aesthetics I naturally go for.

> but I'm not dissing Alex

I want to make clear that although I have some long-standing issues
with aGalloway's work, I am not trying to "diss" him personally. I'm
sure he's a rad d00d; I was just sketching a picture of why his work
leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

> RSG is a collective, and they are the ones credited with the work.

Although in your discussion of Carnivore, it's interesting that
aGalloway's name is the one that you bring up. I wonder why that is…
Huh, and it seems like at all these galleries and festivals, aGalloway
always seems to be there representin'. And it's a funny coincidence
that in a recent article, The New York Times accidentally called
Carnivore "his [Galloway's] Internet-based artwork." I can find
articles counting aGalloway as the founding member of RSG, but it's
funny how you never hear about the other members – it's just
described as a "loose group" of artists.

The reality is that aGalloway is the beneficiary of all of the press,
praise and cultural capital generated by RSG projects.


> Furthermore, Alex is sharing Carnivore's gallery/festival
> recognition with all the people who wrote the modules.

Yes, in the role of facilitator, spokesMan and masterMind. He shares
the recognition knowing full well (as a media savvy guy) that he will
get the much more meaningful recognition as the grandArchitect.

> Carnivore is more like R&D than a gambit for net.art fame (an
> amusing notion in and of itself).

Oh really? How many net.art projects do you know of that have an
exhibition schedule, press history, press release style summary, and a
link to a high resolution image gallery for the press complete with a
boilerplate PR-style bio (
http://rhizome.org/carnivore/press_images.html ), all on the MAIN page
of the project?

You think this project is designed to engage you, the artist? No, it's
specifically and painstakingly geared towards the press, from the very
first words on the page, which after "Carnivore," are a quote from
Artforum. That serves as your introduction to Carnivore.

> So Rhizome's logo is intentionally anti-logo. What we are supposed to
> remember about it is that it's not the same, which is a cool way to
> [de/anti/un]-brand a net art resource called rhizome.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Rhizome's logo may very slightly change,
but it always looks the same. Sure, the spokes are different colors,
and in different directions, but it's instantly recognizable, and you
wouldn't need the "rhizome.org" text (which is, after all, static) to
know where it came from. That's the definition of a good, old fashioned
corporate logo. It would be like the Nike logo being slightly longer or
shorter every time you saw it – you would still instantly make the
connection.

> they are not interpreting their own work. It has nothing to do with
> their work. They are admirable human beings convincingly exerting
> their personal opinions about art and life, and their opinions
> disagree with your opinions.

Okay, let's listen to this artist.

On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Alexander Galloway wrote:
> i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an artist. ;)

If you believe that he is not an artist, then your argument stands. If
you disagree with him, then your argument fails. Sure, he was being
facetious, but how do you know other artists weren't as well? Where you
there? How do you go about determining intentionality? It's all
guesswork, so I go based on what I get out of the work. Your Modernist
ideas about believing the "truth" of the artists words is
head-scratchingly weird.


> must I unsubscribe? say it ain't so! Can't I just lurk,
> occasionally dropping the cryptic science and every now and then
> getting into the odd three day "dialogue" with my home slice BEN
> SYVERSON? I'd like to think so!

Home slice! :) Sure, homeSkillet, just don't pretend to be on da
outside, when you KNOW yo in here w/ me.

- ben

ben:
If you stripped away the conceptual
element, and I only had the visuals, I would
absolutely disagree that
they were interesting-looking.

curt:
not me! we disagree.


lewis:
could you ever get to the pure visuals? could you ever
experience the visuals without SOME patina of
conceptualization? isn't that how the human race is
doomed?


=====


***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/



XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/







_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

careerism:
oh shit, they're giving me money….oh no!!!!




— Joy Garnett <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist
> net.artist?
>
> > i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an
> artist. ;)
>
>
>
> so I guess though careerism is certainly an art not
> *every* careerist is
> an artist.
>
> ;-)
> +
> -> 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
>


=====


***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/



XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/







_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

if only abe linkoln were my boo


bliss
l







— Alexander Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Alex, would you consider yourself a careerrist
> net.artist?
>
> i'm definitely a careerist.. but definitely not an
> artist. ;)
>
> > curt:
> >> [Incidentally, Galloway also hired Takeshi Hamada
> (
> >> http://www.hamada-takeshi.com/ ) to design the
> carnivore logo.
>
> the carni logo was designed by Ryan McGinness.
>
> >> Hamada
> >> is the same designer who designed the rhizome
> logo you so flippantly
> >> dissed.]
>
> the rhizome logo was designed by Markus Weisbeck and
> Frank Hausschild
> of surface.de.
>
> +
> -> 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
>


=====


***************************************************************************

Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/



XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/

Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/







_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

i'll see your patina and raise you a palimpsest and three tabula rasas!

just back from a day out with my two eldest kids skipping rocks
across the oconaluftee river in cherokee, north carolina.

http://www.brucecockburn.com/lyrics/rr_dragons_jaws/hills.html ,
curt

_

>lewis:
>could you ever get to the pure visuals? could you ever
>experience the visuals without SOME patina of
>conceptualization? isn't that how the human race is
>doomed?