The World Trade Center was always held up as a symbol of post modernism bec= ause of the perfect duplicate nature of the towers. To say that these two p= ieces benefit from having been created at the same time and mirror each oth= er is especially interesting; duplication as verification of abscence inste= ad of presence. Divide by zero.
I realize you are not attacking me or my work. No offense taken.
I appreciate your desire to set the record straight. Now that our two wor= ks have finally crossed paths, it doesn't seem exactly fair that only my pi= ece should be archived in the Art Base. It seems they should either both be= in, or both be out. Actually, I think the fact that both works were create= d at virtually the same instant at opposite ends of the globe in response t= o the same event makes them even more interesting, more unique.
Now whether the two works should be judged differently by art history…w= ell…there's not much point in arguing one way or the other, because it's = not in either your or my control. Art history's take on today will be decid= ed long after you and I have logged out for good. You stay focused on makin= g great art and let art history take care of itself.
i never said you copied me or you plagiarized my work. I don't think you = did.
i just saw your artwork in the artbase some weeks ago and i tried to get = in touch with Rachel and Alena sending them my links with the same work. i didn't know when you did it. On your artbase page I saw 01012001 which= was a strange date for a work inspired by 9-11-2001.
On sept.13th 2001 I published that piece posting it on the thething list,= rhizome list and emailng also 4000 people around the world asking for 3 m= inutes blank page. A lot of people remember that.
Of course, i programmed that work during 11-12 i cannot remember the exac= t hour (anyway I published it on the 13th. when i did the mailing) What you sent me is your dialogue with A.Galloway without info about when= you did the piece. But I believe you. And you are right, we did the piece = at the same time, same hour, same minute. that's ok. (so weird that alex di= dn't recognise it.. because i posted that email just a few days before..any= way)
My concerns weren't about your work but about the rhizome's indicisation= process because in my mind it has an historic value, but may be just in my= mind.. i don't know. perhaps the rhizome role and policy are not exactly = what i was thinking …
Plus: your work has been archived as "cloned object" that means to preser= ve it from the media obsolescence. And all these things have an historical = importance.
I think there is a difference between my work and yours. It is that in yo= ur case that particular work done with "not loaded images" has been made "u= na tantum". In mine it isn't. It is something related to my practice for so long. An= d this doesn't mean nothing in "value" terms but it's a really important po= int in art history terms.
I work for so long with those elements, i did also paintings. I showed th= ose works in galleries such as Analix in Geneva that perhaps doesn't mean n= othing for you but believe me, it's a really important place that helped ar= tists to grow at the beginning of their careers: Beecroft, Cattelan, Collis= haw, Tracey Emin and so on..
So another point is that there isn't only the net and its net shows. But = i think what a net-artist does in the "real" world is also important . An o= ther exemple is my CCA net commision that didn't come from an open call but= from a really hard work done with curators. To convince them about the imp= ortance of net works, even if there isn't a market for such works.
again: i'm not saying that my work is better than yours. the only thing i'm saying is that, (because our works are the same and do= ne at the same time) they can not be considered in the same way with the sa= me parameters when we are speaking in art history terms. (does "to speak ab= out artbase rhizome" mean to speak in art-history terms?… may be not.. an= d that's the point)
In any case, art history or not, for me and for people who know my practi= ce it's so strange to see that artwork made by you indicised by the rhizome= art base. there is something surreal in this situation.
Do you know my icons paintings? if a guy painted a jpeg (with the same si= ze - same style - same materials of mine) and an art historician is going t= o publish it on his book. What should I think? I started those painitngs = in 2000, and now? i don't know if you are following me, hope so.
So in the end i've nothing to say to you or to say about your piece. Nothing Vs. you, Nothing Vs. your work. Believe me. I didn't want to att= ack you. There's no reason.
I just want to make clear this "thing" from an art history point of view = , that for me is the most important thing.
Comments
The World Trade Center was always held up as a symbol of post modernism bec=
ause of the perfect duplicate nature of the towers. To say that these two p=
ieces benefit from having been created at the same time and mirror each oth=
er is especially interesting; duplication as verification of abscence inste=
ad of presence. Divide by zero.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: T Scarpino
To: cz
Cc: Eryk Salvaggio ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;=
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; palli@palli=
t.lhi.is
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: "Hole in the Sky" discussion in Rhizome Digest
Dear Carlo:
I realize you are not attacking me or my work. No offense taken.
I appreciate your desire to set the record straight. Now that our two wor=
ks have finally crossed paths, it doesn't seem exactly fair that only my pi=
ece should be archived in the Art Base. It seems they should either both be=
in, or both be out. Actually, I think the fact that both works were create=
d at virtually the same instant at opposite ends of the globe in response t=
o the same event makes them even more interesting, more unique.
Now whether the two works should be judged differently by art history…w=
ell…there's not much point in arguing one way or the other, because it's =
not in either your or my control. Art history's take on today will be decid=
ed long after you and I have logged out for good. You stay focused on makin=
g great art and let art history take care of itself.
All the best,
Tom Scarpino
—– Original Message —–
From: [email protected]
Dear Tom Scarpino,
i never said you copied me or you plagiarized my work. I don't think you =
did.
i just saw your artwork in the artbase some weeks ago and i tried to get =
in touch with Rachel and Alena sending them my links with the same work.
i didn't know when you did it. On your artbase page I saw 01012001 which=
was a strange date for a work inspired by 9-11-2001.
On sept.13th 2001 I published that piece posting it on the thething list,=
rhizome list and emailng also 4000 people around the world asking for 3 m=
inutes blank page. A lot of people remember that.
Of course, i programmed that work during 11-12 i cannot remember the exac=
t hour (anyway I published it on the 13th. when i did the mailing)
What you sent me is your dialogue with A.Galloway without info about when=
you did the piece. But I believe you. And you are right, we did the piece =
at the same time, same hour, same minute. that's ok. (so weird that alex di=
dn't recognise it.. because i posted that email just a few days before..any=
way)
My concerns weren't about your work but about the rhizome's indicisation=
process because in my mind it has an historic value, but may be just in my=
mind.. i don't know. perhaps the rhizome role and policy are not exactly =
what i was thinking …
Plus: your work has been archived as "cloned object" that means to preser=
ve it from the media obsolescence. And all these things have an historical =
importance.
I think there is a difference between my work and yours. It is that in yo=
ur case that particular work done with "not loaded images" has been made "u=
na tantum".
In mine it isn't. It is something related to my practice for so long. An=
d this doesn't mean nothing in "value" terms but it's a really important po=
int in art history terms.
I work for so long with those elements, i did also paintings. I showed th=
ose works in galleries such as Analix in Geneva that perhaps doesn't mean n=
othing for you but believe me, it's a really important place that helped ar=
tists to grow at the beginning of their careers: Beecroft, Cattelan, Collis=
haw, Tracey Emin and so on..
So another point is that there isn't only the net and its net shows. But =
i think what a net-artist does in the "real" world is also important . An o=
ther exemple is my CCA net commision that didn't come from an open call but=
from a really hard work done with curators. To convince them about the imp=
ortance of net works, even if there isn't a market for such works.
again: i'm not saying that my work is better than yours.
the only thing i'm saying is that, (because our works are the same and do=
ne at the same time) they can not be considered in the same way with the sa=
me parameters when we are speaking in art history terms. (does "to speak ab=
out artbase rhizome" mean to speak in art-history terms?… may be not.. an=
d that's the point)
In any case, art history or not, for me and for people who know my practi=
ce it's so strange to see that artwork made by you indicised by the rhizome=
art base.
there is something surreal in this situation.
Do you know my icons paintings? if a guy painted a jpeg (with the same si=
ze - same style - same materials of mine) and an art historician is going t=
o publish it on his book. What should I think? I started those painitngs =
in 2000, and now? i don't know if you are following me, hope so.
So in the end i've nothing to say to you or to say about your piece.
Nothing Vs. you, Nothing Vs. your work. Believe me. I didn't want to att=
ack you. There's no reason.
I just want to make clear this "thing" from an art history point of view =
, that for me is the most important thing.
All the best,
Carlo Zanni