attempting to share net.art with friends & family

i've received some strange looks when exposing friends and family to net.ar=
t.

once, someone said to me "what's the point?". and for some reason i was co=
mpelled to ask him what was the point of a TV show. he stared at me blankl=
y for about a minute and then went back into the living room to watch TV. =
i think my question pissed him off a little. oh well.

i'm curious if anyone else has had difficulty sharing net.art with others. =
and who on rhizome has the best, funniest, weirdest response after trying =
to expose net.art to friends/family/strangers/whatever


david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv

Comments

, Eduardo Navas

>
> i'm curious if anyone else has had difficulty sharing net.art with
> others. =
> and who on rhizome has the best, funniest, weirdest response after
> trying =
> to expose net.art to friends/family/strangers/whatever

I get the same from people, mainly when they ask me what I focus on as an artist. When I am introduced to a complete stranger, she/he often assumes I paint, but after visiting my website, an e-mail follows usually wondering along the same lines as you described in your own experience – "what is the point in that? Or how do you sell it? You should paint! blah, blah…"

I like the fact that people do not see an immediate practicality in the medium; and that it is still a challenge for institutions to develop decent exhibitions. The latter is a good thing because it means that net art may be one of the hardest mediums to be marketable to the mass public. This is all the slippery informatin based medium has left as its institutionalization is complete by this point.

Eduardo Navas
http://navasse.net
http://netartreview.net

, David Goldschmidt

maybe "what's the point?" … is not a question of net.art but an answer
net.artists provoke about media content. after all, artists working in
other mediums don't have to deal with that question.

david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv


—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 4:02 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends & family


>
> >
> > i'm curious if anyone else has had difficulty sharing net.art with
> > others. =
> > and who on rhizome has the best, funniest, weirdest response after
> > trying =
> > to expose net.art to friends/family/strangers/whatever
>
> I get the same from people, mainly when they ask me what I focus on as an
artist. When I am introduced to a complete stranger, she/he often assumes I
paint, but after visiting my website, an e-mail follows usually wondering
along the same lines as you described in your own experience – "what is
the point in that? Or how do you sell it? You should paint! blah, blah…"
>
> I like the fact that people do not see an immediate practicality in the
medium; and that it is still a challenge for institutions to develop decent
exhibitions. The latter is a good thing because it means that net art may
be one of the hardest mediums to be marketable to the mass public. This is
all the slippery informatin based medium has left as its
institutionalization is complete by this point.
>
> Eduardo Navas
> http://navasse.net
> http://netartreview.net
> + 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
>

, Eduardo Navas

—– Original Message —–
From: "David Goldschmidt" <[email protected]>
To: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> maybe "what's the point?" … is not a question of net.art but an answer
> net.artists provoke about media content. after all, artists working in
> other mediums don't have to deal with that question.
>
> david goldschmidt
> www.personify.tv

I do think artists working in other mediums do deal with "what is the
point?" This is the tough balance between content and form that art schools
rely on to instill a critical practice in their students. The difference
for net art may be that it functions on an informational structure that is
shifting along with technology development. This unpredictability makes the
work quite rich in possibilities but poor in marketability, unlike more
established art mediums.

In a practical world, people need to see a point. Students attend college
because the average citizen aims to get a better job and style of living;
not necessarily because they aim to attain a higher state of awareness;
though the latter is the foundation of all Universities in Europe and the
United States (for a good analysis on this shift from state of higher
awareness to a state of production, look up The Postmodern Condition by Jean
Francois Lyotard. Negri and Hardt do a good job in their book Empire as
well).

So the key here is practicality ( for something to be valuable, it has to do
something that can be understood as an obvious outcome based on labor "Show
me the money!") – or in economic terms demand and supply. There is no
obvious use for net art to the aveage person. Paintings or sculptures,
because they have become historized by now, are part of a lucrative, though
priviledged market, and because there is a better understanding of the
commercial role of these mediums to the average consumer, there is no
question as to the point of such media. Net art has not become part of the
vernacular. People do not see how it fits their demand and supply
everydayness, but once net art becomes assimilated to such degree, the
purpose will be the same as that of painting and sculpture. Maybe at this
point someone will say "Net art is dead." But it is not quite there yet.

And this may be the reason why people do not understand the point in net
art. During my many conversations with family members, the question comes
up: "How do you make money from this? How do you sell it?" which are more
direct propositions than "What is the point?"

I should close stating that the above is a reflection on the lifestyle in
the United States, and that I am fully aware that the role of art is quite
different in other countries in the world depending on their particular
socio-economic situation.

Eduardo Navas
http://navasse.net
http://netartreview.net

, David Goldschmidt

Tough question. I suppose there are a variety of reasons (feedback,
recognition, encouragement, amusement, etc.) for exposing one's work to
others. Personally, I had to share it with my friends and family so they'd
stop accusing me of looking at porn 12 hours a day. :)

david goldschmidt
www.personify.tv



—– Original Message —–
From: "Ana Buigues" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:12 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends & family


> David and Eduardo,
>
> What would be the point of trying to reason with people (family members,
friends, pets, or extraterrestials) who are just not in the same frequency
as you?
>
> Best,
>
> Ana
>
> + 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
>

, Eduardo Navas

Ana Buigues wrote:

> David and Eduardo,
>
> What would be the point of trying to reason with people (family
> members, friends, pets, or extraterrestials) who are just not in the
> same frequency as you?
>
> Best,
>
> Ana
>


The point is to communicate. Of course this depends on the type of relationship a person may have with her family; but in all honesty, I never bought the myth of disliking my parents simply because it gives me something to complain about during dinner party conversations while smoking cigarrettes. I must add that it is extremely disappointing to accept that such a social construct is so eagerly endorsed through TV sitcoms and movies, and is also fully reinforced around the art community. Communication is the reason why. If someone is curious, share. Though this may mean that a new type of complaint will have to be created for the next set of drinks… got cool?

, ruth catlow

I'm with you on this one Eduardo,

It's always been my ambition to communicate with my work to my family and my neighbours. The most common initial response I have when I talk about net art to them or interested strangers, is that they thought that art had to be painting, sculpture or maybe installations. Maybe this is because so many artists refer to the form that their art takes rather than the function, content or intention of the work. I've always regarded this as a bit of a cop out.

I'd have a go at communicating with the extra terrestrials if they showed an interest. After all there's so much to learn from the way work is received by any other sentient beings.

cheers
ruth

http://www.furtherfield.org

Eduardo Navas wrote:

> Ana Buigues wrote:
>
> > David and Eduardo,
> >
> > What would be the point of trying to reason with people (family
> > members, friends, pets, or extraterrestials) who are just not in the
> > same frequency as you?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ana
> >
>
> The point is to communicate. Of course this depends on the type of relationship a person may have with her family; but in all honesty, I never bought the myth of disliking my parents simply because it gives me something to complain about during dinner party conversations while smoking cigarrettes. I must add that it is extremely disappointing to accept that such a social construct is so eagerly endorsed through TV sitcoms and movies, and is also fully reinforced around the art community. Communication is the reason why. If someone is curious, share. Though this may mean that a new type of complaint will have to be created for the next set of drinks… got cool?
> + 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

, Pall Thayer

If you can explain the work in general artistic terms, then why this should
pose problems is beyond me. If anyone tries to doubt the artistic merits of
my own work I challenge them to point out what it is that their idea of art
has that my work doesn't. Of course a lot of people mention the fact that it
can't be sold but this of course has little to do with art and is an
argument that is easily dismissed. If the artist has trouble defining the
artistic aspects of his/her work then he/she should take some time to
contemplate it, his/her work will only benefit from it.

Usually after this sort of discussion the doubter will become "enlightened"
or at least pretend to so that he/she can wander off and talk to someone
they can understand.

Pall


Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse

—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> Ana Buigues wrote:
>
> > David and Eduardo,
> >
> > What would be the point of trying to reason with people (family
> > members, friends, pets, or extraterrestials) who are just not in the
> > same frequency as you?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ana
> >
>
>
> The point is to communicate. Of course this depends on the type of
relationship a person may have with her family; but in all honesty, I never
bought the myth of disliking my parents simply because it gives me something
to complain about during dinner party conversations while smoking
cigarrettes. I must add that it is extremely disappointing to accept that
such a social construct is so eagerly endorsed through TV sitcoms and
movies, and is also fully reinforced around the art community. Communication
is the reason why. If someone is curious, share. Though this may mean that
a new type of complaint will have to be created for the next set of
drinks… got cool?
> + 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

, Eduardo Navas

> Of course a lot of people mention the fact that it
> can't be sold but this of course has little to do with art and is an
> argument that is easily dismissed.

I am curious how 'the fact that net art can't be sold' can be easily
dismissed. Could you elaborate on this?

Eduardo

, Pall Thayer

Well, I didn't say that the fact that net art can't be sold can be easily
dismissed. I said that as an argument against the artistic validity of net
art, whether or not it can be sold has very little meaning. And it's their
fact, not mine. I can see many ways in which to sell net art if anyone's
interested in buying it but that really has nothing to do with my point.

Pall


Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse

—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


>
> > Of course a lot of people mention the fact that it
> > can't be sold but this of course has little to do with art and is an
> > argument that is easily dismissed.
>
> I am curious how 'the fact that net art can't be sold' can be easily
> dismissed. Could you elaborate on this?
>
> Eduardo
>
>
> + 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

, Eduardo Navas

> Well, I didn't say that the fact that net art can't be sold can be easily
> dismissed. I said that as an argument against the artistic validity of net
> art, whether or not it can be sold has very little meaning.

I see. Well, as I stated earlier in this thread, most people do bring
"selling" as a purpose to most things in life – including art. This is one
of the reasons why artists who consider art a meaningful endeavor often have
a hard time with the commercial aspect of their work. And yes, the argument
could be easily dismissed if one is interested in "meaning," or let's call
it research to include cultural producers who are creative but do not
consider themselves part of the art world. However, the average consumer is
not necessarily interested in meaning, but rather in naturalized
entertainment which, as I stated in a previous thread, functions on a
demand/supply platform of "good for something." So, while artists could
easily dismiss, as you say, the buying/selling argument based on a
speculative narrative, this does not quite work for most people. This is the
point when artists can be considered "intellectuals" or "bohemians" by those
who walk away from a conversation after their assumptions on artmaking have
been questioned as you described in an earlier e-mail; and here lies the
problem that I pointed to earlier – that the purpose of art is hard to
understand because its purpose is not clear. In the same way that artists
can dismiss the selling/buying as not necessary for artistic validity, so
can pop-culture not see the purpose of net art, as this one is not currently
validated in their eyes, like say painting. And even the more established
art forms, I think it is safe to state, are seen as a bit decadent for the
working classes. For those who care about education this is a problem that
should not be dismissed.

The above of course is explained to better understand the initial question
of this thread, that is why it is so hard for friends and family to see a
purpose in net art. But I will also add that what you are implying in your
statement is what Greenberg proposed when he wrote about modernism, that one
should dismiss the political and consider the work for its role as an
aesthetic device. This is a position that only few can claim to exercise,
and can also be used as a smoke screen to suspend the cultural and political
aspects that are always part of art. The commodity aspect of artmaking
along with aesthetics are a big part of how its purpose is understood in
everyday life. Net art will be understood very differently when it enter
the mainstream, and its commodity status is affected by the general art
market. But I think I will stop here, as I already explained how I see the
idea of "what is good for" in a previous message.

Thanks for clarifying your point.

Best,

Eduardo Navas

"medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to talk
about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
Hispanic,Chinese etc…).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize potential
of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium in
new role,actually new context-art.TV as medium for mass
manipulation,entertainment also(I steel talking about sixties/early
seventies)using some discovery which video bring into the world of
images.Video is fast,equipment is not so heavy,one man can do the work.In
few years video became one of most important medium for every kind of social
fight,and in same time deadly ideological weapon.Noem of photography is"That
really happened!"(R.Barhes:Camera Lucida),noem of video is"That's happened
in real time!"Paradox?Of course,butt…is there something regular in
manipulation with mediums,especially visual mediums?"Informatics
time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with ecstatic
form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome org.and
similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something we
can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
AESTETHICS AND
REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome org.could
show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we talking
about
when we talking about new concept of new media art.You don't seal your
collection of
images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of pragmatic
destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
understand this ultra retro idea about small community.All I want is to pay
your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
MANIK

—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


>
>
> > Well, I didn't say that the fact that net art can't be sold can be
easily
> > dismissed. I said that as an argument against the artistic validity of
net
> > art, whether or not it can be sold has very little meaning.
>
> I see. Well, as I stated earlier in this thread, most people do bring
> "selling" as a purpose to most things in life – including art. This is
one
> of the reasons why artists who consider art a meaningful endeavor often
have
> a hard time with the commercial aspect of their work. And yes, the
argument
> could be easily dismissed if one is interested in "meaning," or let's call
> it research to include cultural producers who are creative but do not
> consider themselves part of the art world. However, the average consumer
is
> not necessarily interested in meaning, but rather in naturalized
> entertainment which, as I stated in a previous thread, functions on a
> demand/supply platform of "good for something." So, while artists could
> easily dismiss, as you say, the buying/selling argument based on a
> speculative narrative, this does not quite work for most people. This is
the
> point when artists can be considered "intellectuals" or "bohemians" by
those
> who walk away from a conversation after their assumptions on artmaking
have
> been questioned as you described in an earlier e-mail; and here lies the
> problem that I pointed to earlier – that the purpose of art is hard to
> understand because its purpose is not clear. In the same way that artists
> can dismiss the selling/buying as not necessary for artistic validity, so
> can pop-culture not see the purpose of net art, as this one is not
currently
> validated in their eyes, like say painting. And even the more established
> art forms, I think it is safe to state, are seen as a bit decadent for the
> working classes. For those who care about education this is a problem
that
> should not be dismissed.
>
> The above of course is explained to better understand the initial question
> of this thread, that is why it is so hard for friends and family to see a
> purpose in net art. But I will also add that what you are implying in
your
> statement is what Greenberg proposed when he wrote about modernism, that
one
> should dismiss the political and consider the work for its role as an
> aesthetic device. This is a position that only few can claim to exercise,
> and can also be used as a smoke screen to suspend the cultural and
political
> aspects that are always part of art. The commodity aspect of artmaking
> along with aesthetics are a big part of how its purpose is understood in
> everyday life. Net art will be understood very differently when it enter
> the mainstream, and its commodity status is affected by the general art
> market. But I think I will stop here, as I already explained how I see
the
> idea of "what is good for" in a previous message.
>
> Thanks for clarifying your point.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
> + 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
>

, Eduardo Navas

> "medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to talk
> about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
> Hispanic,Chinese etc…).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize
potential
> of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium
in
> new role,actually new context-art. […]Informatics
> time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
> information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
> seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with ecstatic
> form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome
org.and
> similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something we
> can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
> AESTETHICS AND
> REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome org.could
> show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we
talking
> about
> when we talking about new concept of new media art.

I like the analogy of video and informatics. As to the essay, I looked it
up and could not find it on rhizome. I also did a search on google and all
I came up with was this:

http://www.skylined.org/melon/wrkdb/

So maybe you can send me the proper link so that I may read your suggestion.


>You don't seal your
> collection of
> images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
> ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of
pragmatic
> destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
> understand this ultra retro idea about small community.

My comments were not dealing with disillusionment of a narrative, but rather
with the possibilities as to why net art is not seen with a purpose among
friends and relatives. I pointed out the idea of purpose in relation to
labor as most people feel the need to find some sort of use for everything
in life. A movie is good for entertaining, a car is good for getting
around, but art – net art especially because is not as popular as other art
forms, gets slippery for people who see the world in terms of obvious use
value, mainly because there is no obvious role for it in life. Here is an
interesting quote from Matt Perry:

"Adult life for most people on the planet has always consisted of a daily
routine of toil. The French slang rhyme'metro, boulot, dodo' (metro work,
sleep) captures this in contemporary form. Who we are and how we are
perceived are wrapped up to a considerable extent with the labour we
perform. For instance, the question 'What do you do?' invites an answer
that explains what you do at work ('I'm a teacher'), or why you do not work
('I'm a student' or 'I'm a pensioner'). Although the forms of work vary
enormously both today and in the past, labour is like the DNA of human
history: ever-present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society."
– Matt Perry, Maxism and History: Theory and History, New York: Palgrave,
2000. pp. 3

So now let's take the answer "I'm an artist" to the above question. As you
may agree that, because of the many fields in art, such an answer is not
specific enough for most people – net art is even more complicated due to
its obscurity from pop-culture. And this is the problem I have been
addressing. The above platform seemed the most obvious too me in order to
present my argument. This is different from an ultra retro idea of a small
community – that is another can of worms.

>All I want is to pay
> your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
> MANIK

I am not sure how Nietzsche fits here, it would be great for you to clarify
this last comment.

Best,

Eduardo Navas

"Eternal returnee"is simple observation,and just because is so simple most
of people can't see the point.Actually we breath,eat,drink
liquid,shit,fuck.Sometimes those process are transparent,sometimes not(like
sex in Victorian epoch,for example…)Try to shit on street,and wrote me
what's happened.
OK,people need to be with someone whom can
trust.Form:marriage,brother,sister,uncle,dentist,godfather,mother in low
etc.Am I clear enough?I see that mentions of Nietzsche's name could be cause
for unexpected frighten in sensible soul.But,it's not so important.His
,yours and my name will be same dust after couple hundred years.After return
with commandment Moses find his people in terrible chaos;public
coitus,public shit,incest…atc.We are in in same situation,but on mental
level.Essence is same, but form of visual presentation are different.My
message,if we can considered that as a message is that in eternal return
people trying again and again to find answers.Art is not answer.Destiny is
more closer,but someone who think about him self as an artist replaced
destiny with art.That's the reason you cry for some justice,for lucrative
painting instead net.art,which is same think.Small community are one of ways
to make life comfortable.Isn't it old,and in same time brand new idea?
About homosematics,what people answer on some question we can discus after
you wrote something about what SERBS answer when you ask them"What do you
do?"
MANIK

—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "manik" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> > "medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to
talk
> > about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
> > Hispanic,Chinese etc…).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize
> potential
> > of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium
> in
> > new role,actually new context-art. […]Informatics
> > time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
> > information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
> > seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with
ecstatic
> > form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome
> org.and
> > similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something
we
> > can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
> > AESTETHICS AND
> > REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome
org.could
> > show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we
> talking
> > about
> > when we talking about new concept of new media art.
>
> I like the analogy of video and informatics. As to the essay, I looked it
> up and could not find it on rhizome. I also did a search on google and
all
> I came up with was this:
>
> http://www.skylined.org/melon/wrkdb/
>
> So maybe you can send me the proper link so that I may read your
suggestion.
>
>
> >You don't seal your
> > collection of
> > images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
> > ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of
> pragmatic
> > destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
> > understand this ultra retro idea about small community.
>
> My comments were not dealing with disillusionment of a narrative, but
rather
> with the possibilities as to why net art is not seen with a purpose among
> friends and relatives. I pointed out the idea of purpose in relation to
> labor as most people feel the need to find some sort of use for everything
> in life. A movie is good for entertaining, a car is good for getting
> around, but art – net art especially because is not as popular as other
art
> forms, gets slippery for people who see the world in terms of obvious use
> value, mainly because there is no obvious role for it in life. Here is an
> interesting quote from Matt Perry:
>
> "Adult life for most people on the planet has always consisted of a daily
> routine of toil. The French slang rhyme'metro, boulot, dodo' (metro work,
> sleep) captures this in contemporary form. Who we are and how we are
> perceived are wrapped up to a considerable extent with the labour we
> perform. For instance, the question 'What do you do?' invites an answer
> that explains what you do at work ('I'm a teacher'), or why you do not
work
> ('I'm a student' or 'I'm a pensioner'). Although the forms of work vary
> enormously both today and in the past, labour is like the DNA of human
> history: ever-present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society."
> – Matt Perry, Maxism and History: Theory and History, New York: Palgrave,
> 2000. pp. 3
>
> So now let's take the answer "I'm an artist" to the above question. As
you
> may agree that, because of the many fields in art, such an answer is not
> specific enough for most people – net art is even more complicated due to
> its obscurity from pop-culture. And this is the problem I have been
> addressing. The above platform seemed the most obvious too me in order to
> present my argument. This is different from an ultra retro idea of a
small
> community – that is another can of worms.
>
> >All I want is to pay
> > your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
> > MANIK
>
> I am not sure how Nietzsche fits here, it would be great for you to
clarify
> this last comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>

, Eduardo Navas

>My
> message,if we can considered that as a message is that in eternal return
> people trying again and again to find answers.Art is not answer.Destiny is
> more closer,but someone who think about him self as an artist replaced
> destiny with art.That's the reason you cry for some justice,for lucrative
> painting instead net.art,which is same think.Small community are one of
ways
> to make life comfortable.Isn't it old,and in same time brand new idea?

I see your point on the constant questioning. I think the realization of
this eventually led to what some people labeled as postmodern in the later
20th Century. However, I am not crying for justice, I was only adopting a
Marxist methodology to entertain why it might be hard for most people to see
a point in net art. Painting was only used as an example because it is a
common form related with artists in the community at large.

> About homosematics,what people answer on some question we can discus after
> you wrote something about what SERBS answer when you ask them"What do you
> do?"
> MANIK

Of course this is always different for communities around the world. We
should keep in mind that the role of the artist does have a very different
connotation in the United States than in Latin America, Europe, Australia,
etc. Answer the question "What do you do?"can be quite an experience, no?

Best,

Eduardo Navas

Dear Eduardo,
Temperature in Belgrade today was 37 Celsius degree.Sans meteorology existed
in our town(125 years),it is highest temperature in June.MANIK is filthy and
rough player,he is not someone who produce question,he ecstatically
destroying borders of uniformed and common sense oppininion.America with
"power atomic' bomb produce sufficed of energy on planet and slowly destroy
Earth.MANIK's role is to make stabile and idyllic situation in "world of
art"(whatever it that means).Unfortunately painting is not example,painting
is symptom.Francesco Bonami,selector of 50-th Venetian biennial 2003 loudly
and enthusiastic pronounce "return of painting".Isn't it exactly what
A.B.Oliva do in early 80-th with transavangarda?Of course you don't know
that.It seems to me that you are to young to remember those thinks.But,it's
not excuse for your ignorance.Read,learn,…why all that books
existed?So,your marxistic background and methodology show you that MANIK is
relict of postmodern state of mind from later 20th Century?Net.art have
status as any art form on the world.Venetian biennial 2001 was full of
net.artist.Same thing was in Manifesta in Frankfurt 2002(MANIK was there
with work"Luxurious").Quantity became quality,than we hawed something
"new".MANIK is OTHER for everybody who try to established any kind of
ART.There's nothing "new" in post historical epoch.All we have is different
form of transgression,witch is best way to make turbo capital
alive(seeR.Kraus for instance,with her articles about minimal art).After
ecstatic inauguration net.technology in world of art,it seems to me that we
could expect also ecstatic art market,with art
object(sculpture,painting,drawing…etc),after that net.art again…That's
eternal return.Lisa Sabater make nice meal for you.You should be grateful
for that.MANIK think that you must learn a lot.Also MANIK is tired of
extremely low level on Rhizome.He's seek and tired to learn amateur how to
make firs steps in wide field of cultural life which we called art.Is there
any better list?Obviously beginners is to strong stuff for poor rhizomers.No
more free lessons!
MANIK


From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "manik" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> >My
> > message,if we can considered that as a message is that in eternal return
> > people trying again and again to find answers.Art is not answer.Destiny
is
> > more closer,but someone who think about him self as an artist replaced
> > destiny with art.That's the reason you cry for some justice,for
lucrative
> > painting instead net.art,which is same think.Small community are one of
> ways
> > to make life comfortable.Isn't it old,and in same time brand new idea?
>
> I see your point on the constant questioning. I think the realization of
> this eventually led to what some people labeled as postmodern in the later
> 20th Century. However, I am not crying for justice, I was only adopting a
> Marxist methodology to entertain why it might be hard for most people to
see
> a point in net art. Painting was only used as an example because it is a
> common form related with artists in the community at large.
>
> > About homosematics,what people answer on some question we can discus
after
> > you wrote something about what SERBS answer when you ask them"What do
you
> > do?"
> > MANIK
>
> Of course this is always different for communities around the world. We
> should keep in mind that the role of the artist does have a very different
> connotation in the United States than in Latin America, Europe, Australia,
> etc. Answer the question "What do you do?"can be quite an experience, no?
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>

, Eduardo Navas

> Dear Eduardo,
> Temperature in Belgrade today was 37 Celsius degree.Sans meteorology
existed
> in our town(125 years),it is highest temperature in June.MANIK is filthy
and
> rough player,he is not someone who produce question,he ecstatically
> destroying borders of uniformed and common sense oppininion.America with
> "power atomic' bomb produce sufficed of energy on planet and slowly
destroy
> Earth.

What does this have to do with the thread? I think we may be getting
distracted here…

MANIK's role is to make stabile and idyllic situation in "world of
> art"(whatever it that means).Unfortunately painting is not
example,painting
> is symptom.Francesco Bonami,selector of 50-th Venetian biennial 2003
loudly
> and enthusiastic pronounce "return of painting".Isn't it exactly what
> A.B.Oliva do in early 80-th with transavangarda?Of course you don't know
> that.It seems to me that you are to young to remember those
thinks.But,it's
> not excuse for your ignorance.Read,learn,…why all that books
> existed?

Some assumptions are made here. How do you know what books I have read or
not read? Have you been to my personal library? Again, we are deviating
from the original thread of discussing why it is hard to explain the purpose
of net art to friends and family.

>So,your marxistic background and methodology show you that MANIK is
> relict of postmodern state of mind from later 20th Century?

A Marxist methodology was used for the discussion, but I do not abide to a
specific methodology. And when I mentioned postmodernism it was to
contextualize your premise in a way that made sense to me. Nietzsche is
great. I have tackled his ideas a number of times.

>Net.art have
> status as any art form on the world.Venetian biennial 2001 was full of
> net.artist.Same thing was in Manifesta in Frankfurt 2002(MANIK was there
> with work"Luxurious").Quantity became quality,than we hawed something
> "new".MANIK is OTHER for everybody who try to established any kind of
> ART.

I agree with this, but again, the discussion is about friends and family who
may not be part of the art world. Of course net art is having a great
amount of attention around the world, but it is still happening at an
academic and research based institutions. the word net-art is not part of a
global vernacular.

>Lisa Sabater make nice meal for you.You should be grateful
> for that.

I think I did a decent job in responding to Lisa's eloquent comment.

>MANIK think that you must learn a lot.Also MANIK is tired of
> extremely low level on Rhizome.He's seek and tired to learn amateur how to
> make firs steps in wide field of cultural life which we called art.Is
there
> any better list?Obviously beginners is to strong stuff for poor
rhizomers.No
> more free lessons!
> MANIK

Well, I am glad you think of me as an amateur, it gives me hope for
improvement. And it is too bad that you do not wish to share your
knowledge. I guess this ends this thread.

Oh, well.

Peace,

Eduardo Navas
http://www.navasse.net
http://www.netartreview.net

, Eduardo Navas

> Peace,what else?Thread is that you don't understand MANIK's high defined
> opinion about your issue.On the other side you expect understanding from
> people without any knowledge about cultural context,environment for
> structuralize specific area which we called art(ancient Greek called that
> tecne,and MANIK prefer that word).Also,we are not in court,we talking
> free,hyperbolic,parabolic,metaphoric…etc.
<–snip–>

"Peace" is a way of saying "good bye," other people might use "best" or
"sincerely."

I am not sure what happened here? We were part of a thread dealing with
sharing net-art with family and friends and this one turned into a pointing
game.

Throughout the thread I was "otherized" by you. Now, I have become a
metaphorical enemy of yours simply because I live in the United States.
And, since you probably read my biography on Rhizome, or did a search on
google, you realize that I may know a thing or two and expect me to prove to
you that I am worthy of your attention?

In the first place, my writing should have been sufficient. I honestly have
really enjoyed the thread, and feel really bad that it ends this way. You
have completely personalized my comments, and this only leads to arbitrary
attacks with no productive outcome. Everyone who has contributed to this
thread was merely trying to understand the complex issues behind sharing net
art with friends and families. And now this has been thrown out the window
and turned into a competition of who knows more. Well, I can tell you that
I know nothing, and I mean that in the most platonic sense.

This is no longer discourse, it is an open attack on an imposed position
that you constructed around me and that I am not interested in feeding. I
am done with this discussion. But since you previously called me an amateur,
I will leave you with this quote, which proves that I would be an amateur
any day:

"The intellectual today ought to be an amateur, someone who considers that
to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to raise
moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized
activity as it involves one's country, its power, its mode of interacting
with its citizens as well as with other societies. […] instead of doing
what one is supposed to do one can ask why one does it, who benefits from
it, how can it reconnect with a personal project and original thoughts."
– Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. pp. 82-83

It is with such respect that I now leave you.

Good bye,

Eduardo Navas
http://www.navasse.net
http://www.netartreview.net

—– Original Message —–
From: "manik" <[email protected]>
To: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 6:21 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> Peace,what else?Thread is that you don't understand MANIK's high defined
> opinion about your issue.On the other side you expect understanding from
> people without any knowledge about cultural context,environment for
> structuralize specific area which we called art(ancient Greek called that
> tecne,and MANIK prefer that word).Also,we are not in court,we talking
> free,hyperbolic,parabolic,metaphoric…etc.MANIK is not pupil in low
school
> to be constantly close to fact,thread,or corpus delicti.She's able to make
> spiral ways to make her conclusion.After all it's bit seed to talk about
> family stuff,as well educated man you've read Deleuze&Guattary book Anti
> Edip,so it's not necessary to remind our audience about family
> psychopathology.So MANIK can not let you down.In area of amateur he's
going
> to be patient and expend you every her word(MANIK is mixture between two
> sexes,two person,schizophrenically projection of modern existent).How to
> explained art to death rabbit?Well known Beuys work.As you know Subjects
> liberation begin with understanding and rejection seek and,basically
> destructive family relationship.D&G idea is that we must see basically
idea
> of parents;in their"death wish"child is third angle of family
> triangle.Parents kill their child,that's their main idea.So,America as a
Big
> Daddy kill his child.Can you give me proper answer;if America want to be
> Main Subject,how came that she destroy people(you
> know,Serbs,Iraqi…etc).Isn't it bit perverse?But America is not
> Subject,that's Habermas stupid idea.America is something "in front of
> Subject"something that make really Subject to be seen in blur,like shadow
in
> bush.Main Subject is so called Term Capitalism with his
> structure:globalization,unipolarity,new economic order(drastic different
> between poor and rich),enormous corporation and also enormous power in
hand
> of few hundred people…That's 37 degree in Belgrade.As you know energy is
> constant and every destabilization make chain reaction.Earth
> shake,meteorologically disaster.Everybody who ask you considered your
> art"How much money can you made with that?"actually ask are you ready to
be
> part of their world,do you support their value system.Techne mean to
produce
> sense,highest level of techne is produce beauty.Beauty is most subversive
> essence which mankind could produce.So,they actually ask you"Are you
> dangerous to make something out of exchanging,something without equivalent
> in our world?"Because you are artist,your answer is YES,and you became
their
> enemy.That's the price.Amateurs newer take risk to say YES to techne.I
hope
> your answer makes you worth of MANIK's precious time.
> Best wishes
> MArijaNIKola
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> To: "manik" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 12:27 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends
&
> family
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Dear Eduardo,
> > > Temperature in Belgrade today was 37 Celsius degree.Sans meteorology
> > existed
> > > in our town(125 years),it is highest temperature in June.MANIK is
filthy
> > and
> > > rough player,he is not someone who produce question,he ecstatically
> > > destroying borders of uniformed and common sense oppininion.America
with
> > > "power atomic' bomb produce sufficed of energy on planet and slowly
> > destroy
> > > Earth.
> >
> > What does this have to do with the thread? I think we may be getting
> > distracted here…
> >
> > MANIK's role is to make stabile and idyllic situation in "world of
> > > art"(whatever it that means).Unfortunately painting is not
> > example,painting
> > > is symptom.Francesco Bonami,selector of 50-th Venetian biennial 2003
> > loudly
> > > and enthusiastic pronounce "return of painting".Isn't it exactly what
> > > A.B.Oliva do in early 80-th with transavangarda?Of course you don't
know
> > > that.It seems to me that you are to young to remember those
> > thinks.But,it's
> > > not excuse for your ignorance.Read,learn,…why all that books
> > > existed?
> >
> > Some assumptions are made here. How do you know what books I have read
or
> > not read? Have you been to my personal library? Again, we are
deviating
> > from the original thread of discussing why it is hard to explain the
> purpose
> > of net art to friends and family.
> >
> > >So,your marxistic background and methodology show you that MANIK is
> > > relict of postmodern state of mind from later 20th Century?
> >
> > A Marxist methodology was used for the discussion, but I do not abide to
a
> > specific methodology. And when I mentioned postmodernism it was to
> > contextualize your premise in a way that made sense to me. Nietzsche is
> > great. I have tackled his ideas a number of times.
> >
> > >Net.art have
> > > status as any art form on the world.Venetian biennial 2001 was full of
> > > net.artist.Same thing was in Manifesta in Frankfurt 2002(MANIK was
there
> > > with work"Luxurious").Quantity became quality,than we hawed something
> > > "new".MANIK is OTHER for everybody who try to established any kind of
> > > ART.
> >
> > I agree with this, but again, the discussion is about friends and family
> who
> > may not be part of the art world. Of course net art is having a great
> > amount of attention around the world, but it is still happening at an
> > academic and research based institutions. the word net-art is not part
of
> a
> > global vernacular.
> >
> > >Lisa Sabater make nice meal for you.You should be grateful
> > > for that.
> >
> > I think I did a decent job in responding to Lisa's eloquent comment.
> >
> > >MANIK think that you must learn a lot.Also MANIK is tired of
> > > extremely low level on Rhizome.He's seek and tired to learn amateur
how
> to
> > > make firs steps in wide field of cultural life which we called art.Is
> > there
> > > any better list?Obviously beginners is to strong stuff for poor
> > rhizomers.No
> > > more free lessons!
> > > MANIK
> >
> > Well, I am glad you think of me as an amateur, it gives me hope for
> > improvement. And it is too bad that you do not wish to share your
> > knowledge. I guess this ends this thread.
> >
> > Oh, well.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > Eduardo Navas
> > http://www.navasse.net
> > http://www.netartreview.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well,it's god to see both sides.You are not my anemy,and my article prove
that.You are just small,egoistic diletant,who is so pathethic that is
frigting to public all my article.You have to deserve to be my anemy,litle
shit.Your miserable covered behind phrase like "live in United States"make
me seek.I expect honest people to read my article vithout prejudice.
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: "manik" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family


> > Peace,what else?Thread is that you don't understand MANIK's high defined
> > opinion about your issue.On the other side you expect understanding from
> > people without any knowledge about cultural context,environment for
> > structuralize specific area which we called art(ancient Greek called
that
> > tecne,and MANIK prefer that word).Also,we are not in court,we talking
> > free,hyperbolic,parabolic,metaphoric…etc.
> <–snip–>
>
> "Peace" is a way of saying "good bye," other people might use "best" or
> "sincerely."
>
> I am not sure what happened here? We were part of a thread dealing with
> sharing net-art with family and friends and this one turned into a
pointing
> game.
>
> Throughout the thread I was "otherized" by you. Now, I have become a
> metaphorical enemy of yours simply because I live in the United States.
> And, since you probably read my biography on Rhizome, or did a search on
> google, you realize that I may know a thing or two and expect me to prove
to
> you that I am worthy of your attention?
>
> In the first place, my writing should have been sufficient. I honestly
have
> really enjoyed the thread, and feel really bad that it ends this way. You
> have completely personalized my comments, and this only leads to arbitrary
> attacks with no productive outcome. Everyone who has contributed to this
> thread was merely trying to understand the complex issues behind sharing
net
> art with friends and families. And now this has been thrown out the
window
> and turned into a competition of who knows more. Well, I can tell you
that
> I know nothing, and I mean that in the most platonic sense.
>
> This is no longer discourse, it is an open attack on an imposed position
> that you constructed around me and that I am not interested in feeding.
I
> am done with this discussion. But since you previously called me an
amateur,
> I will leave you with this quote, which proves that I would be an amateur
> any day:
>
> "The intellectual today ought to be an amateur, someone who considers that
> to be a thinking and concerned member of a society one is entitled to
raise
> moral issues at the heart of even the most technical and professionalized
> activity as it involves one's country, its power, its mode of interacting
> with its citizens as well as with other societies. […] instead of doing
> what one is supposed to do one can ask why one does it, who benefits from
> it, how can it reconnect with a personal project and original thoughts."
> – Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. pp. 82-83
>
> It is with such respect that I now leave you.
>
> Good bye,
>
> Eduardo Navas
> http://www.navasse.net
> http://www.netartreview.net
>
>
>
>