Re: Digital Artists: Call for Entries

I think they're looking for conservative art that won't challenge the interests of the sponsors
and we all think that's OK. OK?
;-)
ruth

Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> <* Non-pornographic and non-political>
> this is an interesting equation!
> michael
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
> + 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

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Trevor Smith <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
> "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Jon Tomlinson [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>
>
> Good morning…
>
> As part of an event I am putting together, I'd like to feature the
> work of
> approximately 10 digital artists. The nice thing is that I'll be able
> to
> pay them for the efforts. So… if you know of anyone who would like
> to
> participate, would you mind passing along the attached Call for
> Entries?
>
> Thanks… take care,
> Jon Tomlinson
>
>
>

This call was posted to the list directly a couple of
days back.
Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor for
the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
extraordinary turn of phrase was " non pornographic
and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly this
appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
attachment here.
So politics and pornography is out but apparently a
bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
best
michael
— Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Trevor Smith <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
> > "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: Jon Tomlinson
> [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >
> >
> > Good morning…
> >
> > As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
> like to feature the
> > work of
> > approximately 10 digital artists. The nice thing
> is that I'll be able
> > to
> > pay them for the efforts. So… if you know of
> anyone who would like
> > to
> > participate, would you mind passing along the
> attached Call for
> > Entries?
> >
> > Thanks… take care,
> > Jon Tomlinson
> >
> >
> >
>

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf x-unix-mode66;
name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf




=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

Sorry about the double posting – I get many emails asking me to
forward on to the list, and while I check to see if something has
already been posted, I don't always catch everything. Especially as
people post announcements on different days. Anyway, glad there was a
distinction between posts that merited note. – Rachel

On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> This call was posted to the list directly a couple of
> days back.
> Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
> willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor for
> the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
> extraordinary turn of phrase was " non pornographic
> and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly this
> appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
> attachment here.
> So politics and pornography is out but apparently a
> bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
> best
> michael
> — Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Trevor Smith <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
>>> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
>>> "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>>> —–Original Message—–
>>> From: Jon Tomlinson
>> [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>>>
>>>
>>> Good morning…
>>>
>>> As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
>> like to feature the
>>> work of
>>> approximately 10 digital artists. The nice thing
>> is that I'll be able
>>> to
>>> pay them for the efforts. So… if you know of
>> anyone who would like
>>> to
>>> participate, would you mind passing along the
>> attached Call for
>>> Entries?
>>>
>>> Thanks… take care,
>>> Jon Tomlinson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf x-unix-mode66;
> name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf
>
>
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
> We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
> that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
> email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
> medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
> Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
> + 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
>

I wasn't moaning at you Rachel -it always strikes me
as a bit over fussy to complain about double postings.
Neither do I think "it shouldn't be posted on this
list" or anything like that…no, it was the content
of both versions of the call that I thought called for
comment- besides the politics and "pornography"
exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces that
will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
braincells or attention span of the corporate movers
and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
entertainment.
best
michael

— Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry about the double posting – I get many emails
> asking me to
> forward on to the list, and while I check to see if
> something has
> already been posted, I don't always catch
> everything. Especially as
> people post announcements on different days. Anyway,
> glad there was a
> distinction between posts that merited note. –
> Rachel
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Michael
> Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > This call was posted to the list directly a couple
> of
> > days back.
> > Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
> > willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor
> for
> > the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
> > extraordinary turn of phrase was " non
> pornographic
> > and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly
> this
> > appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
> > attachment here.
> > So politics and pornography is out but apparently
> a
> > bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
> > best
> > michael
> > — Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Trevor Smith <[email protected]>
> >>> Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> >>> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
> >>> "'[email protected]'"
> <[email protected]>
> >>> Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >>> —–Original Message—–
> >>> From: Jon Tomlinson
> >> [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Good morning…
> >>>
> >>> As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
> >> like to feature the
> >>> work of
> >>> approximately 10 digital artists. The nice
> thing
> >> is that I'll be able
> >>> to
> >>> pay them for the efforts. So… if you know of
> >> anyone who would like
> >>> to
> >>> participate, would you mind passing along the
> >> attached Call for
> >>> Entries?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks… take care,
> >>> Jon Tomlinson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf
> x-unix-mode66;
> > name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is
> for the use is that
> > of the sender and does not bind the precautions to
> minimise authority
> > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by
> software viruses email.
> > We have taken the risk of transmitting software
> viruses, but we advise
> > that you carry out your own virus attachment to
> this message. Internet
> > email that you observe this lack is not a secure
> communication
> > medium, and we advise of security when emailing
> us. District
> > Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics', i posted to Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists being invited to submit work, with an assurance that their work would not challenge the interests of the sponsors.

'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis and damning judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation among artists and writers who have each shared work in progress and contributed thoughtful and critical debate to this list over the last year.

The first represents a money/power taboo and the second a human emotion taboo.
I wonder how useful or necessary are these restrictions are?

Artist's self censorship- who needs the first amendment?

regards
ruth



Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> This call was posted to the list directly a couple of
> days back.
> Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
> willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor for
> the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
> extraordinary turn of phrase was " non pornographic
> and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly this
> appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
> attachment here.
> So politics and pornography is out but apparently a
> bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
> best
> michael
> — Rachel Greene <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Trevor Smith <[email protected]>
> > > Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> > > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>,
> > > "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> > > —–Original Message—–
> > > From: Jon Tomlinson
> > [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> > >
> > >
> > > Good morning…
> > >
> > > As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
> > like to feature the
> > > work of
> > > approximately 10 digital artists. The nice thing
> > is that I'll be able
> > > to
> > > pay them for the efforts. So… if you know of
> > anyone who would like
> > > to
> > > participate, would you mind passing along the
> > attached Call for
> > > Entries?
> > >
> > > Thanks… take care,
> > > Jon Tomlinson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf x-unix-mode66;
> name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
> + 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

What type of art work is likely to happen because of this?


>Artist's self censorship- who needs the first amendment?


marc

At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
>Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics', i posted to
>Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists being invited to
>submit work, with an assurance that their work would not challenge
>the interests of the sponsors.
>
>'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis and damning
>judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation among artists and
>writers who have each shared work in progress and contributed
>thoughtful and critical debate to this list over the last year.

++
hiya ruth,

i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning judgement', simply
reminding people that i (and many others i imagine) expect at least a
bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been a trend on Rhiz
that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months so I took
advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise surrounding Jess's
latest as my chance to address it.

It simply goes back to the long-running debate on Rhiz as to whether
this space should function more as a cocktail party or should it
function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate doesn't need reviving?
I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as guilty as anyone
in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time to time (or even
more often).

personally, i like cocktail parties much better when there are actual
cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists function better when
more thought is put into posts than is put into your average cocktail
party chatter IMO.
++

>
>The first represents a money/power taboo and the second a human
>emotion taboo.
>I wonder how useful or necessary are these restrictions are?
>
>Artist's self censorship- who needs the first amendment?
>
>regards
>ruth

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
here.
All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
argued stuff over the last few months.
I for one posted a good deal about the Arcangel piece
that I think was pretty closely argued and as you may
recall, extremely critical and unclubby.
I seem to remember that your reaction was incredulity
that anyone could dislike the piece or, in a connected
issue, dismiss the sainted Duchamp and Cage, for,
after all, they have been canonized by "art history".
Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
to do with the fact that many of those posting have
either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
this list that are opposed to your idea of what
constitutes good or serious art.
In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
possible reading of your post is that you believe that
you have some sort of privileged access as to what
constitutes the worthwhile.
Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
the dilettantes of your post?
If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
of those who did?
I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
issues involved.
michael

— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> >Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics',
> i posted to
> >Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists
> being invited to
> >submit work, with an assurance that their work
> would not challenge
> >the interests of the sponsors.
> >
> >'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis
> and damning
> >judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation
> among artists and
> >writers who have each shared work in progress and
> contributed
> >thoughtful and critical debate to this list over
> the last year.
>
> ++
> hiya ruth,
>
> i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning
> judgement', simply
> reminding people that i (and many others i imagine)
> expect at least a
> bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been
> a trend on Rhiz
> that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months
> so I took
> advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise
> surrounding Jess's
> latest as my chance to address it.
>
> It simply goes back to the long-running debate on
> Rhiz as to whether
> this space should function more as a cocktail party
> or should it
> function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate
> doesn't need reviving?
> I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as
> guilty as anyone
> in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time
> to time (or even
> more often).
>
> personally, i like cocktail parties much better when
> there are actual
> cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists
> function better when
> more thought is put into posts than is put into your
> average cocktail
> party chatter IMO.
> ++
>
> >
> >The first represents a money/power taboo and the
> second a human
> >emotion taboo.
> >I wonder how useful or necessary are these
> restrictions are?
> >
> >Artist's self censorship- who needs the first
> amendment?
> >
> >regards
> >ruth
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

—- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> here.

how? I've been honest the entire time.


> All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> argued stuff over the last few months.

no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
original post.


> Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> constitutes good or serious art.

no, that could not be.

> In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> constitutes the worthwhile.

who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
or deserved.

> Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> the dilettantes of your post?

people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.

> If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> of those who did?

this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.

> I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> issues involved.

that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.

take care,
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

Personally, I'm all for back-slapping rather than back-stabbing…


marc


> See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> here.
> All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> argued stuff over the last few months.
> I for one posted a good deal about the Arcangel piece
> that I think was pretty closely argued and as you may
> recall, extremely critical and unclubby.
> I seem to remember that your reaction was incredulity
> that anyone could dislike the piece or, in a connected
> issue, dismiss the sainted Duchamp and Cage, for,
> after all, they have been canonized by "art history".
> Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> constitutes good or serious art.
> In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> constitutes the worthwhile.
> Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> the dilettantes of your post?
> If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> of those who did?
> I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> issues involved.
> michael
>
> — "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> > >Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics',
> > i posted to
> > >Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists
> > being invited to
> > >submit work, with an assurance that their work
> > would not challenge
> > >the interests of the sponsors.
> > >
> > >'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis
> > and damning
> > >judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation
> > among artists and
> > >writers who have each shared work in progress and
> > contributed
> > >thoughtful and critical debate to this list over
> > the last year.
> >
> > ++
> > hiya ruth,
> >
> > i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning
> > judgement', simply
> > reminding people that i (and many others i imagine)
> > expect at least a
> > bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been
> > a trend on Rhiz
> > that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months
> > so I took
> > advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise
> > surrounding Jess's
> > latest as my chance to address it.
> >
> > It simply goes back to the long-running debate on
> > Rhiz as to whether
> > this space should function more as a cocktail party
> > or should it
> > function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate
> > doesn't need reviving?
> > I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as
> > guilty as anyone
> > in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time
> > to time (or even
> > more often).
> >
> > personally, i like cocktail parties much better when
> > there are actual
> > cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists
> > function better when
> > more thought is put into posts than is put into your
> > average cocktail
> > party chatter IMO.
> > ++
> >
> > >
> > >The first represents a money/power taboo and the
> > second a human
> > >emotion taboo.
> > >I wonder how useful or necessary are these
> > restrictions are?
> > >
> > >Artist's self censorship- who needs the first
> > amendment?
> > >
> > >regards
> > >ruth
> >
> > –
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> > + 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
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
when emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> + 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
>
>

OK T.Whid,

Let's get back to discussing & offering good solid critique. I'm all for it.

Always have been - one small slip up & I'm crucified, fried on the spit for
lunch. Used as an example, as the cause for all the shit. So many others
have put stuff that is much, much worse. And you suddnely out of nowhere
decide that I am the one. Kick me while I'm smiliing - thanx.

Why try & knock someone down to make a point?
What have I done to you that deserves such disrespect?

Sure, it was not an appropriate dialogue - but surely its got more to do
with the lack of list activity ever since the rhizome changes.

There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished. So
now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still beleive
that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places - not as
regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not necessarily
the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they don't. It's
all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely to
contribute with quality. It's a natural thing…

marc


>
>
> —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>




>
>
> —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>

May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the words

"crappy work"

<applause><applause>

Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.

<applause><applause>

joseph


t.whid wrote:

>
>
> —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>

It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a following.


—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>


> besides the politics and "pornography"
> exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces that
> will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> braincells or attention span of the corporate movers
> and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> entertainment.


"We reject the idea that we should even try to have our work in such a
context, because our work should not be enslaved by being seen. And because
we feel we could not have our work shown in a system that is so corrupt.
Instead, our work exists in real life, and in conversation- we talk about
the projects we would make, if only getting a grant was easier. And while we
could simply make art in the streets, we reject that, as well, because
having our art in the streets with trash and car exhaust is a disservice to
our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted by actualization.

But if they changed this system of appraising "quality" based on things they
did not understand, I might be able to participate in the art world. As it
is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I refuse to compromise. And
it is the fault of the institutions for not paying money based solely on an
artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I reject the institutions
altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to complaints about them."

-Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist

Personally, I'm just hanging around for the free oven mitt. I hate to keep harping on this, but after a certain number of posts, don't I qualify to receive some sort of free Rhizome oven mitt? I realize arts funding in the US is on the decline, but surely things aren't so bleak that somebody can't toss me a danged free oven mitt every once in a while (or even, like, *ever*).

i mean honestly, what's the deal? do i or don't i qualify for the free oven mitt? (a simple yes or no will do.)

respectfully,
curt


++++++++++++++++++

marc garrett wrote:

> There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished.
> So
> now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still
> beleive
> that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places -
> not as
> regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not
> necessarily
> the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they
> don't. It's
> all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely
> to
> contribute with quality. It's a natural thing…
>
> marc

At 01:43 AM 4/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Personally, I'm just hanging around for the free oven mitt. I hate to
>keep harping on this, but after a certain number of posts, don't I qualify
>to receive some sort of free Rhizome oven mitt? I realize arts funding in
>the US is on the decline, but surely things aren't so bleak that somebody
>can't toss me a danged free oven mitt every once in a while (or even,
>like, *ever*).
>
>i mean honestly, what's the deal? do i or don't i qualify for the free
>oven mitt? (a simple yes or no will do.)



i want the rhizomer beanie. my ears r cold.




>respectfully,
>curt
>
>
>++++++++++++++++++
>
>marc garrett wrote:
>
> > There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished.
> > So
> > now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still
> > beleive
> > that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places -
> > not as
> > regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not
> > necessarily
> > the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they
> > don't. It's
> > all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely
> > to
> > contribute with quality. It's a natural thing…
> >
> > marc
>+ 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

- pro][rating][.lucid.txt
-
-

http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
_
_men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.gages_

There are Rhizome Laptop Bags, if I recall. And Chris Fahey Mousepads.

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: "][mez][" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


> At 01:43 AM 4/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >Personally, I'm just hanging around for the free oven mitt. I hate to
> >keep harping on this, but after a certain number of posts, don't I
qualify
> >to receive some sort of free Rhizome oven mitt? I realize arts funding
in
> >the US is on the decline, but surely things aren't so bleak that somebody
> >can't toss me a danged free oven mitt every once in a while (or even,
> >like, *ever*).
> >
> >i mean honestly, what's the deal? do i or don't i qualify for the free
> >oven mitt? (a simple yes or no will do.)
>
>
>
> i want the rhizomer beanie. my ears r cold.
>
>
>
>
> >respectfully,
> >curt
> >
> >
> >++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >marc garrett wrote:
> >
> > > There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished.
> > > So
> > > now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still
> > > beleive
> > > that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places -
> > > not as
> > > regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not
> > > necessarily
> > > the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they
> > > don't. It's
> > > all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely
> > > to
> > > contribute with quality. It's a natural thing…
> > >
> > > marc
> >+ 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
>
> - pro][rating][.lucid.txt
> -
> -
>
> http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker
> _
> _men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.ga[u]ges_
>
> + 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
>

Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
instrument there.
Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
them.
My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
content in advance?
best
michael


— Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> following.
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
>
>
> > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> that
> > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> movers
> > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > entertainment.
>
>
> "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> our work in such a
> context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> being seen. And because
> we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> that is so corrupt.
> Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> conversation- we talk about
> the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> was easier. And while we
> could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> that, as well, because
> having our art in the streets with trash and car
> exhaust is a disservice to
> our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> by actualization.
>
> But if they changed this system of appraising
> "quality" based on things they
> did not understand, I might be able to participate
> in the art world. As it
> is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> refuse to compromise. And
> it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> money based solely on an
> artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> reject the institutions
> altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> complaints about them."
>
> -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
>
>


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

Hi Joseph,

I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite dudes on
rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better. That's
not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used the
identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an in-house
joke on the list users - kool eh!

That's why I was surprised…but I am beginning to get the gist that it was
not personal - I hope.

Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was one of the least snotty
and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome list users that we met
(other than you good self of course).

marc




> May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's
brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the words
>
> "crappy work"
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
> A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> joseph
>
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > > here.
> >
> > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> >
> >
> > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> >
> > no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> > my
> > original post.
> >
> >
> > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > > constitutes good or serious art.
> >
> > no, that could not be.
> >
> > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> >
> > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> > quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> > english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> > my
> > critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> > or deserved.
> >
> > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > > the dilettantes of your post?
> >
> > people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> > category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> > that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
> >
> > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > > of those who did?
> >
> > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
> >
> > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > > issues involved.
> >
> > that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> > critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
> >
> > take care,
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> + 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
>

Hi
I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
post and I said so.
He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
courteous debate on the issues.
best
michael

— furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> the more polite dudes on
> rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> himself feel better. That's
> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> dead-heads who used the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> the list as an in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>
> That's why I was surprised…but I am beginning to
> get the gist that it was
> not personal - I hope.
>
> Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> one of the least snotty
> and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> list users that we met
> (other than you good self of course).
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
> > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> a certain t.whid's
> brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> entirely of the words
> >
> > "crappy work"
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> and a black hawk?
> > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > joseph
> >
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> disingenuous
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > >
> > >
> > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> work
> > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> closely
> > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > >
> > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> the posts i quoted in
> > > my
> > > original post.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> has more
> > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> have
> > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> positions on
> > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> what
> > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > >
> > > no, that could not be.
> > >
> > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> had
> > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> other
> > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> believe that
> > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> what
> > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > >
> > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> specific remarks
> > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> discussion but rather mere
> > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> being able to read the
> > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> back-slapping was genuine,
> > > my
> > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> that it wasn't genuine
> > > or deserved.
> > >
> > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> painters,
> > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > >
> > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> list don't fit into this
> > > category. that was my critique, we are
> collectively better than
> > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> discussion.
> > >
> > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> then why
> > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> motives
> > > > of those who did?
> > >
> > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> piece have nothing to
> > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> whatever my reaction to the
> > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> surrounding it.
> > >
> > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> extended
> > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> artistic
> > > > issues involved.
> > >
> > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> address the level of
> > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> it.
> > >
> > > take care,
> > > <twhid>
> > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > </twhid>
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>
> + 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


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

marc garrett wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite
> dudes on rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better.

To quote t.whid from 4/30/2002 post addressed to me

"you're tactics are tired and the little work i've seen from you is
sub-amateur. you're simply a loudmouth with nothing better to do then
get your panties in a ruffle by a little piece of art my collaborator
and i made long ago."

This was in response to a critique of a business plan they presented as art work, which I thought worked as neither…

"You already have given your idea away, so details are meaningless except to prove that you really have thought out how to make the idea into a reality. Not doing the details reflects a lack of desire to pursue the business opportunity, thus demonstrating that your plan is only intended as an art work and not as an actual business plan. And because it is such a shallow plan, it is also not even true to its purpose as an art work. It is only a sketch of an art work that you never intend to complete, for to complete the work would require a commitment that you are not willing to give."

He can dish it be he can't take it.

joseph

Sorry, I just had to go out for some air. It gets a bit claustrophobic in
here sometimes.
:-)
Ivan

–
Ivan Pope
[email protected]
www.ivanpope.com
www.tochki-inc.com

"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death"
Hunter S. Thompson
—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "furtherfield" <[email protected]>; "joseph mcelroy"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


> Hi
> I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
> I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
> posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
> I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
> post and I said so.
> He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
> we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
> disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
> wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
> courteous debate on the issues.
> best
> michael
>
> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> > the more polite dudes on
> > rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> > himself feel better. That's
> > not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> > dead-heads who used the
> > identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> > the list as an in-house
> > joke on the list users - kool eh!
> >
> > That's why I was surprised…but I am beginning to
> > get the gist that it was
> > not personal - I hope.
> >
> > Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> > one of the least snotty
> > and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> > list users that we met
> > (other than you good self of course).
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> > a certain t.whid's
> > brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> > entirely of the words
> > >
> > > "crappy work"
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> > and a black hawk?
> > > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > joseph
> > >
> > >
> > > t.whid wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> > disingenuous
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> > work
> > > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> > closely
> > > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > > >
> > > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> > the posts i quoted in
> > > > my
> > > > original post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> > has more
> > > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> > have
> > > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> > positions on
> > > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> > what
> > > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > > >
> > > > no, that could not be.
> > > >
> > > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> > had
> > > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> > other
> > > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> > believe that
> > > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> > what
> > > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > > >
> > > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> > specific remarks
> > > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> > discussion but rather mere
> > > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> > being able to read the
> > > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> > back-slapping was genuine,
> > > > my
> > > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> > that it wasn't genuine
> > > > or deserved.
> > > >
> > > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> > painters,
> > > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > > >
> > > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> > list don't fit into this
> > > > category. that was my critique, we are
> > collectively better than
> > > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> > then why
> > > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> > motives
> > > > > of those who did?
> > > >
> > > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> > piece have nothing to
> > > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> > whatever my reaction to the
> > > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> > surrounding it.
> > > >
> > > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> > extended
> > > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> > artistic
> > > > > issues involved.
> > > >
> > > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> > address the level of
> > > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > take care,
> > > > <twhid>
> > > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > > </twhid>
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
when emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> + 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
>

I'd rather someone call me stupid when they are calling me stupid.
joseph

Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> Hi
> I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
> I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
> posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
> I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
> post and I said so.
> He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
> we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
> disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
> wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
> courteous debate on the issues.
> best
> michael
>
> — furtherfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> > the more polite dudes on
> > rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> > himself feel better. That's
> > not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> > dead-heads who used the
> > identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> > the list as an in-house
> > joke on the list users - kool eh!
> >
> > That's why I was surprised…but I am beginning to
> > get the gist that it was
> > not personal - I hope.
> >
> > Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> > one of the least snotty
> > and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> > list users that we met
> > (other than you good self of course).
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> > a certain t.whid's
> > brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> > entirely of the words
> > >
> > > "crappy work"
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> > and a black hawk?
> > > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> > >
> > > <applause><applause>
> > >
> > > joseph
> > >
> > >
> > > t.whid wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> > disingenuous
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> > work
> > > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> > closely
> > > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > > >
> > > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> > the posts i quoted in
> > > > my
> > > > original post.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> > has more
> > > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> > have
> > > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> > positions on
> > > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> > what
> > > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > > >
> > > > no, that could not be.
> > > >
> > > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> > had
> > > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> > other
> > > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> > believe that
> > > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> > what
> > > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > > >
> > > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> > specific remarks
> > > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> > discussion but rather mere
> > > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> > being able to read the
> > > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> > back-slapping was genuine,
> > > > my
> > > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> > that it wasn't genuine
> > > > or deserved.
> > > >
> > > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> > painters,
> > > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > > >
> > > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> > list don't fit into this
> > > > category. that was my critique, we are
> > collectively better than
> > > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> > then why
> > > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> > motives
> > > > > of those who did?
> > > >
> > > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> > piece have nothing to
> > > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> > whatever my reaction to the
> > > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> > surrounding it.
> > > >
> > > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> > extended
> > > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> > artistic
> > > > > issues involved.
> > > >
> > > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> > address the level of
> > > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > take care,
> > > > <twhid>
> > > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > > </twhid>
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
> We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
> that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
> email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
> medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
> Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com

Hi Joseph,

That does seem a bit harsh, but from here on I'm having a rest from
personality arguments, it hurts me.

Makes me feel uncomfortable & gives me a hollow feeling inside - similar to
looking at a mug-shot of President Bush.

marc




> marc garrett wrote:
>
> > Hi Joseph,
> >
> > I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite
> > dudes on rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel
better.
>
> To quote t.whid from 4/30/2002 post addressed to me
>
> "you're tactics are tired and the little work i've seen from you is
> sub-amateur. you're simply a loudmouth with nothing better to do then
> get your panties in a ruffle by a little piece of art my collaborator
> and i made long ago."
>
> This was in response to a critique of a business plan they presented as
art work, which I thought worked as neither…
>
> "You already have given your idea away, so details are meaningless except
to prove that you really have thought out how to make the idea into a
reality. Not doing the details reflects a lack of desire to pursue the
business opportunity, thus demonstrating that your plan is only intended as
an art work and not as an actual business plan. And because it is such a
shallow plan, it is also not even true to its purpose as an art work. It is
only a sketch of an art work that you never intend to complete, for to
complete the work would require a commitment that you are not willing to
give."
>
> He can dish it be he can't take it.
>
> joseph
>
>
> + 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
>
>

marc garrett wrote:

> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used
> the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an
> in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>

Karei is now on other lists - he seems to have done the cover art for a Halfler Trio CD.

joseph

> Makes me feel uncomfortable & gives me a hollow feeling inside - similar
to
> looking at a mug-shot of President Bush.
>
> marc

This made me smile today.

The Washington Post reports that in a private meeting Sharon said to Bush:
'You are a man of peace and security'.
Bush replied:
'I know you are a man of security. I want you to work harder on the peace
part.' Adding, 'I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took
immense crap for that.'

Almost made me want to hug Bush. I said almost.

Cheers,
Ivan

Hi Ivan,

What, like hug him until the veins pop out of his head…

marc





> > Makes me feel uncomfortable & gives me a hollow feeling inside - similar
> to
> > looking at a mug-shot of President Bush.
> >
> > marc
>
> This made me smile today.
>
> The Washington Post reports that in a private meeting Sharon said to Bush:
> 'You are a man of peace and security'.
> Bush replied:
> 'I know you are a man of security. I want you to work harder on the peace
> part.' Adding, 'I said you were a man of peace. I want you to know I took
> immense crap for that.'
>
> Almost made me want to hug Bush. I said almost.
>
> 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
>
>

And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may want to
participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior because it
might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is only
relevant if it offends buisiness people?

Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show pornography or
political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works. Whether
we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't know why we
have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event. Shouldn't we
be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all? With the
way the government is going and has been going, corporate sponsorship may be
the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until corporations
insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own buisiness
practice should be not only allowed but funded by those corporations whose
sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the institutions
for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
compromise."

Who should pay for pornographic and political art?

-e.




—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


> Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> instrument there.
> Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> them.
> My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> content in advance?
> best
> michael
>
>
> — Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > following.
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > that
> > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > movers
> > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > entertainment.
> >
> >
> > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > our work in such a
> > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > being seen. And because
> > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > that is so corrupt.
> > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > conversation- we talk about
> > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > was easier. And while we
> > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > that, as well, because
> > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > exhaust is a disservice to
> > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > by actualization.
> >
> > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > "quality" based on things they
> > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > in the art world. As it
> > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > refuse to compromise. And
> > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > money based solely on an
> > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > reject the institutions
> > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > complaints about them."
> >
> > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
when emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>

I agree with Eryk on this one. With the legal responsibility that corporations have to shareholders to not diminish the corporate share value, which can happen easily with offending artwork, officers are not in a position to take chances and it would be "unethical" for them to do so. And large institutions placing restrictions on the content of artwork it sponsors is nothing new. Do you think Mike could have painted a bunch of satan worshipers and fornicators on the Sistine (other than showing them go to hell of course;)? Creating worthwhile art within restrictions is a challenge, not an obstacle.

joseph

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may want
> to
> participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior because
> it
> might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is only
> relevant if it offends buisiness people?
>
> Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show pornography
> or
> political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> Whether
> we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't know
> why we
> have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> Shouldn't we
> be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> With the
> way the government is going and has been going, corporate sponsorship
> may be
> the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> corporations
> insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> buisiness
> practice should be not only allowed but funded by those corporations
> whose
> sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> institutions
> for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> compromise."
>
> Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>
>
> > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > instrument there.
> > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > them.
> > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > content in advance?
> > best
> > michael
> >
> >
> > — Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > following.
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >
> > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > that
> > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > movers
> > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > entertainment.
> > >
> > >
> > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > our work in such a
> > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > being seen. And because
> > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > that is so corrupt.
> > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > conversation- we talk about
> > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > was easier. And while we
> > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > that, as well, because
> > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > by actualization.
> > >
> > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > "quality" based on things they
> > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > in the art world. As it
> > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > money based solely on an
> > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > reject the institutions
> > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > complaints about them."
> > >
> > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of
> the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in
> any
> way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have
> taken
> the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> observe
> this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> security
> when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> >
>

On Mi

Hi Eryk (and Joseph ,Pall)
Well none of the below really
< And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise
those who may want to
participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is
superior because it
might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume
that art is only
relevant if it offends buisiness people?>
especially the last which is really a caricature of my
position.
Ironically I think one of the criticisms that could be
levelled about my own work is that it *is* lacking in
politics ot shock value of any sort ( I'm not saying
it would be a valid criticism but I can imagine
someone making it, especially in these fevered times)
-but its that way because that's what I feel moved to
make, not because someone tells me to.
Neither do I want to defend actual pornography.
( I fact I suspect that "pornographic art" is a
contradiction in terms)
It's just that even a cursory glance at the history of
art will show that "pornography" has been used over
and over again as a code word to attack the new and
challenging.
Furthermore I have no problem with taking the
corporate or state shilling under many circumstances .
Quite recently in fact I accepted a sum from a
foundation run by an East London property developer
with whom I imagine I would see eye to eye about very
little but who significantly makes no limitations
whatsoever upon what I am going to make with the
money.
*Nor* am I particulalrly opposed to the notion of
restriction or commission, if it's honestly stated.
I'm not religious so I always make it abundantly clear
that I will not accept work with a religious flavour
but I don't attack the right of the church or any
other body to commission work with specifically
religious intentions.
Even the vanity portrait has created great work.
No, my beef with this call is very specific,
which is why the deploymnet of oro bouros felt more
like a bludgeon than a clinical dissection.
The call purports to be about digital art in general,
the restrictions are added as an afterthought.
I find it's tenor completely dishonest - I don't even
think it's a call for artwork - it's a call for
circuses to amuse the assembled dignitaries.
The honest thing to do would be to say " corporate
entertainment required" - for me art means something
more than this.
And I do , forgive me, find it offensive that this is
the one, the call says, where we might actually make
some money, especially in light of the current
cutbacks in arts and education funding ( and the
concomitant dismissal of figures associated with new
media art.)
There is a history of wealthy and discerning people (
and the wealthy are often very discerning because they
have more time to cultivate that discernment -this is
a fact) commissioning great art; anyone who denies
that in capitalist society art is tied up with the
market is naive or foolish, an oro bouros, but this
call represents something completely different.
I do think its legitimate to raise on this list,
which is after all a discussion list about art and
often about the society in which it is made, what I
believe to be the dishonesty at the heart of this call
and it's rather worrying implications in times like
these when many freedoms are under attack.
best
michael


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

hey, i'm not snotty—i blow my nose on a regular basis…;-}

bliss
l


marc garrett wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite
> dudes on
> rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better.
> That's
> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used
> the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an
> in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>
> That's why I was surprised…but I am beginning to get the gist that
> it was
> not personal - I hope.
>
> Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was one of the least
> snotty
> and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome list users that we
> met
> (other than you good self of course).
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
> > May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's
> brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the
> words
> >
> > "crappy work"
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
> > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > joseph
> >
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > —- Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > >
> > >
> > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > >
> > > no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted
> in
> > > my
> > > original post.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > >
> > > no, that could not be.
> > >
> > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > > > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > >
> > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> > > quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather
> mere
> > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read
> the
> > > english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was
> genuine,
> > > my
> > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't
> genuine
> > > or deserved.
> > >
> > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > >
> > > people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into
> this
> > > category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
> > >
> > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > > > of those who did?
> > >
> > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing
> to
> > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to
> the
> > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
> > >
> > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > > > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > > > issues involved.
> > >
> > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
> > >
> > > take care,
> > > <twhid>
> > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > </twhid>
> > + 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
> >
>
>
>

> There are Rhizome Laptop Bags, if I recall. And Chris Fahey Mousepads.

I want one of those! Um, I actually have the Alex Galloway Mousepad.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

Am I right that there is some sort of askROM merch you can get through
rhizome? If not I apologize…

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:25 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


> > There are Rhizome Laptop Bags, if I recall. And Chris Fahey Mousepads.
>
> I want one of those! Um, I actually have the Alex Galloway Mousepad.
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>
>
>
> + 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
>

> Am I right that there is some sort of askROM merch you can get
> through rhizome? If not I apologize…

If so, I've never seen any (nor any royalties). Conspiracy theories.
Can't shake em!

http://www.graphpaper.com/stuff/photos/rom_limo.jpg

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com