Commissions

Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.

Pall

On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:

> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> submitted had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> sign of
> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> didn't seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
>> not in the
>> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
>> way to use
>> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
>> wouldn't be
>> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
>> for the
>> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
>> cause
>> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
>> have been more
>> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
>> all these
>> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
>> for what
>> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
>> see things
>> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
>> anyway i thought
>> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
>> here's no
>> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
>> mine only
>> somewhat similar thank you dv
>>
>> —–Original message—–
>> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
>> To: rhizome [email protected]
>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
>> commissions
>> again..
>>
>>> HI Lauren, all
>>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
>>> commissions process for next year.
>>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
>>> find one of the great irritations in life is
>>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
>>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
>>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
>>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
>>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
>>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
>>>
>>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
>>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
>>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
>>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
>>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
>>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
>>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
>>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
>>> a life anyway :)
>>>
>>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
>>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
>>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
>>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
>>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
>>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
>>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
>>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
>>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
>>> significant connection between the two things.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
>>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
>>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
>>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
>>> previous year.
>>> This would level the playing field considerably but
>>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
>>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
>>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
>>> being serious as an artist.
>>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
>>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
>>> "names" -is the work any good?
>>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
>>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
>>> name so these can always be Googled up …
>>>
>>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
>>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
>>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
>>> piece to develop.
>>>
>>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
>>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
>>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
>>> much more artist friendly.
>>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
>>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
>>> best
>>> michael
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> 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
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> 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
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

work bar yes word bar no
dv
—–Original message—–
From: Lee Wells [email protected]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:24:34 +0200
To: [email protected]
Subject: Commissions

> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign of
> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > —–Original message—–
> > From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome [email protected]
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up …
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> 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
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

> Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
> weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
>
> Pall

that would contradict the rest of the set-up
dv

> On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael:
> >
> > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > submitted had
> > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> > sign of
> > laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> > didn't seem
> > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > submitting.
> >
> > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> > submissions
> > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> >
> > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
> >> not in the
> >> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
> >> way to use
> >> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
> >> wouldn't be
> >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
> >> for the
> >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
> >> cause
> >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
> >> have been more
> >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
> >> all these
> >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
> >> for what
> >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
> >> see things
> >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
> >> anyway i thought
> >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
> >> here's no
> >> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
> >> mine only
> >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> >>
> >> —–Original message—–
> >> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> >> To: rhizome [email protected]
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> >> commissions
> >> again..
> >>
> >>> HI Lauren, all
> >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >>> commissions process for next year.
> >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>>
> >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >>> a life anyway :)
> >>>
> >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >>> significant connection between the two things.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >>> previous year.
> >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >>> being serious as an artist.
> >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >>> name so these can always be Googled up …
> >>>
> >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >>> piece to develop.
> >>>
> >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >>> much more artist friendly.
> >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >>> best
> >>> michael
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> >>> subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> +
> >>> 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
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> >> 29.php
> >
> > –
> > Lee Wells
> > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> >
> > http://www.leewells.org
> > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > 917 723 2524
> >
> > +
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > 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
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>

Please explain

On 4/26/06 9:40 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> work bar yes word bar no
> dv
> —–Original message—–
> From: Lee Wells [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:24:34 +0200
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Commissions
>
>> Hi Michael:
>>
>> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted had
>> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign of
>> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't seem
>> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.
>>
>> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the submissions
>> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
>>
>> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the
>>> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use
>>> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be
>>> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the
>>> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
>>> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been
>>> more
>>> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these
>>> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what
>>> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see
>>> things
>>> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i
>>> thought
>>> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no
>>> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only
>>> somewhat similar thank you dv
>>>
>>> —–Original message—–
>>> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
>>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
>>> To: rhizome [email protected]
>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
>>> commissions
>>> again..
>>>
>>>> HI Lauren, all
>>>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
>>>> commissions process for next year.
>>>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
>>>> find one of the great irritations in life is
>>>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
>>>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
>>>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
>>>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
>>>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
>>>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
>>>>
>>>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
>>>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
>>>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
>>>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
>>>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
>>>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
>>>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
>>>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
>>>> a life anyway :)
>>>>
>>>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
>>>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
>>>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
>>>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
>>>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
>>>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
>>>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
>>>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
>>>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
>>>> significant connection between the two things.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
>>>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
>>>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
>>>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
>>>> previous year.
>>>> This would level the playing field considerably but
>>>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
>>>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
>>>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
>>>> being serious as an artist.
>>>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
>>>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
>>>> "names" -is the work any good?
>>>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
>>>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
>>>> name so these can always be Googled up …
>>>>
>>>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
>>>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
>>>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
>>>> piece to develop.
>>>>
>>>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
>>>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
>>>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
>>>> much more artist friendly.
>>>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
>>>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
>>>> best
>>>> michael
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>> +
>>>> 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
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>> –
>> Lee Wells
>> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>>
>> http://www.leewells.org
>> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>> 917 723 2524
>>
>>

–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524

HI Lee
I don't differ with anything you say here.
My case would be that my suggestion *does* raise the
bar on the thing that matters - quality of work,
rather than ability to write a proposal.
( & I think this might have been what Dirk was just
saying,albeit rather cryptically)
It's lot harder to bluff when you have to show *actual
work*.
At the same time I think it would also make the whole
thing more transparent & dare I say it, more enjoyable
for all.
I'm for virtue but all the more so if it's fun :)
best wishes
michael

— Lee Wells <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals
> that were submitted had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a sign of
> laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It didn't seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their
> ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not
> lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm not in the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a way to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete for the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would have been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on all these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money for what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i see things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but anyway i thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > —–Original message—–
> > From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome [email protected]
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about
> the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but
> I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell
> out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I
> don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining
> the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their
> way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant
> to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases.
> Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious &
> follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think
> that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any
> sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so
> (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are
> the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap
> in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no'
> to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual
> work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next
> year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation
> of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in
> the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably
> but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom
> line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua
> non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists
> they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms
> with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without
> bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the
> artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up …
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by
> its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's
> range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a
> commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in
> submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, &
> be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere &
> how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> 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
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

as it is anyone is required to spent a considerable amount of time in preparing there candidature which is fine by me cause you don't expect an organisation to throw money at you because you ask for it on some lazy sunday

however the point Michael made was about those with a talent for making suffecient poo's & phaa's about their work/intentions are in the advantage while "real" talent might go quasi unnoticed

making previous work the ultimate criterium of choice would be more of a guarantee both about the seriousness of the worker in question as about her ability to do "it" again

blabla is for sale
work can only be shown

so work bar yes, word bar no

so i'd raise the work-bar by some way of gaining credit a a candidate through a more sustained voting principle, it could bring the workload down for those involved in the jurying/organisational process as well cause these things can be automated with a more or less steady user basis

please note i'm not referring to/ advocating principles concerning my own work in any way here,it just seems more logical to me

dv


—–Original message—–
From: Lee Wells [email protected]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:42:55 +0200
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Commissions

> Please explain
>
> On 4/26/06 9:40 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > work bar yes word bar no
> > dv
> > —–Original message—–
> > From: Lee Wells [email protected]
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:24:34 +0200
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Commissions
> >
> >> Hi Michael:
> >>
> >> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted had
> >> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign of
> >> laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't seem
> >> like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.
> >>
> >> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the submissions
> >> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> >>
> >> In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in the
> >>> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way to use
> >>> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that wouldn't be
> >>> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for the
> >>> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
> >>> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have been
> >>> more
> >>> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all these
> >>> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for what
> >>> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see
> >>> things
> >>> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i
> >>> thought
> >>> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael here's no
> >>> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as mine only
> >>> somewhat similar thank you dv
> >>>
> >>> —–Original message—–
> >>> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> >>> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> >>> To: rhizome [email protected]
> >>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> >>> commissions
> >>> again..
> >>>
> >>>> HI Lauren, all
> >>>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> >>>> commissions process for next year.
> >>>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> >>>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >>>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> >>>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >>>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> >>>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >>>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> >>>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >>>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> >>>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> >>>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >>>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> >>>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> >>>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> >>>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> >>>> a life anyway :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> >>>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> >>>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> >>>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> >>>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >>>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >>>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >>>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> >>>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >>>> significant connection between the two things.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> >>>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >>>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> >>>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> >>>> previous year.
> >>>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> >>>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> >>>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >>>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> >>>> being serious as an artist.
> >>>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> >>>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> >>>> "names" -is the work any good?
> >>>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> >>>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> >>>> name so these can always be Googled up …
> >>>>
> >>>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> >>>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> >>>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> >>>> piece to develop.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >>>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> >>>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> >>>> much more artist friendly.
> >>>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> >>>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >>>> best
> >>>> michael
> >>>>
> >>>> +
> >>>> -> post: [email protected]
> >>>> -> questions: [email protected]
> >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>>> +
> >>>> 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
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >> –
> >> Lee Wells
> >> Brooklyn, NY 11222
> >>
> >> http://www.leewells.org
> >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> >> 917 723 2524
> >>
> >>
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

I don't agree with dv here.

As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the process (I think I
went through about 20), it would be a much more enjoyable process to review
a smaller amount of higher-quality proposals.

Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best 25% of the
proposals and then the community could choose half and the jury could choose
half. It might be nice because Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller
amount of applicants to have them write more informative and concise
descriptions, provide images, etc.

My main problem with the proposals is that the first paragraph in most cases
does a horrendous job of describing the project. If you want to get a grant
(esp. with the Rhiz process) you need to write one graf that describes your
project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.


On 4/26/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> —–Original message—–
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome [email protected]
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up …
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> post: [email protected]
> > >>> -> questions: [email protected]
> > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >>> subscribe.rhiz
> > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > >>> +
> > >>> 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
> > >> +
> > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> > >> 29.php
> > >
> > > –
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > > subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > 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
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

Amidst dinner preparations the arguments you bring us do not strike me as
particularly pertaining to the discussion, ay, even faulty to the point of
outright invalidness. The beloved initials you seek to invoke aggregate an
individual living under the strong impression that the voting process was
installed with the explicit aim of bringing openness and democracy to the
selection process.
Instead you seem to advocate a stronger directive impuls coming from the
subsidized and delegated organisers, under the guise of educational
purposes. There are and will always be ofcourse some folk in need of better
education but i do not see that as a primary aim of a commissions program.

Next you further seem to specify the educational part should be directed at
making the aspiring worker
a master of copywriting. I do believe there are some valuable artistic
impulses coming from the world of advertisement. Yet, thinking of the rice
that is about to burn, i do wonder wether we are talking about the same
processes here.

Nay, 't will have to wait, that's for sure, or we'll eat out tonight.

dv



> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens T.Whid
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 april 2006 16:46
> Aan: rhizome
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
>
> I don't agree with dv here.
>
> As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the
> process (I think I went through about 20), it would be a much
> more enjoyable process to review a smaller amount of
> higher-quality proposals.
>
> Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best
> 25% of the proposals and then the community could choose half
> and the jury could choose half. It might be nice because
> Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller amount of applicants
> to have them write more informative and concise descriptions,
> provide images, etc.
>
> My main problem with the proposals is that the first
> paragraph in most cases does a horrendous job of describing
> the project. If you want to get a grant (esp. with the Rhiz
> process) you need to write one graf that describes your
> project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through
> proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> —–Original message—–
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome [email protected]
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up …
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> post: [email protected]
> > >>> -> questions: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >>> subscribe.rhiz
> > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <http://rhizome.org/support>
> > >>> +
> > >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >>> 29.php
> > >>>
> > >> +
> > >> -> post: [email protected]
> > >> -> questions: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >> subscribe.rhiz
> > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <http://rhizome.org/support>
> > >> +
> > >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > >> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >> 29.php
> > >
> > > –
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > > subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > 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
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
>
> –
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>

As a matter of note;
Anyone wishing to give a crit on my proposal is greatly welcomed. While
I did try to communicate a rather strange concept in as concise a
fashion as possible, I am always interested in seeing how the idea gets
across. There are circumstances behind any brevity in my statement, but
there you are.

Beyond this, I can't say much except that I readily admit my plusses and
minuses, and welcome constructive criticism - always.



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

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


—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lee Wells
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:24 AM
To: [email protected]; Michael Szpakowski; rhizome
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
Importance: Low

Hi Michael:

I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were submitted
had
almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a sign
of
laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It didn't
seem
like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before submitting.

All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
submissions
are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.

In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.



On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:

> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm not in
the
> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a way
to use
> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
wouldn't be
> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete for
the
> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity cause
> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would have
been more
> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on all
these
> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money for
what
> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i see
things
> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but anyway i
thought
> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
here's no
> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
mine only
> somewhat similar thank you dv
>
> —–Original message—–
> From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> To: rhizome [email protected]
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
commissions
> again..
>
>> HI Lauren, all
>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
>> commissions process for next year.
>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
>> find one of the great irritations in life is
>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
>>
>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
>> a life anyway :)
>>
>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
>> significant connection between the two things.
>>
>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
>> previous year.
>> This would level the playing field considerably but
>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
>> being serious as an artist.
>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
>> "names" -is the work any good?
>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
>> name so these can always be Googled up …
>>
>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
>> piece to develop.
>>
>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
>> much more artist friendly.
>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
>> best
>> michael
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> 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
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524

+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
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 you need to look closely at the supporting material. Projects worth
funding will already have considerable work done on them, often, because
worthwhile projects often take years to complete.

What can be said impressively in a simply written proposal is that the
project will create world peace. Or save the whales. Or that it will serve a
particular community. And you're in the community. Written proposals
basically convey the politics of a project, not its experience or its art.
Or at least the written proposal convey the politics the writer would like
to associate with the project. Written proposals cannot even convey the
concept of a project because the concept cannot often be separated from the
experience and the art itself.

There is a fundamental disjunction between a written proposal for a work of
art and a work of art.

Look for the real art. The supporting material. Not for the talk about the
art.

ja
http://vispo.com

Hi Michael, and all

I understand your initial point about approval being potentially weighted
towards artists who can write well, or hire editors, or enlist friends to
help them, etc. However, I think eliminating the possibility for a
description raises two major problems: First, the approval/voting process
would become more vulnerable to favoritism, i.e. the name or pre-established
status of an artist would become a larger factor. Second, without the
opportunity to describe or offer an argument for the project, applicants who
have less work, or whose work demonstrates the beginnings of an
internet-based practice, are placed at a disadvantage. This is worrisome as
it is a goal of the Commissions Program to be open to applicants at all
stages. If people do feel like the descriptions at their current length are
too long, I would advocate shortening them (i.e. reducing the length), or
re-evaluating the process as per t.whid

Oh! -my posts weren't a dig at anyone, neither
proposing artists (of which I'm not one, just for the
record) nor Rhizome staff but a straightforward
suggestion as to how the commission process could be
made

*fairer*

*more art centred*

& *more fun* for both artist & assessors

My personal starting point wasn't a specific
assessment of anyone's project or proposal but some
little frustration at the *difficulty* of arriving at
a conscientious set of choices without devoting an
unviable amount of time to it.
My point being that many of the proposals could well
have involved communicating <rather strange concept>s
& involve <brevity in (the) statement> & this would be
*no bad thing* but it might not help the proposers to
get funding as people pick their way wearily through
the acres of text…
In fact one of the actual submissions from someone
whose work I know to be wonderful is brief & modest in
the extreme & I can't help feeling this will work
against them.
Whilst it might be *desirable* & *practical* that
artists acquire the gift of the gab & learn to write
that killer first para it seems a bit of a shame for
an organisation that is essentially artist focussed to
collude in the pressure to do this.
I'm on the mailing list of most of the London arts
venues & the rotten, foul, dishonesty of market speak
is a terrible thing to behold… a corruption of
meaning. Every show is *the most remarkable thing
ever*…*pathbreaking*…*unmissable*..& this deeply
dishonest discourse in turn infects us, by necessity,
because every else is infected , when we put fingers
to keyboard to write our proposals..
I'll go further -I think the pressure to say what one
is going to do in advance, and to say it as slickly &
eye catchingly as poss, is, if not a guarantee, at
least an encouragement to digital art by numbers, or
precedent and thus to banality…
Gosh -we're *artists* - we're supposed to have at
least a little touch of iconoclasm about us. Let's
think outside the box, let's think what would be
*good* for us & our work…
best wishes
michael

— patrick lichty <[email protected]> wrote:

> As a matter of note;
> Anyone wishing to give a crit on my proposal is
> greatly welcomed. While
> I did try to communicate a rather strange concept in
> as concise a
> fashion as possible, I am always interested in
> seeing how the idea gets
> across. There are circumstances behind any brevity
> in my statement, but
> there you are.
>
> Beyond this, I can't say much except that I readily
> admit my plusses and
> minuses, and welcome constructive criticism -
> always.
>
>
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 1556 Clough Street, #28
> Bowling Green, OH 43402
> 225 288 5813
> [email protected]
>
> "It is better to die on your feet
> than to live on your knees."
>
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Lee Wells
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: [email protected]; Michael Szpakowski; rhizome
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
> Importance: Low
>
> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals
> that were submitted
> had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a sign
> of
> laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It didn't
> seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their
> ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the
> submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not
> lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm not in
> the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a way
> to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that
> wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete for
> the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would have
> been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on all
> these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money for
> what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i see
> things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but anyway i
> thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael
> here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as
> mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > —–Original message—–
> > From: Michael Szpakowski [email protected]
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome [email protected]
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking
> commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about
> the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but
> I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell
> out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I
> don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining
> the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their
> way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant
> to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases.
> Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious &
> follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think
> that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any
> sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so
> (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are
> the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap
> in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no'
> to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual
> work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next
> year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation
> of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in
> the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably
> but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom
> line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua
> non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists
> they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms
> with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without
> bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the
> artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up …
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by
> its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's
> range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a
> commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in
> submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, &
> be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere &
> how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> +
> >> 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
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

"My main problem with the proposals is that the first paragraph in most
cases does a horrendous job of describing the project. If you want to get
a grant (esp. with the Rhiz process) you need to write one graf that
describes your project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it."

artists take note:

"Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories - the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics… The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is, the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty-four zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hands, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct."

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html

i'm not at liberty to discuss any particular projects (neb demmit)
but i wish there was more from people who are clicking the links
letting us know some of the gems hidden within the masses of text

sure, with 191 entries the process could be truncated…
but there's a job to do now !

Are you asking for someone to tell you what the good ones are?
Take the time its worth it.

Quoting peet skeletone <[email protected]>:

> i'm not at liberty to discuss any particular projects (neb demmit)
> but i wish there was more from people who are clicking the links
> letting us know some of the gems hidden within the masses of text
>
> sure, with 191 entries the process could be truncated…
> but there's a job to do now !
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

just feel it would work well to have a communal filtering system
>>floating discoveries<<

have viewed ~30 sites
currently supporting 13

but some can't comment further
()sealed

just would like to say that strangely enough I've enjoyed the chance
to look at all 195 – of course I don't like them all equally or
anything, but it's been interesting to get an overview of what people
are thinking about and doing, the current set of ideas and
assumptions about what "internet art" is. Eye-opening, actually.
Useful to me.

it would be interesting to hear more specific discussion of proposals
and ideas, i would certainly welcome that, but I suspect many of us
are under the discussion ban because we have proposals in the pile.

S

According to my referrer logs, as of today my project proposal has been visited from rhizome 14 times (and two of those times were by me).

During the voting, we are encouraged not to discuss our own projects on RAW (lest we inordiately pimp them); yet we are encouraged to write a zingy proposal that formally pimps them. Use your para-art rheteorical skills to acquire grant money, but only within the rules of the game.

Why are my para-art grant writing rhetorical skills somehow more ethically democratic than my para-art guerilla network marketing skills? It is net art after all. If it's not going to be a normal art world grant process with closed panels and judges and all that, why the inordinate emphasis on the standard grant writing process and the admonition to avoid self-pimping on the network?

For graphic design contests, you can imagine the self-pimping that goes on. A typical post at a graphic design community site or blog might read, "yo. we just got nominated for SXSW best of _ award. go check it out. we're trying to get as many votes as we can. you can vote once per day, so let your voice be heard!" where "go check it out" links to the SXSW online ballot.

There is a "professional" art ethic that says if I really believe in my art, I will pimp it as much as possible and play the game and anyone unwilling to do this is a naive, amateur artist. Then there is a "purist/hobbyist" art ethic that says I'm going to make the art anyway, and sure, I'd like the grant money, but I certainly don't want to trick them into giving it to me. net art has been an arena in which it's not automatically assumed that the "professional" way is the "right" way (for a while there, it was assumed that the "professional" way was the "wrong" way). cf: http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html and http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol3_No1_curation_schleiner.html

I find myself mostly agreeing with Michael S. There seems to be a kind of semantic cognitive bias in operation regarding grants and the type of artwork they favor. (The same may be said of contemporary critical theory and the kind of artwork it favors.) If the artwork is highly intuitive, visceral, and doesen't subscribe to a delineatable process, it's much less likely to get funded. Investors (art grant-awarding agencies are investors) want a guaranteed return on their investment. So the projects most likely to get funded are the projects that are most readily reducible to semantic product descriptions. If the award is primarily based on the grant proposal (as opposed to previous work), conceptual artists stand a much better chance of getting funded than abstract expressionists. Thus the "professional" visual arts get increasingly rhetorical and decreasingly visceral. The gallery system works differently (and has its own built in cognitive biases), but few "professional" net artists are operating within the gallery system. "Professional" net artists do the grant thing (and keep their day jobs).

(Incidentally, a similar kind of cognitive media bias operates with television news. You can film an explosion but you can't film a spiritual conversion. So TV news inordinately focuses on destructive materiality – bad news is good news, so to speak.)

Michael S. raises a valid quetion – as artists, can we see past these inherent cognitive biases to structure a truly egalitarian granting system that minimizes these biases? There is more to open democracy than giving everyone a vote. How have you structured the logistics of the voting process? What are you giving them to vote on?

curt



peet skeletone wrote:

> i'm not at liberty to discuss any particular projects (neb demmit)
> but i wish there was more from people who are clicking the links
> letting us know some of the gems hidden within the masses of text
>
> sure, with 191 entries the process could be truncated…
> but there's a job to do now !

On 4/27/06, curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> According to my referrer logs, as of today my project proposal has been
> visited from rhizome 14 times (and two of those times were by me).



FWIW

I voted for you but didn't go to the site because yours was the best one
graf description I've read thus far. I really didn't feel like I needed to
read anything more, it was clear.




–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

maybe i'm reading this all wrong, but i don't get the problem people
are finding between reading a description or conceptual sketch of work
and viewing work examples. both are required of the proposal, no? do
you read a description of a movie usually, and go, "well, don't need to
see that now."? sometimes, yes, if the description contains nothing
that sounds interesting. but then the movie would probably equally fail
to get your interest.
i'm also wary of the "the art world favors conceptual artists who use
critical theory" complaint. i have seen no evidence that the majority
of arts funding, public or private, is going towards the kind of work
that Curt is somewhat bemoaning. Just look at the majority of arts
council fundees.
as Lauren said, the larger problem with grant funding isn't about
language, but name recognition and the self perpetuating tendency of
awards.
i don't know, this all sounds very similar to the claims of
conservatives that academia is governed by left wing ideologues while
millions of dollars are flowing into corporate research facilities and
business schools. of course, i don't mean to equate the people criting
the grant system with Lynn Cheney. well, not entirely ;)
we all know a linguistic description of an image is not the image. but
sometimes you have to tell people about the image to get them to look
at it. isn't that the whole point of the parallel metadata discussion
we're having?
i'm not saying that a description should replace the work, but for
God's sake, it's not that complicated. and a lot of the ab ex painters
did talk about their work in ways that obviously resonated with the
critical canon of the time. hell, they became the canon for 30+ years.
but they didn't need grant funding, they had Castelli, etc. if you want
to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e. "attention economy")
well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your work is either
"successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability to grab people, or
not.

ryan griffis wrote:

> i'm also wary of the "the art world favors conceptual artists who use
> critical theory" complaint.

Not the entire art world. And not grant programs (most of them) where previous work samples are required and integral. Just a granting scheme where you get a thumbs up or thumbs down based on a paragraph. And not "conceptual artists who use critical theory." Just "conceptual art projects."

> if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e. "attention
> economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your work is either
> "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability to grab people, or
> not.

True dat. And to make outsider art, all you need are some broken shards of glass and/or some rusty bicycle parts.

On Apr 27, 2006, at 4:39 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> Not the entire art world. And not grant programs (most of them) where
> previous work samples are required and integral. Just a granting
> scheme where you get a thumbs up or thumbs down based on a paragraph.
> And not "conceptual artists who use critical theory." Just
> "conceptual art projects."

but there are work samples required for these proposals, right? i
thought there was anyway… up to 5 or something if i remember
correctly. are people just not looking at them? if someone doesn't
include work samples, that says something in and of itself.
i guess this is why i'm confused about this line of critique… i don't
see how the work samples are disadvantaged here.
or are we talking about a hypothetical situation?
>
>> if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e.
>> "attention
>> economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your work is
>> either
>> "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability to grab people,
>> or
>> not.
>
> True dat. And to make outsider art, all you need are some broken
> shards of glass and/or some rusty bicycle parts.

i thought it was driftwood and a buck knife :)
ryan

ryan griffis wrote:

> but there are work samples required for these proposals, right? i
> thought there was anyway… up to 5 or something if i remember
> correctly. are people just not looking at them? if someone doesn't
> include work samples, that says something in and of itself.
> i guess this is why i'm confused about this line of critique… i
> don't see how the work samples are disadvantaged here.
> or are we talking about a hypothetical situation?

samples aren't required, but encouraged. And yes, I gather that few people are looking at them (or the full project descriptions, or any more than 15/190 projects). But who really knows.

> i thought it was driftwood and a buck knife :)

that's folk art.

If I remeber correctly the images are spoposed to be directly related to the
project proposal.

Quoting Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>:

> On Apr 27, 2006, at 4:39 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>> Not the entire art world. And not grant programs (most of them)
>> where previous work samples are required and integral. Just a
>> granting scheme where you get a thumbs up or thumbs down based on a
>> paragraph. And not "conceptual artists who use critical theory."
>> Just "conceptual art projects."
>
> but there are work samples required for these proposals, right? i
> thought there was anyway… up to 5 or something if i remember
> correctly. are people just not looking at them? if someone doesn't
> include work samples, that says something in and of itself.
> i guess this is why i'm confused about this line of critique… i
> don't see how the work samples are disadvantaged here.
> or are we talking about a hypothetical situation?
>>
>>> if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e. "attention
>>> economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your work is either
>>> "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability to grab people, or
>>> not.
>>
>> True dat. And to make outsider art, all you need are some broken
>> shards of glass and/or some rusty bicycle parts.
>
> i thought it was driftwood and a buck knife :)
> ryan
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

To be fair to Rhizome's process, the graf in the voting section is supposed
to be just a brief synopsis, aren't people supposed to go see the web site
proposals? Which could (and probably should) provide examples, images,
videos, whatev of work.

The problem is that most of the proposals aren't even intriguing enough to
click on them! If one has some visuals that are integral to the proposal
(which many probably should) then one should make it obvious in the initial
blurb: "You really need to see my visuals! CLICK HERE" If one doesn't, then
one is failing on two very basic levels: 1) understanding their own work and
2) making me understand it.

Just because one's work is overwhelmingly visual doesn't mean you can't
describe it interestingly. Make me want to find out what you do instead of
put me to sleep.

On 4/27/06, curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ryan griffis wrote:
>
> > i'm also wary of the "the art world favors conceptual artists who use
> > critical theory" complaint.
>
> Not the entire art world. And not grant programs (most of them) where
> previous work samples are required and integral. Just ". And not
> "conceptual artists who use critical theory." Just "conceptual art
> projects."
>
> > if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e. "attention
> > economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your work is either
> > "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability to grab people, or
> > not.
>
> True dat. And to make outsider art, all you need are some broken shards
> of glass and/or some rusty bicycle parts.
>



–
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

Quoting Ryan Griffis <[email protected]>:

> i'm not saying that a description should replace the work, but for
> God's sake, it's not that complicated. and a lot of the ab ex
> painters did talk about their work in ways that obviously resonated
> with the critical canon of the time. hell, they became the canon for
> 30+ years. but they didn't need grant funding, they had Castelli,

And the CIA.

> etc. if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e.
> "attention economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your
> work is either "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability
> to grab people, or not.

The art "market", like the main "market", is curiously reliant on breaks from
government. If you look at a commercial gallery like the Lisson you'll see how
much the state has spent over the years on promoting its artists.

- Rob.

>> i'm not saying that a description should replace the work, but for
>> God's sake, it's not that complicated. and a lot of the ab ex
>> painters did talk about their work in ways that obviously resonated
>> with the critical canon of the time. hell, they became the canon for
>> 30+ years. but they didn't need grant funding, they had Castelli,
>
> And the CIA.

no doubt… they didn't have any bad feelings for pop art either.
>
>> etc. if you want to make work that functions in the "market" (i.e.
>> "attention economy") well, you shouldn't need grants for that. Your
>> work is either "successful" or it's not, based on its sheer ability
>> to grab people, or not.
>
> The art "market", like the main "market", is curiously reliant on
> breaks from
> government. If you look at a commercial gallery like the Lisson you'll
> see how
> much the state has spent over the years on promoting its artists.

good point… but funding is also being used to keep many artists (and
businesses i'm sure) "quiet." i just read a short article by Guillermo
Gomez Pena in "In These Times" and the Drama Review, and he talks about
the stark decrease in funding and the increase in problems getting
visas for artists from other countries and "lost" luggage containing
performance props. not to mention the not so subtle "interrogations" of
arts administrators worried about their funding…
ryan

I christmas-treed the whole damn thing.
Just kidding.

I read through just about all of them, which took a long time, but it was nice to see the various ideas going around. It certainly cured the job boredom I was having that day. When I was intrigued by something in the text, I typically clicked over to the proposal webpage, but I'm not sure many voters are going to these pages. Who knows, I think overall its a good system and will work at the end of the day. Its especially going to work well for me because I hacked into the member tables, and wrote a script that votes 'yes' on my submission every 10 minutes using different member accounts.
Just kidding.

The main issue I see about the process, is that there are simply assloads of submissions. Not many people can or will see them all. I don't see an easy way around that issue, just the nature of the beast. I guess one way would be to show voters only a small paraphraph of text, instead of the full 500 word text. This would require the submitter to provide a shortened 'elevator' version of the text (2-3 sentences), which is the ultimate challenge, to so succinctly organize all this crazy stuff floating around our brains. But it would make voting more realistic, and the voter could still click and see more if desired.

I have trouble making decisions, so it was hard to decide yes/no on many of them while trying to go through as quickly as I could. I would caution to 'yes' in these cases…or maybe no, or yes, or no, or yes, or no…

I don't remember seeing this anywhere but if you want to make sure
you got through all of the proposals they're listed in alphabetical
order here: http://rhizome.org/commissions/all_proposals.rhiz

According to this, there are 111 of them and not the 195 people have
been talking about. What does that mean?


–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Pall,

The copy on this page (and the ballot) is static, not pulled from the
database. I've updated these pages to show the correct number of
proposals: 191.

Cheers,

Patrick

–
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +


On Apr 29, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I don't remember seeing this anywhere but if you want to make sure
> you got through all of the proposals they're listed in alphabetical
> order here: http://rhizome.org/commissions/all_proposals.rhiz
>
> According to this, there are 111 of them and not the 195 people
> have been talking about. What does that mean?
>
>
> –
> Pall Thayer
> [email protected]
> http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

I have just gone through the voting process.
And I feel that the presentation was well done except for two major points.
Why was Lauren Cornell listed as a dumb entry in the process (linked to www.mchammer.com).
And secondly, why did an entry repeat twice. I hope it was a technical errror. But if not, then
this reeks of George Bush style thinking. Is Rhizome just another Republican acquisition?
"Don't trust the electorate…"
I am very, very disappointed that this kind of psychological filtering was employed,
What were you thinking???
Maybe I am just paranoid (actually I'm sure I'm not) , but I believe you showed distrust, and thats the seed of madness (not mine…, yours).

Eric

Ok, things are getting a little weird now. I remember seeing
somewhere in the description of the voting process that the 25
finalists would be presented at 8 pm on the second or the third. When
I went back to check which it was, it had been removed. But the
voting page still says that the final stage is scheduled to begin on
the third. Today is the fourth. I went to the Rhizome sight and
noticed a feature I've never noticed before. The date displayed on
the gray band above the news items. And it says, Wednesday, May 3,
2006. So uh… is Rhizome trying to turn back time to keep on schedule?

But seriously, when do we get to see the 25 finalists?


–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

Pall,

On May 4, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Ok, things are getting a little weird now. I remember seeing
> somewhere in the description of the voting process that the 25
> finalists would be presented at 8 pm on the second or the third.
> When I went back to check which it was, it had been removed. But
> the voting page still says that the final stage is scheduled to
> begin on the third. Today is the fourth. I went to the Rhizome
> sight and noticed a feature I've never noticed before. The date
> displayed on the gray band above the news items. And it says,
> Wednesday, May 3, 2006. So uh… is Rhizome trying to turn back
> time to keep on schedule?
>
> But seriously, when do we get to see the 25 finalists?

No, rhizome is not turning back time, or attempting to turn back
time. That grey band is for the reblog entries, we had not yet
published news this morning. The 8pm deadline was for the close of
voting. I will be announcing the finalists shortly.

Cheers,

Patrick

–
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +