Net Art Market

I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back - privately.

I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:

Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in as to why you feel that way?

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

Comments

, patrick lichty

I may or may not have replied, not because I consider it poison (which I
don't), but mainly in that I don't feel it asks any questions that
aren't out there from conceptualism.

Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.

Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
[email protected]

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jason Van Anden
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market

I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
privately.

I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but
then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate,
I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:

Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in
as to why you feel that way?

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.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

, ryan griffis

i'm kinda with Patrick - the commodity question has tagged along with
most "experimental" art forms, but i just don't find it that
interesting of a problem. think of people working in "old new media"
like diana thater who sells limited edition videos, films - and mostly
drawings of plans (not unlike christo). people buy and sell art.
in terms of payment schemes, didn't rhizome implement one way of doing
this - a membership program? it seems somewhat successful, depending on
who you ask and how you define success. non-profit arts spaces have
used this tactic for a long time. the barnsdall art space in LA (a
non-profit space on the site of a FL Wright house) charges $5 just to
see the shows, except for their selected free days. not unlike
rhizome's free fridays. of course, these fees are to support
institutions, who then exhibit (make visible) the work of artists (it
doesn't financially support producers in the same way a private gallery
system does - but then non-profit directors don't usually make buko
bucks either).
if you're looking for more entrepreneurial discussions of object
selling, maybe contact the folks that started this site that t.whid
sent in recently.
http://www.softwareartspace.com/

, curt cloninger

Hi Jason,

Here are some money-making models:

1.
T. just posted this:
http://www.softwareartspace.com
[sell software for looping projection purposes]

2.
Same artist loops as above, hard-wired into LCD screens, framed, signed, and sold as animated paintings:
http://www.bitforms.com/artist_levin.html
[if it's in a frame and signed, it must be "real" art]

3.
Here is some net art for sale on a ROM:
http://youworkforthem.com/product.php?sku=P0034
[take your old experimental sites offline, put them on a ROM, and sell the ROM. The catch – you have to have had some actual visitors to your site who liked it.]

4.
Here is an entire artists' hard drive for sale on a ROM:
http://www.eastgate.com/catalog/Praystation.html
[make your .fla files public, and if your action scripting is interesting enough, people will buy it just to view and re-purpose your source code.]

5.
a gallery show involving physical ephemera related to ethereal digital art projects:
http://nothing.org/net_ephemera/
[with art in the age of mechanical reproduction, don't sell the infinitely reproducible art itself, sell the finite incidental crap associated with the art. scarce crap is more salable than abundant quality.]

6.
thing.net has a regular online art auction. some of the pieces are digital.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://auction.thing.net/
[trick somebody into believing that a signed website on a ROM (as opposed to the exact same website, unsigned, online) might someday be worth money in the art market.]

7.
charge a subscription fee (by day, month, or year) to view the art website. The site is password protected, it gives a few samples away for free, and then you have to subscribe to see the rest of it.
http://www.scottmccloud.com
http://www.demian5.com
[the porn site model. the salon.com model. of course, you have to have art that somebody might want to view repeatedly after they've seen it once, and you have to have art that somebody might want to pay money to view at all in the first place.]

8.
use net art as a prototype/portfolio/proving ground, and then get hired to do paying work that's related.
http://projects.c505.com/projects/ascii_rock/index.html [the original give-away]
http://www.machineproject.com/ASCII_BUSH/ [the turbulence grant]
http://www.partizan.us/musicvideos/ais/beck.html [the commercial gig]
[this is the artist as performer model. you get paid for gigs (installations, performaces, VJ generative projections of band tours).]

9.
Get grants and commissions.

10.
Win contests.

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

"Digital" art to me doesn't seem so hard to sell. Like the McCoys have those database pop film libraries on various themes. They are digital and use software, but they are also physical installation objects and you can sell them like you'd sell a painting or a sculpture. The challenge is selling "net art" which is dependent on the network, art that is infinitely reproducible and already available to be experienced by anyone anywhere anytime. That's a whole different can of worms.

Maybe nobody responded because the "how to make online art salable" topic has been discussed since 1996 with no real "solution."

Novelists are forever lamenting the fact that nobody reads anymore, but what they are really lamenting is the fact that nobody reads them. Similarly, net artists who ask "how can we make money off of net art" are often asking, "how can I make money off of my net art?"

On the commercial net before the bubble burst, the burning question was, "how can I make money off the net?" After the bubble burst, the facile conclusion was, "I can't make money off the net." The better question would have been, "what is the net good for, and how might I use its strengths to forward my business." Similarly, the better question for the net artist might be, "what is the net good for, and how might I use its strengths to forward my artistic practice?" It probably invovles keeping your day job.

Steve Dietz quotes Eddo Stern who proposes that the net itself is more interesting than any single piece of net art.

Dietz goes on to say, "Contemporary installation art is not necessarily the right context in which to understand net art. It is the net itself. The system. In this Twilight Zone of contemporary practice, we may, in fact, need to get up from our couches and adjust the TV set to understand what constitutes 'greatness,' whether as producers of or participants in net art."

(full article at: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html )

I'm not dissing you, Jason. I think yours is a fair question to ask, and I don't pretend to know your motives in asking it (maybe you could share your motives). I just think there are more interesting questions to ask now in regards to net art.

peace,
curt





Jason Van Anden wrote:

> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
> digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
> privately.
>
> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
> but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
> rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
> another try:
>
> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
> appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
> in as to why you feel that way?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com

, Jason Van Anden

Hi Patrick,

I can think of two ways that money has been found to fuel Conceptualism:

1.) public support
(ie: DIA, NEA, etc…)

2.) retro-fit into "old art" gallery model
(ie: documentation for sale as limited edition prints)

Clearly there are plenty of examples of net art that has adopted this approach. It seems to me that where these forms differ is in the distribution.

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

, carlo zanni

altarboy, the server-sculpture

http://www.zanni.org/altarboy.htm

and

http://www.zanni.org/altarboy-interview.htm


best,

z






patrick lichty wrote:

> I may or may not have replied, not because I consider it poison (which
> I
> don't), but mainly in that I don't feel it asks any questions that
> aren't out there from conceptualism.
>
> Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.
>
> Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
> Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 1556 Clough Street, #28
> Bowling Green, OH 43402
> 225 288 5813
> [email protected]
>
> "It is better to die on your feet
> than to live on your knees."
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Jason Van Anden
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market
>
> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
> digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
> privately.
>
> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
> but
> then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
> rate,
> I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another
> try:
>
> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
> appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
> in
> as to why you feel that way?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.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
>

, Plasma Studii

>Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
they do know, which seldom makes any sense.


every piece of art is subject to wear and tear. possibly, for now,
you can pretty much guarantee it works by selling the machine and
software as a package. and then, like collectors store paintings in
temp controlled warehouses, a buyer has the option to just shelve it.
if machines malfunction, restoration's a hazard we've always dealt
with, (but usually well made ones don't even do that). like Degas'
pastels are made with materials prone to degradation. ideally, we
can include better built hardware/os.

old (mac) laptops are cheap and have all the useful features, or 10
year old interactive pieces work fine on this new machine (even the
web). but certainly in a few years, file formats will be even more
standardized. probably, we're just in the pony express era, seeing
the need for zip codes.

there are a few examples like hyper card works that will get lost to
most of us in the settling down process, but so did those wax tube
recordings for the old victrolas. worrying about processor speed
would be like expecting silent movies not to run a little fast.
spilled milk. while "new media" to grows past infancy, these things
get ironed out, and not always without some disappointments. but
we're already in pretty good shape.

so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.



>
>Now, Toshio Iwai is selling New Media through game art like
>Electroplankton (GameBoy DS) which is pretty popular in Japan.
>
>Patrick Lichty
>Editor-In-Chief
>Intelligent Agent Magazine
>http://www.intelligentagent.com
>1556 Clough Street, #28
>Bowling Green, OH 43402
>225 288 5813
>[email protected]
>
>"It is better to die on your feet
>than to live on your knees."
>
>
>—–Original Message—–
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
>Of Jason Van Anden
>Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:59 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Net Art Market
>
>I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
>digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
>privately.
>
>I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison, but
>then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any rate,
>I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it another try:
>
>Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
>appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me in
>as to why you feel that way?
>
>Jason Van Anden
>www.smileproject.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
>
>+
>-> 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



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org

, patrick lichty

>Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
they do know, which seldom makes any sense.

I don't see there being a problem to it; I just don't see many people
making a marketing model work. These are two very different. We all
market, one way or another at one time or another.



so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.


Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)

, Regina Pinto

Well, browser at:

http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm

Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's interesting article on this subject.

Best wishes,

Regina Celia Pinto

Museum of the Essential and Beyond That

http://arteonline.arq.br
http;//arteonline.arq.br/library.htm



patrick lichty wrote:

>
> >Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.
>
> funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
> xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
> not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
> they do know, which seldom makes any sense.
>
> I don't see there being a problem to it; I just don't see many people
> making a marketing model work. These are two very different. We all
> market, one way or another at one time or another.
>
>
>
> so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
> sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.
>
>
> Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
> can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)
>

, Jason Van Anden

Hi Curt,

Thanks for the feedback.

My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me to devote myself to making art full time.

I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms would I Google?: art net business sale etc… try them and you will see how easily that system breaks down.

Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a market in their own element.

I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke, who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.

Jason Van Anden

curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Jason,
> Here are some money-making models…

, Rob Myers

On 21 Apr 2005, at 19:24, patrick lichty wrote:

> Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
> can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)

This is a key point.

But selling people a signed (or signed and numbered) DVD case with the
software and a contract in seems to have worked.

Sol Lewitt gets away with similar.

And there's the Free Software revenue model: customisation and
services. Or commissions and installation as it used to be known.

On the subject of the ephemerality of particular platforms:

I use Lisp for my software art because it's bitfast.
1. It's been around for fifty years and is still the most advanced
programming language there is. Its popularity is on the rise again and
it's likely to be around for some time yet.
2. It's very easy to implement, and so would be very easy to
re-implement if it should ever fall out of favour.
So as long as my code can be copied, and the CLOS and PostScript specs
exists, my art can be run.

- Rob.

, Plasma Studii

>Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
>can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)

i agree that social contract is hardly a universal given. but shame
on these buyers/curators/collectors/etc. for being so nostalgic, not
in touch with modern peoples' real lives. think jason was asking
about his options as a web artist. you (patrick) would surely know,
wood paneling aside, mostly the obstacle isn't the artists missing
out on the paradigm shift, but the astonishing majority of
buyers/curators/collectors in positions to be the
authority/leaders/teachers. there's only so much we can do to ease
them along.

we can either A. make new work for new audiences where sales on the
web is integral to development. or B. re-present work in a format
the audience we are used to, those buyers/curators/sellers who are
only used to traditional mediums, are comfortable with. they get
"installation", so just don't let em hear the start up chime.

hopefully, this issue will be a moot point, the object fetish
eventually dies (like support for copyright, resistance to things
like napster), value becomes null, can't remain practical or viable.
meanwhile, value shifts to the creators of wanted services or
objects, (which would also dissolve the upper-class bias in the art
world). then web art value wouldn't be a question. but that would
really put a flip on the collector (or record company). it ain't
happening tomorrow. these may just be the dark ages.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org

, curt cloninger

Hi Jason,

Another idea that transcends the paneling is to make art for free and give it away. There are 8 extra hours to make art between 5pm and 3am. That still gives you 5 hours of sleep per night. Then there are 2 full days on Saturday and Sunday. And if you can get a non-9-5 job like teaching in college, that's often 2 extra days per week and 3 entire months per year.

So that's 3 entire months per year to make art all the time. Then 9 months per year making art 4 days per week all the time, and the other 3 days per week you still get to make art 8 hours per day.

[Individual mileage may vary. Check local listings for details.]

Do you want to spend more time making art (possible in virtually any situation, particularly with net art where your material costs are minimal), or do you want to spend less time working at your day job (a much more challenging prospect)? People regularly confuse these two desires, but they're not necessarily related.

On a more personal tack, if you suddenly got a day job that you loved, would that solve the problem? Does your art need to make money in order for you to feel that it/you are good/legitimate?

Don't feel obliged to answer these questions publicly. I just think they're useful.

peace,
curt




Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Hi Curt,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> My motives are pretty simple: to find a support system that enables me
> to devote myself to making art full time.
>
> I had a feeling that this topic may have been brought up before, and
> this is why I was asking about it here; Rhizome community as a
> collective institutional memory. Where or how else would I find this
> information if I was not around when the topic got stale? What terms
> would I Google?: art net business sale etc… try them and you will
> see how easily that system breaks down.
>
> Which brings up another point - it seems like there is a riddle to be
> solved in that "old art" galleries need to promote their wares online
> (artnet.com), and yet online artists have so much difficulty finding a
> market in their own element.
>
> I had an excellent aesthetics teacher in college named Larry Bakke,
> who would rant about how "new" media typically anchored itself to old
> media before finding its own. Fake wood paneling stuck to the sides
> of station wagons was a favorite example of his. Of your examples - I
> think that only #7 starts to transcend the paneling.
>
> Jason Van Anden

, Jason Van Anden

Hi Curt,

Just got home from said day job - decided to reply instead of create art for the moment - you be the judge. I am not sure I understand the make art for free as an alternative to "paneling" comment, but I totally get the rest of what you are saying.

Perhaps I am an idealist or naive, but I believe there is a market out there the galleries (and apparently we) do not yet understand - by way of bringing this up I am trying to find clues as to what this might be.

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

, Jason Nelson

Jason and all,

I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
artists or curators to convince others (companies,
wealthy collectors, etc…) that featuring net art on
their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.

Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
doorway for their customers. So having some net art
work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
scope of an art investor's collection.

But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?

I honestly feel that this will come to pass
eventually. It will just take a few collectors
spending some cash and promoting the idea.

does this sound feasible?

Jason Nelson



— Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment
> schemes for digital/online art, sucessful or not".
> I got one email back - privately.
>
> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be
> considered poison, but then again maybe it was bad
> timing or my choice of title. At any rate, I feel
> this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
> another try:
>
> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art?
> Examples would be appreciated. If you consider this
> a toxic topic - could you clue me in as to why you
> feel that way?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.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
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

, Jason Van Anden

I found the softwareartspace website (#1 in Curt's list) intellectually interesting given this discussion, particularly in regards to "paneling". Here we have an actual artwork in the frame of my monitor in the frame of the browser in the frame of a bitmap in the frame of a picture of a monitor in the frame of reference of a frozen someone else interacting with it. Talk about hardcore conceptual digital art!

Quick replies…

Jason Nelson wrote:

> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
artists or curators to convince others (companies,
wealthy collectors, etc…) that featuring net art on
their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.

Patrick Lichty wrote:

> Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract
that buyers can make sense of at the moment (or many
instances of them)

Both excellent points. Do you think that it is possible to define this contract from the bottom up?

Regina Celia Pinto wrote:

> Well, browser at:
http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
Museum's newsletter has changed some information on this issue since
last February. There you will find a link to Edward Picot's
interesting >article on this subject.

I read the Picot article but did not realize there was a discussion that followed (http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm). I plan to read it.

Thanks All,
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

, Geert Dekkers

Actually – I'd love to know how to sell art – period. And by that I mean – how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of years on the game, I'm still stumped.

Cheers
Geert
(http://nznl.com)

Jason Van Anden wrote:

> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
> digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
> privately.
>
> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
> but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
> rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
> another try:
>
> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
> appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
> in as to why you feel that way?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

, Pall Thayer

simple, make stuff like this:
http://www.artincanada.com/danieltaylor/gallery1.html

Geert Dekkers wrote:
> Actually – I'd love to know how to sell art – period. And by that I mean – how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of years on the game, I'm still stumped.
>
> Cheers
> Geert
> (http://nznl.com)
>
> Jason Van Anden wrote:
>
>
>>I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
>>digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
>>privately.
>>
>>I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
>>but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
>>rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
>>another try:
>>
>>Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would be
>>appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
>>in as to why you feel that way?
>>
>>Jason Van Anden
>>www.smileproject.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
>


_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

, Rob Myers

Jeff Koons eat your heart out.

Presumably as part of some satanic ritual.

- Rob.

On 22 Apr 2005, at 18:55, Pall Thayer wrote:

> simple, make stuff like this:
> http://www.artincanada.com/danieltaylor/gallery1.html
>
> Geert Dekkers wrote:
>> Actually – I'd love to know how to sell art – period. And by that I
>> mean – how obtain a moderate income as an artist? After a number of
>> years on the game, I'm still stumped.
>> Cheers
>> Geert
>> (http://nznl.com)
>> Jason Van Anden wrote:
>>> I posted a topic a while ago requesting "payment schemes for
>>> digital/online art, sucessful or not". I got one email back -
>>> privately.
>>> I have a few theories as to why this topic may be considered poison,
>>> but then again maybe it was bad timing or my choice of title. At any
>>> rate, I feel this is a vitally important issue so I am giving it
>>> another try:
>>>
>>> Does anyone out there know how to sell digital art? Examples would
>>> be
>>> appreciated. If you consider this a toxic topic - could you clue me
>>> in as to why you feel that way?
>>>
>>> Jason Van Anden
>>> www.smileproject.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
>
> –
> _______________________________
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
> Lorna
> http://www.this.is/lorna
> _______________________________
> +
> -> 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

, curt cloninger

Hi Jason,

Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/

_

Jason Nelson wrote:

> Jason and all,
>
> I've been toying with this idea of selling "net art'.
> It seems to me that what needs to happen is for
> artists or curators to convince others (companies,
> wealthy collectors, etc…) that featuring net art on
> their sites is the same thing as hanging paintings on
> the wall, or putting sculptures in the main foyer.
>
> Obviously websites, for many, are used as the main
> doorway for their customers. So having some net art
> work on a site would enchance their image and/or the
> scope of an art investor's collection.
>
> But then where would this artowrk be featured on the
> site? How big would it be, both in file size and in
> screen? Would you simply have it linked off the main
> page or have it hanging somewhere within a table?
>
> I honestly feel that this will come to pass
> eventually. It will just take a few collectors
> spending some cash and promoting the idea.
>
> does this sound feasible?
>
> Jason Nelson

, ryan griffis

hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based projects?
i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion of
their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
art-based project…
ryan

On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
> curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
> experimental designers. The space is archived here:
> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/

, curt cloninger

It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more filmic/motion design.

ryan griffis wrote:

> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
> projects?
> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
> of
> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
> art-based project…
> ryan
>
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
> > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
> > experimental designers. The space is archived here:
> > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.com/
>

, Jason Nelson

I imagine what needs to happen is for someone (one of
us) to convince a paint/clay/print collector who has a
website to buy a net art work. The price would
probably be low, so the hundred hours it took to make
would average out to about five dollars an hour. But
then the hope is that the idea would spread, and as
collectors love to apply their egos to their objects
their fellow collectors would surely hear about it.

Doron Golan (of computerfinearts.com) has an
interesting model created for collecting net art. But
the problem might be how do you know what an original
is. But it seems the artist could easily add something
to the work to clearly state who owns it (after it was
bought), and other add ons to the net artwork could
act as a more complex form of signing.

So maybe we should put our research skills to use and
find some collectors with a presence on the web.

Jason Nelson


— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems like the first (and perhaps only)
> altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I
> can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar
> stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
> it's more filmic/motion design.
>
> ryan griffis wrote:
>
> > hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar
> net-based
> > projects?
> > i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but
> only found promotion
> > of
> > their investments in contemporary art. i know that
> they had a net
> > art-based project…
> > ryan
> >
> > On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jason,
> > >
> > > Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online
> gallery" a while back,
> > > curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting
> work by various
> > > experimental designers. The space is archived
> here:
> > > http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

, Jeremy Zilar

is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is large
enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for people
to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger than
the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?

-jeremy


curt cloninger wrote:

> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more filmic/motion design.
>
> ryan griffis wrote:
>
>
>>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>projects?
>>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
>>of
>>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
>>art-based project…
>>ryan
>>
>>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Jason,
>>>
>>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while back,
>>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
>>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>

, curt cloninger

Hi Jeremy,

A well-known ongoing, grand scale net art piece:
http://www.worldofawe.net

It's kind of like saying, "maybe garage rock hasn't attracted the
attention of top 40 radio yet because …" When garage rock and top
40 radio are largely incompatible. Maybe net art and
contemporary/future art collectors are largely incompatible. I don't
see it as a problem to be solved. Can an art movement be
historically legitimate, culturally relevant, and
intellectually/aesthetically rewarding without ever finding a market?
Might it be all the more so without a market?

peace,
curt

_

At 2:46 PM -0400 4/24/05, jeremy wrote:
>is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
>large enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
>I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
>people to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking
>larger than the average site? or extending beyond the computer in
>ways?
>
>-jeremy
>
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
>>artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel
>>sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
>>it's more filmic/motion design.
>>
>>ryan griffis wrote:
>>
>>>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>>projects? i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only
>>>found promotion
>>>of their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a
>>>net art-based project…
>>>ryan
>>>
>>>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Jason,
>>>>
>>>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
>>>>back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by
>>>>various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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

, Dirk Vekemans

Jeremy & all,
i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm , but that is not the issue).

Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?

it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start working the selling way…

just a thought,
dv





Jeremy Zilar wrote:

> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
> large
> enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
> people
> to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
> than
> the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
>
> -jeremy
>
>
> curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
> similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
> filmic/motion design.
> >
> > ryan griffis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
> >>projects?
> >>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
> >>of
> >>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
> >>art-based project…
> >>ryan
> >>
> >>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Jason,
> >>>
> >>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
> back,
> >>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
> >>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
> >>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
> >

, Plasma Studii

Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?

it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
working the selling way…


if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
"artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
for agreeing on colors.


this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?

we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
(though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).

but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, …
who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
so, what's your goal?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org

, Geert Dekkers

Another thought. Art gallery visitors go from museum to private
gallery, browsing, and may perhaps buy something now and then. Gallery
owners know their collectors because this is after all a select and
small community. Most gallery owners I know sell very little, can
barely make ends meet. Most artists I know do worse. Which is
unsurprising seeing as the product is this uncopyable unique work of
art (well perhaps a series of (wow) 10! prints). This is "Art in the
Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Of course this is all obvious, but I
thought I might just plaster it all over.

It took a whole while for video art to be accepted. Now you can buy it
readily – I picked up a copy of the excellent "Lauf der Dinge" by
Fishl and Weiss for 30 euros. How much of these have been sold, do you
think? And how much did they get out of it? (There are other examples
to the contrary, where the work is partly hardware, as in Bill Viola or
of course Nam June Paik – these are to be seen as classical art works
[just need electricity] – and then again, this Cory Archangel work
comes to mind, using the 80's tv and such, which is actually just video
art done up as net.art [I did look for the name of the piece, can't
find it fast enough])

What I'm trying to say is that a work is either hardware, and unique,
in which case the artist and the whole chain of command that goes with
the selling can only earn from the one sale, or the work is software,
thence copyable, and in that case everything goes for software-type art
(music, for example, freed from the carrier – well, you know the
rest). So if you know how to make a living off shareware you might find
out (and please tell me!!!) how to make a living doing net.art.

Just my tuppence worth

Geert
http://nznl.com



On 24-apr-05, at 21:52, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

>
> Jeremy & all,
> i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all
> but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with
> a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or
> that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how
> to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I
> think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina
> Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
> , but that is not the issue).
>
> Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
> artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
> making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
>
> it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
> amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
> doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
> working the selling way…
>
> just a thought,
> dv
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Zilar wrote:
>
>> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
>> large
>> enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
>> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
>> people
>> to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
>> than
>> the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
>>
>> -jeremy
>>
>>
>> curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
>> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
>> similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
>> filmic/motion design.
>>>
>>> ryan griffis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>>> projects?
>>>> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
>>>> of
>>>> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
>>>> art-based project…
>>>> ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
>> back,
>>>>> curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
>>>>> experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>>>
> +
> -> 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
>

, Geert Dekkers

Another thought. Art gallery visitors go from museum to private
gallery, browsing, and may perhaps buy something now and then. Gallery
owners know their collectors because this is after all a select and
small community. Most gallery owners I know sell very little, can
barely make ends meet. Most artists I know do worse. Which is
unsurprising seeing as the product is this uncopyable unique work of
art (well perhaps a series of (wow) 10! prints). This is "Art in the
Age of Mechanical Reproduction". Of course this is all obvious, but I
thought I might just plaster it all over.

It took a whole while for video art to be accepted. Now you can buy it
readily – I picked up a copy of the excellent "Lauf der Dinge" by
Fishl and Weiss for 30 euros. How much of these have been sold, do you
think? And how much did they get out of it? (There are other examples
to the contrary, where the work is partly hardware, as in Bill Viola or
of course Nam June Paik – these are to be seen as classical art works
[just need electricity] – and then again, this Cory Archangel work
comes to mind, using the 80's tv and such, which is actually just video
art done up as net.art [I did look for the name of the piece, can't
find it fast enough])

What I'm trying to say is that a work is either hardware, and unique,
in which case the artist and the whole chain of command that goes with
the selling can only earn from the one sale, or the work is software,
thence copyable, and in that case everything goes for software-type art
(music, for example, freed from the carrier – well, you know the
rest). So if you know how to make a living off shareware you might find
out (and please tell me!!!) how to make a living doing net.art.

Just my tuppence worth

Geert
http://nznl.com



On 24-apr-05, at 21:52, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

>
> Jeremy & all,
> i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all
> but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with
> a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or
> that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how
> to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I
> think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina
> Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
> , but that is not the issue).
>
> Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her
> artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from
> making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
>
> it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making
> amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is
> doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start
> working the selling way…
>
> just a thought,
> dv
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeremy Zilar wrote:
>
>> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
>> large
>> enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
>> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
>> people
>> to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
>> than
>> the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
>>
>> -jeremy
>>
>>
>> curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
>> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
>> similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
>> filmic/motion design.
>>>
>>> ryan griffis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>>> projects?
>>>> i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
>>>> of
>>>> their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
>>>> art-based project…
>>>> ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
>> back,
>>>>> curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
>>>>> experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>>>
> +
> -> 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
>

, curt cloninger

judsoN wrote:

> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.

This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic, cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.

, Plasma Studii

>> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
>> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
>
>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a
>heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty
>cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and
>worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.

ok, and that's cool. i would too at first. it definitely turned me
off about psychology only until recently. but it's kind of like
assuming computers can't make art because they are cold and
heartless. (so are paint brushes. but both are just tools.) you
may be assuming "what we want" and "celebration" are incompatible?


but we can still be driven by a desire to be happy . you could also
say we're driven by an addiction to the chemicals released in the
brain. but that's a method not an end. that doesn't say happiness
can't be spontaneous, that explains what differentiates happiness
from non-happiness technically, just not poetically. And a poetic
calibration isn't useful technically (though it's all over the US
legal system).

it's not that these free-will vs. reaction arguments are ever right
or wrong. it's that often, they can be the same thing. for
instance, how does a god end up making happiness in people and have
them want to keep trying to attain it? do it with dopamine. it's
just a tool!


arguing against "self-serving" motivations is like saying
masturbating is a sin. ok, some people love their hang ups. i can't
expect you to agree, but may suspect we'd be saying the same thing if
it weren't clouded by centuries of repressed and displaced taboo
motivations.

, ryan griffis

>
>> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
>> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
>
> This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
> cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
> economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
> celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart
> of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold
> (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship
> to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.

curt,
i understand your response to the above statement, which i object to as
well… i agree with many of your contributions to the discussion on
selling net art, etc.
but to label that above statement as similar to a marxist position
might as well be red baiting. marx was not anti-play. and the notion
that someone would work as something other than an artist, then spend
leisure time engaging in creative activity in order to create something
aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more about something is
entirely a marxist one.
i would replace "marxist economist" in your response to "classical
economist" or if you want to be more specific, possibly a "free market
economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining shoes (unless you're
making your own shoes) is the position of capital, not marxism.
ryan

, Michael Szpakowski

Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
accepting your characterisation of at least some of
the roots of art.
Marx wouldn't have either.
Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
-although given the political evolution of many of
those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
Labour, loud and clear.

best
michael

— ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> getting
> >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> of shoes.
> >
> > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> materialistic,
> > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> something a marxist
> > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> art is a
> > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> worship out of a heart
> > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> It's pretty cold
> > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> celebration and worship
> > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
>
> curt,
> i understand your response to the above statement,
> which i object to as
> well… i agree with many of your contributions to
> the discussion on
> selling net art, etc.
> but to label that above statement as similar to a
> marxist position
> might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> anti-play. and the notion
> that someone would work as something other than an
> artist, then spend
> leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> to create something
> aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> about something is
> entirely a marxist one.
> i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> to "classical
> economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> possibly a "free market
> economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> shoes (unless you're
> making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> not marxism.
> ryan
>
> +
> -> 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
>

, curt cloninger

Hi Judson,

We disagree, and it's one of those things that probably won't get
worked out on a mailing list. I just didn't want to let your
assertion pass without objection. Regarding your response, I'm not
letting you off the hook with the 'semantic differences/we're
basically saying the same thing' argument. In your cosmology,
perhaps. But it's the fundamental suppositions of your cosmology to
which I object.

The question is less whether your position is cynical/cold or
enlightened/progressive. The question is whether it accurately
accounts for actual human behavior.

One of my critiques of your position is that it's so generalized and
all-encompassing. You're saying that every single human action is in
some way self-serving. There's no room for any exception whatsoever.
That's a tough position to defend. I'm not proposing that every
single person who claims an altruistic action is truly altruistic,
but I am saying that a selfless love does indeed exist. I don't have
to show that selfless love hapens all over the place, or even that
it's the norm. I just have to show that it exists at all.
Experientially, I've received and witnessed enough acts of selfless
love to categorically disagree with you. Based on my experience, it
takes much more faith for me to believe that every human act of good
will is actually some behaviorally driven form of self service than
it does for me to believe that a kind of selfless love actually
exists.

I propose that a kind of selfless love exists that by its very
definition is not self-seeking (all semantics and endorphins and
displaced taboo motivations aside). Its attributes are summarized
here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?searchorinthians13

Such a love might cause someone to labor at great personal cost and
totally off the radar to make art like this:
http://www.inpreparation.com/nekchand/gallery.html
http://www.simplephotographs.com/wickham/bigger.html
http://www.narrowlarry.com/nlwatts.html

You perhaps have a ready behavioral explanation. I propose that
there are more mysterious, spiritual, wondrous forces at work in
heaven and earth, Judson, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Selfless love is chief among them.

Note that I'm not dissing people who want to make money off their
art, nor am I saying that making art for an audience of one is better
or more pure. I'm just objecting to the categorical assertion that
"art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting what you
really want."

respectfully,
curt


At 12:10 PM -0400 4/25/05, Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote:
>>> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
>>> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes.
>>
>>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic,
>>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist
>>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a
>>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a
>>heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty
>>cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and
>>worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
>
>ok, and that's cool. i would too at first. it definitely turned me
>off about psychology only until recently. but it's kind of like
>assuming computers can't make art because they are cold and
>heartless. (so are paint brushes. but both are just tools.) you
>may be assuming "what we want" and "celebration" are incompatible?
>
>
>but we can still be driven by a desire to be happy . you could also
>say we're driven by an addiction to the chemicals released in the
>brain. but that's a method not an end. that doesn't say happiness
>can't be spontaneous, that explains what differentiates happiness
>from non-happiness technically, just not poetically. And a poetic
>calibration isn't useful technically (though it's all over the US
>legal system).
>
>it's not that these free-will vs. reaction arguments are ever right
>or wrong. it's that often, they can be the same thing. for
>instance, how does a god end up making happiness in people and have
>them want to keep trying to attain it? do it with dopamine. it's
>just a tool!
>
>
>arguing against "self-serving" motivations is like saying
>masturbating is a sin. ok, some people love their hang ups. i
>can't expect you to agree, but may suspect we'd be saying the same
>thing if it weren't clouded by centuries of repressed and displaced
>taboo motivations.

, Dirk Vekemans

Judson & all,

Sorry i've had to postpone continuing this discussion by some sleep and actually make some money with my daytime job, so here's my answers to Judson's reply.
I do feel i have to be as exact as i can about this (oh dear), if only to do right to other artists, so the reply is gonna be lengthy, sorry.

For clarity, if any there is, i'll cut up your reply some, Judson, and paste it before my answers if you don't mind

> if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
> that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
> so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
> "artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
> the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
> other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
> would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
> expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
> to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
> a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
> a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
> for agreeing on colors.

my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and its consequences first:
Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of being 'judgmental', to refuse to be labeled such: besides making my texts available for everyone, i present them in their purest form, unlabeled by any sociological process. Why? to maximise the marginal effect poetry has in our society. Add to that that i regularly read my poetry for free at small gatherings, i think you can hardly make the point that i'm in some way arrogantly refusing to communicate.

Communication is my main motivation, if you want to reduce that to what you perceive as a behaviouristic reflex, or a marxist struggle or a spiritual search for soul or whatever grid you want to lay down on it, that's fine with me. Personally i see all those interpretational grids as mere descriptive aids in trying to deal with what is essentially a dynamic process whose finality we are perhaps only searching because we are trained to search for final goals behind processes that may just exist, be there, be beautiful? That's one, but there's a but:

I started by saying that my reason was a complex of motivations, so the actual situation with regard to Dutch poetry and my respons to it being unsellable in the first place, is complicated by other reasons that originate in how i see society as it is evolving now. Those views are largely inspired by Deleuze & Guattari and supplemented by other readings and my day to day experience with programming. It boils down to me feeling that it is absolutely urgent to communicate the importance of poetry, not only as a useful additive, but as an essential ingredient in anything you try to accomplish with regard to your life and to the society you are part of. In the Starter file on Cathedral project i say somewhere that i consider it my duty as a father to investigate possibilities etcetera, i actually feel that to be so. I joke a lot because i don't think it helps at all to be serious all the time, but i am dead serious about that part. In your behaviouristic or pragmatist grid that will probably make me a complete nutcase, i actually rather enjoy that.

Judson wrote:
> this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
> how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?

Now i will not proceed here to go deeper into that, it's precisely a matter that i once hope to clarify by making the project. If you ever went to see the project, you'll agree that it isn't clear at all, i'm perfectly aware of that, but what i am trying to communicate is difficult, and i'm too stupid a guy to make it clear in a sec. In fact i need the detour of the project to clarify my own mind, i'm constantly writing on the verge of my ignorance and i go flat on my face on a regular basis. Now Deleuze used the very same words to describe his own writing, but he had easy talking, being ten times smarter than me and a respected philosopher and all, i'm just a poor poet from downtown Kessel-lo, Belgium…


Judson wrote:
> we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
> motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
> rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
> art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
> good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
> programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
> desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
> the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
> actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
> (though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).


plus a bit further Judson wrote:
> if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
> for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
> like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
> besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
> popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
> SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
> we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
> so, what's your goal?

I consider this kind of reasoning to be a fairly striking example of how the meaning generating processes of programming are reflected in views on society and in society itself. Lev Manovich has pointed this out in his "The Language of New Media': the way with deal with programming and computers gets transcoded into society itself. You get to see basic desire as an object, encapsulated in higher 'levels of abstraction', so therefore art must be an instance of an individual desiring food, or, please do mention it, sex.

I perceive this transcoding process to have enormous consequences, i feel that it gets to be catastrophical, a one way ticket in the way we deal with computers and the information boom. We urgently need to master our information, but in our need for speed to accomplish this, we're overlooking some basic alternatives due to our lack of consciousness of how the programming paradigma's and dogma's define our actions. We need to address these alternatives as urgently as we address our moderately succesful object-oriented programming approaches.

And i am definitely convinced that i or rather someone with a little more brain than i have, one day will be able to proof that alternatives exist, that these alternatives are related to poetic functions or processes, that they are less mystic or error prone than you would expect and that they can be used in an efficient way. But i will not be able to convince anyone, i'm just too plain stupid and confused, it's half a miracle i succeed in anything i program allready…
Voila, there's my goal.

>
> but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
> the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, …
> who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
> that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

The next step i took when turning to net art is more problematic, because my natural instinct would be just to continue in the same scheme: do my stuff and see what happens. Now, as we all have learned from Doug Engelbart, scale does matter: the audience for international net art is huge in comparison to how many Dutch speaking persons would possibly ever read my poetry.
This fact alone changes (or imho should change)one's decisions in either trying to make your net art into sellable products or trying to get by in some mass-market shunning shareware scheme as Geert suggested.
It changes because you are aspiring to become part of something that has economic value, increasingly so. Net art is by its essence a potential mass-media, it has the potential of reaching thousands, even millions of users. Of course it's a mere potential (or is anyone present here with that kind of user log's, i wouldnt think so) but it makes that you are constantly aware of that potential, it infuses your artistic process with considerations and micro decisions of how to do things. These are bu no means expressions of value that i accredite but you know for instance that if you are going to work in an academically conceptual style you will get less users than if you start of with a sloganesk approach like 'We crash your browser with content". You know that if you strategically market your 'product' you will get more users than if you leave that, your economic value is, of course, the amount of viewers you get a day, so if you want it or not, you are as an artist inscribed in the economic order.

My view is that those plain facts do change something about the contents of the word's 'artistic integrity', and that that goes for any artist, regardless of how you deal with my theoretic ramblings or lunacy if you want. And i think it's a great thing that this kind of discussion should be held here, and at Regina Celia Pinto's place and everywhere were Net artists are active. Let my kind of poetic and unprofessional philosophical messing about not keep you from having it continuously, because i don't think there are any definite answers

judsoN wrote:
> but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
> the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, …
> who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
> that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?

i think one should judge every day, and try to be right every day…things change…

sorry for the length,

dv

.. what is left unfinished, cannot be undone…

http://www.vilt.net

Judson wrote:

> if we can make something at all, we can consider ourselves lucky.
> that's enough. we're not dead, vegetables or completely paralyzed,
> so the only REAL challenge to making art is pretty much beat.
> "artistic integrity" is like a writer refusing to publish works in
> the local language of the distributers, for no particular reason,
> other than to be more judgmental. I just don't get what purpose it
> would serve, what concrete effect "integrity" would actually produce.
> expression is just a useful tool for communication, we CAN choose not
> to use it that way, but we can't not communicate ever. money is just
> a form of communication. a pretty narrow, empirical one. from 0 to
> a zillion, value = currency, as opposed to it being a useful scale
> for agreeing on colors.
>
>
> this assumes that there's some "artistic motivation" that precludes
> how we deal with our environment, and in particular society?
>
> we do anything that isn't an involuntary reflex, because we are
> motivated. and how to function in society is not decided by fixed
> rules, but constant revision. if anything, the motivation to make
> art is an artificial motivation (meant literally, not necessarily
> good/bad) that obscures any number of core motivations. in
> programming, there's a concept called "levels of abstraction". the
> desire for money is no less or more external, it's another means to
> the end, just like art. the desire for the food money can buy, is
> actually a lot more direct a solution than anything art can offer
> (though it happens a lot here on subway platforms).
>
> but i actually don't see any good it does anyone in valuing one over
> the other. as long as we're not starving, shelter, can breath, …
> who cares how we get by? or rather, if, in the end, it works, then
> that's all we need to worry about. why continue to judge?
>
> if a homeless guy, spends all day singing, you may say either sing
> for money or don't complain about the cold. but that's advice, not
> like deciding whether his singing at all is worthwhile or not.
> besides, there's no end of currencies besides cash. what about
> popularity or just plain dignity? how is art not motivated by
> SOMETHING? art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting
> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. how can
> we dictate which is the "right" path, when so many get to a goal?
> so, what's your goal?
>
> –
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> PLASMA STUDII
> art non-profit
> stages * galleries * the web
> PO Box 1086
> Cathedral Station
> New York, USA
>
> (on-line press kit)
> http://plasmastudii.org
>

, Patrick Simons

To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
Patrick




Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> the roots of art.
> Marx wouldn't have either.
> Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> -although given the political evolution of many of
> those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> Labour, loud and clear.
>
> best
> michael
>
> — ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> > getting
> > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> > of shoes.
> > >
> > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> > materialistic,
> > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> > something a marxist
> > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> > art is a
> > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> > worship out of a heart
> > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> > It's pretty cold
> > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> > celebration and worship
> > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> >
> > curt,
> > i understand your response to the above statement,
> > which i object to as
> > well… i agree with many of your contributions to
> > the discussion on
> > selling net art, etc.
> > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> > marxist position
> > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> > anti-play. and the notion
> > that someone would work as something other than an
> > artist, then spend
> > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> > to create something
> > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> > about something is
> > entirely a marxist one.
> > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> > to "classical
> > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> > possibly a "free market
> > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> > shoes (unless you're
> > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> > not marxism.
> > ryan
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>

, Plasma Studii

>Note that I'm not dissing people who want to make money off their
>art, nor am I saying that making art for an audience of one is
>better or more pure. I'm just objecting to the categorical
>assertion that "art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
>getting what you really want."
>

ok, i agree with your point that "in every case" arguments are just
unprovable, serve no purpose. if i came across that way, i stand
corrected, and will claim responsibility for my sloppy verbiage. but
that's not at all what i was saying and folks seem hasty to come to
that conclusion.

i was saying you can call selfless love something you want to
achieve. you may want to be a person who does it (as we all
probably do, but picture it in action quite distinctly, which is
precisely the point). it's not that i'm proposing some rule that
all selfless love is actually a selfish motivation, it's that people
don't selflessly love and also want to be a person who never
selflessly loves. if they don't want to love (like a heartbreak), it
isn't really selfless then.

i really hope we are just answering eachothers questions rather than
trying to push points of view.

, curt cloninger

Patrick Simons wrote:

> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is
> beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
> resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
> capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> Patrick

It is to me.

I love the part in "Dig!" where the Brian Jonestown Massacre plays an 8-hour gig to a roomful of 10 people. I'll pass on the task of unraveling their motivations.

http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol23/c_clon.shtml
http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol25/c_clon.shtml
http://www.pifmagazine.com/vol26/c_clon.shtml
curt

, Pall Thayer

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
hear, hear!

> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> > the roots of art.
> > Marx wouldn't have either.
> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> > -although given the political evolution of many of
> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> > Labour, loud and clear.
> >
> > best
> > michael
> >
> > — ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> > > getting
> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> > > of shoes.
> > > >
> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> > > materialistic,
> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> > > something a marxist
> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> > > art is a
> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> > > worship out of a heart
> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> > > It's pretty cold
> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> > > celebration and worship
> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> > >
> > > curt,
> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
> > > which i object to as
> > > well… i agree with many of your contributions to
> > > the discussion on
> > > selling net art, etc.
> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> > > marxist position
> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> > > anti-play. and the notion
> > > that someone would work as something other than an
> > > artist, then spend
> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> > > to create something
> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> > > about something is
> > > entirely a marxist one.
> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> > > to "classical
> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> > > possibly a "free market
> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> > > shoes (unless you're
> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> > > not marxism.
> > > ryan
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
>


Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://130.208.220.190/
http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
http://130.208.220.190/panse

, Plasma Studii

>my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
>complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
>publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
>its consequences first:
>Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
>marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
>audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
>the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
>of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
>interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
>that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
>outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
>someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
>being 'judgmental',

this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.

, Dirk Vekemans

>my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
>complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
>publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
>its consequences first:
>Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
>marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
>audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
>the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
>of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
>interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
>that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
>outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
>someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
>being 'judgmental',

this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.


Thanks, Judson, that's reassuring. It's hardly a cool insight,though, merely
truth getting through my thick head after years of indulging in fantasies…
dv

, Patrick Simons

Hi Judson
you've lost me now mate.

"a pretty stable audience of well trained
> >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves"

Is this a group of ponies, that can rhyme?

That I would pay to see, ironically

best

Patrick




judsoN wrote:

> >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
> >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
> >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
> >its consequences first:
> >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
> >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
> >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
> >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
> >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
> >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
> >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
> >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
> >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
> >being 'judgmental',
>
> this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.

, Matthew Mascotte

once the market catches up to electronic art production,
when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action…and
no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
has been sacrificed in any way…the fact that getting
grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
already established a "market" for certain types of production
and influences things considerably. so we're already there…

i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs…
or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
this for us… media art necessarily intersects with commericial
production…the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
create and witness these works is an example of this.

respects,

matthew





On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
>hear, hear!
>
>> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>>
>> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
>> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
>> > the roots of art.
>> > Marx wouldn't have either.
>> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
>> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
>> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
>> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
>> > -although given the political evolution of many of
>> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
>> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
>> > Labour, loud and clear.
>> >
>> > best
>> > michael
>> >
>> > — ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
>> > > getting
>> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
>> > > of shoes.
>> > > >
>> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
>> > > materialistic,
>> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
>> > > something a marxist
>> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
>> > > art is a
>> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
>> > > worship out of a heart
>> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
>> > > It's pretty cold
>> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
>> > > celebration and worship
>> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
>> > >
>> > > curt,
>> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
>> > > which i object to as
>> > > well… i agree with many of your contributions to
>> > > the discussion on
>> > > selling net art, etc.
>> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
>> > > marxist position
>> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
>> > > anti-play. and the notion
>> > > that someone would work as something other than an
>> > > artist, then spend
>> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
>> > > to create something
>> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
>> > > about something is
>> > > entirely a marxist one.
>> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
>> > > to "classical
>> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
>> > > possibly a "free market
>> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
>> > > shoes (unless you're
>> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
>> > > not marxism.
>> > > ryan
>> > >
>> > > +
>> > > -> 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
>>
>
>–
>Pall Thayer
>artist/teacher
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>http://130.208.220.190/
>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>

, Dirk Vekemans

Hey man, English is *not* my native language, I do make mistakes when I try
to chat, no need to ridicule that, is there? It's pretty obvious I meant the
audience for bloody poetry written in the bloody Dutch language is limited
to a small bloody number of people, and that the composition of that
audience doesn't change much over the years. No, you don't need to pay to
see a Dutch speaking person, they're not that rare yet.

dv

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Patrick Simons
Sent: maandag 25 april 2005 22:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Art Market

Hi Judson
you've lost me now mate.

"a pretty stable audience of well trained
> >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves"

Is this a group of ponies, that can rhyme?

That I would pay to see, ironically

best

Patrick




judsoN wrote:

> >my reason for refusing to (try to) get my texts published is a
> >complex of motivations and you should read it in the context of
> >publishing poetry specifically. So let me explain that context and
> >its consequences first:
> >Poetry written in a small language like Dutch is by itself a very
> >marginal affair, so it is more a question of maximizing your
> >audience than of economical choices. If you choose to publish within
> >the existing publishing print market you're likely to get a maximum
> >of 200 to 1000 readers, a pretty stable audience of well trained
> >interested individuals, most of whom write poetry themselves. Add to
> >that that when you do this, you generate a reflex with people
> >outside that elite circle that you are categorising yourself as
> >someone who writes elite poetry. So imho it's rather the contrary of
> >being 'judgmental',
>
> this is a really interesting problem. so glad you told us about it.
+
-> 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

, Jeremy Zilar

Great answer Curt!
Thanks! You said it!

sorry it has taken me so long to respond.


Curt Cloninger wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
> A well-known ongoing, grand scale net art piece:
> http://www.worldofawe.net
>
> It's kind of like saying, "maybe garage rock hasn't attracted the
> attention of top 40 radio yet because …" When garage rock and top
> 40 radio are largely incompatible. Maybe net art and
> contemporary/future art collectors are largely incompatible. I don't
> see it as a problem to be solved. Can an art movement be historically
> legitimate, culturally relevant, and intellectually/aesthetically
> rewarding without ever finding a market? Might it be all the more so
> without a market?
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> _
>
> At 2:46 PM -0400 4/24/05, jeremy wrote:
>
>> is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
>> large enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
>> I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
>> people to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking
>> larger than the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
>>
>> -jeremy
>>
>>
>> curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
>>> artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel
>>> sponsors similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and
>>> it's more filmic/motion design.
>>>
>>> ryan griffis wrote:
>>>
>>>> hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>>> projects? i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only
>>>> found promotion
>>>> of their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a
>>>> net art-based project…
>>>> ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
>>>>> back, curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by
>>>>> various experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>>> http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

, Jeremy Zilar

I apologize, i came into this discussion midway, and failed to read the
full extent of what happened previously… I will go back and read up on
the material you referenced and then some…
I would like to respond to your comment though.
-jeremy

Dirk Vekemans wrote:

>Jeremy & all,
>i'm sorry, i just started out as net artist & i don't know much & all but: aren't you crossing a line here? This discussion started out with a reasonable enough presupposition that net-art should be sellable, or that net artists wishing to do so could do with some advice as to how to actually sell something ( it's not a presupposition i share, I think i have sufficiently made that clear in my contribution to Regina Celia Pinto's debate at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm , but that is not the issue).
>
>Aren't you now suggesting that the net artist should adapt her artistic conceptions to suit the market? How far are you then from making the kind of paintings Pall Thayer suggested to Geert?
>
>it's that imho you are just so obviously proving a point i'm making amidst all of my pseudo-ironic rambling, namely that an artist is doomed to corrupt her work with extra-artistic needs when you start working the selling way…
>
>just a thought,
>dv
>
>
>
>
>
>Jeremy Zilar wrote:
>
>
>
>>is it possible that there has yet to be a net art project that is
>>large
>>enough or grand enough to call the attention of a collector?
>>I know things dont need to be large to be good, but in order for
>>people
>>to begin to look at net art, dont we need to start looking larger
>>than
>>the average site? or extending beyond the computer in ways?
>>
>>-jeremy
>>
>>
>>curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>It seems like the first (and perhaps only) altoids-sponsored net
>>>
>>>
>>artist was Mark Napier, but I can't remember. I think Diesel sponsors
>>similar stuff, but it's more in the form of contests, and it's more
>>filmic/motion design.
>>
>>
>>>ryan griffis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>hasn't Altoids and Nintendo also sponsored similar net-based
>>>>projects?
>>>>i tried to find the Altoids projects again, but only found promotion
>>>>of
>>>>their investments in contemporary art. i know that they had a net
>>>>art-based project…
>>>>ryan
>>>>
>>>>On Apr 22, 2005, at 12:21 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>>Sony PlayStation 2 sponsored such an "online gallery" a while
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>back,
>>
>>
>>>>>curated by hi-res.net and commissioning/hosting work by various
>>>>>experimental designers. The space is archived here:
>>>>>http://archive.hi-res.net/thethirdplace.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
>>
>>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>

, Patrick Simons

Hi Matthew

Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
and what would the "action" be?
and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe" humming ecstatically.
And Andy Warhol… didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind taming the bastard art market
AND
"media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production"
Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
Patrick




Matthew Mascotte wrote:

>
> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action…and
> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
> has been sacrificed in any way…the fact that getting
> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
> already established a "market" for certain types of production
> and influences things considerably. so we're already there…
>
> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
> sell-outs…
> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
> this for us… media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production…the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>
> respects,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
> >hear, hear!
> >
> >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
> is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
> resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
> capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> >> > the roots of art.
> >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
> >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
> >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> >> > Labour, loud and clear.
> >> >
> >> > best
> >> > michael
> >> >
> >> > — ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> >> > > getting
> >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> >> > > of shoes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> >> > > materialistic,
> >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> >> > > something a marxist
> >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> >> > > art is a
> >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> >> > > worship out of a heart
> >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> >> > > It's pretty cold
> >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> >> > > celebration and worship
> >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> >> > >
> >> > > curt,
> >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
> >> > > which i object to as
> >> > > well… i agree with many of your contributions to
> >> > > the discussion on
> >> > > selling net art, etc.
> >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> >> > > marxist position
> >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> >> > > anti-play. and the notion
> >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
> >> > > artist, then spend
> >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> >> > > to create something
> >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> >> > > about something is
> >> > > entirely a marxist one.
> >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> >> > > to "classical
> >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> >> > > possibly a "free market
> >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> >> > > shoes (unless you're
> >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> >> > > not marxism.
> >> > > ryan
> >> > >
> >> > > +
> >> > > -> 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
> >>
> >
> >–
> >Pall Thayer
> >artist/teacher
> >http://www.this.is/pallit
> >http://130.208.220.190/
> >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
> >http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> >
> >+
> >-> 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
> >
> >

, Pall Thayer

That statement, "clamoring for a piece of the action", implies changing
what you were doing and customizing it for this expected market. I would
hate myself for doing that. No thanks. I'll just maintain my pace and if
the art market doesn't catch up while I'm living, perhaps it will after
life itself has stopped my progress. Having a "day job" that provides me
with whatever I need actually gives me a sense of artistic freedom. I
don't have to worry about whether or not someone's going to give me
money for my art, although I don't mind it when they do. But my next
meal doesn't depend on it.

Pall

Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>
> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action…and
> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
> has been sacrificed in any way…the fact that getting
> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
> already established a "market" for certain types of production
> and influences things considerably. so we're already there…
>
> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs…
> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
> this for us… media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production…the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>
> respects,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
>>hear, hear!
>>
>>
>>>To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
>>>>accepting your characterisation of at least some of
>>>>the roots of art.
>>>>Marx wouldn't have either.
>>>>Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
>>>>that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
>>>>those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
>>>>academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
>>>>-although given the political evolution of many of
>>>>those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
>>>>tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
>>>>Labour, loud and clear.
>>>>
>>>>best
>>>>michael
>>>>
>>>>— ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
>>>>>
>>>>>getting
>>>>>
>>>>>>>what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
>>>>>
>>>>>of shoes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
>>>>>
>>>>>materialistic,
>>>>>
>>>>>>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
>>>>>
>>>>>something a marxist
>>>>>
>>>>>>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
>>>>>
>>>>>art is a
>>>>>
>>>>>>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
>>>>>
>>>>>worship out of a heart
>>>>>
>>>>>>of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's pretty cold
>>>>>
>>>>>>(but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
>>>>>
>>>>>celebration and worship
>>>>>
>>>>>>to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
>>>>>
>>>>>curt,
>>>>>i understand your response to the above statement,
>>>>>which i object to as
>>>>>well… i agree with many of your contributions to
>>>>>the discussion on
>>>>>selling net art, etc.
>>>>>but to label that above statement as similar to a
>>>>>marxist position
>>>>>might as well be red baiting. marx was not
>>>>>anti-play. and the notion
>>>>>that someone would work as something other than an
>>>>>artist, then spend
>>>>>leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
>>>>>to create something
>>>>>aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
>>>>>about something is
>>>>>entirely a marxist one.
>>>>>i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
>>>>>to "classical
>>>>>economist" or if you want to be more specific,
>>>>>possibly a "free market
>>>>>economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
>>>>>shoes (unless you're
>>>>>making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
>>>>>not marxism.
>>>>>ryan
>>>>>
>>>>>+
>>>>>-> 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
>>>
>>
>>–
>>Pall Thayer
>>artist/teacher
>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>http://130.208.220.190/
>>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>
>>
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse

Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________

, Dirk Vekemans

hum hum hum
hum HUM hum!

(1 pony going dutch)

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Patrick Simons
Sent: maandag 25 april 2005 23:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Art Market

Hi Matthew

Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
and what would the "action" be?
and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe"
humming ecstatically.
And Andy Warhol… didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind
taming the bastard art market
AND
"media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production"
Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
Patrick




Matthew Mascotte wrote:

>
> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action…and
> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
> has been sacrificed in any way…the fact that getting
> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
> already established a "market" for certain types of production
> and influences things considerably. so we're already there…
>
> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
> sell-outs…
> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
> this for us… media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production…the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>
> respects,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
> >hear, hear!
> >
> >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
> is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
> resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
> capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> >> > the roots of art.
> >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
> >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
> >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> >> > Labour, loud and clear.
> >> >
> >> > best
> >> > michael
> >> >
> >> > — ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> >> > > getting
> >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> >> > > of shoes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> >> > > materialistic,
> >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> >> > > something a marxist
> >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> >> > > art is a
> >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> >> > > worship out of a heart
> >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> >> > > It's pretty cold
> >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> >> > > celebration and worship
> >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> >> > >
> >> > > curt,
> >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
> >> > > which i object to as
> >> > > well… i agree with many of your contributions to
> >> > > the discussion on
> >> > > selling net art, etc.
> >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> >> > > marxist position
> >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> >> > > anti-play. and the notion
> >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
> >> > > artist, then spend
> >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> >> > > to create something
> >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> >> > > about something is
> >> > > entirely a marxist one.
> >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> >> > > to "classical
> >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> >> > > possibly a "free market
> >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> >> > > shoes (unless you're
> >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> >> > > not marxism.
> >> > > ryan
> >> > >
> >> > > +
> >> > > -> 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
> >>
> >
> >–
> >Pall Thayer
> >artist/teacher
> >http://www.this.is/pallit
> >http://130.208.220.190/
> >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
> >http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> >
> >+
> >-> 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

, Matthew Mascotte

i agree calmoring was poor wordsmithing…but i think
the landscape for funding is so slim and competitive that
artists "clamor" for what little there is. i wonder
for example how many of the game proposals that were sent
in last year for a Rhizome commission were done so by artists
whos practises are solely engaged in game art…i think we
saw plenty of proposals by artists that would never have
ordinarily worked on gaming projects in their studios in
isolation.

respects,

matthew




On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 05:38PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:

>That statement, "clamoring for a piece of the action", implies changing
>what you were doing and customizing it for this expected market. I would
>hate myself for doing that. No thanks. I'll just maintain my pace and if
>the art market doesn't catch up while I'm living, perhaps it will after
>life itself has stopped my progress. Having a "day job" that provides me
>with whatever I need actually gives me a sense of artistic freedom. I
>don't have to worry about whether or not someone's going to give me
>money for my art, although I don't mind it when they do. But my next
>meal doesn't depend on it.
>
>Pall
>
>Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>>
>> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
>> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
>> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action…and
>> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
>> has been sacrificed in any way…the fact that getting
>> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
>> already established a "market" for certain types of production
>> and influences things considerably. so we're already there…
>>
>> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
>> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs…
>> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
>> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
>> this for us… media art necessarily intersects with commericial
>> production…the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
>> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>>
>> respects,
>>
>> matthew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
>>>hear, hear!
>>>
>>>
>>>>To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
>>>>Patrick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
>>>>>accepting your characterisation of at least some of
>>>>>the roots of art.
>>>>>Marx wouldn't have either.
>>>>>Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
>>>>>that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
>>>>>those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
>>>>>academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
>>>>>-although given the political evolution of many of
>>>>>those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
>>>>>tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
>>>>>Labour, loud and clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>best
>>>>>michael
>>>>>
>>>>>— ryan griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>getting
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
>>>>>>
>>>>>>of shoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>materialistic,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
>>>>>>
>>>>>>something a marxist
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
>>>>>>
>>>>>>art is a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>worship out of a heart
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's pretty cold
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>celebration and worship
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>curt,
>>>>>>i understand your response to the above statement,
>>>>>>which i object to as
>>>>>>well… i agree with many of your contributions to
>>>>>>the discussion on
>>>>>>selling net art, etc.
>>>>>>but to label that above statement as similar to a
>>>>>>marxist position
>>>>>>might as well be red baiting. marx was not
>>>>>>anti-play. and the notion
>>>>>>that someone would work as something other than an
>>>>>>artist, then spend
>>>>>>leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
>>>>>>to create something
>>>>>>aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
>>>>>>about something is
>>>>>>entirely a marxist one.
>>>>>>i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
>>>>>>to "classical
>>>>>>economist" or if you want to be more specific,
>>>>>>possibly a "free market
>>>>>>economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
>>>>>>shoes (unless you're
>>>>>>making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
>>>>>>not marxism.
>>>>>>ryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>+
>>>>>>-> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>–
>>>Pall Thayer
>>>artist/teacher
>>>http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>http://130.208.220.190/
>>>http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
>>>http://130.208.220.190/panse
>>>
>>>
>>>+
>>>-> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>–
>_______________________________
>Pall Thayer
>artist/teacher
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
>
>Lorna
>http://www.this.is/lorna
>_______________________________
>+
>-> 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
>
>

, Jason Van Anden

Matthew Mascotte brought up last year's Rhizome videogame art commission as an example of artists "clamoring" for crumbs. My proposal, Farklempt! was proposed as a way to break a creative loop I was stuck in. Luckily it was selected by the community - and this brings the discussion full circle.

Farklempt! received a lot of press after its release last January. Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world came and interacted with it. This was tangible evidence to me that net art has legs.

There are plenty of working models of self sustaining ephemeral media. Movies, Radio, TV, WWW, videogames, iTunes and NetFlix come to mind … I am guessing that these models are based upon the publishing industry that preceded them.

Speaking of books, on my commute I am currently listening to "The Speed of Sound, 1926-1930" by Scott Eyman. This is an interesting history of sound in film. It starts out describing several failed attempts at sound before "The Jazz Singer" captured the public's attention and completely changed the rules.

.. stay with me a sec …

I recently finished "I Bought Andy Warhol" by Richard Polsky and "Emmergence" by Steven Johnson. The former recounts the author's personal odyssey to own a Warhol Silkscreen - and in the process describes some of the inner working of the gallery system. The latter is an easy read about emergent systems.

Connecting the dots … I suspect net art will be supported by the public, eventually. I am not sure the current top down "brick and mortar" gallery system is built for this.

Bottoms Up.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

, Jason Van Anden

Relevant to this old discussion - Paypal is apparently going to offer Micropayments:

http://www.shareholder.com/paypal/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID1765

Jason Van Anden