What we do
. blog —
mar 27, 2008 –
By Marisa Olson
— Share this Article —
Hi, Marisa,Some questions:How does the changing the signature to one's gmail account save $500, for those who don't have gmail or an iphone? Also, you said "rapidly save $500" and the website says "in 30 seconds." Now that's rapid!The out of office auto reply piece looks pretty good as a side by side projection but I don't understand the need for all these iterations of the piece. Using the existing info on Craigslist-bought computers is kind of elegant in a found object finding way, but buying new Macs to remake the piece seems like the artist is creating a simulacrum of his own work. Usually that is not good.Also, I'm assuming the "out of office autoreply" is a feature of Microsoft Outlook–that's where 90% of the people who see that message will see it. It's a compliment to Microsoft to say that its products are good enough or reliable enough to create a "stasis field"–my guess is this back and forth loop will degrade or break down fairly quickly.Shouldn't you be calling Cory Arcangel the "former master of obsolete hardware?". It seems pretty clear the galleries he is working with want sleek gear like new Macs and plasma screens, not old thrift shop stuff, and that's what he is working with now. Nothing inherently wrong with that, art changes with the market and venue, but to say "all computers become obsolete rapidly" sounds like an excuse, not a reason.All the best, Tom
i work in an office where brief period of time every email had "sent from iphone" or "sent from helio ocean" or "sent from Windows Mobile". I put "sent from desktop computer" on the bottom of all my emails and soon all those annoying signatures stoped.
Tom, thanks for your close-reading of the piece, but these are really questions for the artist, not me. I can personally say that I like when artists think about multiple ways to manifest a concept. The different iterations allow one to think-through the idea and its implications, in different contexts. They also make the project sort of site-specific each time, with the hardware plucked from the local media-ecosphere (whatever Craigslist, Ebay, or other retailers have to offer in that area, or at that time). Apple stores and newer computers are certainly part of this ecology. Just consider the rate at which Apple turns out new products, leaving the old, environmentally-harmful ones to be discarded. In the meantime, I don't see Cory having eschewed "old media" altogether, and I know this isn't a decision he'd make about his work based solely on market forces. It's all part of an important bigger conversation.
Certainly there are examples of multiple takes on projects where the development is meaningful, but it seems to me the rate at which Apple turns out new computers was implicit in using the older computers. The screens to me seem the most successful iteration of that project because it helps to minimize the conversation about the sale of the computer and the art, which is undoubtedly the least engaging aspect of the work.
PS By screens, I meant projection pieces.
Tom,Most (all?) mail programs are smart enough to not send out the auto-response repeatedly to the same email address (I think Outlook's default is to auto respond only once a week to a given email address).However, I did work with a guy who used his mail program's "rules" instead of the built-in auto-responder… so he continually responded to all emails (along the lines of "Permanent Vacation") and quickly flooded the email lists to which he was subscribed.
I have to agree with Tom that the idea of using second-hand computers and "maintaining" the original owner's identity, sounds like it was a pretty strong conceptual component of the work originally. It's a shame to see artists compromise their concepts like that. I don't quite buy the "it's going to be outdated next month anyway" argument. The whole idea, it seems to me, is that someone really did use the computer and it showed. That person has now taken a permanent vacation from the computer. How do you determine the identity to be used by a new, never before owned, computer? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I get the feeling that using new hardware pretty much circumvents the whole concept of the piece.Pall
This "piece" is two computers emailing each other, and no amount of waxing philosophic makes it anything more than that. Just the fact that something this uninspiring makes it into media art gallery's represents everything that is wrong with media art curation. It focuses on some inane aspect of ubiquitous technology in an effort to make it seem novel, but its not. It's email.When are we going to expect some level of craft and ingenuity from media art and not settle for half a concept with a computer strapped to it? Are we really that hard up for good media art that we are willing to navel gaze at a single recursive loop?
Yes, this piece is two computers emailing each other. That's what I liked about it - a kind of precise, minimal intervention which I find (at the risk of being old fashioned) aesthetically pleasing. The "art" here isn't found in a high level of technical innovation, it's found in a deft, accurate rethinking of technology that's lying all around us.
The first instance of a stasis field I know of in science fiction comes from Larry Niven's "Known Space" series. In World of Ptavvs a surviving member of the extinct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrintun species turns up at the bottom of an Earth ocean. Due to the creature's rock hard, glossy smooth surface it is called the "Sea Statue," that is, until the stasis field unthaws and the Thrint begins telepathically enslaving humans.Barry, when you gaze into the abyss it also gazes into you. The topic introduced by Marisa is why the same idea needs four or more incarnations. Marisa, you say only the artist can explain that. But he seems to have left the building. So you are acting as his spokesman on earth and proclaiming his intentions ("I know this isn't a decision he'd make about his work based solely on market forces"). Tapping the "local eco-media sphere" is a good way to talk about it. But doesn't the sphere around Thaddeus Ropac Gallery include Craigslist or its Austrian equivalent?Pall, the idea of the permanent vacation doesn't have to be so literal as that it's the vacation of the person who originally owned the computer. "Two computers emailing each other" is a fine variation on art's "loop of existential despair" or "pathos of machines" themes. The question is how to best realize it.
Sorry, I'm not going to try to be a "spokes[wo]man" for anyone. My effort was to offer a critique of the work, and now you have my take on it. I can't put words in anyone's mouth. But I will say that you can't comment on the past, present, and future of something by *only* showing its past. Or you can, but it's less effective and often naive or sheltered. This would be the effect of only ever using older computers to talk about contemporary computing culture. But at this point, I am projecting my own media-change interpretation on the work, so I need to step back.Thanks for your comments.
It's OK for a critical advocate to project!Without having seen any of the pieces (the jpegs-plus-commentary being somewhat like thought experiments here) I'm with Paddy in preferring the side by side video projection. The scale gives it formal interest, it ties in nicely with the earlier keystoning work, and there's no IKEA table to have to deal with in discussing it. It was the "master of obsolete hardware" I had a problem with at this late date, and all the iterations of the piece without accounting for art world pressures and prejudices as having a possible role.
Pic 1 looks like Darth Vader.
Dime store BuddhaBuddha made by local artisansCustom-cast bronze Buddha in edition of 3 made by Reid, my fabricator.
'Back and forth' isn't in the nature of 'out-of-office' replies. The standard is to send only once to each recipient. Ie, the computers should only send one reply each. To create the loop, the standard has been overwritten, creating a situation that - obviously - would NEVER exist. This work, while humous (in the original form), is superfluous.
Martin, if what you are saying is true then the joke is only funny because some of us thought "out of office autoreply" could create such a loop. How awkward. I propose a revision to the piece: two computers mailing "the recipient's mailbox is full" messages back and forth to each other–that message I know goes out multiple times for each recipient.
Hi Tom, You can prove for yourself that this it wouldn't happen. Try it with two users in the same office. Programmers have - logically - written exceptions to prevent this from happening. If it occurred in reality would easily take down servers.
Already a member? Log In
username or email
Not a member? Sign Up