best work with Flash? [ following curt ]

twhid wrote:
I agree with most of what Curt writes here and I'm going to add-to or
disagree with small parts of it.

more below:

At 13:17 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>So far in this thread, Mr. Lichty seems the most perspicacious. I'm
>always amazed at the sort of patronizing,
>look-what-the-cat-dragged-in reaction that net artists have toward
>Flash. The tenor of the dialogue usually runs like, "Could this be
>art? Do you think so? Really? No! Could it be?"

++
twhid wrote:
In discussions on RAW, maybe. But one of the most talked about and
exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces. I
would say there is a general acceptance of all networked and
web-based mediums here. Except for Eryk and his 6 rules of course but
he's explained his position on this numerous times and it seems like
a valid place to be coming from to me.


>
>Miltos Manetas forms the Electronic Orphanage around something as
>inconsequential as "works done in flash," and it's greeted as a
>novel movement. Even Lev Manovich gets all happy writing a piece
>about Flash paradigmatics.

++
twhid wrote:
Miltos frames his discussions so that traditional curators may be
brought into web art, he's not that interested in the net art core
which makes up Rhiz IMO.


>
>The implicit assumption that a Java applet is a more legitimate net
>art medium than an .swf file struck me as bizarre the first time I
>heard it, and it still seeems very parochial to me. One may just as
>fruitfully have begun this thread by asking, "what is the best work
>on the Web done in Java?" Pieces by golan levin, casey reas, martin
>wattenberg, and bradford paley come immediately to mind; and then
>I'd be hard-pressed to come up with more. For a NET artist, the
>question is not what the Java programming language will let you do
>in terms of creating stand-alone apps, the question is what will it
>let you do on the net? Particularly on the mac, java BROWSER
>support/implementation is much slower, glitchier, and kludgier than
>Flash plug-in support/implementation.

++
twhid wrote:
I agree with this, partly. Flash was invented for animators,
designers, etc: visual people. One would think that it would lend
itself to visual artists on the net as well. So I find the arg
strange too. But just as Java is aimed at the software INDUSTRY so
that artists need to bend over backwards to get it to work for their
ends, so Flash is aimed at the culture INDUSTRY. It's meant to create
advertisements, web sites, and (recently) 'rich media applications'.
It's tools are meant to create *slick* work. An artist sometimes
needs to bend over backwards to avoid the sheen of the Flash
aesthetic.

One thing that is misleading in the above, as of Mac OSX 10.2 and
Windows XP Java support is much better on the Mac than on Windows.


<snip>

>
>It's facile to say, "I don't like Flash art," or "I do like Flash
>art." Just like it's facile to say, "I don't like internet art," or
>"I do like internet art." Flash has its constraints, as the
>internet has its constraints, as watercolors have their constraints;
>but these constraints still allow a fairly wide berth for stylistic
>approaches and content choices.

++
twhid wrote:
I don't think you can argue with this point (culture critics could
argue i suppose, but we're artists here mostly). Those damn
watercolor paintings! they don't move and their refresh rate is
abysmal! So yeah, every medium has it's constraints. Comparing Java
to Flash is like telling someone who specializes in pencil drawings
that they should use watercolor because it has *color* and her medium
is black and white so it's obviously inferior.

What one chooses to do within the constraints of the medium chosen
for a particular piece is how we tell the good from the bad.


>
>Likewise, it's parochial to say "all Flash art looks the same."
>It's like your grandfather saying, "all that rock & roll noise
>sounds the same!" There are subtle differences within the genre of
>rock & roll that your grandfather either can't discern or doesn't
>value. I should also point out that there is an entire culture of
>Flash-prodigy experimental web designers that visit Rhizome and say,
>"all that net art crap looks the same." But our ideas of
>"legitimate" net art are more "right" than their ideas because…?
>Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal 80 years ago, our predecessors
>agreed that his doing so mattered, and we assented?

++
twhid wrote:
now this is where i will really disagree. the visual has been in the
mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
the net.

Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.


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

Comments

, curt cloninger

t:

> But one of the most talked about and
> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.

curt:

alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.


t:
> the visual has been in the
> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
> the net.
>
> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.

curt:
Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never be
hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely what
makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory medium.
Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean superior
art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying Saucer
Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all gloriously
4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.

I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
what can you do? it's the web."

, MTAA

At 15:38 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t:
>
>> But one of the most talked about and
>> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
>> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.
>
>curt:
>
>alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
>and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
>and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
>Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
>conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
>gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
>backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.

++
twhid:
right. exactly. There is a dialogue in the piece which bridges this
artificial divide btw the conceptual and the visual. I was simply
using it to disabuse us of the notion that somehow Rhizome is a more
conceptually oriented community. Or that the most celebrated net art
is more conceptually oriented than the main stream. who are the
biggest names? e8z, extremely visually oriented. yael, also very
handsome work. napier, ditto. JODI, also visual.. etc. not to say
there is no 'concept' involved in these artists work, of course there
is or all the work would be is spin art. who are these entrenched
conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?


>
>
>t:
>> the visual has been in the
>> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
>> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
>> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
>> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
>> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
>> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
>> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
>> the net.
>>
>> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
>> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
>> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
>> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
>> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
>> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
>> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.
>
>curt:
>Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
>1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
>and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never
>be hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
>there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely
>what makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory
>medium. Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean
>superior art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying
>Saucer Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all
>gloriously 4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.

++
twhid:
c'mon dude, you know what I mean, the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
may be). The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
it's essential nature is networked communication. Whatever conceptual
bias you're imagining is simply artists working with what they see as
the essential nature of their medium. granted, the Web added the
visual to the 'Net, and that is why *web art* as opposed to the more
generic *net art* is a more visual medium.

take care,


>
>I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
>concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
>artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
>what can you do? it's the web."


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

, curt cloninger

t:
who are these entrenched
> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?

curt:
part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
(nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.

t:
> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
> may be).

curt:
I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.


t:
The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
> it's essential nature is networked communication.

curt:

As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
http://www.lab404.com/media/
Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.

peace,
curt
_
_

, MTAA

At 16:59 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t:
>who are these entrenched
>> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
>
>curt:
>part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
>even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
>is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
>influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous
>stuff (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr.
>peppermint and sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from
>net art news, most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical
>media." Etc. I'm not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a
>visual aesthetic, I'm just answering your question regarding
>entrenched conceptualists.

++
twhid:
i think you've made my point for me. the state of net art is fairly balanced.


>
>t:
>> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
>> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
>> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
>> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
>> may be).
>
>curt:
>I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
>screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
>considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
>is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
>microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
>on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting
>limitations. But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
>

++
twhid:
my point wasn't that you or I or anyone should care what an oil
painter thinks of the web, the point was that one who's main
objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
paintings etc.

>
>t:
>The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
>> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
>> it's essential nature is networked communication.
>
>curt:
>
>As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
>http://www.lab404.com/media/
>Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
>"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
>doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
>"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
>started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
>

++
twhid:
right, binary digital info. i don't think of 'text', i think of
exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
essential nature of the net in it's present state. it hasn't changed
much in the past 6 years in terms of a visual experience. my argument
will become invalid in the future i hope.


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

, Pall Thayer

Pall:
I agree with Curt. The limitations of the computer screen is one of the things
that make this an exciting field to work with visual media. It's exactly the
same as where this thread started. Why do some artists choose to work in
Flash when other alternatives may have something more to offer (and I really
don't think that it's a learning curve thing)? Because a medium that imposes
restrictions gets the creative juices flowing. This is what I want to do,
this is what I'm going to use to do it, what are my alternatives whithin this
medium? It really wouldn't be much fun if I all I had to do was something
like this:

twhid:
my point wasn't that you or I or anyone should care what an oil
painter thinks of the web, the point was that one who's main
objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
paintings etc.

Pall:
I disagree with twhid. The web has a lot to offer in the creation process of
visual art. Processes that can't be emulated in any other setting. My main
concern is a visual aesthetic but I also have a concept, actually more of a
theory and to create the sort of visual work I'm interested in creating, I
have to use the internet. Since I have no alternatives, I'm willing to
sacrifice quality and free-flowing brushstrokes on canvas.

Pall

On Wednesday 02 July 2003 20:59, Curt Cloninger wrote:
> t:
> who are these entrenched
>
> > conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
>
> curt:
> part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
> even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
> is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
> influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous stuff
> (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr. peppermint and
> sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from net art news,
> most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical media." Etc. I'm
> not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a visual aesthetic,
> I'm just answering your question regarding entrenched conceptualists.
>
> t:
> > the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
> > when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
> > photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
> > lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
> > may be).
>
> curt:
> I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
> screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
> considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
> is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
> microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
> on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting limitations.
> But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
>
>
> t:
> The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
>
> > essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
> > it's essential nature is networked communication.
>
> curt:
>
> As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
> http://www.lab404.com/media/
> Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
> "essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
> doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
> "communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
> started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
>
> peace,
> curt
> _
> _
> + 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
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://www.this.is/isjs
http://www.this.is/harmony
http://130.208.220.190/panse

, Michael Szpakowski

<hits closer to the
essential nature of the net in it's present state.>
I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the
notion of the "essential nature" of any medium - one
of the things, but by no means the only thing, that
disposes me to be interested in an artwork is how well
the artist overcomes the resistance of the medium.
Also although I get very tired of posts that say "yawn
..we thought this was all settled years ago"
( because that's often an excuse for evading the
subtleties of an argument) and though I like a good
argument as well as the next person, in this case I
*do* think there is a very real sense in which a lot
of this debate is simply about people boosting/dissing
their favourite/least favourite set of tools - my view
remains that the test of a creative artist is that if
they were lost in a deep dark wood with a piece of
charcoal and a slate they would sooner or later make
something interesting ( and not necessarily out of the
slate and charcoal)
It's horses for courses - tools aren't intrinsically
anything , the medium isn't intrinsically anything.
It's what the artist actually *does* in any of the
areas discussed that is where worthwhile discussion
begins.
Perhaps stupidly, personally, my heart sings when I
see pathetic little lo res images and movies
struggling for life on the net. I love 'em and I love
having to compress sound and make harsh & cruel
decisions about what to keep or reject.
For me what's nearest to idiomatic is simply the
channel of communication -I get pathetically excited
that I can just put the thing up there and people will
come and look at it. But all that's subjective and I
don't wish to make it into a general case except in
the negative sense to say that for me, possibly
peversely, the net is the best possible place to put
images.
best
michael



=====
**DISCLAIMER:
Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
district postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html **

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

, curt cloninger

t wrote:
the point was that one who's main
> objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> paintings etc.

…i think of
> exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> essential nature of the net in it's present state.

&

marisa wrote:
> ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> "other" artists are conceptless…

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

curt writes:
we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
"representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.

Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
converging, and all these different artists from all these different
perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.

Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
strengths that the web offers – non-linearity, multi-user
environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.

It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.

_
_

, marc garrett

You must hate my work Curt…

marc


> t wrote:
> the point was that one who's main
> > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > paintings etc.
>
> …i think of
> > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
>
> &
>
> marisa wrote:
> > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > "other" artists are conceptless…
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> curt writes:
> we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
>
> Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
>
> Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> strengths that the web offers – non-linearity, multi-user
> environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
>
> It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
>
> _
> _
> + 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
>

, curt cloninger

marc.garrett wrote:
>You must hate my work Curt…


Hi Marc,

we've talked about this before, and I'm not sure whether this is the
"right answer," but I find your noflesh series an evocative critique
of the emptiness of sex without intimacy. Those image treatments
make me very sad.

cf:
http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/alltouch.html

peace,
curt






>marc
>
>
> > t wrote:
> > the point was that one who's main
> > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > > paintings etc.
> >
> > …i think of
> > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
> >
> > &
> >
> > marisa wrote:
> > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > > "other" artists are conceptless…
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > curt writes:
> > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
> >
> > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
> >
> > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> > strengths that the web offers – non-linearity, multi-user
> > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
> >
> > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
> >
> > _
> > _
> > + 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

HI Curt,

I think you got the message of the work - it is about people opting for the
plasticity of life' denying its feral qualities, our primal essence; &
more…

Although, since then other work has also been done…

marc


> marc.garrett wrote:
> >You must hate my work Curt…
>
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> we've talked about this before, and I'm not sure whether this is the
> "right answer," but I find your noflesh series an evocative critique
> of the emptiness of sex without intimacy. Those image treatments
> make me very sad.
>
> cf:
> http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/a/alltouch.html
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >marc
> >
> >
> > > t wrote:
> > > the point was that one who's main
> > > > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > > > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > > > paintings etc.
> > >
> > > …i think of
> > > > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information
could
> > > > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > > > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to
other
> > > > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > > > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > > > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > > > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
> > >
> > > &
> > >
> > > marisa wrote:
> > > > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > > > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > > > "other" artists are conceptless…
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > curt writes:
> > > we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> > > high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> > > technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> > > compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> > > his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> > > aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> > > concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> > > objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> > > incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> > > They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> > > "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> > > fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> > > self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> > > separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
> > >
> > > Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> > > converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> > > perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> > > low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> > > must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> > > symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> > > aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> > > bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> > > concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> > > onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> > > Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> > > the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> > > sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
> > >
> > > Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> > > the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> > > with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> > > audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> > > strengths that the web offers – non-linearity, multi-user
> > > environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> > > many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
> > >
> > > It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> > > discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> > > pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> > > David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> > > discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> > > a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> > > it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> > > decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
> > >
> > > _
> > > _
> > > + 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
>

, MTAA

below:

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> t wrote:
> the point was that one who's main
>> objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
>> delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
>> paintings etc.
>
> …i think of
>> exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
>> be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
>> information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
>> visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
>> extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
>> reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
>> essential nature of the net in it's present state.
>
> &
>
> marisa wrote:
>> ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
>> of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
>> "other" artists are conceptless…
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> curt writes:
> we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> technical craft and sensory aesthetics.

i think our main problem in this discussion is our definitions are
totally different. Not to sound pedantic, but it wasn't 'somewhere' in
the 20th century, it was exactly in 60s/70s conceptualism that the rift
occurred (you could argue it occurred much earlier but this is when it
was definitely torn asunder without a doubt). and it wasn't an accident
it had very concrete roots in anti-capitalist, pro-marxist philosophies
and embodies (from lippard) minimal art, idea art, systems art, earth
art, process art, and site-specific art (i threw site-specific in :-).
Some of the artists are Kosuth, Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Smithson and
etc.

When I talk about conceptualism I'm thinking of this historic work
along with neo-conceptual strategies in art.

Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what? I find it extremely weird that you
would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys off
the hook.

take care,


> Let's just take Beuys and compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely
> conceptual, but many of his installations/sculptures/objects still
> embody craft and sensory aesthetics which (surprise, surprise)
> substantiate and embody his concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's
> not even building his own objects. The crafting of his objects has
> become much more incidental. His objects themselves have become much
> more incidental. They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less
> like "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not
> quite fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and
> less self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a
> gradual separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.


<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

, Eryk Salvaggio

I would love flash if artists simply asked macromedia to take the
advertisements away or were at least cognizant of the co-optation of thier
work that occurs as a result of it. And if it came standard with a browser.
Until then, it's fine for most pieces, but I am usually grumpy about its
implementation because of the distraction that comes when everything in the
planet is branded with a logo. I wish it hadn't happened to net.art.

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: best work with Flash? [ following
curt ]


> <hits closer to the
> essential nature of the net in it's present state.>
> I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the
> notion of the "essential nature" of any medium - one
> of the things, but by no means the only thing, that
> disposes me to be interested in an artwork is how well
> the artist overcomes the resistance of the medium.
> Also although I get very tired of posts that say "yawn
> ..we thought this was all settled years ago"
> ( because that's often an excuse for evading the
> subtleties of an argument) and though I like a good
> argument as well as the next person, in this case I
> *do* think there is a very real sense in which a lot
> of this debate is simply about people boosting/dissing
> their favourite/least favourite set of tools - my view
> remains that the test of a creative artist is that if
> they were lost in a deep dark wood with a piece of
> charcoal and a slate they would sooner or later make
> something interesting ( and not necessarily out of the
> slate and charcoal)
> It's horses for courses - tools aren't intrinsically
> anything , the medium isn't intrinsically anything.
> It's what the artist actually *does* in any of the
> areas discussed that is where worthwhile discussion
> begins.
> Perhaps stupidly, personally, my heart sings when I
> see pathetic little lo res images and movies
> struggling for life on the net. I love 'em and I love
> having to compress sound and make harsh & cruel
> decisions about what to keep or reject.
> For me what's nearest to idiomatic is simply the
> channel of communication -I get pathetically excited
> that I can just put the thing up there and people will
> come and look at it. But all that's subjective and I
> don't wish to make it into a general case except in
> the negative sense to say that for me, possibly
> peversely, the net is the best possible place to put
> images.
> best
> michael
>
>
>
> =====
> **DISCLAIMER:
> Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
> East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
> Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
> Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
> Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George
Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
> district postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html
**
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.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
>

, curt cloninger

t:
> Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
> aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what?

curt:
I hope I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I'm trying discuss
in concrete detail, as clearly as possible, specific paradigmatic
approaches toward net art creation. Yes, I am questioning the value
of entire movements and approaches that have been accepted as
established artistic practice in academic, critical, and professional
art circles since the 60s. I'm wanting to discuss their particular
merit in terms of our current medium. If this seems quixotic or
irksome, if you've already settled these issues to your own
satisfaction, I'm easily dismissed with a few historical references
and a glib, "Can he be serious?"

t:
I find it extremely weird that you
> would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys
> off
> the hook.

curt:
You're misreading me. I'm highlighting the devolution of
conceptualism. Beuys was an earlier conceptualist whose craft and
sensory aesthetics were more intrinsically related to his concepts.
Hirst is a later conceptualist whose craft and sensory aesthetics are
less intrinsically related to his concepts. Beuys is a conceptualist
whose work I like. I consider him a sculptor and an experimental
educator. Hirst is a conceptualist whose work I find mildly amusing
at best. I consider him a well-meaning byproduct of art world
foppery.

peace,
curt

, Eduardo Navas

—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]


<–snip–>
> i think our main problem in this discussion is our definitions are
> totally different. Not to sound pedantic, but it wasn't 'somewhere' in
> the 20th century, it was exactly in 60s/70s conceptualism that the rift
> occurred (you could argue it occurred much earlier but this is when it
> was definitely torn asunder without a doubt). and it wasn't an accident
> it had very concrete roots in anti-capitalist, pro-marxist philosophies
> and embodies (from lippard) minimal art, idea art, systems art, earth
> art, process art, and site-specific art (i threw site-specific in :-).
> Some of the artists are Kosuth, Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Smithson and
> etc.
<–snip–>

The above is an excellent point. Something I was wondering if it would ever
come up.

The main problem that I see with the current perception of conceptual art in
general (not just in net-art) is that due to its pro-marxist philosophies
(as T.Whid correctly pointed out) it now suffers from an extreme
unfriendliness from artists and critics who are invested in formal
investigations. This is because Conceptualism was developed to question the
object of art – to get rid of it if possible. A good book exploring all of
these issues is RECONSIDERING THE OBJECT OF ART:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262571110/qid57206387/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-7087561-2759861?v=glance&s=books&nP7846
(now out of pring unfortunately)

Many artists after the seventies adopted conceptual strategies to develop
artwork that is fully invested in object making. Janine Antoni is perhaps
one of the best examples of this, where she combines performance,
installation and appropriation based on conceptualism to develop extremely
over-invested objects that sell quite well:
http://www.varoregistry.com/antoni/

What becomes obvious in her work is that she does only what is absolutley
necessary to develop the work – there is no indulgence in the form outside
of what is necessary for the conceptual appropriation to be effective.

This is something a conceptual artist from the seventies would never do,
but this is what happened when artists in the 80s reevaluated the work from
the seventies. In a way, this is no different from what happened when the
minimalists took Greenberg's ideas and pushed simple forms to create a
theatrical set up inside the gallery that could only be completed by the
viewer. And this, as many on the list may be aware, is what Michael Fried
reacted to so negatively in his now perhaps over cited essay "Art and
Objecthood."

So, in general, at least people who have worked under conceptual artists
such as Michael Asher (I was his T.A.) learn to question EVERYTHING about
the object of art. Under a conceptualist methodology everything is
carefully dissected to understand its role under whatever context the piece
aims to function in. So, the parameters are dictated by what the piece
aims to present, not by something that the conceptual approach brings to it.
It basically goes like this: "What is it claiming to say? Well, is it
saying it? let's find out by examining all the elements it has used to make
its proposition." At least this is the critical model that I learned and now
promote. In short, if the work claims to be beautiful – under what
context? does it hold up to what it claims? what signifiers are present that
would make it valid within such aesthetical realm. etc. Is the work aiming
to be political, what is its background, is it aware of the history it aims
to question or is it pretending to do so? etc. This is how criticism
should function ideally, but of course this is not always the case – as
some people will try to say "well, it does not follow this blah, blah" but
this is no different than in any other field of practice, where some people
might try to impose what they think, vs. what the object aims to do. This is
what anyone with a critical mind should be aware of – bias.

With this said, a conceptual artist will usually use what is absolutely
necessary to make the point. No eye candy can be used, unless this proves to
be necessary to make the conceptual statement. The main thing about
conceptualism is to develop the project based on what the particular idea
demands. So formal exploration can be used, but this one is not necessarily
visual, but rather ideological. That is the process a painter would record
in a canvas, a conceptual artist will record through the process of
examination – critique. Often times, one only sees the end result of a
conceptual piece, which could be a piece of paper on the wall explaining an
outcome. But there is a necessary creative process for that paper to get to
say what it says. So, conceptual art is just another canvas, or another
GUI. Ideas are objects, ideas are forms developed from other forms. Just
because we do not see them does not mean they are less interesting or less
creative, though they may be seen a bit dry in visual culture because, well,
there is hardly anything visual lots of times. Thus conceptual art is
simply ART, like anything else in such context. It is just another form of
communication, and just as slippery as the Flash pieces that have been
discussed.

Eduardo Navas

, Ivan Pope

> curt writes:
> Let's just take Beuys and
> compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> incidental.

I note that, while you say of Beuys that 'his installations … still embody
craft and sensory aesthetics' you say of Hirst 'he's not even building his
own objects'. This is not comparing like with like.
Apart from that, I very much doubt that Beuys built his own objects. I
remember seeing a piece (called something like Rock Plug) which consisted of
a large number of huge slabs of rock with plugs drilled into then and plugs
set into them. I very much doubt that Beuys quarried the rock or transported
it without help. Further, I doubt that he manually built his large felt room
pieces without assistants. Etc. I just think your distinction is cheap and
inaccurate. I am sure that youd find Beuys and Hirst had about the same
amount of input into getting their work sorted out.
That is not to say that the work is equal in value, I will not go there.

But then you dont go on to say what I thought you would say: that hands on
crafting of network art is more valid than getting third parties to
construct it.

Cheers,
Ivan

> Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
>
> Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> strengths that the web offers – non-linearity, multi-user
> environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
>
> It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
>
> _
> _
> + 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
>

, MTAA

flash does come standard with many browser distros.

you only see an ad when you install it for the first time after that
there is only macromedia's name in the contextual (right click) menu
otherwise it's perfectly clean of any marketing messages.

Director on the other hand.. does it still give you the logo during
the loading bar?

At 22:41 -0400 7/2/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I would love flash if artists simply asked macromedia to take the
>advertisements away or were at least cognizant of the co-optation of thier
>work that occurs as a result of it. And if it came standard with a browser.
>Until then, it's fine for most pieces, but I am usually grumpy about its
>implementation because of the distraction that comes when everything in the
>planet is branded with a logo. I wish it hadn't happened to net.art.
>
>-e.


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

, Michael Szpakowski

<Director on the other hand.. does it still give you
the logo during
the loading bar?>
yes!..and I deplore this & I'm not so familiar with
Flash but if that does something similar at some point
I deplore that too.
..but this is for me an important but seperate
argument from the one about whether some tools are by
their nature more suitable for the creation of art
works on the net than others and the wider but related
one of what does "idiomatic" mean for the net.
best
michael


=====
**DISCLAIMER:
Roth and Walker the joy of the anthem of Carletta to the edible one.
East of Wind. Phillips, Gordon. A painting.
Song of the Chorrito of Lewis Lacook. It is a strange song.
Woodland of Teratology. Does Bruce Conkle study the legend of Sasquatch?
Finally the young Salvaggio d'Eryk - a surrealista world where George Washington, a fox and a hen, a MUSE, fight in imaginary loneliness - a game.
District Postmaster: http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/5operas.html **

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

, MTAA

At 1:05 -0400 7/3/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t:
>> Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
>> aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what?
>
>curt:
>I hope I'm talking about what I'm talking about. I'm trying discuss
>in concrete detail, as clearly as possible, specific paradigmatic
>approaches toward net art creation. Yes, I am questioning the value
>of entire movements and approaches that have been accepted as
>established artistic practice in academic, critical, and
>professional art circles since the 60s. I'm wanting to discuss
>their particular merit in terms of our current medium. If this
>seems quixotic or irksome, if you've already settled these issues to
>your own satisfaction, I'm easily dismissed with a few historical
>references and a glib, "Can he be serious?"

++
twhid:
I'm not trying to dismiss you but simply pin you down so that our
discussion doesn't fizzle out from misunderstandings due to the fact
that we're talking about 2 different things. It seemed that that may
be the case from your examples of conceptualists, you're applying the
term much more broadly than it's generally used. I don't use it so
broadly and gave a specific explanation of what I think constitutes
conceptual art. You seem to apply the term to anything that has a
goal other than the aesthetic. that definition is way to broad and
that's not how I would use it (see below).



>
>t:
>I find it extremely weird that you
>> would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys
>> off
>> the hook.
>
>curt:
>You're misreading me. I'm highlighting the devolution of
>conceptualism. Beuys was an earlier conceptualist whose craft and
>sensory aesthetics were more intrinsically related to his concepts.
>Hirst is a later conceptualist whose craft and sensory aesthetics
>are less intrinsically related to his concepts. Beuys is a
>conceptualist whose work I like. I consider him a sculptor and an
>experimental educator. Hirst is a conceptualist whose work I find
>mildly amusing at best. I consider him a well-meaning byproduct of
>art world foppery.
>

++
twhid:
Yea, but you're not. conceptualism (how it's historically been
defined) has absolutely *nothing* to do with material craft (not that
it has nothing to do with craft) except in terms of negating it. it
has only a tangential relation to sensory or visual aesthetics (see
Eduardo's excellent post). so there could be no devolution of
conceptualism in the terms you apply and the artists you highlight as
your examples aren't conceptual artists anyway.

perhaps what you mean is that there has been a devolution of art
quality in general because of conceptual art's influence?

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

, Jim Andrews

> flash does come standard with many browser distros.
>
> you only see an ad when you install it for the first time after that
> there is only macromedia's name in the contextual (right click) menu
> otherwise it's perfectly clean of any marketing messages.
>
> Director on the other hand.. does it still give you the logo during
> the loading bar?

By default, yes. You can axe it if you want. You can also get rid of the right-click menu and
open your own. You can also prevent the one time logo fest on installation, as I'm sure you can
in Flash also, by linking the person directly to the installation file for download rather than
linking them to the macromedia-mediated-through-the-web installation process.

I choose to link them to the direct file not only to avoid their logofest but because they are
asked to register and sometimes this rigamarole results in the installation failing. That's all
adding up to way too much.

So the answer, not surprisingly, is that if you allow the defaults to rule, they will jump all
over you. This is a good example of how defaults are inclined to allow the medium to be the
message.

ja

, curt cloninger

twhid:
> I'm not trying to dismiss you but simply pin you down so that our
> discussion doesn't fizzle out from misunderstandings due to the fact
> that we're talking about 2 different things. It seemed that that may
> be the case from your examples of conceptualists, you're applying the
> term much more broadly than it's generally used. I don't use it so
> broadly and gave a specific explanation of what I think constitutes
> conceptual art. You seem to apply the term to anything that has a
> goal other than the aesthetic. that definition is way to broad and
> that's not how I would use it (see below).

curt:
OK. I understand. You're right. I'm applying the term broadly.

1.
What Eduardo defines as historical conceptualism I think of as pure
conceptualism or anti-object conceptualism. This is art whose medium
is the artist statement. I realize "idea" is supposed to be the
medium, but ideas can't be transfered mind to mind, so the medium in
fact becomes the artist statement (aka "formalistic prose text").
Survey says: "Boring Sidney, Boring. Exterminate! Exterminate!"

2.
Then there is what I would call object-incidental conceptualism,
where an object is used as a prop to convey an idea, but there's no
real aesthetic intention invested in the object. Without the artist
statement or the title of the piece, the object itself doesn't convey
much. Survey says: "Are we there yet? I have to go to the bathroom."

3.
Then there is object-intentional conceptualism, where the craft and
cunning invested in the object itself conveys the lion's share of the
concept. Survey says: "Fix me down a palette on your floor."


Note also, I doubt there even exists an artistic approach that has an
exclusively aesthetic goal. Even a landscape painting has some
concept [here I'm using the English word "concept" to mean
"concept"]. No art, from Bosch to Klee, is void of concept. And it
seems to me the great "art" of "art" has generally involved using
aesthetics to address "concepts" in a less than
pedantic/didactic/textual/cerebral way. "Art is for all the things
you can't say out loud." - entropy8

Visceral, multimedia communication is more technichally possible on
the web now than it was in 1996. And yet hi-res visuals are still
not possible. Methinks it is an interesting time to explore work
that falls toward the object-intentional side of my proposed
conceptual spectrum. In 1996, a piece like Heath Bunting's "Own, Be
Owned, Or Remain Invisible" (which falls toward the anti-object end
of my proposed conceptual spectrum) may have been the best we could
do given the constraints of the medium. Now we no longer HAVE to go
that route.



t:
> perhaps what you mean is that there has been a devolution of art
> quality in general because of conceptual art's influence?

curt:
Not exactly, although I agree with that too. According to my above
historically incorrect hack-job definitions, I am considering beuys
an object-intentional conceptualist. I am considering Hirst an
object-incidental conceptualist.

_
_

, Christopher Fahey

> twhid wrote:
> … An artist sometimes
> needs to bend over backwards to avoid the sheen of the Flash
> aesthetic.

Set QUALITY to LOW. Commercial stigma erased!

-Cf

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