Good thing there aren't more interactive pieces. Otherwise the show would, of course, have been "annoying". Pretty boring article though. Reads a bit like a store inventory, or a 6 year olds paper on "What I did this summer."
I went with my family to Florida.
We went to Disneyland. It was fun. I took a picture of Goofy.
Then we went to the beach. There was lots of sand. I went swimming.
Ms. Boxer's description of "1 Year…" was spot on an consise in my book:
"1 Year Performance Video," by M. River and T. Whid Art Associates, asks that you "please watch for 1 year." You will see "two artists living out 365 days in identical white rooms," the site says; it's an updating of "Sam Hsieh's notorious 'One Year Performance 1978-79,' in which the artist isolated himself in a cage-like room for a year's time." In the new piece, you're asked to put in as much time as the artists did.
Nice! I genreally tend to relate to Ms. Boxer's take on new media art.
Hi, all. I thought I'd chip-in, here, as one of those artists for whom Ms. Boxer didn't have time (maybe because I fell into that "just entertainment" category, though I wanted to fall into the works that "try to make you politically aware, or at least wary" niche)–or as someone interested in the evolution of [media] art criticism….
Let's start with the good… Boxer gives nice props to Rhizome and she seems to be calling someone charming, which is always flattering (?). She also seems to imply that these works are demanding of time and are worthy of the same–though she doesn't respond to that call…
She acknowledges that it's a big challenge to curate a retrospective survey of something that (to some extent) is still happening and that it's hard to mount a physical show of "web work," which is (I'm sure) what we are all calling our work… This is an area in which Lauren and Rachel (and Kevin and the crew) really succeeded with the show. They also managed to show people the diverse ways in which artists are using the internet. It's not only that artists are using it in different thematic ways (ie according to their schema of e-commerce, online celebrity, etc.), but also in different formal ways. I love that someone who sees this show will realize that Paperrad's sculptural installation is net art because it uses a Google image search, or that the 01's photos are net art in the sense that they document a project realized on the internet. Yes, we are all short on time, but I think this is less a determinant in [making or viewing] the work than the fact that we are all unique creatures who use the internet in different ways, after the ten years surveyed in the show.
But let me get at the review more directly because I take issue with the points made (or implied) as much as the manner in which they were made. I totally agreed with Palli's witty review of the review. That's exactly how it reads to me. Jason said he found Boxer's description of MTAA's 1YPV spot-on, but to me it missed the boat. Or, rather, it ignored the elephant in the room–despite the fact that it related directly to the theme she seemed to have picked for her missive. The "year" that MTAA suggests viewers devote to their performance video is not a normal year. It can be experienced in increments of real or artificial time. My computer could "watch" the video when I do not, whereas I can watch it without being credited with such watching (since I never login when I look at it). The piece puts an onus on the viewer to do all the "work," since it sews together clips of a shorter duration–ie we are supposed to watch them in the room for one year, but they are not in the room for that year. (Or are they, this is a more existential question.) Boxer acknowledges the former but not the latter point, which is exactly what defines the piece. In fact, 1YPV is not only time-based because of the year in its title or the fact that it requires extended, and possibly clocked, viewing, but because it is an *update* from a date/era in which time is measured, experienced, and faked differently.
Similar points apply to Simon's "Every Icon," which underscores the mortality of the viewer, and perhaps even of art, by making us realize that we will never see every icon, but also that image-making (despite its historical, formal, or critical constitution as "simply" a process[es] of mimesis and recombinance, which E.I. also makes clear), is a job that's never complete, though intellectually it is possible at the point of near-infinity (or is it entropy?). Simon's piece is predicated on its status as an installation. Its end-date is in question, but it is always defined by its start-date, which changes in various iterations that are human-defined. This means that it's different when it starts at X-date at the Guggenheim, vs Y-date in Alex Galloway's office (actually, there it seems to be turned off), or at Z-date in the home of Jill Schmo art collector.
What does this have to do with Boxer's review? Simon banked on the fact that she wouldn't have time for it. That, like the time-faking in MTAA's peice, is worth mentioning.
Now I don't want to personally attack Sarah Boxer (though she is very much worth taking the time to Google!), but I know that she has a background in psychoanalytic theory and I find it unfortunate that her reading in a science of interpretation has not parlayed into interpretations of art. As is true of her other articles recently discussed here, I think that this was, ultimately, a missive rather than a review. (Again, Palli said it all.) She doesn't adequately discuss the experience of the pieces, though the intended experiences were, in many senses, constitutive of the works. She says, simply, that she doesn't have time for them. (I wonder what her editor thinks of this, especially as she's writing for an art section and not a lifestyle section–the two are still separate, right?–but anyway…..)
So here is my theory, or what I feel is happening… (And Boxer's writings are simply a good example of this problem, but not the only example.) I think that we are seeing a contemporary redux of what used to be called "criticism by beauty." This mode of "critique" was popularized in the era of French New Wave filmmaking. In short, it was characterized by reviews in which the writers seemed to have said to themselves, "If I don't understand it, it must be brilliant." This led to a lack of true engagement with works and an overstatement of films' brilliance, but without justification or explanation–judgement without interpretation. I see the same happening in contemporary criticism of media art (which may, in a material sense, be the root of Boxer's distillation of the pieces she mentioned to one-liners), except that, rather than deem the work brilliant, the under-informed or under-engaged "critic" deems it awful. If the earlier era was one of "critcism by beauty," I'd call the era entrenched by Boxer that of "criticism by repulsion." (Though we could have a fun naming-contest–is it crit by repulsion, abjection, negligence, nausea, intimidation, boredom, etc…) Goodness knows I am not denying the culpability of the artist for their relationship to their audience (which shouldn't be mutually exclusive from the critic–all of this we began to discuss in this earlier thread: http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread407&text3154), but I think in the ten years surveyed by this show, we've come to a point when it no longer suffices to criticize something by saying "I don't get it" and/or "I don't have time for this."
For now the writings we're seeing entrench the fallacy that much of the early academic writing promoted vis a vis new media: that it is without indexicality. This criticism by repulsion, this reduction of Cory Arcangel's (whose name has no "h" in it) or Amy Alexander's, or anyone else's work to one-liners, implies that net art is incapable of having a semiotic function, or employing shades of meaning, of symbolism, or of implication. This gives the work the short life-span of the viewers' attention-span. I can't help but believe that this truncation is media-specific–that this perceived lack of polyvalence is not only pinned upon the work by the perceiver, but that it is specific to their assessment of "web work." I want to say, in explaining this point, that the critic (nay, writer) assumes that net art has all the depth of other silly net memes, but this would be to indulge the idea that things on the internet are somehow inherently shallow, which I just can't manage to believe. (It would be like assuming that TV commercials are shallow because they are short, mainstream, and entertainment-oriented. Not all things on the internet can be described in those terms, but neither net art nor memes nor ads operate without metaphor and metonymy, to put it in psychoanalytic terms.)
I do believe that good art work is aware of its contemporary political economy and that our contemporary political economy is one defined by attention spans. This, however, does not mean, categorically, that all net work (or all art work) should or should not be expecte to have the effects of ritalin…
I don't know if Boxer subscribes to the 20-second rule of art-observation (the average time someone determined people spend looking at paintings), or if she thinks things in different spaces (ie movie theatres vs galleries vs on the WWW) deserve different amounts of time. I would assume that she had a limited word count, in which case us under-reviewed media artists are lucky that her brevity led to more of our names finding their way into the NYT, despite a lack of engagement. The truth is, it's great that Rhizome & the New Museum would mount a show like this and that the New York Times would send someone to review it. No doubt it gives a bit more cultural "value" to what we're all doing. One of these days (at least before "Every Icon" is finished somewhere, if not before someone officially logs a year in front of 1YPV), I'd like to see shows like these get real criticism–by which I mean true reviews that engage in a process of interpretation.
This review is a complete evasion of the critic's task, which is to attempt to engage the given works of art on exhibition intellectually. The rhetorical device of joking about the time required to interact with them is in fact a dismissal of their potential as art; that is, their potential to stimulate thought (or not), provoke consciousness (or not) about aspects of contemporary life, and so on. Perhaps this is due to anxiety about the status of internet art, which is both abundant unto sublimity and hence seemingly beyond judgments of quality or effectiveness. Thus, for the New York Times, it's all a joke.
I am surprised to see many of the same old arguments being used in the critique of the Rhizome show, arguments that became obsolete in the late 1990s after it became general knowledge how the new paradigms of net art operate. Clearly, the critic is behind the curve on this discourse so it is disappointing when the critique is largely uninformed. Why doesn't the NY Times hire a media critic?
I read the review. It consists mostly of one or two sentences per comment on several of the pieces in the show. That sort of desultory effort really shouldn't make it past an editor. It indicates the author hasn't thought hard enough about the subject to generalize from the specific cases, and also the comments on the specific pieces are meagre. I'd have to agree with Pall.
But, also, the concept of the show itself is dull and contrary to the spirit of the rhizome artbase project. Selecting 40 of the many works to show is insulting to the others whose work is in the artbase.
The more interesting challenge for rhizome and the curators would be to create interfaces into the rhizome database which are intriguing and allow an experience in the gallery that is as good or better than selecting 40 particular works.
Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion".
Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible. In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes.
surely it is not always the task of the art itself to engage people, but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to get engaged on thier own terms when the mood takes them?
Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do make a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only for other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it.
Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the point?" I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual user, or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is part of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about. There's no comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive (let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more hifalutin word for her than Lame.
I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user? Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in another medium.
I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres, different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of tools to address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998.
Marisa
On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marisa, > > Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion". > > Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible. > In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes. > > 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 >
I hereby nominate Marisa for new media art critic for the NYTimes.
Long may she reign.
Pall
Marisa S. Olson wrote: > Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do make > a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only for > other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be > able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it. > > Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the point?" > I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual user, > or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is part > of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for > the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's > average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta > Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about. There's no > comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house > expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is > the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and > barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names > and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive > (let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more hifalutin > word for her than Lame. > > I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user? > Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at > it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the > critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig > deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying > that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in > another medium. > > I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the > lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some > true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to > go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write > about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand > back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're > talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for > at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres, > different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of tools to > address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to > say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as > seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse > medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for > this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from > critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied > with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998. > > Marisa > > > On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi Marisa, >> >>Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion". >> >>Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible. >>In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes. >> >>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 >
> I hereby nominate Marisa for new media art critic for the NYTimes. > > Long may she reign. > > Pall > > Marisa S. Olson wrote: > >> Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do >> make >> a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only >> for >> other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be >> able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it. >> Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >> point?" >> I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual >> user, >> or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is >> part >> of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for >> the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's >> average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta >> Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about. >> There's no >> comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house >> expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is >> the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and >> barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names >> and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive >> (let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more >> hifalutin >> word for her than Lame. >> I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user? >> Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at >> it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the >> critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig >> deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying >> that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in >> another medium. >> I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the >> lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some >> true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to >> go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write >> about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand >> back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're >> talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for >> at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres, >> different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of >> tools to >> address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to >> say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as >> seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse >> medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for >> this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from >> critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied >> with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998. >> Marisa >> On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marisa, >>> >>> Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to >>> communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a >>> new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question >>> "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the >>> New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your >>> election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts >>> for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion". >>> >>> Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, >>> it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as >>> possible. >>> In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art >>> have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of >>> how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) >>> general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of >>> its blemishes. >>> >>> 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 >> > > – > _______________________________ > 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 >
What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the critic preprocess the material that will eventually be written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out and discuss work that the reading public would be interested in?
I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and get a degree and read looooong boring essays on curatorial practices?
> Hi Lewis, > > surely it is not always the task of the art itself > to engage people, > but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to > get engaged on thier > own terms when the mood takes them? > > marc > > > >If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the > >point? > > > >bliss > >l > > > > > > > >*************************************************************************** > >No More Movements… > > > >Lewis LaCook > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Yahoo! Mail Mobile > >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > mobile phone. > >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > >+ > >-> 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 >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Lewis LaCook <[email protected]> wrote: >[…] What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the > critic preprocess the material that will eventually be > written into the canon?
yes. hopefully.
> Or does the critic sniff out > and discuss work that the reading public would be > interested in?
yes. hopefully.
> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > curatorial practices?
I'm not sure, now, if this is a critique of Rhizome Artbase 101, of Sarah Boxer's review, or of my "looooong boring essay," but… The art should not require that the general public "get a degree," nor should the criticism. But the two are still separate and the critic should be unpacking the work, helping the viewer to consider it from various viewpoints, talking about what works/doesn't in the pieces (and why!), contextualizing it.
The public can choose whether to look at art and they can choose whether to read criticism or criticism of criticism. I think it was Rob who pointed out that it's their loss if they don't do this. But when I make the choice to read what a so-called critic has to say about a piece, it's because I want to know something more. This is what the practice of criticism is all about. Otherwise it's just writing, and that writing has its place–in the lifestyle section… (Of which i am a big fan, don't get me wrong!)
no, not referring to your essay—referring to the general trend of networked art lately—
honestly…networked art is still far too young to make too many generalizations about it—that it is periodically declared dead is a sign that somewhere in the mix is a general uneasiness about just what this art is—really, rock star games is beating our asses–ALL game development companies are–and I use more skill in commercial development than I actually see in most net works–And I can't blame the public at large for not being interested in it, which is why I'm defending this critique(no, it wasn't a deep critique, and you, Marisa, would have done much much better;-})—
When I look at net.art right now, I see a great paucity of actual content–and a great deal of "demo-head"("Wow! Look what I can make this data do!")–sometimes these trends are interesting (i'm enamored of pall thayer's auto-drawn, for example)–but we're not going to move forward in any way until we stop trying to be sol lewitt, until we can blend our obsession with our tools with the possibility of saying something about our lives—
> Lewis LaCook <[email protected]> wrote: > >[…] What exactly IS the function of the critic? > Does the > > critic preprocess the material that will > eventually be > > written into the canon? > > yes. hopefully. > > > Or does the critic sniff out > > and discuss work that the reading public would be > > interested in? > > yes. hopefully. > > > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it > actually > > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out > and > > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > > curatorial practices? > > I'm not sure, now, if this is a critique of Rhizome > Artbase 101, of > Sarah Boxer's review, or of my "looooong boring > essay," but… The art > should not require that the general public "get a > degree," nor should > the criticism. But the two are still separate and > the critic should be > unpacking the work, helping the viewer to consider > it from various > viewpoints, talking about what works/doesn't in the > pieces (and why!), > contextualizing it. > > The public can choose whether to look at art and > they can choose > whether to read criticism or criticism of criticism. > I think it was > Rob who pointed out that it's their loss if they > don't do this. But > when I make the choice to read what a so-called > critic has to say > about a piece, it's because I want to know something > more. This is > what the practice of criticism is all about. > Otherwise it's just > writing, and that writing has its place–in the > lifestyle section… > (Of which i am a big fan, don't get me wrong!) > > Marisa >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the background of the work and of the body of work in which the work finds its place….
> Good discussion here, but…. > > > What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the > critic preprocess the material that will eventually be > written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out > and discuss work that the reading public would be > interested in? > > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > curatorial practices? > > bliss > l > > > — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Hi Lewis, >> >> surely it is not always the task of the art itself >> to engage people, >> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to >> get engaged on thier >> own terms when the mood takes them? >> >> marc >> >> >> >> >> >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >>> point? >>> >>> bliss >>> l >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ****** >> >> >> >>> No More Movements… >>> >>> Lewis LaCook >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> __________________________________ >>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>> >>> >>> >> mobile phone. >> >> >> >>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>> + >>> -> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > ********************************************************************** > ***** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 > > >
Well - in respect of the function of the critic. I do not think that there is just one function or purpose, for like most things in life it's about context…
Personally, I do not respect the traditional myth that certain curators are any better than someone else who has not gone through the usual established gauntlet. This kind of rhetoric echoes the same nonsense that many are fed to believe regarding certain artists being better than those artists who have come from outside an institutional, trad-style place. It really should not matter - we are in the real world here, not school…
I feel that there are potentially useful and interesting things to learn from both sides of the fence.
As in what kind of critic that I personally admire, one who explores outside of their own given histories, and actually finding and seeing those who are not being respected for their work by institutional canons yet - for that is the place where I feel the most exciting and interesting stuff is happening, but I suppose that I would say that…
There are cool curators/artists/writers everywhere, whether trad or not. I feel that engagement in observing whether one is being authentic, is an issue, and reevaluating what one is thinking and how one thinks regualarly, is essential, whoever they are - and sometimes canons can block such imaginitive shifts. Yet, equally the challenges that certain academics can offer to people such as myself (not academically trained) who does not totally trust nd believe in the (traditional patriarchal) institutionalized dialect; can always be useful and can move things on. I do not think that anyone owns the 'essences' or 'soul' of what we are all creatively exploring, it is all up for grabs, which is exciting.
no one owns it, no one owns it…
marc
>Good discussion here, but…. > > >What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the >critic preprocess the material that will eventually be >written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out >and discuss work that the reading public would be >interested in? > >I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually >engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and >get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >curatorial practices? > >bliss >l > > >— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>Hi Lewis, >> >>surely it is not always the task of the art itself >>to engage people, >>but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to >>get engaged on thier >>own terms when the mood takes them? >> >>marc >> >> >> >> >>>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >>>point? >>> >>>bliss >>>l >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>*************************************************************************** >> >> >>>No More Movements… >>> >>>Lewis LaCook >>> >>> >–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > >>> >>> >>>__________________________________ >>>Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>> >>> >>mobile phone. >> >> >>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>+ >>>-> 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 >> >> >> > > >*************************************************************************** >No More Movements… > >Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > >____________________________________________________ >Yahoo! Sports >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football >http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 > > > >
> Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be > of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at > hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the > background of the work and of the body of work in which the work > finds its place…. > > Cheers > Geert > http://nznl.com > > > On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: > > > >> Good discussion here, but…. >> >> >> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the >> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be >> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out >> and discuss work that the reading public would be >> interested in? >> >> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually >> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and >> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >> curatorial practices? >> >> bliss >> l >> >> >> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Hi Lewis, >>> >>> surely it is not always the task of the art itself >>> to engage people, >>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to >>> get engaged on thier >>> own terms when the mood takes them? >>> >>> marc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >>>> point? >>>> >>>> bliss >>>> l >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ********************************************************************* >>> ****** >>> >>> >>> >>>> No More Movements… >>>> >>>> Lewis LaCook >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________________________ >>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> mobile phone. >>> >>> >>> >>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>> + >>>> -> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ********************************************************************** >> ***** >> No More Movements… >> >> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> Yahoo! Sports >> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football >> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 > >
Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for discussion here, are an insult to new media art. They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art. Read some of the other articles in the same edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's music critique and dance critique. Both handled in a very professional manner. Insightful comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the field and give the artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't matter if the critique is good or bad but a good critique from someone who doesn't seem to know what they're talking about is a lot worse than a bad critique from someone who does.
Engaging the viewer: We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or even care. When one of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" jokes and bet on football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've done, I'm mildly flattered but no more so than if he would compliment me on my new 'do (which he would of course never do for fear of appearing "gay"). Maybe he really does like it, but probably not for the same reasons that I made it. However, when a former professor of mine and highly regarded and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece enough to suggest to his wife that she interview me for her highly respected radio show on all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less whether he notices my new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring ourselves down to some public level of understanding is absurd. It's like asking Einstein to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be I'll have to erase my brain and run out to the local hobby store and pick up Bob Ross' Joy of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure that my fellow teacher will keep complimenting me on my work.
Pall
ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for making you think but you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
furtherfield wrote: > Hi Geert, > > If they are informed it helps, yes… > > marc > >> Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be >> of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at >> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the >> background of the work and of the body of work in which the work >> finds its place…. >> >> Cheers >> Geert >> http://nznl.com >> >> >> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: >> >> >> >>> Good discussion here, but…. >>> >>> >>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the >>> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be >>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out >>> and discuss work that the reading public would be >>> interested in? >>> >>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually >>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and >>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >>> curatorial practices? >>> >>> bliss >>> l >>> >>> >>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi Lewis, >>>> >>>> surely it is not always the task of the art itself >>>> to engage people, >>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to >>>> get engaged on thier >>>> own terms when the mood takes them? >>>> >>>> marc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >>>>> point? >>>>> >>>>> bliss >>>>> l >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ********************************************************************* >>>> ****** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> No More Movements… >>>>> >>>>> Lewis LaCook >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __________________________________ >>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> mobile phone. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>>> + >>>>> -> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************************************** >>> ***** >>> No More Movements… >>> >>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________ >>> Yahoo! Sports >>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football >>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 >> >> > > + > -> 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 >
–erasing the distinction between disciplines is what we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to cloister oneself like this is to risk obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good totalitaian regime would want–
> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for > discussion here, are an > insult to new media art. They suggest that it > doesn't warrant the same > treatment as other art. Read some of the other > articles in the same > edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's > music critique and dance > critique. Both handled in a very professional > manner. Insightful > comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the > field and give the > artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't > matter if the > critique is good or bad but a good critique from > someone who doesn't > seem to know what they're talking about is a lot > worse than a bad > critique from someone who does. > > Engaging the viewer: > We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or > even care. When one > of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" > jokes and bet on > football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've > done, I'm mildly > flattered but no more so than if he would compliment > me on my new 'do > (which he would of course never do for fear of > appearing "gay"). Maybe > he really does like it, but probably not for the > same reasons that I > made it. However, when a former professor of mine > and highly regarded > and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece > enough to suggest > to his wife that she interview me for her highly > respected radio show on > all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less > whether he notices my > new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring > ourselves down to > some public level of understanding is absurd. It's > like asking Einstein > to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be > I'll have to erase > my brain and run out to the local hobby store and > pick up Bob Ross' Joy > of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure > that my fellow teacher > will keep complimenting me on my work. > > Pall > > ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for > making you think but > you never know when it'll be back in vogue. > > furtherfield wrote: > > Hi Geert, > > > > If they are informed it helps, yes… > > > > marc > > > >> Actually the function or role of the critic > (imho) should ideally be > >> of the expert witness – one who knows enough > about the subject at > >> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer > some insight into the > >> background of the work and of the body of work in > which the work > >> finds its place…. > >> > >> Cheers > >> Geert > >> http://nznl.com > >> > >> > >> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Good discussion here, but…. > >>> > >>> > >>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does > the > >>> critic preprocess the material that will > eventually be > >>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff > out > >>> and discuss work that the reading public would > be > >>> interested in? > >>> > >>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it > actually > >>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go > out and > >>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > >>> curatorial practices? > >>> > >>> bliss > >>> l > >>> > >>> > >>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi Lewis, > >>>> > >>>> surely it is not always the task of the art > itself > >>>> to engage people, > >>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people > to > >>>> get engaged on thier > >>>> own terms when the mood takes them? > >>>> > >>>> marc > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's > the > >>>>> point? > >>>>> > >>>>> bliss > >>>>> l > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ********************************************************************* > > >>>> ****** > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> No More Movements… > >>>>> > >>>>> Lewis LaCook > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> __________________________________ > >>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile > >>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> mobile phone. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > >>>>> + > >>>>> -> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ********************************************************************** > > >>> ***** > >>> No More Movements… > >>> > >>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > >>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________ > >>> Yahoo! Sports > >>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy > Football > >>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 > >> > >> > > > > + > > -> 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 >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
Post-Modernism itself is a big bridge between high and low art. And the result is that the low becomes high. I'm sure my fellow teacher neither understands nor likes bicycle wheels attached to stools or giant stainless steel inflated rabbits and he probably loves Komar and Melamids most wanted paintings. But perhaps, if he reads a decent review of a showing of these works, he'll see the light.
Lewis LaCook wrote: > But Pall…. > > –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what > we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the > gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to > cloister oneself like this is to risk > obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good > totalitaian regime would want– > > bliss > l > > > > — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for >>discussion here, are an >>insult to new media art. They suggest that it >>doesn't warrant the same >>treatment as other art. Read some of the other >>articles in the same >>edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's >>music critique and dance >>critique. Both handled in a very professional >>manner. Insightful >>comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the >>field and give the >>artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't >>matter if the >>critique is good or bad but a good critique from >>someone who doesn't >>seem to know what they're talking about is a lot >>worse than a bad >>critique from someone who does. >> >>Engaging the viewer: >>We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or >>even care. When one >>of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" >>jokes and bet on >>football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've >>done, I'm mildly >>flattered but no more so than if he would compliment >>me on my new 'do >>(which he would of course never do for fear of >>appearing "gay"). Maybe >>he really does like it, but probably not for the >>same reasons that I >>made it. However, when a former professor of mine >>and highly regarded >>and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece >>enough to suggest >>to his wife that she interview me for her highly >>respected radio show on >>all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less >>whether he notices my >>new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring >>ourselves down to >>some public level of understanding is absurd. It's >>like asking Einstein >>to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be >>I'll have to erase >>my brain and run out to the local hobby store and >>pick up Bob Ross' Joy >>of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure >>that my fellow teacher >>will keep complimenting me on my work. >> >>Pall >> >>ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for >>making you think but >>you never know when it'll be back in vogue. >> >>furtherfield wrote: >> >>>Hi Geert, >>> >>>If they are informed it helps, yes… >>> >>>marc >>> >>> >>>>Actually the function or role of the critic >> >>(imho) should ideally be >> >>>>of the expert witness – one who knows enough >> >>about the subject at >> >>>>hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer >> >>some insight into the >> >>>>background of the work and of the body of work in >> >>which the work >> >>>>finds its place…. >>>> >>>>Cheers >>>>Geert >>>>http://nznl.com >>>> >>>> >>>>On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Good discussion here, but…. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does >> >>the >> >>>>>critic preprocess the material that will >> >>eventually be >> >>>>>written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff >> >>out >> >>>>>and discuss work that the reading public would >> >>be >> >>>>>interested in? >>>>> >>>>>I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it >> >>actually >> >>>>>engaged users instead of requiring users to go >> >>out and >> >>>>>get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >>>>>curatorial practices? >>>>> >>>>>bliss >>>>>l >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Hi Lewis, >>>>>> >>>>>>surely it is not always the task of the art >> >>itself >> >>>>>>to engage people, >>>>>>but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people >> >>to >> >>>>>>get engaged on thier >>>>>>own terms when the mood takes them? >>>>>> >>>>>>marc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's >> >>the >> >>>>>>>point? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>bliss >>>>>>>l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > ********************************************************************* > >>>>>>****** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>No More Movements… >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Lewis LaCook >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>__________________________________ >>>>>>>Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>>>>>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>mobile phone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>-> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > ********************************************************************** > >>>>>***** >>>>>No More Movements… >>>>> >>>>>Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >>>>>lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>____________________________________________________ >> >>>>>Yahoo! Sports >>>>>Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy >> >>Football >> >>>>>http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 >> >>>> >>>+ >>>-> 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 >> > > > > *************************************************************************** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.
there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush, and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to buy it.
in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone (especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.
how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your point with production.
How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the danm market if you have to, but make your point with production.
> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.
there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush, and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to buy it.
in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone (especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.
how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your point with production.
How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the damn market if you have to, but make your point with production.
Walt Whitman said something like 'great poetry demands a great audience.' in the sense, perhaps, that it cannot exist without a great audience. what is a great audience? i don't necessarily mean one that claps loud. i mean one for whom there is something at stake in the art. one who demands art as or more telling than the news concerning the significance of walking the earth. one who will not settle for (solely) entertainment. one who understands that in an enlightened society we are all critics, ie, we are all trying to come to some understanding of ourselves and the world around us, including the art. criticism is dialectic with others on what is important. judgement, as has been pointed out, is important, but more important is the examination of the poetics and taking it to its limits, exploring its implications concerning art and how we live and what we can accept and live with. judgement arises as a result of these things, ie, it is one of the ends of this sort of process. the critic not only alerts us about art but about what it means to be an inquiring, civilized seeker.
> Does the > critic preprocess the material that will eventually be > written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out > and discuss work that the reading public would be > interested in? > > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > curatorial practices?
I think there's quite a bit of art out there that *would* engage large audiences if those audiences were available.
I also think you're right that there is a large and overly influential academic and insular bulwark of institutional art that is protective of its position which is used to tout an art of privilege and monied aspiration the meaning of which is primarily reiteration of the capitalist status quo, the ivied american dream, art and criticism distant from the need for audience. art as confection, accessory of the upwardly mobile, art as the price of admission to the position of privilege, art as fascion accessory in a culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest offices. the high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service is paid to 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
> > > What exactly IS the function of the critic? > > Walt Whitman said something like 'great poetry > demands a great audience.' in > the sense, perhaps, that it cannot exist without a > great audience. what is a > great audience? i don't necessarily mean one that > claps loud. i mean one for > whom there is something at stake in the art. one who > demands art as or more > telling than the news concerning the significance of > walking the earth. one > who will not settle for (solely) entertainment. one > who understands that in > an enlightened society we are all critics, ie, we > are all trying to come to > some understanding of ourselves and the world around > us, including the art. > criticism is dialectic with others on what is > important. judgement, as has > been pointed out, is important, but more important > is the examination of the > poetics and taking it to its limits, exploring its > implications concerning > art and how we live and what we can accept and live > with. judgement arises > as a result of these things, ie, it is one of the > ends of this sort of > process. the critic not only alerts us about art but > about what it means to > be an inquiring, civilized seeker. > > > Does the > > critic preprocess the material that will > eventually be > > written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff > out > > and discuss work that the reading public would be > > interested in? > > > > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it > actually > > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out > and > > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on > > curatorial practices? > > I think there's quite a bit of art out there that > *would* engage large > audiences if those audiences were available. > > I also think you're right that there is a large and > overly influential > academic and insular bulwark of institutional art > that is protective of its > position which is used to tout an art of privilege > and monied aspiration the > meaning of which is primarily reiteration of the > capitalist status quo, the > ivied american dream, art and criticism distant from > the need for audience. > art as confection, accessory of the upwardly mobile, > art as the price of > admission to the position of privilege, art as > fascion accessory in a > culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in > the highest offices. the > high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which > lip service is paid to > 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty. > > ja > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is > open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set > out in the > Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Excuse me - there is a difference between using lo-brow forms to make art and stooping to lo-brow language and/or thought processes – the very thought that the artist should strive for some utopian end is a huge way away from popular notions about what art all about ….
> But Pall…. > > –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what > we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the > gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to > cloister oneself like this is to risk > obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good > totalitaian regime would want– > > bliss > l > > > > — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for >> discussion here, are an >> insult to new media art. They suggest that it >> doesn't warrant the same >> treatment as other art. Read some of the other >> articles in the same >> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's >> music critique and dance >> critique. Both handled in a very professional >> manner. Insightful >> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the >> field and give the >> artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't >> matter if the >> critique is good or bad but a good critique from >> someone who doesn't >> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot >> worse than a bad >> critique from someone who does. >> >> Engaging the viewer: >> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or >> even care. When one >> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" >> jokes and bet on >> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've >> done, I'm mildly >> flattered but no more so than if he would compliment >> me on my new 'do >> (which he would of course never do for fear of >> appearing "gay"). Maybe >> he really does like it, but probably not for the >> same reasons that I >> made it. However, when a former professor of mine >> and highly regarded >> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece >> enough to suggest >> to his wife that she interview me for her highly >> respected radio show on >> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less >> whether he notices my >> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring >> ourselves down to >> some public level of understanding is absurd. It's >> like asking Einstein >> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be >> I'll have to erase >> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and >> pick up Bob Ross' Joy >> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure >> that my fellow teacher >> will keep complimenting me on my work. >> >> Pall >> >> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for >> making you think but >> you never know when it'll be back in vogue. >> >> furtherfield wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Geert, >>> >>> If they are informed it helps, yes… >>> >>> marc >>> >>> >>> >>>> Actually the function or role of the critic >>>> >>>> >> (imho) should ideally be >> >> >>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough >>>> >>>> >> about the subject at >> >> >>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer >>>> >>>> >> some insight into the >> >> >>>> background of the work and of the body of work in >>>> >>>> >> which the work >> >> >>>> finds its place…. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Geert >>>> http://nznl.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Good discussion here, but…. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does >>>>> >>>>> >> the >> >> >>>>> critic preprocess the material that will >>>>> >>>>> >> eventually be >> >> >>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff >>>>> >>>>> >> out >> >> >>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would >>>>> >>>>> >> be >> >> >>>>> interested in? >>>>> >>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it >>>>> >>>>> >> actually >> >> >>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go >>>>> >>>>> >> out and >> >> >>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >>>>> curatorial practices? >>>>> >>>>> bliss >>>>> l >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Lewis, >>>>>> >>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art >>>>>> >>>>>> >> itself >> >> >>>>>> to engage people, >>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people >>>>>> >>>>>> >> to >> >> >>>>>> get engaged on thier >>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them? >>>>>> >>>>>> marc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> the >> >> >>>>>>> point? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bliss >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > ********************************************************************* > > >> >> >> >>>>>> ****** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No More Movements… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lewis LaCook >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> __________________________________ >>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> mobile phone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> -> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> > ********************************************************************** > > >> >> >> >>>>> ***** >>>>> No More Movements… >>>>> >>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> ____________________________________________________ >> >> >>>>> Yahoo! Sports >>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy >>>>> >>>>> >> Football >> >> >>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> + >>> -> 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 >> >> >> > > > ********************************************************************** > ***** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/ > subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/ > 29.php > >
Jim Andrews wrote: > culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest offices. the > high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service is paid to > 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
Actually, I said the low becomes high and the context was quite different from what you're talking about.
> Jim Andrews wrote: > > culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest > offices. the > > high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service > is paid to > > 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty. > > Actually, I said the low becomes high and the context was quite > different from what you're talking about.
Yes, I see. Your idea of the low becoming high is interesting and concerning art solely. Age of flip?
It's important for art to be free, but any project has its motives and its agenda. *Why* is erasing distinctions what "we" do? And *why* should high and low forms be combined by individuals who historically have served high forms?
Rendering oneself low simply places one within the normal context of low culture. And art isn't as good as a video game judged as low culture.
Placing high content in a low form is pastoral (Julian Stallabrass, "High Art Lite"), the contemporary equivalent of painting lowly shepherds to illustrate a moral point. I'd go further and say that slumming it is just so bourgeois. :-)
- Rob.
On 30 Jun 2005, at 02:03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> But Pall…. > > –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what > we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the > gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to > cloister oneself like this is to risk > obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good > totalitaian regime would want– > > bliss > l > > > > — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for >> discussion here, are an >> insult to new media art. They suggest that it >> doesn't warrant the same >> treatment as other art. Read some of the other >> articles in the same >> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's >> music critique and dance >> critique. Both handled in a very professional >> manner. Insightful >> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the >> field and give the >> artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't >> matter if the >> critique is good or bad but a good critique from >> someone who doesn't >> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot >> worse than a bad >> critique from someone who does. >> >> Engaging the viewer: >> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or >> even care. When one >> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" >> jokes and bet on >> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've >> done, I'm mildly >> flattered but no more so than if he would compliment >> me on my new 'do >> (which he would of course never do for fear of >> appearing "gay"). Maybe >> he really does like it, but probably not for the >> same reasons that I >> made it. However, when a former professor of mine >> and highly regarded >> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece >> enough to suggest >> to his wife that she interview me for her highly >> respected radio show on >> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less >> whether he notices my >> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring >> ourselves down to >> some public level of understanding is absurd. It's >> like asking Einstein >> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be >> I'll have to erase >> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and >> pick up Bob Ross' Joy >> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure >> that my fellow teacher >> will keep complimenting me on my work. >> >> Pall >> >> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for >> making you think but >> you never know when it'll be back in vogue. >> >> furtherfield wrote: >> >>> Hi Geert, >>> >>> If they are informed it helps, yes… >>> >>> marc >>> >>> >>>> Actually the function or role of the critic >>>> >> (imho) should ideally be >> >>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough >>>> >> about the subject at >> >>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer >>>> >> some insight into the >> >>>> background of the work and of the body of work in >>>> >> which the work >> >>>> finds its place…. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Geert >>>> http://nznl.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Good discussion here, but…. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does >>>>> >> the >> >>>>> critic preprocess the material that will >>>>> >> eventually be >> >>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff >>>>> >> out >> >>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would >>>>> >> be >> >>>>> interested in? >>>>> >>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it >>>>> >> actually >> >>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go >>>>> >> out and >> >>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on >>>>> curatorial practices? >>>>> >>>>> bliss >>>>> l >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Lewis, >>>>>> >>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art >>>>>> >> itself >> >>>>>> to engage people, >>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people >>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>> get engaged on thier >>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them? >>>>>> >>>>>> marc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's >>>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>>> point? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bliss >>>>>>> l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> > ********************************************************************* > >> >> >>>>>> ****** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No More Movements… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lewis LaCook >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> __________________________________ >>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile >>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> mobile phone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> -> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > ********************************************************************** > >> >> >>>>> ***** >>>>> No More Movements… >>>>> >>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> ____________________________________________________ >> >>>>> Yahoo! Sports >>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy >>>>> >> Football >> >>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> + >>> -> 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 >> >> > > > ********************************************************************** > ***** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.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 >
–i'm not sure what a "lo-brow" thought process is…like, "gee, my stomach's rumbling, i better eat?"–is that lo-brow?
i'm kinda surprised so many here find the idea of actually attempting to engage the "masses" so repulsive–it's kinda disillusioning, actually–
there have been some good thoughts in this thread (rob's got me thinking, and jim's ALWAYS got something insightful to say)–from most of the reactions, though, you would think i was advocating child molestation–
interesting—kinda gives a new slant to any poltical declarations i see on rhizome–
> Excuse me - there is a difference between using > lo-brow forms to make > art and stooping to lo-brow language and/or thought > processes – the > very thought that the artist should strive for some > utopian end is a > huge way away from popular notions about what art > all about …. > > > Cheers > Geert > http://nznl.com > > > On 30-jun-2005, at 3:03, Lewis LaCook wrote: > > > > But Pall…. > > > > –erasing the distinction between disciplines is > what > > we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the > > gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to > > cloister oneself like this is to risk > > obsolesence…and it's politically just what any > good > > totalitaian regime would want– > > > > bliss > > l > > > > > > > > — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for > >> discussion here, are an > >> insult to new media art. They suggest that it > >> doesn't warrant the same > >> treatment as other art. Read some of the other > >> articles in the same > >> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's > >> music critique and dance > >> critique. Both handled in a very professional > >> manner. Insightful > >> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of > the > >> field and give the > >> artists themselves something to chew on. It > doesn't > >> matter if the > >> critique is good or bad but a good critique from > >> someone who doesn't > >> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot > >> worse than a bad > >> critique from someone who does. > >> > >> Engaging the viewer: > >> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do > or > >> even care. When one > >> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap > "guy" > >> jokes and bet on > >> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've > >> done, I'm mildly > >> flattered but no more so than if he would > compliment > >> me on my new 'do > >> (which he would of course never do for fear of > >> appearing "gay"). Maybe > >> he really does like it, but probably not for the > >> same reasons that I > >> made it. However, when a former professor of mine > >> and highly regarded > >> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same > piece > >> enough to suggest > >> to his wife that she interview me for her highly > >> respected radio show on > >> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care > less > >> whether he notices my > >> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to > bring > >> ourselves down to > >> some public level of understanding is absurd. > It's > >> like asking Einstein > >> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should > be > >> I'll have to erase > >> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and > >> pick up Bob Ross' Joy > >> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure > >> that my fellow teacher > >> will keep complimenting me on my work. > >> > >> Pall > >> > >> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry > for > >> making you think but > >> you never know when it'll be back in vogue. > >> > >> furtherfield wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Hi Geert, > >>> > >>> If they are informed it helps, yes… > >>> > >>> marc > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Actually the function or role of the critic > >>>> > >>>> > >> (imho) should ideally be > >> > >> > >>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough > >>>> > >>>> > >> about the subject at > >> > >> > >>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer > >>>> > >>>> > >> some insight into the > >> > >> > >>>> background of the work and of the body of work > in > >>>> > >>>> > >> which the work > >> > >> > >>>> finds its place…. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Geert > >>>> http://nznl.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Good discussion here, but…. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? > Does > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> the > >> > >> > >>>>> critic preprocess the material that will > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> eventually be > >> > >> > >>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic > sniff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> out > >> > >> > >>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> be > >> > >> > >>>>> interested in? > >>>>> > >>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> actually > >> > >> > >>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> out and > >> > >> > >>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays > on > >>>>> curatorial practices? > >>>>> > >>>>> bliss > >>>>> l > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Lewis, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> itself > >> > >> > >>>>>> to engage people, > >>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the > people > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> to > >> > >> > >>>>>> get engaged on thier > >>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> marc > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, > what's > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >> the > >> > >> > >>>>>>> point? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> bliss > >>>>>>> l > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > ********************************************************************* > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>> ****** > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> No More Movements… > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Lewis LaCook > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> __________________________________ > >>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile > >>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on > your > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> mobile phone. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > >>>>>>> + > >>>>>>> -> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > ********************************************************************** > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>>>> ***** > >>>>> No More Movements… > >>>>> > >>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > >>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > ____________________________________________________ > >> > >> > >>>>> Yahoo! Sports > >>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> Football > >> > >> > >>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> + > >>> -> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > > > ***** > > No More Movements… > > > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.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 >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
All of the conversation here has been very interesting, and I have a certain ambivalence regarding the writings of Susan Boxer. I agree for the most part with Marisa Solon in that her analyses (if we can call them that) are cursory, lack a certain literacy in the field, and are indicative of the casual viewer.
Now, let me say why I have an ambivalence about this. On one hand, let's consider that this is the NYT and not the Toledo Blade (which, by the way, has a wonderfully acute editor who writes some beautiful cultural critiques). The contemporary idea of the neoconservative delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent. Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts festival.
On the other hand, Boxer illustrates one of New Media art's cardinal sins - its cultural myopia and aesthetic specificity. Although the mark of significant art is its experimental spirit, truly great art 'grabs' you. And, one of the problems that I have seen with New Media is that it has exhibited a cultural arrogance that demands that the audience must almost do research in order to know the context of a work.
These works mirror my contention regarding much of 80's Contemporary Art; in that it resembled a bad joke about postmodernism that required the viewer to read countless volumes of Foucault, Barthes, and Lyotard, only to find that the punch line was rather abject in itself. The joke is one that is on all parties involved.
However, as I state two poles of the argument, I see a number of quantum points in the continuum between these points. One is that I see that New Media that does not transcend its medium may remain marginalized, with those crossover works which can speak to the Contemporary Art culture punching through the membrane and going into the museums. Another might be that there could be niche cultures (such as Contagious Media) that will serve as a public conduit for other works, and others may be mass media hacks which address the populace. The contemporary art world is a milieu is one that gives the New Media artist the challenge of engaging, subverting, or even hacking in order to address the Susan Boxers of the world, if one truly cares about them at all.
But I think that from a personal perspective, New Media practitioners should care, if the genre (sic) wants to engage the larger art milieu.
However, I see Boxer's last two reads of New Media works problematic to be sure. But then, with her rather cursory treatment of the subject, she also brings up an opinion of art in general that one should probably consider. Although I personally differ with some of Susan Boxer's reads of technological art, she does represent the viewpoint of many gallery-goers that I have experienced, and is a viewpoint that one should consider.
But if I had my druthers, I'd put Mirapaul over there in a heartbeat.
>The contemporary idea of the neoconservative >delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush >statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and >the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big >heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of >the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but >I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent. >Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the >man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I >like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts >festival.
while i agree with the sentiment, this is not at all what's happening here. more complex ways of saying a stupid thing is still a stupid thing. "artist statement: i am currently exploring the matrix of cyphers representing the digital methodologies inherent in this computer keyboard."
boxer may not subscribe to "art speak". but the fact that she writes, not like an idiot, but more conversational, less pretentious, is totally refreshing. she panned cyberarts, said most of the artbase 101 show was mediocre (but also saw good things in some of the works). but it seems to be interpreted through a dense filter. people are seeing her words as saying "it's great to be dumb and hate it all." if that's what people see, they rely on those filters too much.
her speaking style may easily be in reaction to the language of self-importance that she's just been bombarded with. and as a result, many must not see what she's saying because they get caught up in how it's said. but if you don't get anything helpful out of it, so be it. it's not keeping you from making art. and the more you make the more they'll need to get used to you. we didn't lose some state of popularity. maybe this is a different track that will help in the long run. just press (good or bad) does amazing things.
to insist on art speak as somehow a sign of intelligence is pretty much eugenics. to only see the packaging and not the content of what's said is really just another way the arts can be dumbed down. she actually might be undoing some damage from previous art speakers. to learn from a variety of conflicting voices and methods is just common sense. people who agree too much, subscribe to one point of view, are (like the Bush clan) just not using evolution to improve. they are either deciding (like nazis) what is best, or letting changes be just random. (a concept in self-organizing systems) boxer is finally a real person among thousands of self-important authorities.
but what can we do to have the same effect were striving for?
show how computer art fits in to what people are already interested in. they don't develop interest spontaneously. right now there's no such thing for many as GREAT computer art, just like it'd never occur to them they could be looking at an example of GREAT shoe tying. we're not fighting a 0 rating, it's a null, rating still doesn't apply. people keep fighting this criteria of GREATness. but so far nothing in computers has much to do with what people already consider potentially GREAT. the more art shows are neither about computer art (self-destructive) or banish it entirely (doomed), the more the average visitor (at a gallery or theater) will actually see an example or two. no one person can do it, it takes all of us.
I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great deal of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the results cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow unfair. But who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair?
More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there and we should thank Ms. Boxer for it.
Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is in fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful. Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static shots are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And so on. The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the audiences burden.
Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size, what they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For time based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of time. Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must be masters of both time and space.
These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a surprise. It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks the audience to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the entire work without satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big payoff at the very end. Music frequently begins with the introduction of compelling themes that give the listener an incentive to go further. Good films not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all along the way. How much internet art does this?
I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly taken on.
I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their fault. It's yours.
I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my comments back.
I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
Philip Galanter wrote:
<snip> > > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a > good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is in > fact a *time* art, and how important that is. > > You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or > photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful. > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than > being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static shots > are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And so on. > The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the audiences > > burden.
I can't argue with your point that many video or other time-based artists have a horrible sense of time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters, can't remember which one, that made me want to murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1 Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have time as a significant element in the work in very deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective ways.
To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time," isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a sublimely beautiful conceptualization of computational time; it's gets to the very core of how computers and humans are different in a very physical way. It deserves a serious observation but its essence seems to have completely flown over the airhead reviewer.
> > These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the > internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a surprise.
You seem to be making general points that you might make to your students. It comes off a bit condescending since you're referencing a specific show and a specific review of it.
I can't think of one artist in the show that seems to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
> > It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks the audience > to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the entire work without > satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big payoff at the very > end. Music frequently begins with the introduction of compelling > themes that give the listener an incentive to go further. Good films > > not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all along the way. > How much internet art does this?
Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example misses the point of most of the work.
> > I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to > disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no > excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly taken > on. > > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit > for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the > critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their > > fault. It's yours.
As a general point, of course you're right. But as a specific point to this specific exhibition it just doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear in their time-based component, but neither of the pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep running the concept in your head long after you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of.
philip >> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit >> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the >> critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their >> fault. It's yours.
others >both [pieces] expect you to keep running the concept in your head long after >you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of.
philip gave a mature answer. the reply isn't at all unique to any individual but hardly a useful attitude. who knows why there is a faction of computer artists bent on self-destructive (and thus destructive to the rest of us) pouting. but after 10+ years of computer art, it's pretty clear why it still isn't ubiquitous. cell phones, GPS, iPods, … all took off after about 3 years, and we're still here bickering with some sort of teenage angst ("they just don't understand!"), rather than fixing what we do.
pretend the anti-boxer argument is right for a moment. pretend boxer really is dumb. audiences really can't handle these heavy concepts. where does that leave us? still with no one but ourselves interested. art funding diminishing anyway, ours being a particularly expensive practice, we're looking at a potentially dismal future, as long as we keep it up.
instead of arguing against these critiques, focus on improving our situation.
boxer's review has some helpful ideas philip clearly found in it. if you just can't find anything useful in the review yourself, no reason to dwell on it. drop it. but submit a constructive idea from somewhere else then. he can't be the only adult on this list?
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> So we only make art for other artists? > > > > — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Lewis LaCook wrote: >> >> >>> >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the >>> point? >>> >> >> To engage an engaged viewer.
> don't be thick > > On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Lewis LaCook wrote: > > > So we only make art for other artists? > > > > > > > > — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Lewis LaCook wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's > the > >>> point? > >>> > >> > >> To engage an engaged viewer. > >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: "Every Icon" and > "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear > in their time-based component, but neither of the > pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and > watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the > idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep > running the concept in your head long after you're > gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable > of.
—that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t, we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i like both works myself, but i can stray into conceptual work and appreciate it–
one problem might be this: boxer is applying a cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it IS about time…
—————
> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since > I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my > comments back. > > I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my > thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's > points are a bit off-base IMHO. below: > > Philip Galanter wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. > I suspect that a > > good number of internet artists started out as > primarily visual > > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much > internet art is in > > fact a *time* art, and how important that is. > > > > You can see this in the classroom everyday. > Student painters or > > photographers who decide to take up video are > usually (at least at > > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really > terribly awful. > > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then > defended in class > > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art > aesthetic rather than > > being called what it is…bad filmmaking. > Interminable static shots > > are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon > enough. And so on. > > The artist's infatuation for his/her own images > becomes the audiences > > > > burden. > > I can't argue with your point that many video or > other time-based artists have a horrible sense of > time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters, > can't remember which one, that made me want to > murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the > ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale > of a whopping disservice to the work in the show. > > Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming > too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1 > Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have > time as a significant element in the work in very > deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective > ways. > > To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't > know about you, but I don't have that kind of time," > isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes > I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her > oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a > sublimely beautiful conceptualization of > computational time; it's gets to the very core of > how computers and humans are different in a very > physical way. It deserves a serious observation but > its essence seems to have completely flown over the > airhead reviewer. > > > > > These problems become multiplied when fine artists > turn to the > > internet as a new medium. That time counts > shouldn't be a surprise. > > You seem to be making general points that you might > make to your students. It comes off a bit > condescending since you're referencing a specific > show and a specific review of it. > > I can't think of one artist in the show that seems > to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time > thing. If there is one, please clue me in. > > > > > It is the rare work of music or film or stage that > asks the audience > > to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the > entire work without > > satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big > payoff at the very > > end. Music frequently begins with the > introduction of compelling > > themes that give the listener an incentive to go > further. Good films > > > > not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all > along the way. > > How much internet art does this? > > Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example > misses the point of most of the work. > > > > > I've seen far too many examples of internet art > that seem to > > disregard the element of real time, and thereby > ignore or > > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To > be sure the > > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the > compositional > > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. > But that's no > > excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist > has willingly taken > > on. > > > > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and > not care a whit > > for the audience's experience. But don't blame > the audience, or the > > critic, if they click a few times and then walk > away. It's not their > > > > fault. It's yours. > > As a general point, of course you're right. But as a > specific point to this specific exhibition it just > doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly > musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and > "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear > in their time-based component, but neither of the > pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and > watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the > idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep > running the concept in your head long after you're > gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable > of. > + > -> 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 >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
There are plenty of problems with Philips response as I noted (and you removed to focus on my one little bit of snark. If she can be snarky in the NYT, can't a get a tad bit in on Rhiz without you resorting to insulting language?)
But your response it totally off-the-wall. There is no anti-boxer arg. There is a pro-critical response arg. She didn't say enough in the review to really respond to, I'm responding to her lack of any critical approach what-so-ever and general 'lifestyle'-style of the writing.
NYTimes and any other publication: give us a serious crit damnit! Not this fluffy infotainment.
As I wrote to Lewis (which he seemed to misunderstand), I want an engaged viewer, not a viewer that might as well be browsing t-shirts at the mall. I'll take what I can get as far as an audience goes, but a reviewer? At least a reviewer should be engaged.
Plasma Studii wrote:
> philip > >> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit > >> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or > the > >> critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not > their > >> fault. It's yours. > > others > >both [pieces] expect you to keep running the concept in your head > long after > >you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of. > > > > > philip gave a mature answer. the reply isn't at all unique to any > individual but hardly a useful attitude. who knows why there is a > faction of computer artists bent on self-destructive (and thus > destructive to the rest of us) pouting. but after 10+ years of > computer art, it's pretty clear why it still isn't ubiquitous. cell > phones, GPS, iPods, … all took off after about 3 years, and we're > still here bickering with some sort of teenage angst ("they just > don't understand!"), rather than fixing what we do. > > pretend the anti-boxer argument is right for a moment. pretend boxer > really is dumb. audiences really can't handle these heavy concepts. > where does that leave us? still with no one but ourselves > interested. art funding diminishing anyway, ours being a > particularly expensive practice, we're looking at a potentially > dismal future, as long as we keep it up. > > instead of arguing against these critiques, focus on improving our > situation. > > boxer's review has some helpful ideas philip clearly found in it. if > you just can't find anything useful in the review yourself, no reason > to dwell on it. drop it. but submit a constructive idea from > somewhere else then. he can't be the only adult on this list? >
Listen: The difference between art and prostitution is as follows:
In the former, one pays you to have sex with them, And with art, people see if they want to pay to see you have sex with yourself in the gallery.
Simple as that.
—–Original Message—– From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lewis LaCook Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM To: t.whid; [email protected] Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
>There is no anti-boxer arg. There is a pro-critical response arg. >She didn't say enough in the review to really respond to, I'm >responding to her lack of any critical approach what-so-ever and >general 'lifestyle'-style of the writing. > >NYTimes and any other publication: give us a serious crit damnit! >Not this fluffy infotainment.
what i mean by "anti-boxer". calling criticism fluffy because it's not the approach you want, when really people just aren't seeing, might not want to see, just how insightful it is.
Art is made for its audience. There may be a problem with net.art/art computing: it may just be the folk art of the digital creative class, with an audience of a nerds (who aren't as rich as the hatas seem to believe). Or it may be more representative of a society in transition to digital technology (and the ways of being that motivate/emerge from that transition).
If I made a piece of Nu Metal or Gangsta Rap, an FPS, a Mills & Boon novel, a martial arts film, a sci-fi cartoon, if I made any of that, it would be recognised that there are formal and content-al concerns to the work that require specialised knowledge. Ambient music, Russian cinema, it would be recognised that you might have to make some effort to engage with it. A critic might dismiss these works as examples of a valueless genre, but they would have to recognise that they were doing so. And they could not fall back on the "elitism" or exclusivity canards.
So we only make art for other artists? Hell no. No more than we only make drugs for doctors. But don't be fooled by the apparent easy availability of 'Popular' culture. It takes a lot of work to get people to engage so casually with something like Pop Idol. Millions of dollars of work. Art can't do that, it doesn't have the budget.
And it shouldn't have to. Active regard is an empowering skill, passive consumption isn't. We're providing different value in art than popular culture isn't.
I can see how video art is *time* art, because montage is creating rythym. But how then is internet art *time* art??
A page can indeed contain some form of timed image (animation movie etc) and of course popups or refreshes could be used but even then its up to the user and/or the users computer.
Perhaps time in internet art could better be compared to a musical score – the composer may set a piece for allegro but won't the musician play allegretto???
> > I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit > insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great > deal of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the > results cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow > unfair. But who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair? > > More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists > peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there > and we should thank Ms. Boxer for it. > > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a > good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is > in fact a *time* art, and how important that is. > > You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or > photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful. > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than > being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static > shots are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And > so on. The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the > audiences burden. > > Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size, > what they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For > time based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of > time. Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must > be masters of both time and space. > > These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the > internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a > surprise. It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks > the audience to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the > entire work without satisfaction along the way, just to get to a > big payoff at the very end. Music frequently begins with the > introduction of compelling themes that give the listener an > incentive to go further. Good films not only end well, but give > the viewer rewards all along the way. How much internet art does > this? > > I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to > disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no > excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly > taken on. > > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit > for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or > the critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not > their fault. It's yours. > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-= > > please email for the quickest response: [email protected] > > > + > -> 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 >
Any art 'on' the internet or using the internet involves a (extra) coding/decoding to/from 'machine readability' of some sort, and a transmission process based on communication protocols between machines.
Both processes are more directly 'temporal' and inherently cyclic than other publication methods like publishing a book or making and exposing a picture.
Even without any 'dynamic' content, any website is cyclic in its existence (request-response _time_).
This is imho not just theoretically important, it has some massive consequences in the perception of the work of art, one need only think of the trouble some people are having of trying to sell web art in ways equally profitable as 'traditional' art, or making it collectable. Or the digital-analog question.
Once you publish a book it has its moment of publication and a (life- or dying) time from then onwards. Paint a picture and it starts decaying. Make a website and it starts its process. You could consider that to be a decaying process as well, but the actual and instantanous renewal with each 'use' of the work remains (a song that remains the same? i doubt it)
I don't think there are any 'pure' distinctions to be made, though. There's always the hybris (or 'debris') of other art forms interfering in any art process. You're always (re)coding other art. If not, it's not art but Google or some other web service. Tradition and the individual webtalent.
And then of course the internet itself is just code over time, actualising its code on code every moment…
dv
—–Original Message—– From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geert Dekkers Sent: vrijdag 1 juli 2005 10:19 To: rhizome Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
I can see how video art is *time* art, because montage is creating rythym. But how then is internet art *time* art??
A page can indeed contain some form of timed image (animation movie etc) and of course popups or refreshes could be used but even then its up to the user and/or the users computer.
Perhaps time in internet art could better be compared to a musical score – the composer may set a piece for allegro but won't the musician play allegretto???
> > I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit > insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great > deal of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the > results cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow > unfair. But who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair? > > More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists > peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there > and we should thank Ms. Boxer for it. > > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a > good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is > in fact a *time* art, and how important that is. > > You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or > photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful. > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than > being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static > shots are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And > so on. The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the > audiences burden. > > Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size, > what they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For > time based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of > time. Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must > be masters of both time and space. > > These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the > internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a > surprise. It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks > the audience to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the > entire work without satisfaction along the way, just to get to a > big payoff at the very end. Music frequently begins with the > introduction of compelling themes that give the listener an > incentive to go further. Good films not only end well, but give > the viewer rewards all along the way. How much internet art does > this? > > I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to > disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no > excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly > taken on. > > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit > for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or > the critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not > their fault. It's yours. > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > =-= > > please email for the quickest response: [email protected] > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/ > subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/ > 29.php >
I think some of the people participating in this thread are missing the point entirely. Sarah never says that "most of the artbase 101 show was mediocre" and if she had, that would at least be a step in the right direction. But then, of course, she would have to back it up with something. The point is that all she really says is that she went and spent some time at a show at the New Museum of Contemporary Art. When we see something under the header "Art Review", we want some meat. We want a professional assesment of the work. What stands out and why? What doesn't and why not? Perhaps also a couple of hints that show that the person really understands the work. All she gives is hints that show that she doesn't understand which in my book means that she shouldn't be doing the review. Would you trust a rock critic to give a decent review of an opera?
Then there's that other thing. Some people seem to think that the artists mission is to make art for the public. I'm sorry, but they forgot to put me on the payroll. People that really want to experience my art have to come to my level, I'm not going to theirs. If someone finds a piece of mine intriguing, they can look at my other work to put it into context and if they're really interested, they can even find a couple of interviews on the net and if that doesn't do it, my email address is all over. If I were interested in catering to the publics expectations and wants, I would've gone into graphic design or maybe I would paint pretty images on silk pillows and hit the craft-fair circuit. But I'm not and I think the majority of us would say the same.
Phillip: I'm not sure what compelled you to write your post. Since we're talking about the Rhizome exhibit, I would say that a lot of those works approach time in an extremely compelling way. And do it in a way that shows very well the flexibility of the time component in the internet/computer medium. "Fenlandia" is cool in a time-play sense. Sarah obviously missed the point entirely since she was always waiting for something to move. I think Sarah Boxer is the one that misunderstands the artistic concept of time and not the artists.
Pall
judsoN wrote:
> while i agree with the sentiment, this is not at all what's happening > here. more complex ways of saying a stupid thing is still a stupid > thing. "artist statement: i am currently exploring the matrix of > cyphers representing the digital methodologies inherent in this computer > keyboard." > > boxer may not subscribe to "art speak". but the fact that she writes, > not like an idiot, but more conversational, less pretentious, is totally > refreshing. she panned cyberarts, said most of the artbase 101 show was > mediocre (but also saw good things in some of the works). but it seems > to be interpreted through a dense filter. people are seeing her words as > saying "it's great to be dumb and hate it all." if that's what people > see, they rely on those filters too much. > > her speaking style may easily be in reaction to the language of > self-importance that she's just been bombarded with. and as a result, > many must not see what she's saying because they get caught up in how > it's said. but if you don't get anything helpful out of it, so be it. > it's not keeping you from making art. and the more you make the more > they'll need to get used to you. we didn't lose some state of > popularity. maybe this is a different track that will help in the long > run. just press (good or bad) does amazing things. > > to insist on art speak as somehow a sign of intelligence is pretty much > eugenics. to only see the packaging and not the content of what's said > is really just another way the arts can be dumbed down. she actually > might be undoing some damage from previous art speakers. to learn from a > variety of conflicting voices and methods is just common sense. people > who agree too much, subscribe to one point of view, are (like the Bush > clan) just not using evolution to improve. they are either deciding > (like nazis) what is best, or letting changes be just random. (a > concept in self-organizing systems) boxer is finally a real person among > thousands of self-important authorities. > > but what can we do to have the same effect were striving for? > > show how computer art fits in to what people are already interested in. > they don't develop interest spontaneously. right now there's no such > thing for many as GREAT computer art, just like it'd never occur to them > they could be looking at an example of GREAT shoe tying. we're not > fighting a 0 rating, it's a null, rating still doesn't apply. people > keep fighting this criteria of GREATness. but so far nothing in > computers has much to do with what people already consider potentially > GREAT. the more art shows are neither about computer art > (self-destructive) or banish it entirely (doomed), the more the average > visitor (at a gallery or theater) will actually see an example or two. > no one person can do it, it takes all of us. > + > -> 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 >
Some people totally respect your perspective on this - even though we differ.
PT> Some people seem to think that the artists mission is to make art for the public.
Some people think the [________________] (fill in the blank: ivory tower, elitist, "if they don't get it I must be a misunderstood genius", self congratulatory, art for art's sake, highbrow) approach to art making is what is in need of adjustment. Of all the elements that one could take from the conceptual art movement, this is one that some people have no problem tossing out. Sarah Boxer is expressing the pov of a disenfranchised audience that finds more often than not this approach to art fails to deliver - the viewer feels burned, more so if it requires an upfront investment of time. Some people think that taking the audience into consideration is not so distasteful (just a little more challenging).
Perhaps this is why Carlo Zanni asserts that 99.9% of (net) artists are not interested in selling or a career.
> Listen: > The difference between art and prostitution is as > follows: > > In the former, one pays you to have sex with them, > And with art, people see if they want to pay to see > you have sex with > yourself in the gallery. > > Simple as that. > > > > —–Original Message—– > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Lewis LaCook > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM > To: t.whid; [email protected] > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of > ArtBase 101 > > So we only make art for other artists? > > > > — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Lewis LaCook wrote: > > > > > > > > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's > the > > > point? > > > > To engage an engaged viewer. > > + > > -> 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 > > > > > ************************************************************************ > *** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook > –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Sports > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football > > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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 >
*************************************************************************** No More Movements…
Anyway here are some quick responses in the interest of correcting misinterpretations of my previous post. Also some observations …all in no particular order…
re: Simon's "every icon"…my impression is that Boxer "got it" and the "I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time" comment was an (attempted) jest very much in tune with the spirit of the piece.
re: my comments regarding time and it's good and bad use in art. I wasn't attacking this show as having lots of examples of bad time art. I'm not taking a position on that. I'm saying Boxer's attention to time as a theme in her criticism is not flip but rather is entirely valid even if expressed in the article in a "lite" way.
similarly re: the opinion that Boxer's review had so little content there was nothing there to respond to. Well, first, empirically there apparently is something there to respond to because we have lots of responses even here. But more to the point, I wanted to "help" Boxer by pointing out her choice of "time" in internet art as a thread to string her comments on is insightful…I can easily imagine multiple books on the topic, and that her cautionary message about poor use of time in art is worth hearing. Reasonable people can disagree whether this or that piece deals with time well, but simply her bringing "time" to the front of the room is enough of a service to justify the article.
re: my comments regarding film and such. I wasn't making a claim that good interactive art making is *just like* making a good film. That would just be silly. What I *was* pointing out was that the transition from static visual art to visually stimulating time art is a perilous one. The fact that some responses questioned whether internet art was, in fact, a time art at all underscores for me the weak state of the art in this regard…even in the critical language itself.
re: the question of making art for oneself vrs the audience, and who should meet who more than halfway or not. I didn't say it is somehow wrong for an artist to optimize his activity for his own satisfaction. I affirmed that artists are free to make that choice. I only said that having made that choice it is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the artist of the audience that they will find the work equally optimal for *their* satisfaction as well.
i.e. artistic self-satisfaction is no guarantee of audience satisfaction, and all too often they are conflicted interests. One should try to have reasonable expectations about this…and not deny other artists a different balance.
Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time were invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour piece by Jan Fabre – yes it was tedious, and yes I might have walked off (I actually think I did) but that's not the point. The point (of the piece was) – obviously – that it was EIGHT hours.
And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time.
On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> > > — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Every Icon" and > >> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear >> in their time-based component, but neither of the >> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and >> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the >> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep >> running the concept in your head long after you're >> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable >> of. >> > > —that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t, > we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the > conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i > like both works myself, but i can stray into > conceptual work and appreciate it– > > one problem might be this: boxer is applying a > cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the > conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in > which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it > IS about time… > > > > ————— > > >> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since >> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my >> comments back. >> >> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my >> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's >> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below: >> >> Philip Galanter wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> >>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. >>> >> I suspect that a >> >>> good number of internet artists started out as >>> >> primarily visual >> >>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much >>> >> internet art is in >> >>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is. >>> >>> You can see this in the classroom everyday. >>> >> Student painters or >> >>> photographers who decide to take up video are >>> >> usually (at least at >> >>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really >>> >> terribly awful. >> >>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then >>> >> defended in class >> >>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art >>> >> aesthetic rather than >> >>> being called what it is…bad filmmaking. >>> >> Interminable static shots >> >>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon >>> >> enough. And so on. >> >>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images >>> >> becomes the audiences >> >>> >>> burden. >>> >> >> I can't argue with your point that many video or >> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of >> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters, >> can't remember which one, that made me want to >> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the >> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale >> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show. >> >> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming >> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1 >> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have >> time as a significant element in the work in very >> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective >> ways. >> >> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't >> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time," >> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes >> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her >> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a >> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of >> computational time; it's gets to the very core of >> how computers and humans are different in a very >> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but >> its essence seems to have completely flown over the >> airhead reviewer. >> >> >>> >>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists >>> >> turn to the >> >>> internet as a new medium. That time counts >>> >> shouldn't be a surprise. >> >> You seem to be making general points that you might >> make to your students. It comes off a bit >> condescending since you're referencing a specific >> show and a specific review of it. >> >> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems >> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time >> thing. If there is one, please clue me in. >> >> >>> >>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that >>> >> asks the audience >> >>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the >>> >> entire work without >> >>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big >>> >> payoff at the very >> >>> end. Music frequently begins with the >>> >> introduction of compelling >> >>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go >>> >> further. Good films >> >>> >>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all >>> >> along the way. >> >>> How much internet art does this? >>> >> >> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example >> misses the point of most of the work. >> >> >>> >>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art >>> >> that seem to >> >>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby >>> >> ignore or >> >>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To >>> >> be sure the >> >>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the >>> >> compositional >> >>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. >>> >> But that's no >> >>> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist >>> >> has willingly taken >> >>> on. >>> >>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and >>> >> not care a whit >> >>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame >>> >> the audience, or the >> >>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk >>> >> away. It's not their >> >>> >>> fault. It's yours. >>> >> >> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a >> specific point to this specific exhibition it just >> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly >> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and >> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear >> in their time-based component, but neither of the >> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and >> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the >> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep >> running the concept in your head long after you're >> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable >> of. >> + >> -> 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 >> >> > > > ********************************************************************** > ***** > No More Movements… > > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.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 >
And just to show (again and again) that art sometimes asks you go the extra mile, an exerpt about Cy Twombly…
from brentriley.com
"I've liked his work since I was a freshman in college. His paintings are abstract and impenetrable, the only guideposts are occasional references to mythology buried in the scribbles and blobs of color on canvas. Twombly is an artist that a lot of people say "I could do that" or "It looks like my 5 year old drew that."
I smile when I hear that because I've been frustrated by his paintings too. To crack the shell and dig out the meaning is difficult. But I'm drawn back to him again and again."
On 1-jul-2005, at 22:05, Geert Dekkers wrote:
> Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time > were invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour > piece by Jan Fabre – yes it was tedious, and yes I might have > walked off (I actually think I did) but that's not the point. The > point (of the piece was) – obviously – that it was EIGHT hours. > > And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have > fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time. > > > On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote: > > >> >> >> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "Every Icon" and >> >> >>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear >>> in their time-based component, but neither of the >>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and >>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the >>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep >>> running the concept in your head long after you're >>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable >>> of. >>> >>> >> >> —that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t, >> we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the >> conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i >> like both works myself, but i can stray into >> conceptual work and appreciate it– >> >> one problem might be this: boxer is applying a >> cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the >> conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in >> which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it >> IS about time… >> >> >> >> ————— >> >> >> >>> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since >>> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my >>> comments back. >>> >>> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my >>> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's >>> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below: >>> >>> Philip Galanter wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. >>>> >>>> >>> I suspect that a >>> >>> >>>> good number of internet artists started out as >>>> >>>> >>> primarily visual >>> >>> >>>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much >>>> >>>> >>> internet art is in >>> >>> >>>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is. >>>> >>>> You can see this in the classroom everyday. >>>> >>>> >>> Student painters or >>> >>> >>>> photographers who decide to take up video are >>>> >>>> >>> usually (at least at >>> >>> >>>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really >>>> >>>> >>> terribly awful. >>> >>> >>>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then >>>> >>>> >>> defended in class >>> >>> >>>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art >>>> >>>> >>> aesthetic rather than >>> >>> >>>> being called what it is…bad filmmaking. >>>> >>>> >>> Interminable static shots >>> >>> >>>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon >>>> >>>> >>> enough. And so on. >>> >>> >>>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images >>>> >>>> >>> becomes the audiences >>> >>> >>>> >>>> burden. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I can't argue with your point that many video or >>> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of >>> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters, >>> can't remember which one, that made me want to >>> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the >>> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale >>> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show. >>> >>> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming >>> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1 >>> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have >>> time as a significant element in the work in very >>> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective >>> ways. >>> >>> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't >>> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time," >>> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes >>> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her >>> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a >>> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of >>> computational time; it's gets to the very core of >>> how computers and humans are different in a very >>> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but >>> its essence seems to have completely flown over the >>> airhead reviewer. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists >>>> >>>> >>> turn to the >>> >>> >>>> internet as a new medium. That time counts >>>> >>>> >>> shouldn't be a surprise. >>> >>> You seem to be making general points that you might >>> make to your students. It comes off a bit >>> condescending since you're referencing a specific >>> show and a specific review of it. >>> >>> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems >>> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time >>> thing. If there is one, please clue me in. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that >>>> >>>> >>> asks the audience >>> >>> >>>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the >>>> >>>> >>> entire work without >>> >>> >>>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big >>>> >>>> >>> payoff at the very >>> >>> >>>> end. Music frequently begins with the >>>> >>>> >>> introduction of compelling >>> >>> >>>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go >>>> >>>> >>> further. Good films >>> >>> >>>> >>>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all >>>> >>>> >>> along the way. >>> >>> >>>> How much internet art does this? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example >>> misses the point of most of the work. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art >>>> >>>> >>> that seem to >>> >>> >>>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby >>>> >>>> >>> ignore or >>> >>> >>>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To >>>> >>>> >>> be sure the >>> >>> >>>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the >>>> >>>> >>> compositional >>> >>> >>>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. >>>> >>>> >>> But that's no >>> >>> >>>> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist >>>> >>>> >>> has willingly taken >>> >>> >>>> on. >>>> >>>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and >>>> >>>> >>> not care a whit >>> >>> >>>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame >>>> >>>> >>> the audience, or the >>> >>> >>>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk >>>> >>>> >>> away. It's not their >>> >>> >>>> >>>> fault. It's yours. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a >>> specific point to this specific exhibition it just >>> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly >>> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and >>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear >>> in their time-based component, but neither of the >>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and >>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the >>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep >>> running the concept in your head long after you're >>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable >>> of. >>> + >>> -> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ****** >> No More Movements… >> >> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http:// >> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/||| >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.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 >
Been away until the 30th (for over fifteen days) and I am just catching up on e-mails.
I have a brief comment on the NYTimes review.
The review does not tackle anything concretely but simply casually glosses over some of the projects. Boxer clearly shows no understanding of online works and her critical position is vaguely presented with abstract references to previoulsy existing artworks, like paintings, when she explains that the viewer will probably spend more time in front of any of the works than on a painting–as if a longer time period justifies the meaning of a work of art. Based on utalitarian ideology (which is the foundation of the United States' work ethic), time is money, and if you spend time doing something like viewing a work of art, then the work must mean "something." The more time you spend, the more it must mean… Shallow.
Her position is fully exposed when she writes on John Simon's Every Icon, "I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time. Which raises the question: what kind of art do you have time for? It's a question that comes up over and over with art on the Web."
That time is the central issue for Boxer shows the problematics brought forth by many new media works, as the conventional viewer is unable to cope with the unexpected parameters particular pieces offer. Boxer introduces the time element as a stigma for online works, that she takes such position shows that she is not willing to understand what new media is about.
I suggest to ignore any of her write ups. Unlike Greenberg's which demanded a clear opposition in twentieth century modernism, due to his clear understanding of culture and sensibilities of art practice, Boxer's position is completely flawed with no strong argument–she clearly does not care about culture, she does not question or propose, but simply lists with no clear position other than that she writes for a large newspaper.
Ignore her. Let her be alone in her own world. Forget that it is the NY Times. Take away the title of the paper and the review is simply embarassing.
> TWhid Wrote: > > I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested > party felt that I should hold my comments back. > > Hey, so am I, but doesn't seem to stop me. :) > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why there was so little discussion about the concept of the show itself. (maybe I missed something earlier)
How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my first point.
Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking around between computers, going physically from one object to another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the article might be the mirror of the show.
best Annie Abrahams ps I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe the show, an url, photo's?
But the thing is the Ms Boxer is just a visitor but a critic,- the discussion being about is her quality as a critic…
But I think this is a valid point, however. Could be out the other way round, though – at least in a gallery/museum setting visitors are geared up for looking at art, no tv dinners / kids running rampant…
> Hello all, > > I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the > artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why > there was so little discussion about the concept of the show > itself. (maybe I missed something earlier) > > How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more > than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events > like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to > say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my > first point. > > Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting > all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/ > intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking > around between computers, going physically from one object to > another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the > article might be the mirror of the show. > > best Annie Abrahams > ps > I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe > the show, an url, photo's? > + > -> 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 > >
But the thing is the Ms Boxer is NOT just a visitor but a critic,- the discussion being about is her quality as a critic…
But I think this is a valid point, however. Could be out the other way round, though – at least in a gallery/museum setting visitors are geared up for looking at art, no tv dinners / kids running rampant…
> Hello all, > > I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the > artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why > there was so little discussion about the concept of the show > itself. (maybe I missed something earlier) > > How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more > than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events > like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to > say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my > first point. > > Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting > all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/ > intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking > around between computers, going physically from one object to > another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the > article might be the mirror of the show. > > best Annie Abrahams > ps > I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe > the show, an url, photo's? > + > -> 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 > > >
Comments
>hmmmmmmmmmm
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
>
>Please discuss…
cool article. makes great points.
Good thing there aren't more interactive pieces. Otherwise the show
would, of course, have been "annoying". Pretty boring article though.
Reads a bit like a store inventory, or a 6 year olds paper on "What I
did this summer."
I went with my family to Florida.
We went to Disneyland. It was fun. I took a picture of Goofy.
Then we went to the beach. There was lots of sand. I went swimming.
Then we took a ride through a swamp. It was icky.
pall
t.whid wrote:
> hmmmmmmmmmm
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
>
> Please discuss…
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________
Ms. Boxer's description of "1 Year…" was spot on an consise in my book:
"1 Year Performance Video," by M. River and T. Whid Art Associates, asks that you "please watch for 1 year." You will see "two artists living out 365 days in identical white rooms," the site says; it's an updating of "Sam Hsieh's notorious 'One Year Performance 1978-79,' in which the artist isolated himself in a cage-like room for a year's time." In the new piece, you're asked to put in as much time as the artists did.
Nice! I genreally tend to relate to Ms. Boxer's take on new media art.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
t.whid wrote:
> hmmmmmmmmmm
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
>
> Please discuss …
Hi, all. I thought I'd chip-in, here, as one of those artists for whom
Ms. Boxer didn't have time (maybe because I fell into that "just
entertainment" category, though I wanted to fall into the works that
"try to make you politically aware, or at least wary" niche)–or as
someone interested in the evolution of [media] art criticism….
Let's start with the good… Boxer gives nice props to Rhizome and she
seems to be calling someone charming, which is always flattering (?).
She also seems to imply that these works are demanding of time and are
worthy of the same–though she doesn't respond to that call…
She acknowledges that it's a big challenge to curate a retrospective
survey of something that (to some extent) is still happening and that
it's hard to mount a physical show of "web work," which is (I'm sure)
what we are all calling our work… This is an area in which Lauren
and Rachel (and Kevin and the crew) really succeeded with the show.
They also managed to show people the diverse ways in which artists are
using the internet. It's not only that artists are using it in
different thematic ways (ie according to their schema of e-commerce,
online celebrity, etc.), but also in different formal ways. I love
that someone who sees this show will realize that Paperrad's
sculptural installation is net art because it uses a Google image
search, or that the 01's photos are net art in the sense that they
document a project realized on the internet. Yes, we are all short on
time, but I think this is less a determinant in [making or viewing]
the work than the fact that we are all unique creatures who use the
internet in different ways, after the ten years surveyed in the show.
But let me get at the review more directly because I take issue with
the points made (or implied) as much as the manner in which they were
made. I totally agreed with Palli's witty review of the review. That's
exactly how it reads to me. Jason said he found Boxer's description of
MTAA's 1YPV spot-on, but to me it missed the boat. Or, rather, it
ignored the elephant in the room–despite the fact that it related
directly to the theme she seemed to have picked for her missive. The
"year" that MTAA suggests viewers devote to their performance video is
not a normal year. It can be experienced in increments of real or
artificial time. My computer could "watch" the video when I do not,
whereas I can watch it without being credited with such watching
(since I never login when I look at it). The piece puts an onus on the
viewer to do all the "work," since it sews together clips of a shorter
duration–ie we are supposed to watch them in the room for one year,
but they are not in the room for that year. (Or are they, this is a
more existential question.) Boxer acknowledges the former but not the
latter point, which is exactly what defines the piece. In fact, 1YPV
is not only time-based because of the year in its title or the fact
that it requires extended, and possibly clocked, viewing, but because
it is an *update* from a date/era in which time is measured,
experienced, and faked differently.
Similar points apply to Simon's "Every Icon," which underscores the
mortality of the viewer, and perhaps even of art, by making us realize
that we will never see every icon, but also that image-making (despite
its historical, formal, or critical constitution as "simply" a
process[es] of mimesis and recombinance, which E.I. also makes clear),
is a job that's never complete, though intellectually it is possible
at the point of near-infinity (or is it entropy?). Simon's piece is
predicated on its status as an installation. Its end-date is in
question, but it is always defined by its start-date, which changes in
various iterations that are human-defined. This means that it's
different when it starts at X-date at the Guggenheim, vs Y-date in
Alex Galloway's office (actually, there it seems to be turned off), or
at Z-date in the home of Jill Schmo art collector.
What does this have to do with Boxer's review? Simon banked on the
fact that she wouldn't have time for it. That, like the time-faking in
MTAA's peice, is worth mentioning.
Now I don't want to personally attack Sarah Boxer (though she is very
much worth taking the time to Google!), but I know that she has a
background in psychoanalytic theory and I find it unfortunate that her
reading in a science of interpretation has not parlayed into
interpretations of art. As is true of her other articles recently
discussed here, I think that this was, ultimately, a missive rather
than a review. (Again, Palli said it all.) She doesn't adequately
discuss the experience of the pieces, though the intended experiences
were, in many senses, constitutive of the works. She says, simply,
that she doesn't have time for them. (I wonder what her editor thinks
of this, especially as she's writing for an art section and not a
lifestyle section–the two are still separate, right?–but
anyway…..)
So here is my theory, or what I feel is happening… (And Boxer's
writings are simply a good example of this problem, but not the only
example.) I think that we are seeing a contemporary redux of what used
to be called "criticism by beauty." This mode of "critique" was
popularized in the era of French New Wave filmmaking. In short, it was
characterized by reviews in which the writers seemed to have said to
themselves, "If I don't understand it, it must be brilliant." This led
to a lack of true engagement with works and an overstatement of films'
brilliance, but without justification or explanation–judgement
without interpretation. I see the same happening in contemporary
criticism of media art (which may, in a material sense, be the root of
Boxer's distillation of the pieces she mentioned to one-liners),
except that, rather than deem the work brilliant, the under-informed
or under-engaged "critic" deems it awful. If the earlier era was one
of "critcism by beauty," I'd call the era entrenched by Boxer that of
"criticism by repulsion." (Though we could have a fun
naming-contest–is it crit by repulsion, abjection, negligence,
nausea, intimidation, boredom, etc…) Goodness knows I am not denying
the culpability of the artist for their relationship to their audience
(which shouldn't be mutually exclusive from the critic–all of this we
began to discuss in this earlier thread:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread407&text3154), but I think
in the ten years surveyed by this show, we've come to a point when it
no longer suffices to criticize something by saying "I don't get it"
and/or "I don't have time for this."
For now the writings we're seeing entrench the fallacy that much of
the early academic writing promoted vis a vis new media: that it is
without indexicality. This criticism by repulsion, this reduction of
Cory Arcangel's (whose name has no "h" in it) or Amy Alexander's, or
anyone else's work to one-liners, implies that net art is incapable of
having a semiotic function, or employing shades of meaning, of
symbolism, or of implication. This gives the work the short life-span
of the viewers' attention-span. I can't help but believe that this
truncation is media-specific–that this perceived lack of polyvalence
is not only pinned upon the work by the perceiver, but that it is
specific to their assessment of "web work." I want to say, in
explaining this point, that the critic (nay, writer) assumes that net
art has all the depth of other silly net memes, but this would be to
indulge the idea that things on the internet are somehow inherently
shallow, which I just can't manage to believe. (It would be like
assuming that TV commercials are shallow because they are short,
mainstream, and entertainment-oriented. Not all things on the internet
can be described in those terms, but neither net art nor memes nor ads
operate without metaphor and metonymy, to put it in psychoanalytic
terms.)
I do believe that good art work is aware of its contemporary political
economy and that our contemporary political economy is one defined by
attention spans. This, however, does not mean, categorically, that all
net work (or all art work) should or should not be expecte to have the
effects of ritalin…
I don't know if Boxer subscribes to the 20-second rule of
art-observation (the average time someone determined people spend
looking at paintings), or if she thinks things in different spaces (ie
movie theatres vs galleries vs on the WWW) deserve different amounts
of time. I would assume that she had a limited word count, in which
case us under-reviewed media artists are lucky that her brevity led to
more of our names finding their way into the NYT, despite a lack of
engagement. The truth is, it's great that Rhizome & the New Museum
would mount a show like this and that the New York Times would send
someone to review it. No doubt it gives a bit more cultural "value" to
what we're all doing. One of these days (at least before "Every Icon"
is finished somewhere, if not before someone officially logs a year in
front of 1YPV), I'd like to see shows like these get real
criticism–by which I mean true reviews that engage in a process of
interpretation.
Marisa
This review is a complete evasion of the critic's task, which is to attempt to engage the given works of art on exhibition intellectually. The rhetorical device of joking about the time required to interact with them is in fact a dismissal of their potential as art; that is, their potential to stimulate thought (or not), provoke consciousness (or not) about aspects of contemporary life, and so on. Perhaps this is due to anxiety about the status of internet art, which is both abundant unto sublimity and hence seemingly beyond judgments of quality or effectiveness. Thus, for the New York Times, it's all a joke.
D. Quiles
t.whid wrote:
> hmmmmmmmmmm
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
>
> Please discuss…
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
Plasma Studii wrote:
> >hmmmmmmmmmm
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
> >
> >Please discuss…
>
> cool article. makes great points.
I am surprised to see many of the same old arguments being used in the critique of the Rhizome show, arguments that became obsolete in the late 1990s after it became general knowledge how the new paradigms of net art operate. Clearly, the critic is behind the curve on this discourse so it is disappointing when the critique is largely uninformed. Why doesn't the NY Times hire a media critic?
I read the review. It consists mostly of one or two sentences per comment on
several of the pieces in the show. That sort of desultory effort really
shouldn't make it past an editor. It indicates the author hasn't thought
hard enough about the subject to generalize from the specific cases, and
also the comments on the specific pieces are meagre. I'd have to agree with
Pall.
But, also, the concept of the show itself is dull and contrary to the spirit
of the rhizome artbase project. Selecting 40 of the many works to show is
insulting to the others whose work is in the artbase.
The more interesting challenge for rhizome and the curators would be to
create interfaces into the rhizome database which are intriguing and allow
an experience in the gallery that is as good or better than selecting 40
particular works.
ja
http://vispo.com
Hi Marisa,
Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion".
Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible.
In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes.
Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com
If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
point?
bliss
l
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
On Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 04:07PM, Lewis LaCook <[email protected]> wrote:
>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>point?
That it's art rather than lightweight entertainment?
There are plenty of things that a casual user won't be engaged by.
It's their loss.
- Rob.
Hi Lewis,
surely it is not always the task of the art itself to engage people,
but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to get engaged on thier
own terms when the mood takes them?
marc
>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>point?
>
>bliss
>l
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>No More Movements…
>
>Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do make
a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only for
other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be
able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it.
Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the point?"
I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual user,
or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is part
of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for
the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's
average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta
Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about. There's no
comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house
expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is
the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and
barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names
and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive
(let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more hifalutin
word for her than Lame.
I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user?
Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at
it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the
critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig
deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying
that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in
another medium.
I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the
lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some
true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to
go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write
about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand
back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're
talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for
at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres,
different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of tools to
address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to
say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as
seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse
medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for
this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from
critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied
with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998.
Marisa
On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Marisa,
>
> Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion".
>
> Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible.
> In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes.
>
> 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
>
I hereby nominate Marisa for new media art critic for the NYTimes.
Long may she reign.
Pall
Marisa S. Olson wrote:
> Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do make
> a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only for
> other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be
> able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it.
>
> Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the point?"
> I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual user,
> or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is part
> of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for
> the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's
> average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta
> Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about. There's no
> comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house
> expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is
> the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and
> barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names
> and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive
> (let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more hifalutin
> word for her than Lame.
>
> I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user?
> Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at
> it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the
> critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig
> deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying
> that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in
> another medium.
>
> I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the
> lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some
> true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to
> go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write
> about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand
> back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're
> talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for
> at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres,
> different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of tools to
> address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to
> say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as
> seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse
> medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for
> this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from
> critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied
> with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998.
>
> Marisa
>
>
> On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Hi Marisa,
>>
>>Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion".
>>
>>Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist, it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as possible.
>>In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested) general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of its blemishes.
>>
>>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
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________
hear, hear
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 29-jun-2005, at 18:51, Pall Thayer wrote:
> I hereby nominate Marisa for new media art critic for the NYTimes.
>
> Long may she reign.
>
> Pall
>
> Marisa S. Olson wrote:
>
>> Aw, shucks, Jason… that's sweet of you. And I think that you do
>> make
>> a good point. I've always resented art that seemed to be made only
>> for
>> other artists or for certain critics, etc, and felt that it should be
>> able to speak to anyone, whether or not they liked it.
>> Lewis asked "If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>> point?"
>> I tend to agree. The question is whether Sarah Boxer is a casual
>> user,
>> or whether she should be, as a New York Times Art Critic. This is
>> part
>> of the reason that I made the aside about whether she's writing for
>> the art section or the lifestyle section. Try comparing Boxer's
>> average level of engagement with the art she writes about to Roberta
>> Smith's (another NYT critic) with what she's writing about.
>> There's no
>> comparison. Boxer seems to have finagled a position as the house
>> expert on new media, which as others pointed out means that hers is
>> the lone non-critical voice coming through. When she shows up and
>> barely/badly reiterates the press release, misspelling artists' names
>> and missing the forest for the trees on the surface level/descriptive
>> (let alone interpretive) details of the work, I have no more
>> hifalutin
>> word for her than Lame.
>> I'm sorry, but since when is the critic supposed to be a casual user?
>> Since things went digital? Since art had URLs? Since we could look at
>> it from home in our pajamas? To downgrade your expectations of the
>> critic–whose job it has been, historically, to unpack and dig
>> deeper–is to downgrade your expectations of the art. You are saying
>> that this art is somehow less worthy of true criticism than art in
>> another medium.
>> I'd prefer to leave the flippant taste-making commentary to the
>> lifestylers and to open a section of reviews and actually find some
>> true criticism. This may sound harsh, but where is our field going to
>> go, how is it going to develop, if the few people assigned to write
>> about it do so in such a non-critical way and then the artists stand
>> back and say "I'm just happy someone wrote about it"? Remember, we're
>> talking about a review of a ten year survey. Net art has ben made for
>> at least ten years, and it has developed into its own genres,
>> different stylistic modes; it has taken up a diverse range of
>> tools to
>> address a diverse range of topics. The whole point of the show is to
>> say that net art is a rich art form worthy of being taken just as
>> seriously as photography or painting, or any other rich, diverse
>> medium or genre. Why should we not have a critical vocabulary for
>> this, by now? Why should we not expect serious engagement from
>> critics, ten years (or more) later? Frankly, I would not be satisfied
>> with this type of non-criticism after late 1997 or early 1998.
>> Marisa
>> On 6/29/05, Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marisa,
>>>
>>> Awesome critique critique. You have an amazing ability to
>>> communicate this art form's intentions to those of us without a
>>> new media MFA. Randall Packer closed his post with the question
>>> "Why doesn't the NY Times hire a (new?) media critic?" If the
>>> New York Times was a democracy, I would campaign for your
>>> election to that position. Perhaps the DAT should create posts
>>> for "Net Art Educator" and "Net Art Champion".
>>>
>>> Then again, I would not want to lose Sarah Boxer. As an artist,
>>> it is important for me to communicate to as broad an audience as
>>> possible.
>>> In this regard, Ms. Boxer's last three articles on new media art
>>> have provided me with invaluable feedback. She is a mirror of
>>> how this art form is perceived by the (fledglingly interested)
>>> general public. In the process she is bound to expose some of
>>> its blemishes.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> –
> _______________________________
> 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
>
Marisa,
Have you considered sending a letter to the editor based upon the comments of your posts here?
Jason
Good discussion here, but….
What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
and discuss work that the reading public would be
interested in?
I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
curatorial practices?
bliss
l
— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Lewis,
>
> surely it is not always the task of the art itself
> to engage people,
> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to
> get engaged on thier
> own terms when the mood takes them?
>
> marc
>
>
> >If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> >point?
> >
> >bliss
> >l
> >
> >
> >
>
>***************************************************************************
> >No More Movements…
> >
> >Lewis LaCook
>
–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> >Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone.
> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
> >+
> >-> 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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Lewis LaCook <[email protected]> wrote:
>[…] What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
> written into the canon?
yes. hopefully.
> Or does the critic sniff out
> and discuss work that the reading public would be
> interested in?
yes. hopefully.
> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> curatorial practices?
I'm not sure, now, if this is a critique of Rhizome Artbase 101, of
Sarah Boxer's review, or of my "looooong boring essay," but… The art
should not require that the general public "get a degree," nor should
the criticism. But the two are still separate and the critic should be
unpacking the work, helping the viewer to consider it from various
viewpoints, talking about what works/doesn't in the pieces (and why!),
contextualizing it.
The public can choose whether to look at art and they can choose
whether to read criticism or criticism of criticism. I think it was
Rob who pointed out that it's their loss if they don't do this. But
when I make the choice to read what a so-called critic has to say
about a piece, it's because I want to know something more. This is
what the practice of criticism is all about. Otherwise it's just
writing, and that writing has its place–in the lifestyle section…
(Of which i am a big fan, don't get me wrong!)
Marisa
no, not referring to your essay—referring to the
general trend of networked art lately—
honestly…networked art is still far too young to
make too many generalizations about it—that it is
periodically declared dead is a sign that somewhere in
the mix is a general uneasiness about just what this
art is—really, rock star games is beating our
asses–ALL game development companies are–and I use
more skill in commercial development than I actually
see in most net works–And I can't blame the public at
large for not being interested in it, which is why I'm
defending this critique(no, it wasn't a deep critique,
and you, Marisa, would have done much much
better;-})—
When I look at net.art right now, I see a great
paucity of actual content–and a great deal of
"demo-head"("Wow! Look what I can make this data
do!")–sometimes these trends are interesting (i'm
enamored of pall thayer's auto-drawn, for
example)–but we're not going to move forward in any
way until we stop trying to be sol lewitt, until we
can blend our obsession with our tools with the
possibility of saying something about our lives—
i call for a romantic net.art….
bliss
l
— "Marisa S. Olson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[…] What exactly IS the function of the critic?
> Does the
> > critic preprocess the material that will
> eventually be
> > written into the canon?
>
> yes. hopefully.
>
> > Or does the critic sniff out
> > and discuss work that the reading public would be
> > interested in?
>
> yes. hopefully.
>
> > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
> actually
> > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out
> and
> > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> > curatorial practices?
>
> I'm not sure, now, if this is a critique of Rhizome
> Artbase 101, of
> Sarah Boxer's review, or of my "looooong boring
> essay," but… The art
> should not require that the general public "get a
> degree," nor should
> the criticism. But the two are still separate and
> the critic should be
> unpacking the work, helping the viewer to consider
> it from various
> viewpoints, talking about what works/doesn't in the
> pieces (and why!),
> contextualizing it.
>
> The public can choose whether to look at art and
> they can choose
> whether to read criticism or criticism of criticism.
> I think it was
> Rob who pointed out that it's their loss if they
> don't do this. But
> when I make the choice to read what a so-called
> critic has to say
> about a piece, it's because I want to know something
> more. This is
> what the practice of criticism is all about.
> Otherwise it's just
> writing, and that writing has its place–in the
> lifestyle section…
> (Of which i am a big fan, don't get me wrong!)
>
> Marisa
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be
of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at
hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the
background of the work and of the body of work in which the work
finds its place….
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> Good discussion here, but….
>
>
> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
> and discuss work that the reading public would be
> interested in?
>
> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> curatorial practices?
>
> bliss
> l
>
>
> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Lewis,
>>
>> surely it is not always the task of the art itself
>> to engage people,
>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to
>> get engaged on thier
>> own terms when the mood takes them?
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>>> point?
>>>
>>> bliss
>>> l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ******
>>
>>
>>
>>> No More Movements…
>>>
>>> Lewis LaCook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> mobile phone.
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> *****
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>
>
>
Hi Lewis,
Well - in respect of the function of the critic. I do not think that
there is just one function or purpose, for like most things in life it's
about context…
Personally, I do not respect the traditional myth that certain curators
are any better than someone else who has not gone through the usual
established gauntlet. This kind of rhetoric echoes the same nonsense
that many are fed to believe regarding certain artists being better than
those artists who have come from outside an institutional, trad-style
place. It really should not matter - we are in the real world here, not
school…
I feel that there are potentially useful and interesting things to learn
from both sides of the fence.
As in what kind of critic that I personally admire, one who explores
outside of their own given histories, and actually finding and seeing
those who are not being respected for their work by institutional canons
yet - for that is the place where I feel the most exciting and
interesting stuff is happening, but I suppose that I would say that…
There are cool curators/artists/writers everywhere, whether trad or not.
I feel that engagement in observing whether one is being authentic, is
an issue, and reevaluating what one is thinking and how one thinks
regualarly, is essential, whoever they are - and sometimes canons can
block such imaginitive shifts. Yet, equally the challenges that certain
academics can offer to people such as myself (not academically trained)
who does not totally trust nd believe in the (traditional patriarchal)
institutionalized dialect; can always be useful and can move things on.
I do not think that anyone owns the 'essences' or 'soul' of what we are
all creatively exploring, it is all up for grabs, which is exciting.
no one owns it, no one owns it…
marc
>Good discussion here, but….
>
>
>What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
>critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
>written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
>and discuss work that the reading public would be
>interested in?
>
>I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
>engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
>get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>curatorial practices?
>
>bliss
>l
>
>
>— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Lewis,
>>
>>surely it is not always the task of the art itself
>>to engage people,
>>but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to
>>get engaged on thier
>>own terms when the mood takes them?
>>
>>marc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>>>point?
>>>
>>>bliss
>>>l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>***************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>>No More Movements…
>>>
>>>Lewis LaCook
>>>
>>>
>–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>__________________________________
>>>Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>
>>>
>>mobile phone.
>>
>>
>>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>+
>>>-> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>No More Movements…
>
>Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Yahoo! Sports
>Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>
>
>
>
Hi Geert,
If they are informed it helps, yes…
marc
> Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be
> of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at
> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the
> background of the work and of the body of work in which the work
> finds its place….
>
> Cheers
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>
> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
>
>> Good discussion here, but….
>>
>>
>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
>> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
>> and discuss work that the reading public would be
>> interested in?
>>
>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>> curatorial practices?
>>
>> bliss
>> l
>>
>>
>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>
>>> surely it is not always the task of the art itself
>>> to engage people,
>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to
>>> get engaged on thier
>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
>>>
>>> marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>>>> point?
>>>>
>>>> bliss
>>>> l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> *********************************************************************
>>> ******
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>
>>>> Lewis LaCook
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________
>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> mobile phone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>> +
>>>> -> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> *****
>> No More Movements…
>>
>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Yahoo! Sports
>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>
>
Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for discussion here, are an
insult to new media art. They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same
treatment as other art. Read some of the other articles in the same
edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's music critique and dance
critique. Both handled in a very professional manner. Insightful
comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the field and give the
artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't matter if the
critique is good or bad but a good critique from someone who doesn't
seem to know what they're talking about is a lot worse than a bad
critique from someone who does.
Engaging the viewer:
We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or even care. When one
of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy" jokes and bet on
football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've done, I'm mildly
flattered but no more so than if he would compliment me on my new 'do
(which he would of course never do for fear of appearing "gay"). Maybe
he really does like it, but probably not for the same reasons that I
made it. However, when a former professor of mine and highly regarded
and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece enough to suggest
to his wife that she interview me for her highly respected radio show on
all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less whether he notices my
new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring ourselves down to
some public level of understanding is absurd. It's like asking Einstein
to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be I'll have to erase
my brain and run out to the local hobby store and pick up Bob Ross' Joy
of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure that my fellow teacher
will keep complimenting me on my work.
Pall
ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for making you think but
you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
furtherfield wrote:
> Hi Geert,
>
> If they are informed it helps, yes…
>
> marc
>
>> Actually the function or role of the critic (imho) should ideally be
>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough about the subject at
>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer some insight into the
>> background of the work and of the body of work in which the work
>> finds its place….
>>
>> Cheers
>> Geert
>> http://nznl.com
>>
>>
>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Good discussion here, but….
>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does the
>>> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
>>> and discuss work that the reading public would be
>>> interested in?
>>>
>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>>> curatorial practices?
>>>
>>> bliss
>>> l
>>>
>>>
>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>>
>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art itself
>>>> to engage people,
>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people to
>>>> get engaged on thier
>>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
>>>>
>>>> marc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>>>>> point?
>>>>>
>>>>> bliss
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *********************************************************************
>>>> ******
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>>
>>>>> Lewis LaCook
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________
>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> mobile phone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************************************
>>> *****
>>> No More Movements…
>>>
>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________
>>> Yahoo! Sports
>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>>
>>
>
> +
> -> 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
_______________________________
But Pall….
–erasing the distinction between disciplines is what
we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the
gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to
cloister oneself like this is to risk
obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good
totalitaian regime would want–
bliss
l
— Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for
> discussion here, are an
> insult to new media art. They suggest that it
> doesn't warrant the same
> treatment as other art. Read some of the other
> articles in the same
> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's
> music critique and dance
> critique. Both handled in a very professional
> manner. Insightful
> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the
> field and give the
> artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't
> matter if the
> critique is good or bad but a good critique from
> someone who doesn't
> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot
> worse than a bad
> critique from someone who does.
>
> Engaging the viewer:
> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or
> even care. When one
> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy"
> jokes and bet on
> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've
> done, I'm mildly
> flattered but no more so than if he would compliment
> me on my new 'do
> (which he would of course never do for fear of
> appearing "gay"). Maybe
> he really does like it, but probably not for the
> same reasons that I
> made it. However, when a former professor of mine
> and highly regarded
> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece
> enough to suggest
> to his wife that she interview me for her highly
> respected radio show on
> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less
> whether he notices my
> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring
> ourselves down to
> some public level of understanding is absurd. It's
> like asking Einstein
> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be
> I'll have to erase
> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and
> pick up Bob Ross' Joy
> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure
> that my fellow teacher
> will keep complimenting me on my work.
>
> Pall
>
> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for
> making you think but
> you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
>
> furtherfield wrote:
> > Hi Geert,
> >
> > If they are informed it helps, yes…
> >
> > marc
> >
> >> Actually the function or role of the critic
> (imho) should ideally be
> >> of the expert witness – one who knows enough
> about the subject at
> >> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer
> some insight into the
> >> background of the work and of the body of work in
> which the work
> >> finds its place….
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Geert
> >> http://nznl.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Good discussion here, but….
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does
> the
> >>> critic preprocess the material that will
> eventually be
> >>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff
> out
> >>> and discuss work that the reading public would
> be
> >>> interested in?
> >>>
> >>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
> actually
> >>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go
> out and
> >>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> >>> curatorial practices?
> >>>
> >>> bliss
> >>> l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Lewis,
> >>>>
> >>>> surely it is not always the task of the art
> itself
> >>>> to engage people,
> >>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people
> to
> >>>> get engaged on thier
> >>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
> >>>>
> >>>> marc
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> >>>>> point?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> bliss
> >>>>> l
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
*********************************************************************
>
> >>>> ******
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> No More Movements…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lewis LaCook
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> >>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> mobile phone.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> -> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
**********************************************************************
>
> >>> *****
> >>> No More Movements…
> >>>
> >>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> >>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ____________________________________________________
> >>> Yahoo! Sports
> >>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
> Football
> >>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Post-Modernism itself is a big bridge between high and low art. And the
result is that the low becomes high. I'm sure my fellow teacher neither
understands nor likes bicycle wheels attached to stools or giant
stainless steel inflated rabbits and he probably loves Komar and
Melamids most wanted paintings. But perhaps, if he reads a decent review
of a showing of these works, he'll see the light.
Lewis LaCook wrote:
> But Pall….
>
> –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what
> we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the
> gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to
> cloister oneself like this is to risk
> obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good
> totalitaian regime would want–
>
> bliss
> l
>
>
>
> — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for
>>discussion here, are an
>>insult to new media art. They suggest that it
>>doesn't warrant the same
>>treatment as other art. Read some of the other
>>articles in the same
>>edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's
>>music critique and dance
>>critique. Both handled in a very professional
>>manner. Insightful
>>comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the
>>field and give the
>>artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't
>>matter if the
>>critique is good or bad but a good critique from
>>someone who doesn't
>>seem to know what they're talking about is a lot
>>worse than a bad
>>critique from someone who does.
>>
>>Engaging the viewer:
>>We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or
>>even care. When one
>>of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy"
>>jokes and bet on
>>football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've
>>done, I'm mildly
>>flattered but no more so than if he would compliment
>>me on my new 'do
>>(which he would of course never do for fear of
>>appearing "gay"). Maybe
>>he really does like it, but probably not for the
>>same reasons that I
>>made it. However, when a former professor of mine
>>and highly regarded
>>and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece
>>enough to suggest
>>to his wife that she interview me for her highly
>>respected radio show on
>>all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less
>>whether he notices my
>>new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring
>>ourselves down to
>>some public level of understanding is absurd. It's
>>like asking Einstein
>>to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be
>>I'll have to erase
>>my brain and run out to the local hobby store and
>>pick up Bob Ross' Joy
>>of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure
>>that my fellow teacher
>>will keep complimenting me on my work.
>>
>>Pall
>>
>>ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for
>>making you think but
>>you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
>>
>>furtherfield wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Geert,
>>>
>>>If they are informed it helps, yes…
>>>
>>>marc
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually the function or role of the critic
>>
>>(imho) should ideally be
>>
>>>>of the expert witness – one who knows enough
>>
>>about the subject at
>>
>>>>hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer
>>
>>some insight into the
>>
>>>>background of the work and of the body of work in
>>
>>which the work
>>
>>>>finds its place….
>>>>
>>>>Cheers
>>>>Geert
>>>>http://nznl.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Good discussion here, but….
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>critic preprocess the material that will
>>
>>eventually be
>>
>>>>>written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff
>>
>>out
>>
>>>>>and discuss work that the reading public would
>>
>>be
>>
>>>>>interested in?
>>>>>
>>>>>I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
>>
>>actually
>>
>>>>>engaged users instead of requiring users to go
>>
>>out and
>>
>>>>>get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>>>>>curatorial practices?
>>>>>
>>>>>bliss
>>>>>l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Lewis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>surely it is not always the task of the art
>>
>>itself
>>
>>>>>>to engage people,
>>>>>>but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>>>get engaged on thier
>>>>>>own terms when the mood takes them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
>>
>>the
>>
>>>>>>>point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>bliss
>>>>>>>l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> *********************************************************************
>
>>>>>>******
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No More Movements…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lewis LaCook
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>__________________________________
>>>>>>>Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>>>>>Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>mobile phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>>>>>+
>>>>>>>-> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> **********************************************************************
>
>>>>>*****
>>>>>No More Movements…
>>>>>
>>>>>Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>>>>>lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________
>>
>>>>>Yahoo! Sports
>>>>>Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
>>
>>Football
>>
>>>>>http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>>
>>>>
>>>+
>>>-> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________
> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.
there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to
differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make
creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity
thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is
unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush,
and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but
distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to
buy it.
in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone
(especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by
just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by
theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge
in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true
but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make
something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.
how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans
determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using
pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years
ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your
point with production.
How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as
something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still
not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor
either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not
going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make
a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the danm market if you
have to, but make your point with production.
> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.
there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to
differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make
creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity
thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is
unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush,
and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but
distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to
buy it.
in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone
(especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by
just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by
theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge
in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true
but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make
something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.
how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans
determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using
pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years
ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your
point with production.
How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as
something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still
not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor
either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not
going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make
a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the damn market if you
have to, but make your point with production.
> What exactly IS the function of the critic?
Walt Whitman said something like 'great poetry demands a great audience.' in
the sense, perhaps, that it cannot exist without a great audience. what is a
great audience? i don't necessarily mean one that claps loud. i mean one for
whom there is something at stake in the art. one who demands art as or more
telling than the news concerning the significance of walking the earth. one
who will not settle for (solely) entertainment. one who understands that in
an enlightened society we are all critics, ie, we are all trying to come to
some understanding of ourselves and the world around us, including the art.
criticism is dialectic with others on what is important. judgement, as has
been pointed out, is important, but more important is the examination of the
poetics and taking it to its limits, exploring its implications concerning
art and how we live and what we can accept and live with. judgement arises
as a result of these things, ie, it is one of the ends of this sort of
process. the critic not only alerts us about art but about what it means to
be an inquiring, civilized seeker.
> Does the
> critic preprocess the material that will eventually be
> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff out
> and discuss work that the reading public would be
> interested in?
>
> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it actually
> engaged users instead of requiring users to go out and
> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> curatorial practices?
I think there's quite a bit of art out there that *would* engage large
audiences if those audiences were available.
I also think you're right that there is a large and overly influential
academic and insular bulwark of institutional art that is protective of its
position which is used to tout an art of privilege and monied aspiration the
meaning of which is primarily reiteration of the capitalist status quo, the
ivied american dream, art and criticism distant from the need for audience.
art as confection, accessory of the upwardly mobile, art as the price of
admission to the position of privilege, art as fascion accessory in a
culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest offices. the
high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service is paid to
'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
ja
ahhhh…SANITY…
best thoughts i've read in this thread….
bliss
l
— Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What exactly IS the function of the critic?
>
> Walt Whitman said something like 'great poetry
> demands a great audience.' in
> the sense, perhaps, that it cannot exist without a
> great audience. what is a
> great audience? i don't necessarily mean one that
> claps loud. i mean one for
> whom there is something at stake in the art. one who
> demands art as or more
> telling than the news concerning the significance of
> walking the earth. one
> who will not settle for (solely) entertainment. one
> who understands that in
> an enlightened society we are all critics, ie, we
> are all trying to come to
> some understanding of ourselves and the world around
> us, including the art.
> criticism is dialectic with others on what is
> important. judgement, as has
> been pointed out, is important, but more important
> is the examination of the
> poetics and taking it to its limits, exploring its
> implications concerning
> art and how we live and what we can accept and live
> with. judgement arises
> as a result of these things, ie, it is one of the
> ends of this sort of
> process. the critic not only alerts us about art but
> about what it means to
> be an inquiring, civilized seeker.
>
> > Does the
> > critic preprocess the material that will
> eventually be
> > written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff
> out
> > and discuss work that the reading public would be
> > interested in?
> >
> > I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
> actually
> > engaged users instead of requiring users to go out
> and
> > get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
> > curatorial practices?
>
> I think there's quite a bit of art out there that
> *would* engage large
> audiences if those audiences were available.
>
> I also think you're right that there is a large and
> overly influential
> academic and insular bulwark of institutional art
> that is protective of its
> position which is used to tout an art of privilege
> and monied aspiration the
> meaning of which is primarily reiteration of the
> capitalist status quo, the
> ivied american dream, art and criticism distant from
> the need for audience.
> art as confection, accessory of the upwardly mobile,
> art as the price of
> admission to the position of privilege, art as
> fascion accessory in a
> culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in
> the highest offices. the
> high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which
> lip service is paid to
> 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Excuse me - there is a difference between using lo-brow forms to make
art and stooping to lo-brow language and/or thought processes – the
very thought that the artist should strive for some utopian end is a
huge way away from popular notions about what art all about ….
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 30-jun-2005, at 3:03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> But Pall….
>
> –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what
> we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the
> gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to
> cloister oneself like this is to risk
> obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good
> totalitaian regime would want–
>
> bliss
> l
>
>
>
> — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for
>> discussion here, are an
>> insult to new media art. They suggest that it
>> doesn't warrant the same
>> treatment as other art. Read some of the other
>> articles in the same
>> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's
>> music critique and dance
>> critique. Both handled in a very professional
>> manner. Insightful
>> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the
>> field and give the
>> artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't
>> matter if the
>> critique is good or bad but a good critique from
>> someone who doesn't
>> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot
>> worse than a bad
>> critique from someone who does.
>>
>> Engaging the viewer:
>> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or
>> even care. When one
>> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy"
>> jokes and bet on
>> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've
>> done, I'm mildly
>> flattered but no more so than if he would compliment
>> me on my new 'do
>> (which he would of course never do for fear of
>> appearing "gay"). Maybe
>> he really does like it, but probably not for the
>> same reasons that I
>> made it. However, when a former professor of mine
>> and highly regarded
>> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece
>> enough to suggest
>> to his wife that she interview me for her highly
>> respected radio show on
>> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less
>> whether he notices my
>> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring
>> ourselves down to
>> some public level of understanding is absurd. It's
>> like asking Einstein
>> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be
>> I'll have to erase
>> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and
>> pick up Bob Ross' Joy
>> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure
>> that my fellow teacher
>> will keep complimenting me on my work.
>>
>> Pall
>>
>> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for
>> making you think but
>> you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
>>
>> furtherfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Geert,
>>>
>>> If they are informed it helps, yes…
>>>
>>> marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually the function or role of the critic
>>>>
>>>>
>> (imho) should ideally be
>>
>>
>>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough
>>>>
>>>>
>> about the subject at
>>
>>
>>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer
>>>>
>>>>
>> some insight into the
>>
>>
>>>> background of the work and of the body of work in
>>>>
>>>>
>> which the work
>>
>>
>>>> finds its place….
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Geert
>>>> http://nznl.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Good discussion here, but….
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>>> critic preprocess the material that will
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> eventually be
>>
>>
>>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> out
>>
>>
>>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>
>>>>> interested in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> actually
>>
>>
>>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> out and
>>
>>
>>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>>>>> curatorial practices?
>>>>>
>>>>> bliss
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> itself
>>
>>
>>>>>> to engage people,
>>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>
>>>>>> get engaged on thier
>>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>
>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bliss
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> *********************************************************************
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> ******
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lewis LaCook
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________
>>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> mobile phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>>
>>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Sports
>>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> Football
>>
>>
>>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> *****
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>
>
Jim Andrews wrote:
> culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest offices. the
> high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service is paid to
> 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
Actually, I said the low becomes high and the context was quite
different from what you're talking about.
Pall
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________
> Jim Andrews wrote:
> > culture of brutality where torture is sanctioned in the highest
> offices. the
> > high becomes low, as Pall says. A culture in which lip service
> is paid to
> > 'democracy' but the show finally is of forty.
>
> Actually, I said the low becomes high and the context was quite
> different from what you're talking about.
Yes, I see. Your idea of the low becoming high is interesting and concerning
art solely. Age of flip?
ja
It's important for art to be free, but any project has its motives
and its agenda. *Why* is erasing distinctions what "we" do? And *why*
should high and low forms be combined by individuals who historically
have served high forms?
Rendering oneself low simply places one within the normal context of
low culture. And art isn't as good as a video game judged as low
culture.
Placing high content in a low form is pastoral (Julian Stallabrass,
"High Art Lite"), the contemporary equivalent of painting lowly
shepherds to illustrate a moral point. I'd go further and say that
slumming it is just so bourgeois. :-)
- Rob.
On 30 Jun 2005, at 02:03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> But Pall….
>
> –erasing the distinction between disciplines is what
> we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the
> gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to
> cloister oneself like this is to risk
> obsolesence…and it's politically just what any good
> totalitaian regime would want–
>
> bliss
> l
>
>
>
> — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for
>> discussion here, are an
>> insult to new media art. They suggest that it
>> doesn't warrant the same
>> treatment as other art. Read some of the other
>> articles in the same
>> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's
>> music critique and dance
>> critique. Both handled in a very professional
>> manner. Insightful
>> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of the
>> field and give the
>> artists themselves something to chew on. It doesn't
>> matter if the
>> critique is good or bad but a good critique from
>> someone who doesn't
>> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot
>> worse than a bad
>> critique from someone who does.
>>
>> Engaging the viewer:
>> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do or
>> even care. When one
>> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap "guy"
>> jokes and bet on
>> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've
>> done, I'm mildly
>> flattered but no more so than if he would compliment
>> me on my new 'do
>> (which he would of course never do for fear of
>> appearing "gay"). Maybe
>> he really does like it, but probably not for the
>> same reasons that I
>> made it. However, when a former professor of mine
>> and highly regarded
>> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same piece
>> enough to suggest
>> to his wife that she interview me for her highly
>> respected radio show on
>> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care less
>> whether he notices my
>> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to bring
>> ourselves down to
>> some public level of understanding is absurd. It's
>> like asking Einstein
>> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should be
>> I'll have to erase
>> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and
>> pick up Bob Ross' Joy
>> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure
>> that my fellow teacher
>> will keep complimenting me on my work.
>>
>> Pall
>>
>> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry for
>> making you think but
>> you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
>>
>> furtherfield wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Geert,
>>>
>>> If they are informed it helps, yes…
>>>
>>> marc
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually the function or role of the critic
>>>>
>> (imho) should ideally be
>>
>>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough
>>>>
>> about the subject at
>>
>>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer
>>>>
>> some insight into the
>>
>>>> background of the work and of the body of work in
>>>>
>> which the work
>>
>>>> finds its place….
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Geert
>>>> http://nznl.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Good discussion here, but….
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic? Does
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> critic preprocess the material that will
>>>>>
>> eventually be
>>
>>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic sniff
>>>>>
>> out
>>
>>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would
>>>>>
>> be
>>
>>>>> interested in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
>>>>>
>> actually
>>
>>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go
>>>>>
>> out and
>>
>>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays on
>>>>> curatorial practices?
>>>>>
>>>>> bliss
>>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Lewis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art
>>>>>>
>> itself
>>
>>>>>> to engage people,
>>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the people
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>> get engaged on thier
>>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
>>>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>>>> point?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> bliss
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
> *********************************************************************
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> ******
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lewis LaCook
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
> –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________________
>>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
>>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> mobile phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
> **********************************************************************
>
>>
>>
>>>>> *****
>>>>> No More Movements…
>>>>>
>>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Sports
>>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
>>>>>
>> Football
>>
>>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> *****
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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
>
—maybe i'm overly idealistic–
–i'm not sure what a "lo-brow" thought process
is…like, "gee, my stomach's rumbling, i better
eat?"–is that lo-brow?
i'm kinda surprised so many here find the idea of
actually attempting to engage the "masses" so
repulsive–it's kinda disillusioning, actually–
there have been some good thoughts in this thread
(rob's got me thinking, and jim's ALWAYS got something
insightful to say)–from most of the reactions,
though, you would think i was advocating child
molestation–
interesting—kinda gives a new slant to any poltical
declarations i see on rhizome–
bliss
l
— Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Excuse me - there is a difference between using
> lo-brow forms to make
> art and stooping to lo-brow language and/or thought
> processes – the
> very thought that the artist should strive for some
> utopian end is a
> huge way away from popular notions about what art
> all about ….
>
>
> Cheers
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>
> On 30-jun-2005, at 3:03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
> > But Pall….
> >
> > –erasing the distinction between disciplines is
> what
> > we DO–and one of those distinctions SHOULD BE the
> > gulf between "high-brow" and "low-brow" forms–to
> > cloister oneself like this is to risk
> > obsolesence…and it's politically just what any
> good
> > totalitaian regime would want–
> >
> > bliss
> > l
> >
> >
> >
> > — Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Sarah Boxers two articles that have come up for
> >> discussion here, are an
> >> insult to new media art. They suggest that it
> >> doesn't warrant the same
> >> treatment as other art. Read some of the other
> >> articles in the same
> >> edition of NYTimes as the last article. There's
> >> music critique and dance
> >> critique. Both handled in a very professional
> >> manner. Insightful
> >> comments that suggest the authors knowledge of
> the
> >> field and give the
> >> artists themselves something to chew on. It
> doesn't
> >> matter if the
> >> critique is good or bad but a good critique from
> >> someone who doesn't
> >> seem to know what they're talking about is a lot
> >> worse than a bad
> >> critique from someone who does.
> >>
> >> Engaging the viewer:
> >> We can't expect everyone to understand what we do
> or
> >> even care. When one
> >> of my fellow teachers, a guy who likes to swap
> "guy"
> >> jokes and bet on
> >> football matches, tells me he likes a piece I've
> >> done, I'm mildly
> >> flattered but no more so than if he would
> compliment
> >> me on my new 'do
> >> (which he would of course never do for fear of
> >> appearing "gay"). Maybe
> >> he really does like it, but probably not for the
> >> same reasons that I
> >> made it. However, when a former professor of mine
> >> and highly regarded
> >> and pioneering Icelandic artist likes the same
> piece
> >> enough to suggest
> >> to his wife that she interview me for her highly
> >> respected radio show on
> >> all things cultural, I'm elated. I could care
> less
> >> whether he notices my
> >> new hairdo or not. To suggest that we try to
> bring
> >> ourselves down to
> >> some public level of understanding is absurd.
> It's
> >> like asking Einstein
> >> to teach 5th grade math. If that's how art should
> be
> >> I'll have to erase
> >> my brain and run out to the local hobby store and
> >> pick up Bob Ross' Joy
> >> of Painting tapes. At least I can be fairly sure
> >> that my fellow teacher
> >> will keep complimenting me on my work.
> >>
> >> Pall
> >>
> >> ps. Thanks Lewis. And to John Q. Public, sorry
> for
> >> making you think but
> >> you never know when it'll be back in vogue.
> >>
> >> furtherfield wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Hi Geert,
> >>>
> >>> If they are informed it helps, yes…
> >>>
> >>> marc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Actually the function or role of the critic
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> (imho) should ideally be
> >>
> >>
> >>>> of the expert witness – one who knows enough
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> about the subject at
> >>
> >>
> >>>> hand to give the casual or passing user/viewer
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> some insight into the
> >>
> >>
> >>>> background of the work and of the body of work
> in
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> which the work
> >>
> >>
> >>>> finds its place….
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Geert
> >>>> http://nznl.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 29-jun-2005, at 20:06, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Good discussion here, but….
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What exactly IS the function of the critic?
> Does
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> critic preprocess the material that will
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> eventually be
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> written into the canon? Or does the critic
> sniff
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> out
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> and discuss work that the reading public would
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> be
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> interested in?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I mean, wouldn't art be more effective if it
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> actually
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> engaged users instead of requiring users to go
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> out and
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> get a degree and read looooong boring essays
> on
> >>>>> curatorial practices?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> bliss
> >>>>> l
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> — furtherfield <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Lewis,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> surely it is not always the task of the art
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> itself
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> to engage people,
> >>>>>> but rather that 'may be' it is up to the
> people
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> to
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> get engaged on thier
> >>>>>> own terms when the mood takes them?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> marc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the art can't engage a casual user,
> what's
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>> point?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> bliss
> >>>>>>> l
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
*********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>> ******
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No More Movements…
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lewis LaCook
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> __________________________________
> >>>>>>> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> >>>>>>> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on
> your
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> mobile phone.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> -> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
**********************************************************************
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> *****
> >>>>> No More Movements…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> >>>>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> ____________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Sports
> >>>>> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> Football
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
**********************************************************************
>
> > *****
> > No More Movements…
> >
> > Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> > lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The idea isn't mine. This is pretty established stuff.
A good example, in light of the threads star, is Marisa's American Idol
blog.
Jim Andrews wrote:
> Yes, I see. Your idea of the low becoming high is interesting and concerning
> art solely. Age of flip?
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
Lorna
http://www.this.is/lorna
_______________________________
All of the conversation here has been very interesting, and I have a
certain ambivalence regarding the writings of Susan Boxer. I agree for
the most part with Marisa Solon in that her analyses (if we can call
them that) are cursory, lack a certain literacy in the field, and are
indicative of the casual viewer.
Now, let me say why I have an ambivalence about this. On one hand,
let's consider that this is the NYT and not the Toledo Blade (which, by
the way, has a wonderfully acute editor who writes some beautiful
cultural critiques). The contemporary idea of the neoconservative
delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush
statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and
the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big
heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of
the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but
I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent.
Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the
man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I
like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts
festival.
On the other hand, Boxer illustrates one of New Media art's cardinal
sins - its cultural myopia and aesthetic specificity. Although the mark
of significant art is its experimental spirit, truly great art 'grabs'
you. And, one of the problems that I have seen with New Media is that
it has exhibited a cultural arrogance that demands that the audience
must almost do research in order to know the context of a work.
These works mirror my contention regarding much of 80's Contemporary
Art; in that it resembled a bad joke about postmodernism that required
the viewer to read countless volumes of Foucault, Barthes, and Lyotard,
only to find that the punch line was rather abject in itself. The joke
is one that is on all parties involved.
However, as I state two poles of the argument, I see a number of quantum
points in the continuum between these points. One is that I see that
New Media that does not transcend its medium may remain marginalized,
with those crossover works which can speak to the Contemporary Art
culture punching through the membrane and going into the museums.
Another might be that there could be niche cultures (such as Contagious
Media) that will serve as a public conduit for other works, and others
may be mass media hacks which address the populace. The contemporary
art world is a milieu is one that gives the New Media artist the
challenge of engaging, subverting, or even hacking in order to address
the Susan Boxers of the world, if one truly cares about them at all.
But I think that from a personal perspective, New Media practitioners
should care, if the genre (sic) wants to engage the larger art milieu.
However, I see Boxer's last two reads of New Media works problematic to
be sure. But then, with her rather cursory treatment of the subject, she
also brings up an opinion of art in general that one should probably
consider. Although I personally differ with some of Susan Boxer's reads
of technological art, she does represent the viewpoint of many
gallery-goers that I have experienced, and is a viewpoint that one
should consider.
But if I had my druthers, I'd put Mirapaul over there in a heartbeat.
>The contemporary idea of the neoconservative
>delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush
>statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and
>the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big
>heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of
>the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but
>I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent.
>Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the
>man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I
>like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts
>festival.
while i agree with the sentiment, this is not at all what's happening
here. more complex ways of saying a stupid thing is still a stupid
thing. "artist statement: i am currently exploring the matrix of
cyphers representing the digital methodologies inherent in this
computer keyboard."
boxer may not subscribe to "art speak". but the fact that she
writes, not like an idiot, but more conversational, less pretentious,
is totally refreshing. she panned cyberarts, said most of the
artbase 101 show was mediocre (but also saw good things in some of
the works). but it seems to be interpreted through a dense filter.
people are seeing her words as saying "it's great to be dumb and hate
it all." if that's what people see, they rely on those filters too
much.
her speaking style may easily be in reaction to the language of
self-importance that she's just been bombarded with. and as a
result, many must not see what she's saying because they get caught
up in how it's said. but if you don't get anything helpful out of
it, so be it. it's not keeping you from making art. and the more
you make the more they'll need to get used to you. we didn't lose
some state of popularity. maybe this is a different track that will
help in the long run. just press (good or bad) does amazing things.
to insist on art speak as somehow a sign of intelligence is pretty
much eugenics. to only see the packaging and not the content of
what's said is really just another way the arts can be dumbed down.
she actually might be undoing some damage from previous art speakers.
to learn from a variety of conflicting voices and methods is just
common sense. people who agree too much, subscribe to one point of
view, are (like the Bush clan) just not using evolution to improve.
they are either deciding (like nazis) what is best, or letting
changes be just random. (a concept in self-organizing systems) boxer
is finally a real person among thousands of self-important
authorities.
but what can we do to have the same effect were striving for?
show how computer art fits in to what people are already interested
in. they don't develop interest spontaneously. right now there's no
such thing for many as GREAT computer art, just like it'd never occur
to them they could be looking at an example of GREAT shoe tying.
we're not fighting a 0 rating, it's a null, rating still doesn't
apply. people keep fighting this criteria of GREATness. but so far
nothing in computers has much to do with what people already consider
potentially GREAT. the more art shows are neither about computer art
(self-destructive) or banish it entirely (doomed), the more the
average visitor (at a gallery or theater) will actually see an
example or two. no one person can do it, it takes all of us.
I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit
insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great deal
of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the results
cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow unfair. But
who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair?
More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists
peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there and
we should thank Ms. Boxer for it.
Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a
good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual
artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is in
fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or
photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at
first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful.
Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class
critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than
being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static shots
are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And so on.
The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the audiences
burden.
Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size, what
they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For time
based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of time.
Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must be
masters of both time and space.
These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the
internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a surprise.
It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks the audience
to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the entire work without
satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big payoff at the very
end. Music frequently begins with the introduction of compelling
themes that give the listener an incentive to go further. Good films
not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all along the way.
How much internet art does this?
I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to
disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or
miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the
nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional
problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no
excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly taken on.
I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the
critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their
fault. It's yours.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
please email for the quickest response: [email protected]
I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my comments back.
I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
Philip Galanter wrote:
<snip>
>
> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a
> good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual
> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is in
> fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>
> You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or
> photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at
> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful.
> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class
> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than
> being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static shots
> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And so on.
> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the audiences
>
> burden.
I can't argue with your point that many video or other time-based artists have a horrible sense of time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters, can't remember which one, that made me want to murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1 Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have time as a significant element in the work in very deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective ways.
To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time," isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a sublimely beautiful conceptualization of computational time; it's gets to the very core of how computers and humans are different in a very physical way. It deserves a serious observation but its essence seems to have completely flown over the airhead reviewer.
>
> These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the
> internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a surprise.
You seem to be making general points that you might make to your students. It comes off a bit condescending since you're referencing a specific show and a specific review of it.
I can't think of one artist in the show that seems to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>
> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks the audience
> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the entire work without
> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big payoff at the very
> end. Music frequently begins with the introduction of compelling
> themes that give the listener an incentive to go further. Good films
>
> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all along the way.
> How much internet art does this?
Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example misses the point of most of the work.
>
> I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to
> disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or
> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the
> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional
> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no
> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly taken
> on.
>
> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the
> critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their
>
> fault. It's yours.
As a general point, of course you're right. But as a specific point to this specific exhibition it just doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear in their time-based component, but neither of the pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep running the concept in your head long after you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of.
Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> point?
To engage an engaged viewer.
philip
>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or the
>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not their
>> fault. It's yours.
others
>both [pieces] expect you to keep running the concept in your head long after
>you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of.
philip gave a mature answer. the reply isn't at all unique to any
individual but hardly a useful attitude. who knows why there is a
faction of computer artists bent on self-destructive (and thus
destructive to the rest of us) pouting. but after 10+ years of
computer art, it's pretty clear why it still isn't ubiquitous. cell
phones, GPS, iPods, … all took off after about 3 years, and we're
still here bickering with some sort of teenage angst ("they just
don't understand!"), rather than fixing what we do.
pretend the anti-boxer argument is right for a moment. pretend boxer
really is dumb. audiences really can't handle these heavy concepts.
where does that leave us? still with no one but ourselves
interested. art funding diminishing anyway, ours being a
particularly expensive practice, we're looking at a potentially
dismal future, as long as we keep it up.
instead of arguing against these critiques, focus on improving our situation.
boxer's review has some helpful ideas philip clearly found in it. if
you just can't find anything useful in the review yourself, no reason
to dwell on it. drop it. but submit a constructive idea from
somewhere else then. he can't be the only adult on this list?
So we only make art for other artists?
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> 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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
don't be thick
On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> So we only make art for other artists?
>
>
>
> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
>>> point?
>>>
>>
>> To engage an engaged viewer.
don't evade the question…elaborate
— twhid <[email protected]> wrote:
> don't be thick
>
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> > So we only make art for other artists?
> >
> >
> >
> > — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> >>> point?
> >>>
> >>
> >> To engage an engaged viewer.
>
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
TWhid Wrote:
I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested
party felt that I should hold my comments back.
Hey, so am I, but doesn't seem to stop me. :)
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
—that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t,
we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the
conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i
like both works myself, but i can stray into
conceptual work and appreciate it–
one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in
which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
IS about time…
—————
> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
> comments back.
>
> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>
> Philip Galanter wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
> I suspect that a
> > good number of internet artists started out as
> primarily visual
> > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
> internet art is in
> > fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
> >
> > You can see this in the classroom everyday.
> Student painters or
> > photographers who decide to take up video are
> usually (at least at
> > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
> terribly awful.
> > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
> defended in class
> > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
> aesthetic rather than
> > being called what it is…bad filmmaking.
> Interminable static shots
> > are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
> enough. And so on.
> > The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
> becomes the audiences
> >
> > burden.
>
> I can't argue with your point that many video or
> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
> can't remember which one, that made me want to
> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>
> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
> time as a significant element in the work in very
> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
> ways.
>
> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
> how computers and humans are different in a very
> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
> airhead reviewer.
>
> >
> > These problems become multiplied when fine artists
> turn to the
> > internet as a new medium. That time counts
> shouldn't be a surprise.
>
> You seem to be making general points that you might
> make to your students. It comes off a bit
> condescending since you're referencing a specific
> show and a specific review of it.
>
> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>
> >
> > It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
> asks the audience
> > to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
> entire work without
> > satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
> payoff at the very
> > end. Music frequently begins with the
> introduction of compelling
> > themes that give the listener an incentive to go
> further. Good films
> >
> > not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
> along the way.
> > How much internet art does this?
>
> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
> misses the point of most of the work.
>
> >
> > I've seen far too many examples of internet art
> that seem to
> > disregard the element of real time, and thereby
> ignore or
> > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
> be sure the
> > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
> compositional
> > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
> But that's no
> > excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist
> has willingly taken
> > on.
> >
> > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
> not care a whit
> > for the audience's experience. But don't blame
> the audience, or the
> > critic, if they click a few times and then walk
> away. It's not their
> >
> > fault. It's yours.
>
> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
> +
> -> 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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
There are plenty of problems with Philips response as I noted (and you removed to focus on my one little bit of snark. If she can be snarky in the NYT, can't a get a tad bit in on Rhiz without you resorting to insulting language?)
But your response it totally off-the-wall. There is no anti-boxer arg. There is a pro-critical response arg. She didn't say enough in the review to really respond to, I'm responding to her lack of any critical approach what-so-ever and general 'lifestyle'-style of the writing.
NYTimes and any other publication: give us a serious crit damnit! Not this fluffy infotainment.
As I wrote to Lewis (which he seemed to misunderstand), I want an engaged viewer, not a viewer that might as well be browsing t-shirts at the mall. I'll take what I can get as far as an audience goes, but a reviewer? At least a reviewer should be engaged.
Plasma Studii wrote:
> philip
> >> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
> >> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or
> the
> >> critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not
> their
> >> fault. It's yours.
>
> others
> >both [pieces] expect you to keep running the concept in your head
> long after
> >you're gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable of.
>
>
>
>
> philip gave a mature answer. the reply isn't at all unique to any
> individual but hardly a useful attitude. who knows why there is a
> faction of computer artists bent on self-destructive (and thus
> destructive to the rest of us) pouting. but after 10+ years of
> computer art, it's pretty clear why it still isn't ubiquitous. cell
> phones, GPS, iPods, … all took off after about 3 years, and we're
> still here bickering with some sort of teenage angst ("they just
> don't understand!"), rather than fixing what we do.
>
> pretend the anti-boxer argument is right for a moment. pretend boxer
> really is dumb. audiences really can't handle these heavy concepts.
> where does that leave us? still with no one but ourselves
> interested. art funding diminishing anyway, ours being a
> particularly expensive practice, we're looking at a potentially
> dismal future, as long as we keep it up.
>
> instead of arguing against these critiques, focus on improving our
> situation.
>
> boxer's review has some helpful ideas philip clearly found in it. if
> you just can't find anything useful in the review yourself, no reason
> to dwell on it. drop it. but submit a constructive idea from
> somewhere else then. he can't be the only adult on this list?
>
Listen:
The difference between art and prostitution is as follows:
In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
And with art, people see if they want to pay to see you have sex with
yourself in the gallery.
Simple as that.
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lewis LaCook
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
To: t.whid; [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
So we only make art for other artists?
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> 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
>
************************************************************************
***
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>There is no anti-boxer arg. There is a pro-critical response arg.
>She didn't say enough in the review to really respond to, I'm
>responding to her lack of any critical approach what-so-ever and
>general 'lifestyle'-style of the writing.
>
>NYTimes and any other publication: give us a serious crit damnit!
>Not this fluffy infotainment.
what i mean by "anti-boxer". calling criticism fluffy because it's
not the approach you want, when really people just aren't seeing,
might not want to see, just how insightful it is.
On 1 Jul 2005, at 05:20, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> So we only make art for other artists?
So we only make medicine for doctors?
Art is made for its audience. There may be a problem with net.art/art
computing: it may just be the folk art of the digital creative class,
with an audience of a nerds (who aren't as rich as the hatas seem to
believe). Or it may be more representative of a society in transition
to digital technology (and the ways of being that motivate/emerge
from that transition).
If I made a piece of Nu Metal or Gangsta Rap, an FPS, a Mills & Boon
novel, a martial arts film, a sci-fi cartoon, if I made any of that,
it would be recognised that there are formal and content-al concerns
to the work that require specialised knowledge. Ambient music,
Russian cinema, it would be recognised that you might have to make
some effort to engage with it. A critic might dismiss these works as
examples of a valueless genre, but they would have to recognise that
they were doing so. And they could not fall back on the "elitism" or
exclusivity canards.
So we only make art for other artists? Hell no. No more than we only
make drugs for doctors. But don't be fooled by the apparent easy
availability of 'Popular' culture. It takes a lot of work to get
people to engage so casually with something like Pop Idol. Millions
of dollars of work. Art can't do that, it doesn't have the budget.
And it shouldn't have to. Active regard is an empowering skill,
passive consumption isn't. We're providing different value in art
than popular culture isn't.
- Rob.
I can see how video art is *time* art, because montage is creating
rythym. But how then is internet art *time* art??
A page can indeed contain some form of timed image (animation movie
etc) and of course popups or refreshes could be used but even then
its up to the user and/or the users computer.
Perhaps time in internet art could better be compared to a musical
score – the composer may set a piece for allegro but won't the
musician play allegretto???
Interesting though…
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 1-jul-2005, at 0:14, Philip Galanter wrote:
>
> I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit
> insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great
> deal of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the
> results cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow
> unfair. But who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair?
>
> More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists
> peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there
> and we should thank Ms. Boxer for it.
>
> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a
> good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual
> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is
> in fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>
> You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or
> photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at
> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful.
> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class
> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than
> being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static
> shots are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And
> so on. The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the
> audiences burden.
>
> Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size,
> what they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For
> time based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of
> time. Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must
> be masters of both time and space.
>
> These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the
> internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a
> surprise. It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks
> the audience to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
> entire work without satisfaction along the way, just to get to a
> big payoff at the very end. Music frequently begins with the
> introduction of compelling themes that give the listener an
> incentive to go further. Good films not only end well, but give
> the viewer rewards all along the way. How much internet art does
> this?
>
> I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to
> disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or
> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the
> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional
> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no
> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly
> taken on.
>
> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or
> the critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not
> their fault. It's yours.
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=
>
> please email for the quickest response: [email protected]
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
For what it's worth:
Any art 'on' the internet or using the internet involves a (extra)
coding/decoding to/from 'machine readability' of some sort, and a
transmission process based on communication protocols between machines.
Both processes are more directly 'temporal' and inherently cyclic than other
publication methods like publishing a book or making and exposing a picture.
Even without any 'dynamic' content, any website is cyclic in its existence
(request-response _time_).
This is imho not just theoretically important, it has some massive
consequences in the perception of the work of art, one need only think of
the trouble some people are having of trying to sell web art in ways equally
profitable as 'traditional' art, or making it collectable. Or the
digital-analog question.
Once you publish a book it has its moment of publication and a (life- or
dying) time from then onwards. Paint a picture and it starts decaying. Make
a website and it starts its process. You could consider that to be a
decaying process as well, but the actual and instantanous renewal with each
'use' of the work remains (a song that remains the same? i doubt it)
I don't think there are any 'pure' distinctions to be made, though. There's
always the hybris (or 'debris') of other art forms interfering in any art
process. You're always (re)coding other art. If not, it's not art but Google
or some other web service. Tradition and the individual webtalent.
And then of course the internet itself is just code over time, actualising
its code on code every moment…
dv
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Geert Dekkers
Sent: vrijdag 1 juli 2005 10:19
To: rhizome
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
I can see how video art is *time* art, because montage is creating
rythym. But how then is internet art *time* art??
A page can indeed contain some form of timed image (animation movie
etc) and of course popups or refreshes could be used but even then
its up to the user and/or the users computer.
Perhaps time in internet art could better be compared to a musical
score – the composer may set a piece for allegro but won't the
musician play allegretto???
Interesting though…
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 1-jul-2005, at 0:14, Philip Galanter wrote:
>
> I can understand how some might find Sarah Boxer's review a bit
> insulting or maddening. After all, internet artists put a great
> deal of thought and effort into the work, and to simply have the
> results cast aside with a glib observation or two seems somehow
> unfair. But who ever said art, or art criticism, was fair?
>
> More to the point, though, this criticism is ignored at the artists
> peril. There is, perhaps inadequately expressed, a message there
> and we should thank Ms. Boxer for it.
>
> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling. I suspect that a
> good number of internet artists started out as primarily visual
> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much internet art is
> in fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>
> You can see this in the classroom everyday. Student painters or
> photographers who decide to take up video are usually (at least at
> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really terribly awful.
> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then defended in class
> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art aesthetic rather than
> being called what it is…bad filmmaking. Interminable static
> shots are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon enough. And
> so on. The artist's infatuation for his/her own images becomes the
> audiences burden.
>
> Painters and sculptors understand that issues of absolute size,
> what they call scale, are fundamental problems to be solved. For
> time based forms problems of scale also include the dimension of
> time. Fine artists must be masters of space, but time artists must
> be masters of both time and space.
>
> These problems become multiplied when fine artists turn to the
> internet as a new medium. That time counts shouldn't be a
> surprise. It is the rare work of music or film or stage that asks
> the audience to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
> entire work without satisfaction along the way, just to get to a
> big payoff at the very end. Music frequently begins with the
> introduction of compelling themes that give the listener an
> incentive to go further. Good films not only end well, but give
> the viewer rewards all along the way. How much internet art does
> this?
>
> I've seen far too many examples of internet art that seem to
> disregard the element of real time, and thereby ignore or
> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To be sure the
> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the compositional
> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult. But that's no
> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist has willingly
> taken on.
>
> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and not care a whit
> for the audience's experience. But don't blame the audience, or
> the critic, if they click a few times and then walk away. It's not
> their fault. It's yours.
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=
>
> please email for the quickest response: [email protected]
>
>
> +
> -> 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
I think some of the people participating in this thread are missing the
point entirely. Sarah never says that "most of the artbase 101 show was
mediocre" and if she had, that would at least be a step in the right
direction. But then, of course, she would have to back it up with
something. The point is that all she really says is that she went and
spent some time at a show at the New Museum of Contemporary Art. When we
see something under the header "Art Review", we want some meat. We want
a professional assesment of the work. What stands out and why? What
doesn't and why not? Perhaps also a couple of hints that show that the
person really understands the work. All she gives is hints that show
that she doesn't understand which in my book means that she shouldn't be
doing the review. Would you trust a rock critic to give a decent review
of an opera?
Then there's that other thing. Some people seem to think that the
artists mission is to make art for the public. I'm sorry, but they
forgot to put me on the payroll. People that really want to experience
my art have to come to my level, I'm not going to theirs. If someone
finds a piece of mine intriguing, they can look at my other work to put
it into context and if they're really interested, they can even find a
couple of interviews on the net and if that doesn't do it, my email
address is all over. If I were interested in catering to the publics
expectations and wants, I would've gone into graphic design or maybe I
would paint pretty images on silk pillows and hit the craft-fair
circuit. But I'm not and I think the majority of us would say the same.
Phillip:
I'm not sure what compelled you to write your post. Since we're talking
about the Rhizome exhibit, I would say that a lot of those works
approach time in an extremely compelling way. And do it in a way that
shows very well the flexibility of the time component in the
internet/computer medium. "Fenlandia" is cool in a time-play sense.
Sarah obviously missed the point entirely since she was always waiting
for something to move. I think Sarah Boxer is the one that
misunderstands the artistic concept of time and not the artists.
Pall
judsoN wrote:
> while i agree with the sentiment, this is not at all what's happening
> here. more complex ways of saying a stupid thing is still a stupid
> thing. "artist statement: i am currently exploring the matrix of
> cyphers representing the digital methodologies inherent in this computer
> keyboard."
>
> boxer may not subscribe to "art speak". but the fact that she writes,
> not like an idiot, but more conversational, less pretentious, is totally
> refreshing. she panned cyberarts, said most of the artbase 101 show was
> mediocre (but also saw good things in some of the works). but it seems
> to be interpreted through a dense filter. people are seeing her words as
> saying "it's great to be dumb and hate it all." if that's what people
> see, they rely on those filters too much.
>
> her speaking style may easily be in reaction to the language of
> self-importance that she's just been bombarded with. and as a result,
> many must not see what she's saying because they get caught up in how
> it's said. but if you don't get anything helpful out of it, so be it.
> it's not keeping you from making art. and the more you make the more
> they'll need to get used to you. we didn't lose some state of
> popularity. maybe this is a different track that will help in the long
> run. just press (good or bad) does amazing things.
>
> to insist on art speak as somehow a sign of intelligence is pretty much
> eugenics. to only see the packaging and not the content of what's said
> is really just another way the arts can be dumbed down. she actually
> might be undoing some damage from previous art speakers. to learn from a
> variety of conflicting voices and methods is just common sense. people
> who agree too much, subscribe to one point of view, are (like the Bush
> clan) just not using evolution to improve. they are either deciding
> (like nazis) what is best, or letting changes be just random. (a
> concept in self-organizing systems) boxer is finally a real person among
> thousands of self-important authorities.
>
> but what can we do to have the same effect were striving for?
>
> show how computer art fits in to what people are already interested in.
> they don't develop interest spontaneously. right now there's no such
> thing for many as GREAT computer art, just like it'd never occur to them
> they could be looking at an example of GREAT shoe tying. we're not
> fighting a 0 rating, it's a null, rating still doesn't apply. people
> keep fighting this criteria of GREATness. but so far nothing in
> computers has much to do with what people already consider potentially
> GREAT. the more art shows are neither about computer art
> (self-destructive) or banish it entirely (doomed), the more the average
> visitor (at a gallery or theater) will actually see an example or two.
> no one person can do it, it takes all of us.
> +
> -> 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
_______________________________
Pall,
Some people totally respect your perspective on this - even though we differ.
PT> Some people seem to think that the artists mission is to make art for the public.
Some people think the [________________] (fill in the blank: ivory tower, elitist, "if they don't get it I must be a misunderstood genius", self congratulatory, art for art's sake, highbrow) approach to art making is what is in need of adjustment. Of all the elements that one could take from the conceptual art movement, this is one that some people have no problem tossing out. Sarah Boxer is expressing the pov of a disenfranchised audience that finds more often than not this approach to art fails to deliver - the viewer feels burned, more so if it requires an upfront investment of time. Some people think that taking the audience into consideration is not so distasteful (just a little more challenging).
Perhaps this is why Carlo Zanni asserts that 99.9% of (net) artists are not interested in selling or a career.
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread820&text4059#34059
Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com
that explains it for me….lol
bliss
l
— patrick lichty <[email protected]> wrote:
> Listen:
> The difference between art and prostitution is as
> follows:
>
> In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
> And with art, people see if they want to pay to see
> you have sex with
> yourself in the gallery.
>
> Simple as that.
>
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Lewis LaCook
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
> To: t.whid; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of
> ArtBase 101
>
> So we only make art for other artists?
>
>
>
> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> > > point?
> >
> > To engage an engaged viewer.
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
>
************************************************************************
> ***
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook
>
–>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.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
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements…
Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Interesting discussion.
Anyway here are some quick responses in the interest of correcting
misinterpretations of my previous post. Also some
observations …all in no particular order…
re: Simon's "every icon"…my impression is that Boxer "got it" and
the "I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time"
comment was an (attempted) jest very much in tune with the spirit of
the piece.
re: my comments regarding time and it's good and bad use in art. I
wasn't attacking this show as having lots of examples of bad time
art. I'm not taking a position on that. I'm saying Boxer's
attention to time as a theme in her criticism is not flip but rather
is entirely valid even if expressed in the article in a "lite" way.
similarly re: the opinion that Boxer's review had so little content
there was nothing there to respond to. Well, first, empirically
there apparently is something there to respond to because we have
lots of responses even here. But more to the point, I wanted to
"help" Boxer by pointing out her choice of "time" in internet art as
a thread to string her comments on is insightful…I can easily
imagine multiple books on the topic, and that her cautionary message
about poor use of time in art is worth hearing. Reasonable people
can disagree whether this or that piece deals with time well, but
simply her bringing "time" to the front of the room is enough of a
service to justify the article.
re: my comments regarding film and such. I wasn't making a claim
that good interactive art making is *just like* making a good film.
That would just be silly. What I *was* pointing out was that the
transition from static visual art to visually stimulating time art is
a perilous one. The fact that some responses questioned whether
internet art was, in fact, a time art at all underscores for me the
weak state of the art in this regard…even in the critical language
itself.
re: the question of making art for oneself vrs the audience, and who
should meet who more than halfway or not. I didn't say it is somehow
wrong for an artist to optimize his activity for his own
satisfaction. I affirmed that artists are free to make that choice.
I only said that having made that choice it is an unreasonable
expectation on the part of the artist of the audience that they will
find the work equally optimal for *their* satisfaction as well.
i.e. artistic self-satisfaction is no guarantee of audience
satisfaction, and all too often they are conflicted interests. One
should try to have reasonable expectations about this…and not deny
other artists a different balance.
cheers, Philip
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://philipgalanter.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time were
invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour piece by
Jan Fabre – yes it was tedious, and yes I might have walked off (I
actually think I did) but that's not the point. The point (of the
piece was) – obviously – that it was EIGHT hours.
And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have
fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time.
On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Every Icon" and
>
>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>> of.
>>
>
> —that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t,
> we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the
> conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i
> like both works myself, but i can stray into
> conceptual work and appreciate it–
>
> one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
> cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
> conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in
> which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
> IS about time…
>
>
>
> —————
>
>
>> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
>> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
>> comments back.
>>
>> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
>> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
>> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>>
>> Philip Galanter wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
>>>
>> I suspect that a
>>
>>> good number of internet artists started out as
>>>
>> primarily visual
>>
>>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
>>>
>> internet art is in
>>
>>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>>>
>>> You can see this in the classroom everyday.
>>>
>> Student painters or
>>
>>> photographers who decide to take up video are
>>>
>> usually (at least at
>>
>>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
>>>
>> terribly awful.
>>
>>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
>>>
>> defended in class
>>
>>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
>>>
>> aesthetic rather than
>>
>>> being called what it is…bad filmmaking.
>>>
>> Interminable static shots
>>
>>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
>>>
>> enough. And so on.
>>
>>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
>>>
>> becomes the audiences
>>
>>>
>>> burden.
>>>
>>
>> I can't argue with your point that many video or
>> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
>> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
>> can't remember which one, that made me want to
>> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
>> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
>> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>>
>> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
>> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
>> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
>> time as a significant element in the work in very
>> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
>> ways.
>>
>> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
>> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
>> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
>> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
>> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
>> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
>> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
>> how computers and humans are different in a very
>> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
>> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
>> airhead reviewer.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists
>>>
>> turn to the
>>
>>> internet as a new medium. That time counts
>>>
>> shouldn't be a surprise.
>>
>> You seem to be making general points that you might
>> make to your students. It comes off a bit
>> condescending since you're referencing a specific
>> show and a specific review of it.
>>
>> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
>> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
>> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
>>>
>> asks the audience
>>
>>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
>>>
>> entire work without
>>
>>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
>>>
>> payoff at the very
>>
>>> end. Music frequently begins with the
>>>
>> introduction of compelling
>>
>>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go
>>>
>> further. Good films
>>
>>>
>>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
>>>
>> along the way.
>>
>>> How much internet art does this?
>>>
>>
>> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
>> misses the point of most of the work.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art
>>>
>> that seem to
>>
>>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby
>>>
>> ignore or
>>
>>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
>>>
>> be sure the
>>
>>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
>>>
>> compositional
>>
>>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
>>>
>> But that's no
>>
>>> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist
>>>
>> has willingly taken
>>
>>> on.
>>>
>>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
>>>
>> not care a whit
>>
>>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame
>>>
>> the audience, or the
>>
>>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk
>>>
>> away. It's not their
>>
>>>
>>> fault. It's yours.
>>>
>>
>> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
>> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
>> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
>> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>> of.
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> *****
> No More Movements…
>
> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.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
>
And just to show (again and again) that art sometimes asks you go the
extra mile, an exerpt about Cy Twombly…
from brentriley.com
"I've liked his work since I was a freshman in college. His paintings
are abstract and impenetrable, the only guideposts are occasional
references to mythology buried in the scribbles and blobs of color on
canvas. Twombly is an artist that a lot of people say "I could do
that" or "It looks like my 5 year old drew that."
I smile when I hear that because I've been frustrated by his
paintings too. To crack the shell and dig out the meaning is
difficult. But I'm drawn back to him again and again."
On 1-jul-2005, at 22:05, Geert Dekkers wrote:
> Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time
> were invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour
> piece by Jan Fabre – yes it was tedious, and yes I might have
> walked off (I actually think I did) but that's not the point. The
> point (of the piece was) – obviously – that it was EIGHT hours.
>
> And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have
> fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time.
>
>
> On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Every Icon" and
>>
>>
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> —that's making a huuuge assumption–i mean, gee, t,
>> we get it and all–boxer has less patience with the
>> conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems–i
>> like both works myself, but i can stray into
>> conceptual work and appreciate it–
>>
>> one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
>> cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
>> conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"–in
>> which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
>> IS about time…
>>
>>
>>
>> —————
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
>>> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
>>> comments back.
>>>
>>> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
>>> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
>>> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>>>
>>> Philip Galanter wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect that a
>>>
>>>
>>>> good number of internet artists started out as
>>>>
>>>>
>>> primarily visual
>>>
>>>
>>>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
>>>>
>>>>
>>> internet art is in
>>>
>>>
>>>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>>>>
>>>> You can see this in the classroom everyday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Student painters or
>>>
>>>
>>>> photographers who decide to take up video are
>>>>
>>>>
>>> usually (at least at
>>>
>>>
>>>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
>>>>
>>>>
>>> terribly awful.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
>>>>
>>>>
>>> defended in class
>>>
>>>
>>>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> aesthetic rather than
>>>
>>>
>>>> being called what it is…bad filmmaking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interminable static shots
>>>
>>>
>>>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> enough. And so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
>>>>
>>>>
>>> becomes the audiences
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> burden.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't argue with your point that many video or
>>> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
>>> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
>>> can't remember which one, that made me want to
>>> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
>>> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
>>> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>>>
>>> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
>>> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
>>> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
>>> time as a significant element in the work in very
>>> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
>>> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
>>> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
>>> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
>>> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
>>> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
>>> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
>>> how computers and humans are different in a very
>>> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
>>> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
>>> airhead reviewer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists
>>>>
>>>>
>>> turn to the
>>>
>>>
>>>> internet as a new medium. That time counts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> shouldn't be a surprise.
>>>
>>> You seem to be making general points that you might
>>> make to your students. It comes off a bit
>>> condescending since you're referencing a specific
>>> show and a specific review of it.
>>>
>>> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
>>> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
>>> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
>>>>
>>>>
>>> asks the audience
>>>
>>>
>>>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> entire work without
>>>
>>>
>>>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
>>>>
>>>>
>>> payoff at the very
>>>
>>>
>>>> end. Music frequently begins with the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> introduction of compelling
>>>
>>>
>>>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go
>>>>
>>>>
>>> further. Good films
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
>>>>
>>>>
>>> along the way.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How much internet art does this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
>>> misses the point of most of the work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that seem to
>>>
>>>
>>>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ignore or
>>>
>>>
>>>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
>>>>
>>>>
>>> be sure the
>>>
>>>
>>>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> compositional
>>>
>>>
>>>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But that's no
>>>
>>>
>>>> excuse…that's exactly the challenge the artist
>>>>
>>>>
>>> has willingly taken
>>>
>>>
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> not care a whit
>>>
>>>
>>>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the audience, or the
>>>
>>>
>>>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> away. It's not their
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> fault. It's yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
>>> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
>>> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
>>> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ******
>> No More Movements…
>>
>> Lewis LaCook –>Poet-Programmer|||http://
>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.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
>
Hello all,
Been away until the 30th (for over fifteen days) and I am just catching up
on e-mails.
I have a brief comment on the NYTimes review.
The review does not tackle anything concretely but simply casually glosses
over some of the projects. Boxer clearly shows no understanding of online
works and her critical position is vaguely presented with abstract
references to previoulsy existing artworks, like paintings, when she
explains that the viewer will probably spend more time in front of any of
the works than on a painting–as if a longer time period justifies the
meaning of a work of art. Based on utalitarian ideology (which is the
foundation of the United States' work ethic), time is money, and if you
spend time doing something like viewing a work of art, then the work must
mean "something." The more time you spend, the more it must mean…
Shallow.
Her position is fully exposed when she writes on John Simon's Every Icon, "I
don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time. Which raises the
question: what kind of art do you have time for? It's a question that comes
up over and over with art on the Web."
That time is the central issue for Boxer shows the problematics brought
forth by many new media works, as the conventional viewer is unable to cope
with the unexpected parameters particular pieces offer. Boxer introduces
the time element as a stigma for online works, that she takes such position
shows that she is not willing to understand what new media is about.
I suggest to ignore any of her write ups. Unlike Greenberg's which demanded
a clear opposition in twentieth century modernism, due to his clear
understanding of culture and sensibilities of art practice, Boxer's position
is completely flawed with no strong argument–she clearly does not care
about culture, she does not question or propose, but simply lists with no
clear position other than that she writes for a large newspaper.
Ignore her. Let her be alone in her own world. Forget that it is the NY
Times. Take away the title of the paper and the review is simply
embarassing.
E.
On 6/30/05 9:34 PM, "patrick lichty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> TWhid Wrote:
>
> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested
> party felt that I should hold my comments back.
>
> Hey, so am I, but doesn't seem to stop me. :)
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Hello all,
I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why there was so little discussion about the concept of the show itself. (maybe I missed something earlier)
How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my first point.
Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking around between computers, going physically from one object to another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the article might be the mirror of the show.
best Annie Abrahams
ps
I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe the show, an url, photo's?
But the thing is the Ms Boxer is just a visitor but a critic,- the
discussion being about is her quality as a critic…
But I think this is a valid point, however. Could be out the other
way round, though – at least in a gallery/museum setting visitors
are geared up for looking at art, no tv dinners / kids running
rampant…
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 4-jul-2005, at 13:44, annie abrahams wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the
> artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why
> there was so little discussion about the concept of the show
> itself. (maybe I missed something earlier)
>
> How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more
> than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events
> like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to
> say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my
> first point.
>
> Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting
> all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/
> intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking
> around between computers, going physically from one object to
> another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the
> article might be the mirror of the show.
>
> best Annie Abrahams
> ps
> I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe
> the show, an url, photo's?
> +
> -> 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
>
>
(sorry – typo )
But the thing is the Ms Boxer is NOT just a visitor but a critic,-
the discussion being about is her quality as a critic…
But I think this is a valid point, however. Could be out the other
way round, though – at least in a gallery/museum setting visitors
are geared up for looking at art, no tv dinners / kids running
rampant…
Cheers
Geert
http://nznl.com
On 4-jul-2005, at 13:44, annie abrahams wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am on digest, so I only now read your discussion on the
> artbase101 show. While reading (I skipped some) I wondered why
> there was so little discussion about the concept of the show
> itself. (maybe I missed something earlier)
>
> How can you expect a visitor of a show with 40 artists to have more
> than a superficial glance. In contemporary art only big events
> like biennales show that much artists in one show. What I mean to
> say is the article might be the mirror of the show. This is my
> first point.
>
> Besides most web works are made to be viewed by a person sitting
> all alone in front of his/her screen in his/her own surroundings/
> intimacy. I do think that changing the visiting conditions (walking
> around between computers, going physically from one object to
> another) changes the 'content' of a lot off works. So again the
> article might be the mirror of the show.
>
> best Annie Abrahams
> ps
> I have not seen the show (I live in France). Could anyone describe
> the show, an url, photo's?
> +
> -> 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