Charlie puts NMA's down...

He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of
technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead…
with the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the
top people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.)

Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and
utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you
don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think
that would be abundantly obvious to everyone.

On 8/17/06, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
>
> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
> her PC."
>
> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
> on-line.
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html
>
> Also check rhizome front page…
>
> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
>
> marc
>
> –
> Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
> HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
> Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>
> +
> -> 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>

Quoting "T.Whid" <[email protected]>:

> He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of
> technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead…
> with the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the
> top people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.)

This is a historically unprecedented situation. Early computer artists begged,
borrowed, stole or remortgaged for access to computer technology at the same
time as the pioneers of AI research and mathematical simulation. If they'd
stuck with tabulators we wouldn't be here now. Painters have always availed
themselves of technological and theoretical developments. Even fire was new
once, and cave artists didn't stick with twigs and berries.

For "New Media" art to be a kind of aethetic and technological conservatism
breaks the irony tag. People are building careers cannibalising the gains of
the 60s and 70s into accessible work for the usual suspects. This is kitsch;
cheaply made and heavily marketed mass-produced versions of something
that once
meant something. It ignores the historical and cultural context of the
very work
it cannibalises.

> Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and
> utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you
> don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think
> that would be abundantly obvious to everyone.

Charlie has been in New Media longer than some of us. His criticism can be
answered, but let's not try to pretend it is unreasonable.

If Google Earth had been submitted to SIGGRAPH a decade ago it would
have been a
triumph. Its gee-whiz effect is an aesthetic and conceptual effect: it
shows you
a different worldview, it makes you look at the world differently. It changes
your perceptions and adds to your range of experience of regard. It is
not art,
but it is an effective analog to art and it is more effective than much New
Media art. We would do well to ask ourselves why this is and why
*precisely* it
is not art. That might help us get a GPS lock on some tasks that New
Media needs
to start working on rather urgently if it is not to become the new
water colors.

Possibly one doesn't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking
artist. But a
New Media artist is an artist working with new media, by *definition* they are
working with gee-whiz technology. We cannot decide that time stopped in 1996
(or whenever we could first afford our own copy of Director and a QuickTime
codec). Nam June Paik's later work has a different meaning to earlier
work done
with the same technology. Charcoal does not mean the same thing now as it did
twenty thousand years ago.

IT has become pervasive. It is now landscape rather than still life, ground
rather than figure. We can work with this, turning from unpaid salespeople of
the gee-whiz to embedded reporters and critics of it in the wider world.

Or we can reaffirm the link between the new and new media (and the high
and high
art) amd pursue the new arenas for computation (wearable, mobile, massively
networked) and new levels of computing power (can I get a Beowulf cluster of
that?) that have emerged over the last decade.

Or we can regroup, take stock, look hard at where we've come from and where we
are and try to maintain that trajectory or to generate a new one. This turns
the trend that Charlie criticises into a virtue.

The current state of New Media art is revealing about changing social
relations
in western culture. This in itself is interesting and might generate some
useful work for New Media artists to do.

- Rob.

HI T.Whid & all,

>He's right about one thing. Artists aren't at the cutting-edge of
technology. The technocrats and scientists will always be ahead…with
the technology. (Though Golan Levin is working with one of the top
people in eye-tracking and face recognition at Carnegie-Mellon.)

And my answer would be to him, well 'so what?'

We know we cannot build a spaceship to splurt out happy patterns around
the galaxy and all that nonsense.

If media art is only measured by its supposed 'cutting edge' of
technology I would personally find it all pretty boring.

for me, it's the context, the communities that use it, the networked
nature of it, the ideas that come out of it, the content created with
it, the fact that it is free (almost) from historical control and lame
canons and htere is more, so much more - he seemed to miss all these
vital ingredients…

>Anyway, the 'thought-provoking" part of his statement is complete and
utter bullshit. Google Earth is cool and thought-provoking but you
don't need gee-whiz tech to be a thought-provoking artist. I think
that would be abundantly obvious to everyone.

It's like measuring the size of a male protrudence next to another I
think, mine is bigger and better than yours kind of thing.

If I was one of those artists mentioned in the article I would feel
pretty embraressed to aquainted to such a negative and non-visionary
stance. Perhaps Charlie is aiming to fill the shoes to be the 'Brian
Sewell' of the media art world. http://linkme2.net/9h

He manages make everything sound so boring and tired - completely
opposite to those who are actually doing it, why the heck is he writing
about it and invited to conferences about it - if he hates it so much?

I actually respected Charlie Gere and thought that he had some important
things to say regarding media art and its culture but, this has forced
me to re-evaluate my original feelings about him. If he can just
irresponsibly blabber on in the mass media press (a murdoch paper at
that) and flippantly diss a whole generation, with such misinformation
then something might have to be done about it - in a productive way of
course ;-)

marc





On 8/17/06, marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
>
> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
> her PC."
>
> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
> on-line.
>
>
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html
>
> Also check rhizome front page…
>
> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
>
> marc
>
> –
> Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
> HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
> Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>
> +
> -> 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>
+
-> 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

new technology, in itself, is not interesting art. we can see that from
http://www.playdojam.com . there we have new technology used in an
entertaining way, but not interesting as art. the virtual basketball game
just doesn't interest as art, however entertaining it is. perhaps with a few
modifications you could significantly change the meaning of the activity and
turn it into art. for instance, consider the famous 'computer game' where
you try to shoot all the terrorists, but in doing so, you spawn more
terrorists. The technology is very similar to game technology but it is
altered so that the meaning of the activity is significantly different from
the usual computer game.

google earth is exceptional in that the new technology is used in a richly
meaningful way. but, usually, when new technology comes around, the uses to
which it's put, initially, are, at best, entertaining. artists excel in
discovering/creating deeper human meaning in the processes technology
supports. new language, in itself, is not poetry. it takes some time to
tease the poetry from new language, to be able to feel with the new
language, to turn the new extension of the body or mind from an inarticulate
claw into something capable of summoning poetry.

but artists should not be afraid of learning how to use technology. how to
program. how to use mathematics, physics, etc, because there lies the key,
often, to more subtle and meaningful articulation of the technology.

ja
http://vispo.com

another quote:
"The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of
the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown
in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels."

i think this is great, so will better write:

"when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."

why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?





marc wrote:
> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
>
> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
> her PC."
>
> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
> on-line.
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html
>
>
> Also check rhizome front page…
>
> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
>
> marc
>

Hi Arn,

I have heard this kind of argument many times, when meeting curators
mostly.

I would have to disagree with Charlie here, because for one - not
everyone wants to be an artist. Plus - art does not always come from
places that one would prefer it to arrive from, it is more than just a
studied and inhereted creativity…

I have always been excited that the web has been bringing about
independent creativity, outside of the usual places, such as art
institutions myself.

It also challenges the too readily accepted hierarchies to take a
lookoutisde of their assumed vistas…

marc

another quote:
"The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea
of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell
the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
all drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
microchannels."

i think this is great, so will better write:

"when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."

why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?

> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
> all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?

Both of these have already happened, haven't they? It's like the wave and particle theories of light. They are at odds with each other but both shed some light on um light.

Not "billions" of channels–and more channels of dreck than creative microchannels–but enough of both that it almost might as well be "billions". Also, one person's creative microchannel is another's dreck.

What art is is continually under revision in a wacky wiki with no file protection and thousands of copies of what once was only a few hundred copies.

I recall McLuhan and Ong emphasizing that in some cultures, there is no concept of art, although there are/were many artifacts that are now interpreted as art. And in some of these cultures, they say 'no, we don't make art; we just try to make everything we make with care and attention."

Art is continually torn apart, rent asunder, dying, dead, dismembered–and continually subject to remembering, transformation, regeneration, transmigration, resurrection. It's like Orpheus on a very bad hair day where there's one limb here, one limb there, death and destruction of he himself all around yet different versions of himself in various stages of life–not even recognizable as being he himself–maybe not even he himself, by now. And now we see even very little use in linking them all to Orpheus, since the process by now involves so many hybrids, many of which quite clearly do not involve Orpheus so much as non-Orphic figures that we think it might not be like this at all.

ja
http://vispo.com

I am not sure if everybody knows that Charlie is involved in a very interesting
and well funded project initiated by Paul Brown called Drawbot.

www.doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
> all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?

Both of these have already happened, haven't they? It's like the wave and particle theories of light. They are at odds with each other but both shed some light on um light.

Not "billions" of channels–and more channels of dreck than creative microchannels–but enough of both that it almost might as well be "billions". Also, one person's creative microchannel is another's dreck.

What art is is continually under revision in a wacky wiki with no file protection and thousands of copies of what once was only a few hundred copies.

I recall McLuhan and Ong emphasizing that in some cultures, there is no concept of art, although there are/were many artifacts that are now interpreted as art. And in some of these cultures, they say 'no, we don't make art; we just try to make everything we make with care and attention."

Art is continually torn apart, rent asunder, dying, dead, dismembered–and continually subject to remembering, transformation, regeneration, transmigration, resurrection. It's like Orpheus on a very bad hair day where there's one limb here, one limb there, death and destruction of he himself all around yet different versions of himself in various stages of life–not even recognizable as being he himself–maybe not even he himself, by now. And now we see even very little use in linking them all to Orpheus, since the process by now involves so many hybrids, many of which quite clearly do not involve Orpheus so much as non-Orphic figures that we think it might not be like this at all.

ja
http://vispo.com



+
-> 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 avoid any confusion

www.doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon <<< that is not Drawbot url, it' s ours

Jim Andrews <[email protected]

Patrick Tresset <[email protected]> wrote:
I am not sure if everybody knows that Charlie is involved in a very interesting
and well funded project initiated by Paul Brown called Drawbot.

www.doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
> all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?

Both of these have already happened, haven't they? It's like the wave and particle theories of light. They are at odds with each other but both shed some light on um light.

Not "billions" of channels–and more channels of dreck than creative microchannels–but enough of both that it almost might as well be "billions". Also, one person's creative microchannel is another's dreck.

What art is is continually under revision in a wacky wiki with no file protection and thousands of copies of what once was only a few hundred copies.

I recall McLuhan and Ong emphasizing that in some cultures, there is no concept of art, although there are/were many artifacts that are now interpreted as art. And in some of these cultures, they say 'no, we don't make art; we just try to make everything we make with care and attention."

Art is continually torn apart, rent asunder, dying, dead, dismembered–and continually subject to remembering, transformation, regeneration, transmigration, resurrection. It's like Orpheus on a very bad hair day where there's one limb here, one limb there, death and destruction of he himself all around yet different versions of himself in various stages of life–not even recognizable as being he himself–maybe not even he himself, by now. And now we see even very little use in linking them all to Orpheus, since the process by now involves so many hybrids, many of which quite clearly do not involve Orpheus so much as non-Orphic figures that we think it might not be like this at all.

ja
http://vispo.com



+
-> 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 avoid any confusion

www.doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon <<< that is not Drawbot url, it' s ours

Jim Andrews <[email protected]

Patrick Tresset <[email protected]> wrote:
I am not sure if everybody knows that Charlie is involved in a very interesting
and well funded project initiated by Paul Brown called Drawbot.

www.doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
> all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?

Both of these have already happened, haven't they? It's like the wave and particle theories of light. They are at odds with each other but both shed some light on um light.

Not "billions" of channels–and more channels of dreck than creative microchannels–but enough of both that it almost might as well be "billions". Also, one person's creative microchannel is another's dreck.

What art is is continually under revision in a wacky wiki with no file protection and thousands of copies of what once was only a few hundred copies.

I recall McLuhan and Ong emphasizing that in some cultures, there is no concept of art, although there are/were many artifacts that are now interpreted as art. And in some of these cultures, they say 'no, we don't make art; we just try to make everything we make with care and attention."

Art is continually torn apart, rent asunder, dying, dead, dismembered–and continually subject to remembering, transformation, regeneration, transmigration, resurrection. It's like Orpheus on a very bad hair day where there's one limb here, one limb there, death and destruction of he himself all around yet different versions of himself in various stages of life–not even recognizable as being he himself–maybe not even he himself, by now. And now we see even very little use in linking them all to Orpheus, since the process by now involves so many hybrids, many of which quite clearly do not involve Orpheus so much as non-Orphic figures that we think it might not be like this at all.

ja
http://vispo.com



+
-> 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

Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
very badly equipped to access new information)

I think we have to defend new media art
we will have to be missionaries
we will have to educate

we will have to infiltrate
we will have to explain
we will have to promote early netart

And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different spheres,
to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating sense.
Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
most important vector by which we work.

Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
we feel at home (at least some of us)

Restart reading at the beginning.

Annie Abrahams

PS 1
What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many people
wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting edge art
in watercolours, but it's rare.

Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new
media. We exist!

PS 2
Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
Indeed, how many persons are behind?
Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
abstract images?
I would like to have them too :)
- Hide quoted text -


On 8/18/06, ARN <[email protected]> wrote:
> another quote:
> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of
> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown
> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels."
>
> i think this is great, so will better write:
>
> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>
> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
>
>
>
>
>
> marc wrote:
> > Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
> >
> > "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
> > Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
> > more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
> > and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
> > her PC."
> >
> > I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
> > on-line.
> >
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.html
> >
> >
> > Also check rhizome front page…
> >
> > Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
> >
> > marc
> >
>
> +
> -> 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
>


–

"Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
.news series.

http://www.bram.org/press/rassur

> Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new
> media. We exist!

Art is not rare, art is everywhere for whom can see it. Art is what we say
it is. I agree with Jim Andrews about the parallel with theory of light.

> PS 2
> Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
> Indeed, how many persons are behind?

I never tried to count. I thought about people behind works presented in
articles from sources used in this aggregator.

> Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
> abstract images?

it's more and not more…it depends how you look at it. If you read french
(i know you do ;-), you can read:

http://yann.x-arn.org/wiki/PoieticAggregator

" Si les initiateurs de ce projet envisagent essentiellement des activites
de veille, je crois aussi qu'une interface de ce type pourrait etre tres
utile pour la gestions des alertes, le suivi des activites multi-projets ou
encore la surveillance d'un parc de machines "

for me, it's just a way to produce abstract images, and not necessarily
beautiful. secondly i use it sometimes to jump in unknown online works.

Art is not rare. It is everywhere. Just sometimes is not well thought out.


On 8/18/06 9:52 AM, "bram" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
> very badly equipped to access new information)
>
> I think we have to defend new media art
> we will have to be missionaries
> we will have to educate
>
> we will have to infiltrate
> we will have to explain
> we will have to promote early netart
>
> And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different spheres,
> to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
> experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating sense.
> Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
> don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
> most important vector by which we work.
>
> Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
> we feel at home (at least some of us)
>
> Restart reading at the beginning.
>
> Annie Abrahams
>
> PS 1
> What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many people
> wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting edge art
> in watercolours, but it's rare.
>
> Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new
> media. We exist!
>
> PS 2
> Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
> Indeed, how many persons are behind?
> Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
> abstract images?
> I would like to have them too :)
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
> On 8/18/06, ARN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> another quote:
>> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of
>> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
>> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown
>> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels."
>>
>> i think this is great, so will better write:
>>
>> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
>> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>>
>> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> marc wrote:
>>> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
>>>
>>> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
>>> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
>>> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
>>> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
>>> her PC."
>>>
>>> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
>>> on-line.
>>>
>>> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.
>>> html
>>>
>>>
>>> Also check rhizome front page…
>>>
>>> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
>>>
>>> marc
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
> –
>
> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> .news series.
>
> http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
> +
> -> 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 personally find those discussions to qualify one activity or another as Art
fairly sterile.
I was recently at a workshop where Charlie was and his comments were certainly very intelligent but not very constructive. He seems to have a very precise opinion of what art should be and is (well I suppose it is more or less his job). I think his opinion has to be taken as what it is: an opinion.

Patrick Tresset
http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon

Lee Wells <[email protected]> wrote: Art is not rare. It is everywhere. Just sometimes is not well thought out.


On 8/18/06 9:52 AM, "bram"
wrote:

> Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
> very badly equipped to access new information)
>
> I think we have to defend new media art
> we will have to be missionaries
> we will have to educate
>
> we will have to infiltrate
> we will have to explain
> we will have to promote early netart
>
> And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different spheres,
> to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
> experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating sense.
> Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
> don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
> most important vector by which we work.
>
> Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
> we feel at home (at least some of us)
>
> Restart reading at the beginning.
>
> Annie Abrahams
>
> PS 1
> What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many people
> wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting edge art
> in watercolours, but it's rare.
>
> Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks about new
> media. We exist!
>
> PS 2
> Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
> Indeed, how many persons are behind?
> Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
> abstract images?
> I would like to have them too :)
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
> On 8/18/06, ARN wrote:
>> another quote:
>> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of
>> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the
>> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown
>> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels."
>>
>> i think this is great, so will better write:
>>
>> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
>> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
>>
>> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> marc wrote:
>>> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
>>>
>>> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says
>>> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much
>>> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome
>>> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on
>>> her PC."
>>>
>>> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this stuff this
>>> on-line.
>>>
>>> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.
>>> html
>>>
>>>
>>> Also check rhizome front page…
>>>
>>> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
>>>
>>> marc
>>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
> –
>
> "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> .news series.
>
> http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
> +
> -> 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

Hi Patrick,

I agree, it is an opinion - and should be acknowledged as such.

But it is an opinion in a national news paper which does give it a
different emphasis.

marc

> I personally find those discussions to qualify one activity or another
> as Art
> fairly sterile.
> I was recently at a workshop where Charlie was and his comments were
> certainly very intelligent but not very constructive. He seems to have
> a very precise opinion of what art should be and is (well I suppose it
> is more or less his job). I think his opinion has to be taken as what
> it is: an opinion.
>
> Patrick Tresset
> http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon
>
> */Lee Wells <[email protected]>/* wrote:
>
> Art is not rare. It is everywhere. Just sometimes is not well
> thought out.
>
>
> On 8/18/06 9:52 AM, "bram" wrote:
>
> > Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
> > very badly equipped to access new information)
> >
> > I think we have to defend new media art
> > we will have to be missionaries
> > we will have to educate
> >
> > we will have to infiltrate
> > we will have to explain
> > we will have to promote early netart
> >
> > And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different
> spheres,
> > to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
> > experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating
> sense.
> > Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
> > don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
> > most important vector by which we work.
> >
> > Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
> > we feel at home (at least some of us)
> >
> > Restart reading at the beginning.
> >
> > Annie Abrahams
> >
> > PS 1
> > What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many
> people
> > wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting
> edge art
> > in watercolours, but it's rare.
> >
> > Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks
> about new
> > media. We exist!
> >
> > PS 2
> > Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
> > Indeed, how many persons are behind?
> > Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
> > abstract images?
> > I would like to have them too :)
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >
> >
> > On 8/18/06, ARN wrote:
> >> another quote:
> >> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> >> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could
> spell the
> >> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and
> we all drown
> >> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
> >>
> >> i think this is great, so will better write:
> >>
> >> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> >> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
> >>
> >> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> marc wrote:
> >>> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
> >>>
> >>> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology?
> No, says
> >>> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is
> so much
> >>> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more
> awesome
> >>> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can
> knock up on
> >>> her PC."
> >>>
> >>> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this
> stuff this
> >>> on-line.
> >>>
> >>>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.
> >>> html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also check rhizome front page…
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
> >>>
> >>> marc
> >>>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > –
> >
> > "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> > .news series.
> >
> > http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>


–
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org

Hi Marc,

Yes I know. And his opinion is very much respected certainly for some good reasons
My opinion on classifying what we do as art. Is that it is not my problem, or role as an artist. My role is to do my work as well a possible, and if it is art I produce or my programs produce
it will be considered as such by some people (including some critics/curators/historians) but not by all.

the above is only my opinion

Patrick

marc <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Patrick,

I agree, it is an opinion - and should be acknowledged as such.

But it is an opinion in a national news paper which does give it a
different emphasis.

marc

> I personally find those discussions to qualify one activity or another
> as Art
> fairly sterile.
> I was recently at a workshop where Charlie was and his comments were
> certainly very intelligent but not very constructive. He seems to have
> a very precise opinion of what art should be and is (well I suppose it
> is more or less his job). I think his opinion has to be taken as what
> it is: an opinion.
>
> Patrick Tresset
> http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aikon
>
> */Lee Wells /* wrote:
>
> Art is not rare. It is everywhere. Just sometimes is not well
> thought out.
>
>
> On 8/18/06 9:52 AM, "bram" wrote:
>
> > Art is a closed system that only sees what it already knows. (And is
> > very badly equipped to access new information)
> >
> > I think we have to defend new media art
> > we will have to be missionaries
> > we will have to educate
> >
> > we will have to infiltrate
> > we will have to explain
> > we will have to promote early netart
> >
> > And at the same time we should go on to intertwine different
> spheres,
> > to develop new ways of seeing the same, never seen before, to
> > experiment beyond techniques, to develop new ways of generating
> sense.
> > Don't forget we (at least some of us) are on the internet because we
> > don't want to have "art" as our only customer, consumer nor as the
> > most important vector by which we work.
> >
> > Yet, we want recognition from the art world because that's the place
> > we feel at home (at least some of us)
> >
> > Restart reading at the beginning.
> >
> > Annie Abrahams
> >
> > PS 1
> > What's wrong with watercolours? I would be delighted if as many
> people
> > wanted to learn coding as watercolours. One can make cutting
> edge art
> > in watercolours, but it's rare.
> >
> > Art is rare. So the article does not disappoint me. It talks
> about new
> > media. We exist!
> >
> > PS 2
> > Please ARN explain us a bit more about your poietic aggregator?
> > Indeed, how many persons are behind?
> > Tell me why this is more than just another way to produce beautiful
> > abstract images?
> > I would like to have them too :)
> > - Hide quoted text -
> >
> >
> > On 8/18/06, ARN wrote:
> >> another quote:
> >> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising
> the idea of
> >> the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could
> spell the
> >> end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and
> we all drown
> >> in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels."
> >>
> >> i think this is great, so will better write:
> >>
> >> "when everyone becomes a producer and we all grow in a great sea of
> >> experimentations made up of billions of creative microchannels."
> >>
> >> why being so alarmed by JB (& others) idea , Charlie ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> marc wrote:
> >>> Wow - and now we have Charlie Gere putting us all down.
> >>>
> >>> "So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology?
> No, says
> >>> Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is
> so much
> >>> more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more
> awesome
> >>> and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can
> knock up on
> >>> her PC."
> >>>
> >>> I would love to have an open discussion with him about this
> stuff this
> >>> on-line.
> >>>
> >>>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mtaa/~3/13468813/the_times_uk_does_new_media.
> >>> html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Also check rhizome front page…
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Charlie, we love you two ;-)
> >>>
> >>> marc
> >>>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > –
> >
> > "Bitter times, I wish I could reassure you."
> > .news series.
> >
> > http://www.bram.org/press/rassur
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>


–
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org

+
-> 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

Respected or not, I can't imagine a poorer interpretation of Beuys' comment regarding everyone being an artist. It's completely out of context.
To Beuys, dismantling the cultural and social systems that supported the class divisions and yielding a new, more vital social infrastructure where everyone was encouraged to create and participate was the point.
It may sound utopian, but he wasn't being ironic.
Eric

"The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched microchannels"

agree


















Eric Dymond wrote:
> To Beuys, dismantling the cultural and social systems that
> supported the class divisions and yielding a new, more vital social
> infrastructure where everyone was encouraged to create and participate
> was the point. It may sound utopian, but he wasn't being ironic. Eric












































> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea
> of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell
> the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we all
> drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
> microchannels" + -> 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 agree also :-)

marc

>
> agree
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
>> To Beuys, dismantling the cultural and social systems that
>> supported the class divisions and yielding a new, more vital social
>> infrastructure where everyone was encouraged to create and participate
>> was the point. It may sound utopian, but he wasn't being ironic. Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> "The web, Charlie says, has the alarming potential of realising the idea
>> of the artist Joseph Beuys, that everyone is an artist. This could spell
>> the end of art as we know it, when everyone becomes a producer and we
>> all
>> drown in a sea of mediocrity made up of billions of minutely-niched
>> microchannels" + -> 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
>
>


–
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org

marc garrett wrote:

> i agree also :-)

I always loved this quote from a lecture Robert Smithson gave in 1972 when asked by a student regarding irony:
"Irony is where the academiic hides when dumbfounded"