funding and rhizome comissions

Good thoughts!

Jason Nelson wrote:

> Perhaps what I find most disheartening about the Rhizome commissions
> doesn't have
> anything to do with the process (sure it has flaws) or the work
> chosen (I'm guessing
> the voting range was rather narrow). Rather it is the total budget
> of Rhizome.org.
> Those running Rhizome work on a budget that is less than many
> sculptures commissioned for the front court yards of libraries. Of
> course the Rhizome staff work
> far too much for far too little reward to make this all happen.
>
> But my question has been and still is, why are nearly 200 (I would
> say a rather large percentage of active net artists) of us competing
> for a few 2-3000 dollar grants? Why aren't we getting the same
> attention and support as other art forms? Why is it if I create
> an artwork designed for the web, I can get it published all over,
> and played with by tens or even hundreds of thousands of users, but
> then still scramble for a few thousand dollars. While if I take the
> artwork and rethink it to a physical space, shoving some educational
> whatnot to the end of it, that I can then get close to the total
> yearly rhizome budget to stick it into a science center.
>
> What do we need to do to dip into the larger pools of funds swimming
> around in the art world, and to do this without altering our work to
> become video art or straight installation?
>
> Does google or ebay or msn or yahoo fund net art? And if not why
> not? If a nearly dead car company can pay half a million for artworks,
> why cant the net giants pay for net art? Has anyone tried contacting
> them? To maybe spend some cash on sending someone out to their
> headquarters to garner cash for such things?
>
> some thoughts……..Jason Nelson
>
>
>
> ———————————
> Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.

Go for it my friend.
Those geek millionaires just care about money not art but its worth giving
it a try. Gates just does it as a write off and his advisors are telling him
to by prewar. Build it and they will come and then go. How is your
stickyness?

Net.art is not so cut and dry. There is no object and there is no market.
I say keep raking in those education grants at the science center and
touching the hearts and minds of the masses.
Sounds like a pretty good life to me. We were told to just sell out and to
not worry about the 3 grand.
Maybe it would be better if Rhizome just gave out two or three really big
$15,000 grants. At least then they would be much more substantial for the
artists that are on the cusp.

Maybe the board should give the Lauren Marisa and Patrick a raise instead.
They definitely deserve it.

Best of luck to all the finalists.
Cheers,
Lee

FYI

Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.

The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and pay Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have evolved into something more substantial than it is.
Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great benefit.
And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the support structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
We are certainly driven.

I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online artsists started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support Rhizome receives.

There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums, galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be surmounted.
How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.

Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking institutions are compared to Rhizome.

We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When curators, and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice of network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a face as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked artist in this new century.

If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and keep it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you are silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for the mainline art institutions.

Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support, and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.

Eric

I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming accepted in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a genre of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space? Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art scene? Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan activism, or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after his being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
curt



Eric Dymond wrote:

> Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
>
> The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and pay
> Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> benefit.
> And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the support
> structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> We are certainly driven.
>
> I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online artsists
> started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support Rhizome
> receives.
>
> There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be surmounted.
> How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
>
> Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> institutions are compared to Rhizome.
>
> We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When curators,
> and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice of
> network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a face
> as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked artist
> in this new century.
>
> If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and keep
> it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you are
> silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for the
> mainline art institutions.
>
> Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
>
> Eric

Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.

After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the hope that they'll become the establishment someday!

curt cloninger wrote:

> I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming accepted
> in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a genre
> of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
> Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art scene?
> Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
> museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan activism,
> or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
> disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after his
> being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
> deal?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
> curt
>
>
>
> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> > Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
> >
> > The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> > dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> > Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> > numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
> pay
> > Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> > Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> > evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> > Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> > benefit.
> > And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
> support
> > structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> > We are certainly driven.
> >
> > I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> > shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
> artsists
> > started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
> Rhizome
> > receives.
> >
> > There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> > galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
> surmounted.
> > How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> > budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
> >
> > Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> > institutions are compared to Rhizome.
> >
> > We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> > losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
> curators,
> > and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
> of
> > network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> > bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> > their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> > establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
> face
> > as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
> artist
> > in this new century.
> >
> > If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
> keep
> > it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
> are
> > silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
> the
> > mainline art institutions.
> >
> > Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> > and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> > you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
> >
> > Eric

Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.

After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the hope that they'll become the establishment someday!

curt cloninger wrote:

> I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming accepted
> in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a genre
> of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
> Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art scene?
> Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
> museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan activism,
> or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
> disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after his
> being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
> deal?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
> curt
>
>
>
> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> > Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
> >
> > The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> > dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> > Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> > numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
> pay
> > Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> > Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> > evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> > Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> > benefit.
> > And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
> support
> > structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> > We are certainly driven.
> >
> > I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> > shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
> artsists
> > started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
> Rhizome
> > receives.
> >
> > There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> > galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
> surmounted.
> > How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> > budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
> >
> > Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> > institutions are compared to Rhizome.
> >
> > We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> > losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
> curators,
> > and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
> of
> > network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> > bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> > their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> > establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
> face
> > as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
> artist
> > in this new century.
> >
> > If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
> keep
> > it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
> are
> > silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
> the
> > mainline art institutions.
> >
> > Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> > and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> > you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
> >
> > Eric

I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young British artists in the 90's. His actions may have been that of a cynical capitalist, but I'm sure many of the people whose careers he made overnight are not complaining. Another angle would be for a Net artist to win a *major* art prize like the Turner Prize in the U.K. - HUGE amounts of publicity there.

I mean, the extreme personal wealth of many internet entreprenuers is legendary - don't we know any????

Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few million dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a few Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.

What about an a publicity stunt like David Blaine just did? If only he'd talked up the cause of Netart - if ONLY HE WAS A NET ARTIST!

IMHO, it's this 'Netart' term and the terminology employed in much of the discourse surrounding 'art that is made for or about the internet'. A kind of curatorial double speak, packed with assumptions regrding audiences 'pre-conceptions', 'politics' etc - IT TURNS PEOPLE OFF! and it's not useful.

I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is simply a medium - a tool like tubes of paint. I might create a software tool to aid my artistic practice, I might even make ONE piece of work that soley employs a networked environment as the means of expression. I might then, as I'm planning to do, draw flowers, trees, water for a year to see what happens.

If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work and try not to get trapped into using one medium. I won't worry about what a hard time curators have trying to exhibit my work to the public.

Edmund Goubert wrote:

> Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.
>
> After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in
> Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my
> own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
> I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's
> art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds
> a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour
> building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber
> art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the
> hope that they'll become the establishment someday!
>
> curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming
> accepted
> > in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a
> genre
> > of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
> > Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art
> scene?
> > Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
> > museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan
> activism,
> > or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
> > disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after
> his
> > being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
> > deal?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
> > curt
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Dymond wrote:
> >
> > > Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
> > >
> > > The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of
> the
> > > dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> > > Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> > > numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
> > pay
> > > Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> > > Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> > > evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> > > Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> > > benefit.
> > > And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
> > support
> > > structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> > > We are certainly driven.
> > >
> > > I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> > > shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
> > artsists
> > > started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
> > Rhizome
> > > receives.
> > >
> > > There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> > > galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
> > surmounted.
> > > How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace
> their
> > > budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
> > >
> > > Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> > > institutions are compared to Rhizome.
> > >
> > > We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support,
> without
> > > losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
> > curators,
> > > and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
> > of
> > > network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> > > bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> > > their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped
> to
> > > establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
> > face
> > > as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
> > artist
> > > in this new century.
> > >
> > > If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
> > keep
> > > it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
> > are
> > > silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
> > the
> > > mainline art institutions.
> > >
> > > Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for
> support,
> > > and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't
> support
> > > you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
> > >
> > > Eric

Very true. But I do think there could be some intermediating between
net.art and the mainstream art world. I'm doing a show on the
incorporation of the digital called "digital bodies" that will
hopefully add to this effort. More at http://nznl.org

Geert
http://nznl.com


On 10/05/2006, at 1:09 PM, Edmund Goubert wrote:

> I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very
> rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young
> British artists in the 90's. His actions may have been that of a
> cynical capitalist, but I'm sure many of the people whose careers
> he made overnight are not complaining. Another angle would be for a
> Net artist to win a *major* art prize like the Turner Prize in the
> U.K. - HUGE amounts of publicity there.
>
> I mean, the extreme personal wealth of many internet entreprenuers
> is legendary - don't we know any????
>
> Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few
> million dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a
> few Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.
>
> What about an a publicity stunt like David Blaine just did? If only
> he'd talked up the cause of Netart - if ONLY HE WAS A NET ARTIST!
>
> IMHO, it's this 'Netart' term and the terminology employed in much
> of the discourse surrounding 'art that is made for or about the
> internet'. A kind of curatorial double speak, packed with
> assumptions regrding audiences 'pre-conceptions', 'politics' etc -
> IT TURNS PEOPLE OFF! and it's not useful.
>
> I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is
> simply a medium - a tool like tubes of paint. I might create a
> software tool to aid my artistic practice, I might even make ONE
> piece of work that soley employs a networked environment as the
> means of expression. I might then, as I'm planning to do, draw
> flowers, trees, water for a year to see what happens.
>
> If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work
> and try not to get trapped into using one medium. I won't worry
> about what a hard time curators have trying to exhibit my work to
> the public.
>
> Edmund Goubert wrote:
>
>> Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.
>>
>> After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in
>> Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my
>> own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
>> I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's
>> art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds
>> a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour
>> building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber
>> art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the
>> hope that they'll become the establishment someday!
>>
>> curt cloninger wrote:
>>
>>> I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming
>> accepted
>>> in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a
>> genre
>>> of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
>>> Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art
>> scene?
>>> Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
>>> museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan
>> activism,
>>> or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
>>> disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after
>> his
>>> being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
>>> deal?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
>>> curt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric Dymond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
>>>>
>>>> The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of
>> the
>>>> dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
>>>> Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
>>>> numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
>>> pay
>>>> Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
>>>> Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
>>>> evolved into something more substantial than it is.
>>>> Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
>>>> benefit.
>>>> And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
>>> support
>>>> structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
>>>> We are certainly driven.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
>>>> shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
>>> artsists
>>>> started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
>>> Rhizome
>>>> receives.
>>>>
>>>> There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
>>>> galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
>>> surmounted.
>>>> How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace
>> their
>>>> budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
>>>>
>>>> Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
>>>> institutions are compared to Rhizome.
>>>>
>>>> We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support,
>> without
>>>> losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
>>> curators,
>>>> and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
>>> of
>>>> network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
>>>> bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
>>>> their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped
>> to
>>>> establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
>>> face
>>>> as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
>>> artist
>>>> in this new century.
>>>>
>>>> If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
>>> keep
>>>> it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
>>> are
>>>> silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
>>> the
>>>> mainline art institutions.
>>>>
>>>> Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for
>> support,
>>>> and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't
>> support
>>>> you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
>>>>
>>>> Eric
> +
> -> 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

Quoting Edmund Goubert <[email protected]>:

> I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very
> rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young
> British artists in the 90's.

I don't think net.art needs that much damage done. :-)

> I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is simply
> a medium - a tool like tubes of paint.

People who use tubes of paint don't tend to worry about being called
"painters".
:-)

> If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work and
> try not to get trapped into using one medium.

Then you will probably end up being called a conceptualist, or whatever the
Bourriaudian bright young things of the biennaleiat end up being labelled as.
:-)

- Rob.

I'm just shitting myself about making art in general. It is a most excellent state to be in especially when thinking about painting. "Coloured dirt" is how Philip Guston described it. It's a medium that can be utterly visceral and yet convey the resurrection of christ(Piero Della Francesca) as if it were a worldly fact - I find that painting quite terrifying; Christ just popping up "Hello, I'm back", transformed dead flesh. I imagine the quiet ruffling of his shrowd as he pulls himself up out of his tomb with his newly restored leg. Utterly BIZARRE! Wonderful!

I'm less worried about being called a painter because of Piero Della Francesca.

Rob Myers wrote:

> Quoting Edmund Goubert <[email protected]>:
>
> > I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very
> > rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young
> > British artists in the 90's.
>
> I don't think net.art needs that much damage done. :-)
>
> > I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is
> simply
> > a medium - a tool like tubes of paint.
>
> People who use tubes of paint don't tend to worry about being called
> "painters".
> :-)
>
> > If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work
> and
> > try not to get trapped into using one medium.
>
> Then you will probably end up being called a conceptualist, or
> whatever the
> Bourriaudian bright young things of the biennaleiat end up being
> labelled as.
> :-)
>
> - Rob.
>

Edmund Goubert wrote:

> Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few million
> dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a few
> Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.

Again, there are all sorts of inherent attributes of the network as an artistic medium that are diametrically opposed to the old "top artist as vanguard posterboy/hero" model.

cf: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html

Dear Re:ist,

Thank you for forwarding the required Amount.
It pleases us to bring back to you this instantaneously generated Dividend of our current Profits. In plain view of our Wisdom, Our Institute recently acquired the 'merzkafer' for you, an as yet unsigned codeExtract brought to our Attention from the Very Promising Looking 2004-2005 zones from Warshattered Encubation leading up to Conception Day. Signed, its value is estimated as Encyclopediatically Beyond Compilation. It will Clumpile using any MoneyGrabber.

Of course your Chances of getting it Signed will increase by continuing to Re:.
Yours Forwardeadly,
dv

Instit.Treas. Dep. Man.
8 Virt.Str
B-1012 Fut.Vlle


——————————————–<copy>

CWS ‘ xoeOX{8OU×ssYahÆ-„RNO'$rE‘K9.…“U&ט#9I„$T®“kI©ESe"Tt:•Oy ›¤æ·¿Æ¸aoecya}Þcy1U×g}oUk­iUki- E‡
i3 QA-.

You can be sure as death and taxes that as soon as rabid capitalist interests get financially involved in Netart we will have poster boys and girls, sparkling like diamonds. And to the wider world, our Net starlets will aid the abet the matierialization of their Netart in the minds of millions of consumer's imaginations.

The structures of nations, institutions and individuals cannot resist the self organising priciples of markets. One of the greatest tradgeies of the late 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union which was effectively bankrupted by the U.S. and so the peoples of the former Soviet bloc were 'emancipated' so that they could choose from 25 different models of toaster.

We as a community should be ready for the onslaught, organise and infiltrate the corporate monoliths and change them from within!

Viva la Revolution!

Alternatively a Netart commune in the Canadian wilderness might suffice.

curt cloninger wrote:

> Edmund Goubert wrote:
>
> > Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few
> million
> > dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a few
> > Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.
>
> Again, there are all sorts of inherent attributes of the network as an
> artistic medium that are diametrically opposed to the old "top artist
> as vanguard posterboy/hero" model.
>
> cf: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html

Edmund Goubert wrote:

> You can be sure as death and taxes that as soon as rabid capitalist
> interests get financially involved in Netart we will have poster boys
> and girls, sparkling like diamonds. And to the wider world, our Net
> starlets will aid the abet the matierialization of their Netart in the
> minds of millions of consumer's imaginations.

I'm getting my makeup ready now…, just in case.

>
> The structures of nations, institutions and individuals cannot resist
> the self organising priciples of markets. One of the greatest
> tradgeies of the late 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union
> which was effectively bankrupted by the U.S. and so the peoples of the
> former Soviet bloc were 'emancipated' so that they could choose from
> 25 different models of toaster.

and free a few million members of the Gulag. From one set of organized criminals to another, long live change.
>
> We as a community should be ready for the onslaught, organise and
> infiltrate the corporate monoliths and change them from within!
>
> Viva la Revolution!

No…, I just want thier money, wouldn't corporate fraud be a better approach?
>
> Alternatively a Netart commune in the Canadian wilderness might
> suffice.

forget it…, the winters are miserable up here.

I want all the money institutions spend on physical art going to net art (not just .5% of their contemporary budget) , and I don't care about purist beliefs, or democracy, or loss of community, I just want the money. And not some chump change from a net start-up, I want to get a hold of the big budgets and make T. Whid as famous as T. Cruise, Alexis Turner as famous as J-Lo, and every other poster to this forum as well.

Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

>> Viva la Revolution!
> No…, I just want thier money, wouldn't corporate fraud be a better approach?

mind fraud is the best approach. but it's slow. can you afford a 20-years long strategy?

> I want all the money institutions spend on physical art going to net art
> (not just .5% of their contemporary budget) , and I don't care about purist beliefs,
> or democracy, or loss of community, I just want the money.
> And not some chump change from a net start-up, I want to get a hold of the big budgets
> and make T. Whid as famous as T. Cruise, Alexis Turner as famous as J-Lo,

don't all of us want it, in the end.

it's sad, though. maybe we should just do like mick jagger & C. : use tons of drugs, go around
half naked, having sex with whoever's in range, and live some revolution, instead.
but we're sons of a different time, and souls don't move as sincerely as in the 60s and 70s: everyone's
too fucked up persuing their false needs and beliefs.

you know what? maybe we should just design a "scientology" thing, mess their minds up a little
more and live long and prosper. it just needs time . a 3D religion? a god made of software automas?
a diet in which neural networks tell you what to eat?

> and every other poster to this forum as well.

i'm late with my rent: can i have a couple of hundreds in advance?

please? :)

Salvatore Iaconesi wrote:

> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> >> Viva la Revolution!
> > No…, I just want thier money, wouldn't corporate fraud be a better
> approach?
>
> mind fraud is the best approach. but it's slow. can you afford a
> 20-years long strategy?
>
> > I want all the money institutions spend on physical art going to net
> art
> > (not just .5% of their contemporary budget) , and I don't care about
> purist beliefs,
> > or democracy, or loss of community, I just want the money.
> > And not some chump change from a net start-up, I want to get a hold
> of the big budgets
> > and make T. Whid as famous as T. Cruise, Alexis Turner as famous as
> J-Lo,
>
> don't all of us want it, in the end.
>
> it's sad, though. maybe we should just do like mick jagger & C. : use
> tons of drugs, go around
> half naked, having sex with whoever's in range, and live some
> revolution, instead.
> but we're sons of a different time, and souls don't move as sincerely
> as in the 60s and 70s: everyone's
> too fucked up persuing their false needs and beliefs.
>
> you know what? maybe we should just design a "scientology" thing, mess
> their minds up a little
> more and live long and prosper. it just needs time . a 3D religion? a
> god made of software automas?
> a diet in which neural networks tell you what to eat?
>
> > and every other poster to this forum as well.
>
> i'm late with my rent: can i have a couple of hundreds in advance?
>
> please? :)

The cheque is in the mail, worry not. But if you had taken my advice, you'd have a credit card from MOMO or the MET and this wouldn't be an issue.
I can help you out for now, but you have to take the institutions by the jugular if you ever expect to have financial independence. They have your money. It's yours, not Damien Hirst's, Eric Fischl's or any number of 20th century hacks who have their claws in the side of the money bearing institutions.
After all, the whole art world is just another mediated scam, take control! You're a mediated artist! It should be your specialty by now.

Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Salvatore Iaconesi wrote:
>
> > Eric Dymond wrote:
> >
> > >> Viva la Revolution!
> > > No…, I just want thier money, wouldn't corporate fraud be a
> better
> > approach?
> >
> > mind fraud is the best approach. but it's slow. can you afford a
> > 20-years long strategy?
> >
> > > I want all the money institutions spend on physical art going to
> net
> > art
> > > (not just .5% of their contemporary budget) , and I don't care
> about
> > purist beliefs,
> > > or democracy, or loss of community, I just want the money.
> > > And not some chump change from a net start-up, I want to get a
> hold
> > of the big budgets
> > > and make T. Whid as famous as T. Cruise, Alexis Turner as famous
> as
> > J-Lo,
> >
> > don't all of us want it, in the end.
> >
> > it's sad, though. maybe we should just do like mick jagger & C. :
> use
> > tons of drugs, go around
> > half naked, having sex with whoever's in range, and live some
> > revolution, instead.
> > but we're sons of a different time, and souls don't move as
> sincerely
> > as in the 60s and 70s: everyone's
> > too fucked up persuing their false needs and beliefs.
> >
> > you know what? maybe we should just design a "scientology" thing,
> mess
> > their minds up a little
> > more and live long and prosper. it just needs time . a 3D religion?
> a
> > god made of software automas?
> > a diet in which neural networks tell you what to eat?
> >
> > > and every other poster to this forum as well.
> >
> > i'm late with my rent: can i have a couple of hundreds in advance?
> >
> > please? :)
>
> The cheque is in the mail, worry not. But if you had taken my advice,
> you'd have a credit card from MOMO or the MET and this wouldn't be an
> issue.
> I can help you out for now, but you have to take the institutions by
> the jugular if you ever expect to have financial independence. They
> have your money. It's yours, not Damien Hirst's, Eric Fischl's or any
> number of 20th century hacks who have their claws in the side of the
> money bearing institutions.
> After all, the whole art world is just another mediated scam, take
> control! You're a mediated artist! It should be your specialty by now.
>
> Eric

and maybe, just maybe you should remind them that the clock on the wall tells me that that the 20th century is over. Its already 2006, time to forget the past and learn to deal with the new century.
Money will gravitate to those who act.

Eric

Eric Dymond wrote:

> > The cheque is in the mail, worry not. But if you had taken my
> advice,
> > you'd have a credit card from MOMO or the MET and this wouldn't be
> an
> > issue.
> > I can help you out for now, but you have to take the institutions by
> > the jugular if you ever expect to have financial independence. They
> > have your money. It's yours, not Damien Hirst's, Eric Fischl's or
> any
> > number of 20th century hacks who have their claws in the side of the
> > money bearing institutions.
> > After all, the whole art world is just another mediated scam, take
> > control! You're a mediated artist! It should be your specialty by
> now.
> and maybe, just maybe you should remind them that the clock on the
> wall tells me that that the 20th century is over. Its already 2006,
> time to forget the past and learn to deal with the new century.
> Money will gravitate to those who act.

:)
take institutions by the jugular?
you probably hit the right spot: either someone does it for me, or i don't want to have anything to do with the institutions.
or with the "real" world itself, as a matter of fact :)
i'm probably fed up with everything. possibly, i was born fed up.
we have everything we need to abolish nations, governments, institutions, television, consumism. yet we sit and obey.
better than "to abolish": to realize that they are fake structures, forced on us to control.
we wear/eat/consume stuff that causes death all over the world. knowing it.
we get brainwashed since we're born. we think that we have to be tall, slim, sexy, muscolar.
we're told that only specific lifestyles bring "success".
we're told that we have to take medicine X and Y to feel allright.
we're told everything and its contrary 2 days later, and yet we believe.

learn to deal with the new century?
why not forget this century, and everything else, and just do what we want and makes us feel good?
we have the power for it. bypass mcluhan, bypass TAZ, bypass baudrillard.

maybe we'll meet in jail.
i hope they have fiber net conenctions in there.

salvatore

Salvatore Iaconesi wrote:

> learn to deal with the new century?
> why not forget this century, and everything else, and just do what we
> want and makes us feel good?
> we have the power for it. bypass mcluhan, bypass TAZ, bypass
> baudrillard.

but lets not forget Elvis, Magic Sam, the Ugly Ducklings and Sugercane Harris.

>
> maybe we'll meet in jail.

Not if I blame you for everything. Don't expect loyalty.
> i hope they have fiber net conenctions in there.

Wireless everywhere. My satellite DS.
>
> salvatore