Hello All,
Here is the Winners Page for 2008:
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/winners2008.html
As to other topics, I will be on list through 11/7 to discuss the conference or other items of value. I still think that we are in a new art-historical period for after the end of postmodernism, called Networkism, but it might be rightfully taboo as in the medieval times. Such facts might call for a highly skilled approach with very great safety mechanisms to be used in all presentation. I might not have this perfected yet, or there might be more of a situation like it was for Hamlet, "there's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." It's a mystery I suppose.
Best regards,
Max Herman
Winners Page for Genius 2000 Conference 2008
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Since I'm onlist only now for perhaps the next eight months, I am wondering if anyone else from the old days has any thoughts about the near-zero level of discussion posting. I don't really see an issue with letting the works speak for themselves, though having so little of one where there's nothing mutually exclusive about both is maybe "not so great." The obvious answer is Leo Strauss i.e. don't publicly criticize the established authorities. And, if you are already in with the established authorities, you don't need to post commentary just your link or interviews. Furthermore it's immoral even to point this out, self-righteous and passive-aggressive. This ending anytime soon I don't see, regardless of the election. If this is a problem even, much less anything for piddly Rhizome to worry about, I honestly don't know! I can see it both ways. Strauss has the benefit of the doubt for me, i.e. what a panelist on a Newshour item on voters called "the limits of conversation," she was the token intellectual, among the plumbers and IT support folks, and was from the U.Chicago. Loose lips sink ships, or as Kierkegaard said freedom of speech is the obsession of those who never practice freedom of thought. You do see numerous Rhizome folks on Artforum, which I'm censored off, but I don't know if I'm censored here and DEFINATELY don't want to find out! But just to think out loud, if Rhizome is controlled by New Museum and they are controlled by pro- Jeff Koons and Matt Barney powers, then open discussion on Rhizome might be banned indirectly. It's just so glaringly absent! It's really noticeable. Is that really the indefinite future? I grant that government misconduct should not be discussed, nothing to worsen the prospects of global stability and the like. And the risk of total collapse into hell is obviously extremely high. Since Richard Flood really loves Matthew Barney I think, it would be very egregious for anyone on Rhizome to speak skeptically of Barney (that is just a hypothetical, I've never even seen Cremaster, just the room at the Walker Art Center). Then you have, just basic market needs not to dampen a lively market sector of valuable art. Strauss was a definite honest man, and he said more or less we shouldn't expect to be able to run our yaps in public about established values such as art, only in private. In public it's got to be party line, helot issues being so risky. So I guess I don't see anything to dispute there, except that without any posts at all Rhizome comes across as well unfamilar. If that's unavoidable however it's necessary and thus good, should be gotten used to. I think I can get used to it. And then, when times are less conflagratory down the path things can lighten up again a bit, to sparkle and shine. Err on the side of caution. Unless that is Rhizome is failing somehow by letting the discussion wither so much? I can see that both ways too, so-called open discussion is generally overrated yammering. Or as Pope said, "Drink deep or else taste not the Pierian spring"! On a side note, I have some other images up in the 2008 General Archive page on my site.
Rhizome just removed Discussions board from the front page! I think Max Herman post worked?
At this point it seems like a Prisoner's Dilemma / snowball type thing. Because nobody else posts, it feels more awkward for any individual to post. Earlier in the listserv, because everybody posted vigorously, any individual would feel more comfortable offering his/her 2 cents. That's my 2 cents.
I only just now tried clicking on "community" to find the discussions, sorry I don't know the new interface too well. I did feel a bit of a shock that an Artforum ad displaced the discussions! That's the center of my negative viewpoint summed up. Not that I don't think it might be a good thing. But if Rhizome is a non-profit, can they sell ads? I'm sure they can. If Mark Tribe's dad is a liberal lawyer at Harvard, which I only found on wikipedia or somewhere about a year ago, maybe he is really big on not having a moderated listserv. Removing selected items at poster's request is a sacrifice to the aesthetic gesture of course, and totally moderating would be another. Yet nominally it's not moderated. So, why is there no posting? Obviously because A) there is nothing to gain and B) there is a lot to lose. Open free discussion is ahem overrated, and the other stuff like ads for shows, performances, featurettes, that is where the goodness and the Good is. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not true. Is posting never good? Or, good at certain times only? And if so, at what sort of times? Times when it's not yelling Fire in a crowded theater.
Also, sometimes they put injured people in a coma so they can heal better. It could definitely be that way now for the whole planet, so much injuries from recent history. Actually that's my default assumption, because it's what the leadership folks are doing and they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Therefore I absolutely don't see any need to take it upon myself to bring activity back to the Rhizome posting board, and I won't go over the 7-day limit since the discussions actually were still there.
Here's my 2008 page, you can see nothing too fantastic:
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/archive2008.html
All in all, I definitely believe that it's best to err on the side of caution, and not criticize the established ideas. They are most indubitably established for a good reason, per Strauss and the images on the cave etc. Lenin and Stalin were a big mistake, even though they thought they were being "scientific." Facts are not the only truth, because the future isn't settled upon yet and is thus in the realm of not yet fact. This might be true, or to the other argument, maybe there is an OK kind of discussion which would be good to have. But if you're unclear about the latter than you might err on the side of zero discussion, and plug thy nose. Once that's done you still have the question though of whether to start any discussions in public again, when, on what, etc. You could sure do worse than postpone and contemplate. Maybe just compartmentalize? There's nothing so sinful in that I don't suppose. Discuss honestly about art and so forth in private, with trusted friends, but in public be scrupulous to avoid creating lots of damage. Is that perfect logic, I'm not sure.
The chess pieces btw I designed myself and made on my lathe, kind of fun but really slow.
Test
Hi Max,
I think posting a lot to the list serv formerly known as rhizome_RAW is like Andy Warhol making a lot of prints. The old economy values scarcity, so it seemed stupid for him to make a bunch of prints. But now his prints sell for as much as a Picasso, and there are tons more Warhol ephemera than Picasso paintings. Warhol's foundation has a Chelsea warehouse full of stuff it has yet to dump on the market. And all those proceeds go to fund granting organizations that then fund artists to make work.
There are artists who think that by posting frequently, openly, and un-anonymously to this discussion forum, they decrease their credentials and thus decrease the likelihood of receiving money from one of the arts organizations that the Andy Warhol Foundation funds. In reality, the more they post to this forum, the more valuable their work will eventually be. Unfortunately, no one will realize this until after they die.
++++++++++++++
RAW is on its way to the basement. The powers that be have already rescinded its paycheck and stolen its red Swingline stapler. Next they will move it to the basement and turn off its lights. Then RAW will blow up the entire rhizome building and retire to the Bahamas.
++++++++++++++
I post to RAW because I like to hear myself think out loud in public. The fact that at least two people at any given time are following my inane ramblings makes me feel less alone.
I post to RAW because I never got around to making a blog, so this will do for now.
I post to RAW in the spirit of Richard Huelsenbeck. Don't ask me what this means.
++++++++++++++
No dialogue is a kind of dialogue. Sporadic dialogue is a kind of dialogue. Sequestered, self-talking, Beckett-esque dialogue is a kind of dialogue. Increased noise to signal ratio is a kind of dialogue.
Until they kill RAW, something is always happening here. Whoever makes the final decision to kill RAW will be tormented by the demons formerly assigned to Sarah Winchester, Jeremy Blake, and L. Ron Hubbard.
Peace,
Curt
Tough questions, Max, and potent answers, Curt!
Another reason why it's awkward to post here is the ancient difficulty of speaking among those wiser than oneself. :-) Many of these people post rarely, though pace Kenko "it is a fine thing when a man who thoroughly understands a subject is unwilling to open his mouth, and only speaks when he is questioned" …
http://essays.quotidiana.org/kenko/selections/
[img]http://oreilly.com/catalog/covers/sedawk-t.gif[/img]
Joan, if hope (/theory/art/anything beyond the physical acts of eating killing shitting fucking sleeping) would drive us to hallucination or self-annihilation, I wonder what hopelessness would do. All flesh is grass, but man is not all flesh.
I wanted to reply to Vijay's post and Curt's post, but only Vijay's had the "Reply to post" linkage so there you go. Partly I like to post and discuss because nary of my local persons really care to discuss art etc. very much. Also other aspects, since Rhizome had a basic tenet at the start "posts will be saved in perpetuity" so it was like a group-written text which would be stood behind per the custodians. I still think this might have worth and not be too anti-Good, seditious, and what not perhaps. Yes the people who get articles about them don't post. So maybe it's OK to have two tracks, the Insider and Outsider? Ideally the internet will not just send a few case studies to the galleries/artworld. For example, the printing press didn't just print up the existing pen-written texts, but altered writing and word-use in yes sometimes negative but sometimes positive way you could argue. So Curt I don't think it's good if the discussion posting goes to the crapper. That would not be the noblest ideal of what Rhizome could be, but as Nietzche or Strauss said "modernity is built on low but solid ground." Plus, a lot of posting takes attention away from the featurettes! That's why Artforum censors me, it's not OK to self-promote and say "xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" because it's off-message. And Jeez, half of Rhizome now works for Artforum or appears in the art-world photo feature.
I was thinking about Jeff Koons, how his art raises the vulgar to divine scale. Is that a fair summation? Bubbles = Laocoon, sex paintings = Pieta, vacuums = crown jewels. Is this off-base? Also as Marisa suggested earlier I think it's best if the new admin can let bygones be bygones and think of the future, that's what Socrates and Aeschylus said too. And everyone knows it's a new art-historical period too, that's no question either.