<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">thoughts on a tuesday eve with no
coffee in the house…</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm going to write this as I think
it (hey, whats new) but I wanted to put
down my thoughts as I have been reading the posts regarding the
lastest developments at Walker etc and rhizomes continuing struggle.
Eryk's dismissal that rhizome would be around in 2004 set me off.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I was saddened by the Walkers 'downsizing',
I haven't always agreed
with Dietz curatorial decsions but simply the idea of a new media
curator alone is something that is only being realised in a much smaller
and independent capcity here in the UK. The fact this could be seen as
a failed experiment of new media curating by major galleries could be
detrimental outside the US too. I am also frustrated at rhizomes
continual need for change and justify its own existence to maintain
financial support. I have only been here two years so haven't got the
history to morn for the good ol' days<u>,</u>  but as with anything successful
(and I would - despite current areas of frustration class rhizome as a
success) I think a combination of the pressure both financially and to
remain 'new', 'educational' and 'slick' (can you be all three?) has
distracted from 'resource', 'discuss/promote' and 'archive'.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">However, I'm mildly stunned in what
I seem to be reading as the
general surprise of many artists and the american institutions during the
emails of this last week, that somehow, the public have failed to 'get'
new media (net art) and that its percieved failure to thrive (resulting in
the museums last-in-first-out approach or rhizomes struggles for
funding) is as a result of various accusations. These seem to  include
an institutional desire to repackage the net as video or film,  the
technical complexity in exhibiting and archiving new media or the
widespread economic cutbacks restricting 'ambitious' curating etc etc
etc. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">My question is - when does a harsh
examination of the curatorial
decisions of what aspect and how net art and new media has been
exhibited and supported take place? How have the grants been
distributed (in terms of curatorial decisions) and how 'successfull' (in
terms of producing significant works and promoting and advancing new
media as a genre) have selected projects been? If the public have
failed to 'get' net.art/new media, is it a failure of the exhibiting policies of
the museums/organizations in terms of promotion and accessibility
and/or a failure of the works selected themselves to engage and to be
able to exist as rounded artworks outside the texts, the seminars and
the hype….</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">We've been through these conversations
before in one way or another,
from Curts suggestions of limitations on the genre being placed in the
subtexts of critical writings to Marcs essential argument that institutions
need to get in touch with their grass roots or watch their own growing
irrelevancy. What I wonder is how, despite this list, despite all the other
lists we all belong to and despite our own work independently as artists
- is how we get heard.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">As artists, we know why we a practising
on the net or new media
(although these reasons are as eclectic and an various as the
methodologies employed), we know that within these works can be
absorption, playfulness, shock, subversion and unsettling intimacy -
traditional foundations for artworks that both endure and attract. Most of
us on raw are predominantly net based, we have artworks delivered to
our inboxes. The works we create are contextualised by whats around
us or else they are quite literally being created out of them.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> But what about the curators? In their
bid to keep the NEW in new
media, textual combinations seem constrained; unsettling playfulness,
shocking subversion and…what then  ?? Have Bloggers patronisation of
say, E8Z's 'old fashioned themes' or Dietz's self styled curatorial 'filter'
finally literally sieved out what makes net and new media so rounded. I
have never though the net 'needs' the institutions, but without their input
my fear is the kind of sthetic gameplay of Amerika & PS2 will be the
only sources of substantial sponsership and longevity that will remain.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I've just read that Walkers cutbacks
will save $1m per annum. Though
peanuts compared to the overall budget, curatorially that's a pretty
decent sized wallet in which to establish (and bloody hell) <i>at least</i> set
up contingency so the work can be decently and permanently archived.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">have to go, just thinking outloud.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
curating the curators
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Jess Muses:
"What I wonder is how, despite this list, despite all the other lists we all belong to and despite our own work independently as artists - is how we get heard.
But what about the curators? In their bid to keep the NEW in new media, textual combinations seem constrained; unsettling playfulness, shocking subversion and…what then&# ?? Have Bloggers patronisation of say, E8Z's 'old fashioned themes' or Dietz's self styled curatorial 'filter' finally literally sieved out what makes net and new media so rounded.
I have never though the net 'needs' the institutions, but without their input my fear is the kind of sthetic gameplay of Amerika & PS2 will be the only sources of substantial sponsership and longevity that will remain."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the graphic design world, everybody has a byline, because all marketers must have a byline. Jeffrey Zeldman (web standards wonk and someone whose blog gets more traffic in a day then rhizome gets in a month), Jeffrey's byline is "the independent content producer refuses to die."
This was his byline well before the dot com crash. He and other "independent content producers" talk at these web design conferences about independent content production, and they are inevitably asked, "What's the angle? How do you get rich and famous producing your own content and giving it away?" The answer is, "You don't. You just run your online magazine, or your experimental design site, or your blog, because you love to do it." Jeffrey divides the web into two camps – "for profit" sites, and "for love" sites.
Ian McKay of Fugazi and Minor Threat fame started Dischord Records to release the music of DC punk bands (the history of Dischord is here: http://www.dischord.com/about/ ). The Dischord CDs sell in stores for $9 as opposed to the usual $16. They say on the label "this CD is $8.99 postpaid from…" and then the Dischord contact information is listed. Fugazi and Minor Threat have already secured their place in the pop music canon, punk sub-genre.
Peter Max and Ralph Steadman don't prize their CV list of solo shows (although I'm sure they've had plenty of shows). They have a string of famous posters and designs that have influenced the direction of popular illustration and design, and that's enough.
Isn't the web supposed to be the great equalizer that allows self-publishing and micro-markets without the need for institutional approval? And yet here are all these self-proclaimed net-centric artists jonesing to get "discovered" by what seems to me the art world equivalent of some A&R angel from Warner Bros. Records.
"I got into this game for the action! Get in, get out, man alone. Your entire apartment could be on fire and I couldn't so much as turn on a tap without filling out a 27B / zed!"
- Harry Tuttle: Heating Engineer
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">hi curt,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm not entirely convinced of the
connection between my 'musing' and</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">the the graphic world bylines you
raise. Although I have to say, re-
reading my thoughts out of context it sounded like I was knocking e8z
(Bloggers words, not mine) and asking how net artists could get 'picked
up' by the institutions. Hopefully, it didn't read like that entirety as I was
hoping to look at new media curation in its dictation of the form, rather
than bemoaning the loss of potential fame for net artists.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Having said that, I think most net
artists  would be pleased with
institutional financial support (via the kind of commissions walker was
giving out before) but don't give a rats arse in terms of being
'discovered'. I don't agree that there there is a lot of jostling for fame
within the 'net-centric artists' as you say. Jostling for money when the
calls that have a stipend attached, yes, but not for fame.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I know there is always some who long
for riches rather than just a
money to keep doing what they want to do, but if that's whats important
to them they will definitely have more luck in popular design and good
luck to them. Design a good advert and you can win more awards than
Peter Jackson. I know you have often said that if artists had day jobs
then sponserhip (whether institutions or corporate)  wouldn't come into
it, but I for one already have a day job and it will never buy me the
bigger hard drive I need;-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I think your are right in the web
is the " great equalizer that allows self-
publishing and micro-markets without the need for institutional
approval?" and that's certainly what brought me on here, but its hard
when curators are filtering out thematics like love, faith, emotion,
intimacy. Not only because it makes working on the net more like a
military campaign than a medium, but because it excludes so much of
the basic human conditions that encourage longevity and life in both
artworks and viewers desire to see more….</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/index.html</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Date sent:                  Wed, 14 May 2003 13:14:06 -0400</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">To:                             [email protected]</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">From:                         curt cloninger <[email protected]></span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Subject:                     RHIZOME_RAW: Re: curating
the curators</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Send reply to:            curt
cloninger <[email protected]></span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Jess Muses: </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> "What I
wonder is how, despite this list, despite all the other lists we all belong to and despite our own work
independently as artists - is how we get heard.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">>  But what
about the curators? In their bid to keep the NEW in new media, textual combinations seem constrained;
unsettling playfulness, shocking subversion and…what then&# ?? Have Bloggers patronisation of
say, E8Z's 'old fashioned themes' or Dietz's self styled curatorial 'filter' finally
literally sieved out what makes net and new media so rounded.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I have never
though the net 'needs' the institutions, but without their input my fear is the kind of sthetic gameplay
of Amerika & PS2 will be the only sources of substantial sponsership and longevity that will remain."</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> In the graphic
design world, everybody has a byline, because all marketers must have a byline.  Jeffrey Zeldman
(web standards wonk and someone whose blog gets more traffic in a day then rhizome gets in a month),
Jeffrey's byline is "the independent content producer refuses to die."</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> This was his
byline well before the dot com crash.  He and other "independent content producers" talk
at these web design conferences about independent content production, and they are inevitably asked,
"What's the angle?  How do you get rich and famous producing your own content and giving it
away?"  The answer is, "You don't.  You just run your online magazine, or your experimental
design site, or your blog, because you love to do it."  Jeffrey divides the web into two camps
– "for profit" sites, and "for love" sites.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Ian McKay of
Fugazi and Minor Threat fame started Dischord Records to release the music of DC punk bands (the history
of Dischord is here: http://www.dischord.com/about/ ).  The Dischord CDs sell in stores for $9
as opposed to the usual $16.  They say on the label "this CD is $8.99 postpaid
from…" and then the Dischord contact information is listed.  Fugazi and Minor Threat have
already secured their place in the pop music canon, punk sub-genre.  </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Peter Max and
Ralph Steadman don't prize their CV list of solo shows (although I'm sure they've  had plenty of
shows).  They have a string of famous posters and designs that have influenced the direction of
popular illustration and design, and that's enough.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Isn't the web
supposed to be the great equalizer that allows self-publishing and micro-markets without the need for
institutional approval?  And yet here are all these self-proclaimed net-centric artists jonesing
to get "discovered" by what seems to me the art world equivalent of some A&R angel
from Warner Bros. Records.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
At 9:03 PM +0100 5/14/03, Jess Loseby wrote:
>hi curt,
>I'm not entirely convinced of the connection between my 'musing' and
>the the graphic world bylines you raise. Although I have to say, re-
>reading my thoughts out of context it sounded like I was knocking
>e8z (Bloggers words, not mine) and asking how net artists could get
>'picked up' by the institutions. Hopefully, it didn't read like that
>entirety as I was hoping to look at new media curation in its
>dictation of the form, rather than bemoaning the loss of potential
>fame for net artists.
Hi Jess,
right. I was sort of talking to myself.
>Having said that, I think most net artists would be pleased with
>institutional financial support (via the kind of commissions walker
>was giving out before) but don't give a rats arse in terms of being
>'discovered'. I don't agree that there there is a lot of jostling
>for fame within the 'net-centric artists' as you say. Jostling for
>money when the calls that have a stipend attached, yes, but not for
>fame.
Although I can't see into anybody's soul, I disagree. It's
definitely not about the money, because there's no great money in it
unless your name is Hirst. Granted, it's micro-scene famewhoring;
it's academic, upper-crust famewhoring; but a lot of still smells
like famewhoring to me. But then one can do good work and desire
fame too. It's just tricky.
>I know there is always some who long for riches rather than just a
>money to keep doing what they want to do, but if that's whats
>important to them they will definitely have more luck in popular
>design and good luck to them. Design a good advert and you can win
>more awards than Peter Jackson. I know you have often said that if
>artists had day jobs then sponserhip (whether institutions or
>corporate) wouldn't come into it, but I for one already have a day
>job and it will never buy me the bigger hard drive I need;-)
"This is money! I can USE money!" - The Jerk
>I think your are right in the web is the " great equalizer that
>allows self- publishing and micro-markets without the need for
>institutional approval?" and that's certainly what brought me on
>here, but its hard when curators are filtering out thematics like
>love, faith, emotion, intimacy. Not only because it makes working on
>the net more like a military campaign than a medium, but because it
>excludes so much of the basic human conditions that encourage
>longevity and life in both artworks and viewers desire to see
>more….
Agreed about the wack post-modern requisites, but you still miss my
point. Willy Wonka observed, "We are the music makers, and we are
the dreamers of the dreams." One might remix it, "We are the
curators, and we are the promoters of the cool stuff." If it's about
the money, networked artist collectives can apply for and
re-distribute grant money from governments the same as brick & mortar
galleries. Turbulence, Low-Res, and even our beloved Rhizome are
already there.
If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher nut
to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no less
valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
cultural archive.
"Pop Life. Everybody needs a thrill. Pop Life. We all got a place
to fill." - the artist formerly known as the artist forerly known as
prince
Hi curt,
> Although I can't see into anybody's soul, I disagree. It's
> definitely not about the money, because there's no great money in it
> unless your name is Hirst.
I hesitate to say, because I know so little about you but that sounds like
a position of privilege.
The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds of
various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on (as
you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the circle of
artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do net/on &
offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max but this
keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are fame-
mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art &
the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
their on.
Granted, it's micro-scene famewhoring;
> it's academic, upper-crust famewhoring; but a lot of still smells
> like famewhoring to me. But then one can do good work and desire
> fame too. It's just tricky.
There is a divide here in the uk but its more and institutional clique. Its
about where you live (outside london - you poor thing) where you
studied (only london post-grad need apply) and social (I'm sorry but our
email list is closed unless you live in chelsea) It not famewhoring - they
already think they are.
>
> Agreed about the wack post-modern requisites, but you still miss my
> point. Willy Wonka observed, "We are the music makers, and we are
> the dreamers of the dreams."
willy wonker or gene wilder?:-)
One might remix it, "We are the
> curators, and we are the promoters of the cool stuff." If it's about
> the money, networked artist collectives can apply for and
> re-distribute grant money from governments the same as brick & mortar
> galleries. Turbulence, Low-Res, and even our beloved Rhizome are
> already there.
True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the most
open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the have
chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the remit
of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip' and 'net'.
Its not sour grapes in a 'why not me', as I have been lucky enough to
just be awarded a grant from a canadian new media organization which
is fantastic and guarantees both that I can make work (without the aid of
the british DHSS) and feed my family for the next 6 months (and buy a
decent graphics card:-). But if I make some very hip, very funky
mindless cyber-fluff then I want everyone to bloody demand I pay every
cent back as I not only would have squandered a fantastic opportunity
but would have added to the growing pile of institutionally funded,
playfull, soulless, shite that has less longevity than the latest levi ad.
(not to beat around the bush at all:-)
> If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher nut
> to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no less
> valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> cultural archive.
cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
sorry:-)
jess
my additions to your quote list
"you can't built a reputation on what you are going to do…" Henry Ford
"everybody knows it sucks to grow up" Ben Folds
" a man who does not make mistakes does not usually make anything"
William Conner Magee
"all the world is odd save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer."
Robert Owen
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
> Although I can't see into anybody's soul, I disagree. It's
> definitely not about the money, because there's no great money in it
> unless your name is Hirst. Granted, it's micro-scene famewhoring;
> it's academic, upper-crust famewhoring; but a lot of still smells
> like famewhoring to me. But then one can do good work and desire
> fame too. It's just tricky.
Curt,
I used to have an acquaintance, an artist, who was extremely suspicious
of all publicity and what might be called "fame" even at the
micro-community level. he spent great amounts of time and energy
creating new works and then went out of his way not to tell anyone about
them. or it wasn't so much that as that he would write an inept little
press release and then fail to send it out on time. or he would press a
new CD and then let them sit stacked up in his car as he avoided any
sort of distribution method that might be tainted by being deemed too
common (which was pretty much everything). and the best part is that he
took *great pride* in these failings. he announced at parties that he
was the one, true artist and if you doubted that, well all you had to do
was look at how *unknown* he was, how obscure, how romantically
downtrodden, and then you'd know for sure he was a real artist.
that's an extreme case, and i know that's not the argument you are
making, but it makes a point. and it's a true story.
i don't see the conflict between good work and fame-seeking (to use a
blunt, rather ungraceful word). this is from an unashamed "famewhore" as
you would put it. good work is good work is good work and if you can get
a little attention for it (or a lot), more power to you. the choice
between good work and fame/fortune (otherwise known as "selling-out,"
mostly by people who have little idea what that is and are in no
position to do it if they did know) is a false dichotomy put to artists
that serves to keep artists meek and humble and afraid to demand the
respect that their work merits for its value to society.
i wouldn't presume to judge other artists' motives by the yardstick of
my own motives. so if a particular artist gets enough from the pure act
of expression, or some similar drive regardless of audience, regardless
of various forms of social or institutional support, that's fine. no one
is hurt by that.
my art, on the other hand, has always been about a kind of social
engagement, a matter of *communication* and as such, it has always been
important to me to be both relevant and as visible as possible. i
communicate through my art. i have something to say about the world,
about humanity, about who we are. and, yes, i want to have that
conversation not with just a select group of likeminded artists, but
with as many other people on the planet as is humanly possible.
the institutions are one way to help make that happen. they are not the
only way, nor necessarily the best, but they are one way. so the
question to me isn't whether net.art "needs" the institutions, it's that
given that they exist, how can we artists best use them to further our
artistic visions, to propogate our gifts to the world?
thanks for the stimulation,
ch
–
===================================================
We All Are Global Nomads
The World is a Vast Desert of Cyberspace–Roam Free
http://www.weallareglobalnomads.com
===================================================
A. Cinque Hicks
http://www.cinquehicks.com
[email protected]
> The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds of
>various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on (as
>you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
>make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the circle of
>artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do net/on &
>offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max but this
>keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
way. Right now we may have $200 in the bank. It comes and goes.
But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
>I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are fame-
>mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art &
>the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
>their on.
If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
>True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the most
>open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the have
>chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
>projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
>endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the remit
>of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
>conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip' and 'net'.
The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
funding these organizations to agree with your feeling? Wouldn't it
be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
just make cool stuff?!?)
> > If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher nut
> > to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no less
> > valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> > Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> > cultural archive.
>cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
>sorry:-)
My fault. I'll try agian… There is more than one legitimate way
to be remembered by posterity. Just because the Velvet Underground
aren't usually taught in college (except as a footnote to Warhol),
that doesn't mean The Velvet Underground didn't leave their mark on
posterity. They just did it via pop culture. There is already a
mechanism in place for net artists to do the same sans institutions.
>> Although I can't see into anybody's soul, I disagree. It's
>> definitely not about the money, because there's no great money in it
>> unless your name is Hirst.
> I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are fame-
> mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art &
> the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
> their on.
I think this is one of the problems that a lot of artists have: they dont
worry about which curators and journalists and art lovers and collectors
Xmas card lists they are on, because they are far too busy balancing their
part time work with making some art around it. But there are artists who do
care about who in the professional art world knows they exist (you dont even
have to be on their Xmas card list). If they dont know you exist, then how
are you going to carve out more support to make more work, to really get
where you want to be?
> One might remix it, "We are the
>> curators, and we are the promoters of the cool stuff." If it's about
>> the money, networked artist collectives can apply for and
>> re-distribute grant money from governments the same as brick & mortar
>> galleries. Turbulence, Low-Res, and even our beloved Rhizome are
>> already there.
> True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the most
> open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the have
> chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
> projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
> endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the remit
> of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip' and 'net'.
And our beloved Furtherfield are already there. Good luck to all of them and
to everyone who ever had a dream and took some money off the state to get it
organised. But shame on everyone who then made a career out of it, ending up
needing an annual fix in order to pay the mortgage (thats the bureaucrats,
not the artists).
>> If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher nut
>> to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no less
>> valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
>> Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
>> cultural archive.
> cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> sorry:-)
Oh, shame on you :)
Cheers,
Ivan
Hi Ivan,
My feeling is that currently the remit
> > of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> > conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip' and 'net'.
>
> And our beloved Furtherfield are already there. Good luck to all of them and
> to everyone who ever had a dream and took some money off the state to get it
> organised. But shame on everyone who then made a career out of it, ending up
> needing an annual fix in order to pay the mortgage (thats the bureaucrats,
> not the artists).
Well you know I can never big up furtherfield enough, not only in their
open and 'level playing field' curating but how the are working their
arses off both in and out of the 'establishment' to create it. I think the
primary difference is that furtherfield actually care about both the art
and the artists. My bet is that if anyone is going to get 'heard' it will be
them - just because of who they are.
> > cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> > sorry:-)
>
> Oh, shame on you :)
I know - bloody ignorant:-)
j.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
funders, especially institutional and governmental ones, do have the
responisbility to treat art pieces of whatever nature as an outcome of
social/philosophical processes needed in society. this is why they have the
responsibility to ask for art projects to be done and this is why they
should not understand themselves as well as not be looked at by artists as
institutions 'helping' artists but as the ones responsible for creating an
infrastructure, politically as well as financially, a kind of framework, in
which art can be produced on the basis of financial kind of wages for
artists needed to live and thus to produce.
i think artists should not work for free (this is a bit radical, as of
course artists are longing to produce anyways, and of course they shall do
so on a completely free-will basis, but especially for bigger or more
complex productions they won't be able to anyways; plus, the argument that
artists are producing anyways cannot be seen as a serious basis of
argumentation used by funding institutions).
a maybe more practicle step could be that artists do not exhibit without
getting a wage for it. and if bigger projects are asked for, especially in a
technological context but not only there, budgets for production need to be
delivered and they need to be charged by artists to funding institutions.
those who want exhibitions and other forms of public projects do have the
responsibility to perform the organizational, financing and marketing work.
a well functioning ethical professional production code can be found in the
theater and film industry, and i think it would work perfectly well to apply
it to the fine arts world.
cheers, sascha
—– Original Message —–
From: "Curt Cloninger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: curating the curators
> > The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds of
> >various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on (as
> >you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
> >make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the
circle of
> >artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do net/on &
> >offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max but
this
> >keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
>
> By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
> way. Right now we may have $200 in the bank. It comes and goes.
> But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
> reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
> myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
> become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
>
>
>
> >I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are
fame-
> >mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art &
> >the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
> >their on.
>
> If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
> subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
> still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
>
>
>
> >True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the most
> >open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the have
> >chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
> >projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
> >endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the remit
> >of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> >conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip' and
'net'.
>
> The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
> funding these organizations to agree with your feeling? Wouldn't it
> be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
> institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
> distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
> abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
> just make cool stuff?!?)
>
>
>
> > > If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher nut
> > > to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no less
> > > valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> > > Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> > > cultural archive.
> >cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> >sorry:-)
>
> My fault. I'll try agian… There is more than one legitimate way
> to be remembered by posterity. Just because the Velvet Underground
> aren't usually taught in college (except as a footnote to Warhol),
> that doesn't mean The Velvet Underground didn't leave their mark on
> posterity. They just did it via pop culture. There is already a
> mechanism in place for net artists to do the same sans institutions.
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
mornin' curt
>
> By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
> way.
congrats! 3 is just the best fun although I warn you, with three you
always are a pair of hands short!:-)
> But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
> reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
> myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
> become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
Can anyone really celebrate life unobliged??? Well, perhaps if you are
a single, male, orphan living in the middle of a moor:-)Different
discussion…
I don't think artists should 'expect' to make a living (even, as you say, a
modest stipend) but when you get a grant, a commission etc it can
make a huge difference to how many balls you have to juggle to make
art. Too many balls and the art suffers as you can't make anything of
quality, too few and the art is empty. An ability to juggle should be the
fist thing they teach you at art school:-)
>
>
r on.
>
> If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
> subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
> still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
Absolutely agree. An entire generation of artists have been tarred by
the 'brit art' brush. The only thing I'll say for Emin or Hirst is at least they
can talk (even passionately sometimes) about how and why they do
what they do (even if you reserve the right to believe they are talking
bollocks). Start talking about some others in the pack, say Sarah Lucas
and I start screaming…
>
>
> The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
> funding these organizations to agree with your feeling?
Completely, which was why my fist email said 'how do we get heard?'
Wouldn't it
> be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
> institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
> distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
> abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
> just make cool stuff?!?)
As Ivan said, furtherfield is doing that and I have been lucky enough to
be involved with them. It is the furtherfield model, I think that is the
template for how net, art, artists, establishment, anti-establishment can
actually find a cohesion without compromise.
I don't think it is feasible (outside idealism) for artists to abandon the
acquisition and distribution of money. My cyber-kitchen project cost
>the net, although arguably the last free landscape for artists
>practise, costs to walk in.
I got interested in researching, just hypothetically, whether one
could publish to the web for free. I almost went so far as
researching free hardware possibilities, but I didn't. Anyway, the
resultant list of free (or very cheap) tools and services is here:
http://www.lab404.com/toolbox/
Here are some texts that resonate with me and inform my personal
artistic practice. They seem applicable to this discussion. Make of
them what you will:
1.
Paul of Tarsus preached the gospel and kept a freelance job (he made
tents, actually). He used the money he earned from making tents to
pay for his missionary journeys. He also received support from
churches, but he didn't rely on it. His reasoning went like this:
"The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should
receive their living from the gospel. But I have not used any of
these rights… I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of
this boast… If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not
voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What
then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may
offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in
preaching it."
2.
David Ben Jesse, king of Israel, wanted to build a sacrificial altar
in a particular place to commemorate a particular miracle that God
had done there. The man who owned the land offered it freely to
David for this purpose, but David insisted on buying the land with
his own money. His reasoning went like this:
"No, I insist on paying you for it. I will not sacrifice to the Lord
my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing."
3.
"Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there, we can
also know that we are still a rich nation, tending to our resources
as we should – not a people in despair searching every last nook and
cranny of our land for a board of lumber, a barrel of oil, a blade of
grass, or a tank of water."
- US Senator Clinton P. Anderson in defense of US Forestry Service's
designated Wilderness areas
(Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
just make cool stuff?!?)
YES!
BLISS
L
> > The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds
> of
> >various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on
> (as
> >you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
> >make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the
> circle of
> >artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do
> net/on &
> >offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max
> but this
> >keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
>
> By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
> way. Right now we may have $200 in the bank. It comes and goes.
> But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
> reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
> myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
> become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
>
>
>
> >I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are
> fame-
> >mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art
> &
> >the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
> >their on.
>
> If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
> subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
> still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
>
>
>
> >True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the
> most
> >open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the
> have
> >chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
> >projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
> >endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the
> remit
> >of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> >conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip'
> and 'net'.
>
> The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
> funding these organizations to agree with your feeling? Wouldn't it
> be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
> institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
> distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
> abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
> just make cool stuff?!?)
>
>
>
> > > If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher
> nut
> > > to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no
> less
> > > valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> > > Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> > > cultural archive.
> >cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> >sorry:-)
>
> My fault. I'll try agian… There is more than one legitimate way
> to be remembered by posterity. Just because the Velvet Underground
> aren't usually taught in college (except as a footnote to Warhol),
> that doesn't mean The Velvet Underground didn't leave their mark on
> posterity. They just did it via pop culture. There is already a
> mechanism in place for net artists to do the same sans institutions.
>
Date sent: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:09:46 -0400
To: [email protected]
From: Curt Cloninger <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: curating the curators
Copies to: [email protected]
Send reply to: Curt Cloninger <[email protected]>
> >the net, although arguably the last free landscape for artists
> >practise, costs to walk in.
>
> I got interested in researching, just hypothetically, whether one
> could publish to the web for free. I almost went so far as
> researching free hardware possibilities, but I didn't. Anyway, the
> resultant list of free (or very cheap) tools and services is here:
> http://www.lab404.com/toolbox/
>
Very cool list - my little addition would be virtual dub (PC
freeware/shareware) which is just lovely, clean and simple video
capturing and basic editing to avi for the impatient:-)
http://www.virtualdub.org
neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like to
know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
(wimp)
other free/almost free sources of images that I've used include old
cini/photographs from car boot sales, seeing if you can put the
contents of an entire room individually under a scanner, pinching your
childs gameboy camera, raiding the bin next to photocopier in the
library, mail-art call under the free ads/email lists (send me a line of text
or a photograph) amongst others
but then I am a bit odd like that…
jess.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
> something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
> Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like
> to
> know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
> (wimp)
Umm, Pringles. I belive these come with a-pinch-of-salt-flavor. Are you sure this was not the snack of choice as the cabling was installed? Then again, the Captain Crunch whistle made some noise once upon a time…
-af
>
>> neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
>> something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
>> Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like
>> to
>> know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
>> (wimp)
>
> Umm, Pringles. I belive these come with a-pinch-of-salt-flavor. Are you sure
> this was not the snack of choice as the cabling was installed? Then again, the
> Captain Crunch whistle made some noise once upon a time…
>
You can make a wireless antenna out of an empty pringles can. I guess you
can use this to pick up someone elses wireless bandwidth, if they have no
security, and away you go. http://www.netscum.com/~clapp/wireless.html
Cheers, Ivan
Hi,
We used to use empty chocolate & biscuit tins for pirate radio broadcasting.
It's the ducking your head in people's lofts that was the real headache…
marc
>
> >
> >> neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
> >> something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
> >> Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like
> >> to
> >> know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
> >> (wimp)
> >
> > Umm, Pringles. I belive these come with a-pinch-of-salt-flavor. Are you
sure
> > this was not the snack of choice as the cabling was installed? Then
again, the
> > Captain Crunch whistle made some noise once upon a time…
> >
> You can make a wireless antenna out of an empty pringles can. I guess you
> can use this to pick up someone elses wireless bandwidth, if they have no
> security, and away you go. http://www.netscum.com/~clapp/wireless.html
> Cheers, Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
>
alternatively, a whisky tin will also do the trick :)
http://flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/
security wise, yes it's rather difficult, unless they've left
themselves open…
http://www.metamute.com/look/
article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue%&NrSection&NrArtic
leE3&ST_max=0
+some useful links
http://ecc.bristolwireless.net/index.php?section=links
:) n
On Saturday, May 17, 2003, at 07:54 am, Ivan Pope wrote:
>
>>
>>> neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
>>> something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
>>> Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like
>>> to
>>> know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
>>> (wimp)
>>
>> Umm, Pringles. I belive these come with a-pinch-of-salt-flavor. Are
>> you sure
>> this was not the snack of choice as the cabling was installed? Then
>> again, the
>> Captain Crunch whistle made some noise once upon a time…
>>
> You can make a wireless antenna out of an empty pringles can. I guess
> you
> can use this to pick up someone elses wireless bandwidth, if they have
> no
> security, and away you go. http://www.netscum.com/~clapp/wireless.html
> Cheers, Ivan
I can honestly say that one of the most amazing times 'creatively' in my
life was when I used to be part of a pirate radio crew in Bristol, over 10
years ago. People used to send tapes og their sound-work, all kinds of
stuff; much of it predating Net mentality. (Sounds romantic but) It was a
true networked consciousness, a community communicating via the airwaves to
each other, families and friends and whoever else was listening. Consisting
of experimental music, noises, personal diaries, politics, soundscapes. It
was a special experience and it had real soulful value, it taught me that
there are a lot people out there wanting to declare their imaginations,
controlling the media channels on their own terms.
marc
> alternatively, a whisky tin will also do the trick :)
> http://flakey.info/antenna/waveguide/
>
> security wise, yes it's rather difficult, unless they've left
> themselves open…
> http://www.metamute.com/look/
> article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue%&NrSection&NrArtic
> leE3&ST_max=0
>
> +some useful links
> http://ecc.bristolwireless.net/index.php?section=links
>
> :) n
>
>
> On Saturday, May 17, 2003, at 07:54 am, Ivan Pope wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>> neil jenkins (devoid) once told me you could tap into broadband using
> >>> something like some basic cabling and a empty box of pringles.
> >>> Seeing as my connection is my biggest outgoing - that's what I'd like
> >>> to
> >>> know how to set up - preferably without getting arrested of course
> >>> (wimp)
> >>
> >> Umm, Pringles. I belive these come with a-pinch-of-salt-flavor. Are
> >> you sure
> >> this was not the snack of choice as the cabling was installed? Then
> >> again, the
> >> Captain Crunch whistle made some noise once upon a time…
> >>
> > You can make a wireless antenna out of an empty pringles can. I guess
> > you
> > can use this to pick up someone elses wireless bandwidth, if they have
> > no
> > security, and away you go. http://www.netscum.com/~clapp/wireless.html
> > Cheers, Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
>
On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 04:54 America/New_York, kanonmedia.com
wrote:
> funders, especially institutional and governmental ones, do have the
> responisbility to treat art pieces of whatever nature as an outcome of
> social/philosophical processes needed in society.
no they don't. the only reason state funders in this country have to is
due to the 15 year long dismantling of the NEA. they have to justify
funding if they want to get a further reduced pittance the next year.
as to private foundations, there is no real need for them to justify
anything social or philosophical. all they have to do is comply with
the taxation regulations imposed on nonprofits. that's it –no
philosophy, just taxes.
best,
liza