thanks for your insights all of you.
I have to clarify myself when I am talking about juried and influence,
I was predominantly talking about the historical context, art -history,
to give an example of myself what I have been exposed for someone
growing up and living in Holland Rembrandt, Vermeer, and not to forget
Mondriaan. Or writing in english other then the language I grew up
in dutch makes a big difference how I express myself and how I see the
Being older I now have a choice which painting, media works, book,
films, ext, I find interesting. Though this interest is formed by what
I have been exposed to before and the content of this exposure was for
a part determined by the school curriculum. (just an average public
school) thus juried by the process of history (maybe if I was exposed
to Duchamp in addition to the others I would have not disliked high
school art so much. I found it stupid. ) It's a base I can't ignore
even negating art-history means for me that I dealing with it.
I am from opinion that independent thinking is acknowledging ones
dependence, MAYBE it's because this dependence is unique,
individualized, and so results in independent thought.
Maybe that was makes art so unique and so powerful at times, that each
individual has an individual and a collective experiences and views and
there own way of dealing with art-history. Art is complex dynamic of
give and take, time and place, of history and no-history, a system that
is in flux I don't know, really mostly I don't understand what makes
me pause, but I do see art as something outside me (hmm sounds
The current juried systems , would this be CC or Rhizome or some
radical art group, interest me, more from the point of what kind of art
is supported or not and through these choices understanding which
criteria are underneath the selection. This understanding explains the
political and social climate of different groups and countries.
and Pall, for me what Jim said was not "bleedin' obvious" .
On 2-Jun-07, at 2:46 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> perhaps there are types of art where some sort of semi-concensus is
> possible and common, but the more adventurous the types of art under
> consideration, the less that's likely to be true. even if jurors do
> not simply reward their friends and contacts (which is reprehensible),
> the range of types and approaches to art typically under consideration
> in media art competitions is very wide. media/um x art(s) x technical
> level x millieu x subject matter x aesthetic x language x politics x
> experimental level x artist experience level... a forbidding cross
> product of considerations that may leave jury members shaking their
> heads about the differences in opinion they have about the relative
> value of the proposals and the art and the artists.
> also, the more original the proposal, the harder it is to convey the
> value of the project when it's not finished to view, as is the case
> with proposals submitted to juries.
> it's a crap shoot. it really is. the jury can be structured so that
> the jury ranges fairly widely in their backgrounds over the proposals
> (usually not) and then each juror has a say and they can talk until
> they're blue in the face, but it remains a relatively meaningless crap
> that's the scary but fascinating reality of it.
> to me, it highlights the existential individuality of art and the
> experience of art, erika and jacky. we are so similar and so
> what you think and feel about art is as important as what i think and
> feel about art. even when an 'expert' has his/her say in the matter,
> it is bound to be very different from the next 'expert'. we all have
> things to teach each other, and we do well to try to listen to one
> another and learn from one another, but what is most powerfully
> meaningful to us, via the art experience, is ours and ours alone,
> however much we may learn from each other, and we treasure our own
> experiences of art and what makes it meaningful to us above what
> anyone else says, and rightly so.
> also, artists put their blood sweat and tears into creating a
> situation where we can actually experience afresh. where we are
> challenged to abandon our preconceptions and experience afresh, rather
> than experience an easily categorized representation. The artists and
> audience alike seek out this befuddling multiplicity toward fresh
> experience and apprehension.
> art challenges our categories rather than willingly conforming to them.
> there's nothing wrong with placing value on individuality. it's ok.
> you can be an individual. individuation. it's ok.
>> Jacky is making some important points that seem to be ignored in
>> these current posts.
>> As "no man is an island" the same goes for art.
>> As to my previous post on the b b b b b boringness of this topic
>> the posts are always couched in a framework that has romantic
>> tendencies, as well, there seems to be undertones of desperation
>> and personal crisis. Perhaps the crisis is that, while
>> maintaining these notions of art which are arrived at through
>> the values of individuality, objectivity, and ownership, an art
>> has emerged that does not fit into these criteria.
>> To me a continual assertion of individualism denotes a desire for
> -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> -> questions: email@example.com
> -> 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