christopher otto
Since the beginning
Works in New York United States of America

Chris Otto lives and works in New York City.

Activities have ranged from being accepted to speak at ICA London to helping VJ Kevlar with visuals at raves and fashion shows, to designing a website for male model Ngo [one of Ricki Lake\'s ten sexiest men:)].

His background ranges from studying at the infamous SFAI New Genres program to doing Flash for Organic to interning at Gyro Worldwide, practicioners of advertising par excellence. Past influences range from Gilbert+George to experiencing Rap+SS on the first formation tour to Hal Foster and Baudrillard. Currently he is inspired by mashups, rinseouts, freestyle skateboarding, and dangerous parties.

Amusingly, his current work is mainly large, somewhat AbEx paintings done with materials from KMart and St. Marks Place. Upcoming work will involve airbrushing.

Chris Otto is 25.
Discussions (31) Opportunities (2) Events (0) Jobs (0)


Christopher Otto July 2002

Making artworks where the exchange of currency creates the art object and performance using appropriations from popular consumer culture.

Making artworks concerning transmission through the world financial networks.

The object created is the cancelled cheque and is suitable for collection and display as original artwork as it contains the artists signature on the rear of the piece. On the front the title will fill the memo area and the purchaser will fill in the correct price and sign. Upon completion of the transaction the cheque will arrive via the purchasers bank.

The performance will involve the filling out of the cheque and its resultant transmission through analog and digital networks. "Anti-performances" by other artists by bouncing cheques will not be considered interesting and will recieve litigation.

My first series >>


Picasso Self-Portrait: Yo Picasso, $43,500,000

Picasso Nude in a Black Armchair, $45,102,500

Picasso Le reve, $48,402,500

Van Gogh Irises, $49,000,000

Picasso Woman Seated in a Garden, $49,500,000

Picasso Les Noces de Pierrette, $51,671,920

Cezanne Still Life with Curtain, Pitcher, and Bowl of Fruit, $60,500,000

Van Gogh Portrait de l'artiste sans barbe, $71,500,000

Renoir Au Moulin de la Galette, $78,100,000

Van Gogh Portrait of Dr. Gachet, $82,500,000

Barthes assertion of money as possibly the ultimate simulacrum or floating signifier.

Baudrillard in _Seduction_ describing the role of seducing production in areas such as gambling.


Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much

i think judson has a good point.

it is kind of like foucalt with all literature in the present i think
mediums are similar.

i often come up with mediums and forms as opposed to content. when i was
younger i used to add boring content to them now i just make the semiotics
of forms the content maybe.

i often get more excited about concepts than execution mainly because i
used to work +/- go out so much i had little time to make art. in my
unemployment i have found more time to work on longform projects and focus
on production leading to changing focus to painting and photography and
very little interest in net art.

this is part of the fun aspect of art which i think people are alluding
to. i always take into account how much fun it will be to do an idea or
work in a medium. for instance came out this week - i bought about 2months ago and decided not to do it since i
thought writing the scripts would be boring and sitting at a desk would be
less interesting than going out dancing.


On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Plasma Studii wrote:

> The markings for the posts and replies get mixed up, so I am going to
> try to just re-do em for clarity.
> > >> I believe painting to be an obsolete art form.
> > >
> > > Aww, sorry that was the buzzer.
> >
> >Awww, come on. Take it in the spirit its intended, and within the context it
> >was written.
> >
> > > Saw a (play? dance?) at a pretty hip theater (La Mama) a while ago
> > > In it, one character was not made from technologically relevant
> > > materials. In point of fact, it was a stick.
> >
> >so are you reading something significant into this?
> Just that there are works (and in competitive places) that have
> absolutely nothing to do with technology. They don't use modern
> tools and they don't refer to the use of modern tools.
> The idea that the tools have absolutely no bearing on the
> effectiveness of communication. Seems absurd to even consider there
> is a time when painting has more or less to say than at other times,
> as if painting (a tool) had anything at all to do with the delivery.
> Artist use tools to "talk". The tools don't talk.
> Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> applies to all.
> Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> paint.
> judson
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 223 E 10th Street
> PMB 130
> New York, NY 10003
> + fuck
> ->
> -> post:
> -> questions:
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> -> give:
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at

"christ"! (O), pher "ot to". . .


colorful language

browsers automatically convert text to color.
something i am working on for the 5k this one is only 86 bytes >>>

christopher otto