FWD ArtBase Update--Rub Linda

I'm not trying to revive the discussion on the merits
of the piece itself about which a number of us said
quite a lot at the time but I must say I'm a little
surprised at this.
I understood that one of the criteria for inclusion on
the ArtBase was the amount of discussion a piece
generated on this list, amongst other places.
Whatever position one takes on this piece it certainly
did that.
Additionally it seems to me that the context of the
war, which again was a major topic of discussion on
ths list makes the work, at the very least, of some
historical interest.
The above makes me think it's essentially an aesthetic
judgement -but this sort of thing is notoriously
subjective, especially when considering contemporary
work; I think it's uncontroversial to say there is
much weaker work than this on the artbase.


— joseph mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The official word is out - IT AINT ART. :)
> joseph
>
> Forwarded messaged
>
> Hi joseph
>
> We receive many requests for inclusion in the
> Rhizome ArtBase, but are unable to index all of
> them. We regret that we are unable to include your
> artwork
>
> Rub Linda
>
> in the ArtBase because it did not meet our selection
> criteria.
>
> You may read our selection criteria online at
> http://rhizome.org/artbase/9.php3
>
> If you have any questions as to why your artwork was
> not able to be included, please contact me via email
> ([email protected]).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Alena Williams
> Rhizome.org
> + 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


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

I presented Rub Linda during a lecture some time ago. The lecture dealt
with criticism in art and design, and actually most of who spoke did not
consider it critical at all; they thought Rub Linda openly supported the
male gaze. On top of this, they considered it a bit sentionalistic and
riding on gender stereotypes of women. Mostly women supported this, but also
a few men coincided. So that is what New Media students thought.

I honestly think it would be really great to hear the criticism from the
rhizome staff, just for a constructive discourse, as always.

Eduardo Navas

—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "joseph mcelroy" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: FWD ArtBase Update–Rub Linda


> I'm not trying to revive the discussion on the merits
> of the piece itself about which a number of us said
> quite a lot at the time but I must say I'm a little
> surprised at this.
> I understood that one of the criteria for inclusion on
> the ArtBase was the amount of discussion a piece
> generated on this list, amongst other places.
> Whatever position one takes on this piece it certainly
> did that.
> Additionally it seems to me that the context of the
> war, which again was a major topic of discussion on
> ths list makes the work, at the very least, of some
> historical interest.
> The above makes me think it's essentially an aesthetic
> judgement -but this sort of thing is notoriously
> subjective, especially when considering contemporary
> work; I think it's uncontroversial to say there is
> much weaker work than this on the artbase.
>
>
> — joseph mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The official word is out - IT AINT ART. :)
> > joseph
> >
> > Forwarded messaged
> >
> > Hi joseph
> >
> > We receive many requests for inclusion in the
> > Rhizome ArtBase, but are unable to index all of
> > them. We regret that we are unable to include your
> > artwork
> >
> > Rub Linda
> >
> > in the ArtBase because it did not meet our selection
> > criteria.
> >
> > You may read our selection criteria online at
> > http://rhizome.org/artbase/9.php3
> >
> > If you have any questions as to why your artwork was
> > not able to be included, please contact me via email
> > ([email protected]).
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Alena Williams
> > Rhizome.org
> > + 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>

quoting Eduardo Navas
>I presented Rub Linda during a lecture some time ago. The lecture dealt
>with criticism in art and design, and actually most of who spoke did not
>consider it critical at all; they thought Rub Linda openly supported the
>male gaze. On top of this, they considered it a bit sentionalistic and
>riding on gender stereotypes of women. Mostly women supported this, but also
>a few men coincided. So that is what New Media students thought.

So? What did you think? Don't hide behind the students, who obviously have no
influences leading their views, and who are conveniently tucked away so they
can neither present or defend their views.

joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

> quoting Eduardo Navas
> >I presented Rub Linda during a lecture some time ago. The lecture dealt
> >with criticism in art and design, and actually most of who spoke did not
> >consider it critical at all; they thought Rub Linda openly supported the
> >male gaze. On top of this, they considered it a bit sentionalistic and
> >riding on gender stereotypes of women. Mostly women supported this, but
also
> >a few men coincided. So that is what New Media students thought.
>
> So? What did you think? Don't hide behind the students, who obviously
have no
> influences leading their views, and who are conveniently tucked away so
they
> can neither present or defend their views.

Okay,

Not to be defensive, but I was not hiding behind the students. I just
thought I should report what happened in a classroom. As everyone on the
list knows by now, I am more than ready to express what I think. Since you
are openly asking for my criticism, I will provide it below.

In the last thread I was involved in, Liza Sabater had a great approach to
criticism; which is to question the platforms upon which one develops a
position. ( http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread

> quoting Eduardo Navas

>In the last thread I was involved in, Liza Sabater had a great approach to
>criticism; which is to question the platforms upon which one develops a
>position. ( http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread

—– Original Message —–
From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: FWD ArtBase Update–Rub Linda
> The peice explores basic behavioral tropes in response to propoganda and
> marketing - the original indicator "Rub Linda the right way and she might
show
> wonderland" was correctly pointed out to me as to weak, so I strengthened
it
> http://www.electrichands.com/flower/linda - basically I ask you to
question
> your actions in following marketing come-ons - even if for simple human
> curiosity. This peice thus makes blantant use of problematic ideologies -
to
> seduce the foolish and entice the "politically correct" into knee jerk
> reactions, thus following the foolish into the same quagmire.
———–
When appropriating a particular form, this one must have an excess of
meaning;* or a clear reference to what is being presented for
consideration/critique. What this means, in your case, is that it should
look like adverstising, that way the discourse would be opened up to talk
about advertising strategies through the actual devices used by the
commercial field that is being critiqued. However, your piece does not rely
on any signifiers that would alude to a particular type of branding
strategy. For example, if you presented a logo of a well known strip club
and/or combined it with a company logo of your choice, then the discourse is
pointing to advertising. All you offer us is HTML text at the top of the
page, and also a voice over at the beginning of the song, but there is no
specific reference to how advertising manipulates consumers (the voice over
is too vague). A good example of appropriation with excess of meaning is
Sherrie Levine and her urinal:
http://www.walkerart.org/resources/res_pc_levine2.html
which undeniably comments on Duchamp:
http://www.zumbacombo.com/duchamp/fountain.html

*I borrow the term 'excess of meaning' from Roland Barthes' Essay "The Third
Meaning" pages 50-68.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374521360/qid56241100/sr=2-1/ref=
sr_2_1/102-0760815-9333731 However, this one is used specifically in
relation to appropriation by Craig Owens in his essay "The Allegorical
Impulse" in (
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520077407/qid56241207/sr=2-1/ref=
sr_2_1/102-0760815-9333731 )pp. 53-87.
-

> It is making no judgements about war - the peice is not about the pros and
cons
> of war. There is a basic assumption that the results of war are
unpleasant.

My comment on this would be again to look at Levine's work. She is not
passing a judgment, but rather asking the viewer to do so. However, her
piece points to the power structure in which she functions as a woman, and
by doing this she makes the viewer aware of the political implications that
art objects carry with them. In her case, the outcome as it is well known,
is a feminist statement – reevaluating 'the good old boys club.'

So if the piece, as you state, is not about asking people to pass judgment
on the war and not about the pros and cons, then what is it about? As I
already pointed out, the advertising reference is not strong enough.

> It is not about government responsiblity, it is about individual
> responsibility…the participant must take an action to make the scenes of
war
> visible - they arrive at this conclusion to take action based upon simple
> deduction from the marketing come-on. When you take virtual action in
media,
> is it not as "wrong" as physical action? Are you going to rub a woman on
the
> dance floor?

So, after I realized that "I rubbed Linda and fell for the trick," what is
left? So I was tricked; will I then buy the product? Most likely not.

I should say that I did not see all of the above when I first encountered
your piece. In a way I found it very slippery which is why I decided to
present it for critique, but after discussing it with students and hearing
their opinions, I then came to the above conclusion – a few days after
actually. Some of it I could sense, but I was not able to articulate as I
can now. I learned something important from them. And that is the main
reason why I referenced them in my first response, because it was the
students' questioning that helped me reevaluate the piece.

Best,

Eduardo Navas

Quoting Eduardo Navas

>When appropriating a particular form, this one must have an excess of
>meaning;* or a clear reference to what is being presented for
>consideration/critique. What this means, in your case, is that it should
>look like adverstising, that way the discourse would be opened up to talk
>about advertising strategies through the actual devices used by the
>commercial field that is being critiqued. However, your piece does not rely
>on any signifiers that would alude to a particular type of branding
>strategy. For example, if you presented a logo of a well known strip club
>and/or combined it with a company logo of your choice, then the discourse is
>pointing to advertising. All you offer us is HTML text at the top of the
>page, and also a voice over at the beginning of the song, but there is no
>specific reference to how advertising manipulates consumers (the voice over
>is too vague).

The very first statement is "you can't slice it and you can dice it" which is a
direct reference to one of the most famous advertising campaigns for Ginsu
knives - certainly one of the most agressive campaigns ever. Additionally, I am
not critiquing advertising or branding - but insidious campaigns of head games
that are every where. Propoganda and marketing of ideology. What makes a
president say that a blow job is not cheating on his wife, what makes a
president convince a nation to go to war on trumped up charges - it is not just
passive acceptance, it is being led around by your nose, participating in small
larcenies, taking advantage and stepping in front of someone in line, listening
to your neighbor that the guy upstairs beats his children - should you act or
not, who do you believe? It is not a critique, it is an awareness, a non-vague
acknowledgment of your vulnerability, your conditioning, your inability to be
seperate. Try as you might Edward, you are not smart enough, nor is anyone, to
escape or stand outside your own criminal being, though only the crimes are
known after the fact.


>A good example of appropriation with excess of meaning is
>Sherrie Levine and her urinal:
>http://www.walkerart.org/resources/res_pc_levine2.html
>which undeniably comments on Duchamp:
>http://www.zumbacombo.com/duchamp/fountain.html
>*I borrow the term 'excess of meaning' from Roland Barthes' Essay "The Third
>Meaning" pages 50-68.
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374521360/qid56241100/sr=2-1/ref=
>sr_2_1/102-0760815-9333731 However, this one is used specifically in
>relation to appropriation by Craig Owens in his essay "The Allegorical
>Impulse" in (
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520077407/qid56241207/sr=2-1/ref=
>sr_2_1/102-0760815-9333731 )pp. 53-87.


I could care less about how much Shirly Levine wants to comment upon her
position within the power structures that exist. She wants to point to crimes
against herself (and gender). What are the crimes that she commits? Where
does her hypocracy lie? I am telling you mine, I seduce you into doing things
you wouldn't want to do.

>My comment on this would be again to look at Levine's work. She is not
>passing a judgment, but rather asking the viewer to do so. However, her
>piece points to the power structure in which she functions as a woman, and
>by doing this she makes the viewer aware of the political implications that
>art objects carry with them. In her case, the outcome as it is well known,
>is a feminist statement – reevaluating 'the good old boys club.'

Yes point the finger and do nothing about it. She is guilty of hypocracy, for
she commits the same crimes.

>So if the piece, as you state, is not about asking people to pass judgment
>on the war and not about the pros and cons, then what is it about? As I
>already pointed out, the advertising reference is not strong enough.

Its about watching CNN a few days after the 9/11 disaster and saying to
yourself, "what the hell have I been missing"

>So, after I realized that "I rubbed Linda and fell for the trick," what is
>left? So I was tricked; will I then buy the product? Most likely not.

You already did buy the product.

>I should say that I did not see all of the above when I first encountered
>your piece. In a way I found it very slippery which is why I decided to
>present it for critique, but after discussing it with students and hearing
>their opinions, I then came to the above conclusion – a few days after
>actually. Some of it I could sense, but I was not able to articulate as I
>can now. I learned something important from them. And that is the main
>reason why I referenced them in my first response, because it was the
>students' questioning that helped me reevaluate the piece.

My guess is that you and your students are asleep in a world of easy living. I
don't claim to be particularly awake, however I am keenly aware of gullability.

joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]

—– Original Message —–
From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: FWD ArtBase Update–Rub Linda


> My guess is that you and your students are asleep in a world of easy
living. I
> don't claim to be particularly awake, however I am keenly aware of
gullability.

One should never guess, but rather admit when one does not know. And I do
not know what else to say.

Best,

Eduardo

Eduardo Navas wrote:

> One should never guess, but rather admit when one does not know. And
> I do
> not know what else to say.
>

Everything is but your best guess, to claim otherwise is a lie. Stacking opinions is the game of acadamia.

joseph


>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) " <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 8:10 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: FWD ArtBase Update–Rub Linda
>
>
> > My guess is that you and your students are asleep in a world of easy
> living. I
> > don't claim to be particularly awake, however I am keenly aware of
> gullability.
>
> One should never guess, but rather admit when one does not know. And
> I do
> not know what else to say.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo
>
>

the work's aesthetic innovation, conceptual sophistication or political impact

= avantgarde

the work's relevance to the discourses of net art and contemporary art in general

= discipline

any discussion of the work itself on Rhizome.org or other relevant networks or publications

= buzz

the work's place in the artist or artists' oeuvre

= genius

the work's provenance, including commissions, exhibitions and collections

= value

Parse your submissions accordingly.