Edmund Goubert
Since 2006

Discussions (9) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Net Neutrality


How utterly depressing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm

Andy Deck wrote:

> Pardon the prosaic interruption, but are people calling their
> senators to get the U.S. Senate to block this corporate initiative
> (COPE) which will almost certainly hurt small content providers such
> as
> artists?
>
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: funding and rhizome comissions


You can be sure as death and taxes that as soon as rabid capitalist interests get financially involved in Netart we will have poster boys and girls, sparkling like diamonds. And to the wider world, our Net starlets will aid the abet the matierialization of their Netart in the minds of millions of consumer's imaginations.

The structures of nations, institutions and individuals cannot resist the self organising priciples of markets. One of the greatest tradgeies of the late 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union which was effectively bankrupted by the U.S. and so the peoples of the former Soviet bloc were 'emancipated' so that they could choose from 25 different models of toaster.

We as a community should be ready for the onslaught, organise and infiltrate the corporate monoliths and change them from within!

Viva la Revolution!

Alternatively a Netart commune in the Canadian wilderness might suffice.

curt cloninger wrote:

> Edmund Goubert wrote:
>
> > Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few
> million
> > dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a few
> > Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.
>
> Again, there are all sorts of inherent attributes of the network as an
> artistic medium that are diametrically opposed to the old "top artist
> as vanguard posterboy/hero" model.
>
> cf: http://www.afsnitp.dk/onoff/Texts/dietzwhyhavether.html

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: funding and rhizome comissions


I'm just shitting myself about making art in general. It is a most excellent state to be in especially when thinking about painting. "Coloured dirt" is how Philip Guston described it. It's a medium that can be utterly visceral and yet convey the resurrection of christ(Piero Della Francesca) as if it were a worldly fact - I find that painting quite terrifying; Christ just popping up "Hello, I'm back", transformed dead flesh. I imagine the quiet ruffling of his shrowd as he pulls himself up out of his tomb with his newly restored leg. Utterly BIZARRE! Wonderful!

I'm less worried about being called a painter because of Piero Della Francesca.

Rob Myers wrote:

> Quoting Edmund Goubert <ed@sitemarketeer.com>:
>
> > I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very
> > rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young
> > British artists in the 90's.
>
> I don't think net.art needs that much damage done. :-)
>
> > I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is
> simply
> > a medium - a tool like tubes of paint.
>
> People who use tubes of paint don't tend to worry about being called
> "painters".
> :-)
>
> > If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work
> and
> > try not to get trapped into using one medium.
>
> Then you will probably end up being called a conceptualist, or
> whatever the
> Bourriaudian bright young things of the biennaleiat end up being
> labelled as.
> :-)
>
> - Rob.
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: funding and rhizome comissions


I was thinking just now, in the bath - perhaps Netart needs a very rich person to do for Netart what Charles Saatchi did for young British artists in the 90's. His actions may have been that of a cynical capitalist, but I'm sure many of the people whose careers he made overnight are not complaining. Another angle would be for a Net artist to win a *major* art prize like the Turner Prize in the U.K. - HUGE amounts of publicity there.

I mean, the extreme personal wealth of many internet entreprenuers is legendary - don't we know any????

Is it only money that's the obstacle here? Spent right, a few million dollars could set up a huge publicity machine to promote a few Netartists - I mean shoot them into the stratosphere.

What about an a publicity stunt like David Blaine just did? If only he'd talked up the cause of Netart - if ONLY HE WAS A NET ARTIST!

IMHO, it's this 'Netart' term and the terminology employed in much of the discourse surrounding 'art that is made for or about the internet'. A kind of curatorial double speak, packed with assumptions regrding audiences 'pre-conceptions', 'politics' etc - IT TURNS PEOPLE OFF! and it's not useful.

I'm worried about being called a 'Netartist', the internet is simply a medium - a tool like tubes of paint. I might create a software tool to aid my artistic practice, I might even make ONE piece of work that soley employs a networked environment as the means of expression. I might then, as I'm planning to do, draw flowers, trees, water for a year to see what happens.

If I'm an artist, I'll use any medium at my disposal to make work and try not to get trapped into using one medium. I won't worry about what a hard time curators have trying to exhibit my work to the public.

Edmund Goubert wrote:

> Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.
>
> After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in
> Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my
> own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
> I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's
> art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds
> a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour
> building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber
> art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the
> hope that they'll become the establishment someday!
>
> curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming
> accepted
> > in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a
> genre
> > of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
> > Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art
> scene?
> > Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
> > museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan
> activism,
> > or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
> > disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after
> his
> > being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
> > deal?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
> > curt
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Dymond wrote:
> >
> > > Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
> > >
> > > The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of
> the
> > > dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> > > Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> > > numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
> > pay
> > > Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> > > Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> > > evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> > > Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> > > benefit.
> > > And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
> > support
> > > structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> > > We are certainly driven.
> > >
> > > I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> > > shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
> > artsists
> > > started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
> > Rhizome
> > > receives.
> > >
> > > There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> > > galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
> > surmounted.
> > > How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace
> their
> > > budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
> > >
> > > Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> > > institutions are compared to Rhizome.
> > >
> > > We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support,
> without
> > > losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
> > curators,
> > > and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
> > of
> > > network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> > > bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> > > their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped
> to
> > > establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
> > face
> > > as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
> > artist
> > > in this new century.
> > >
> > > If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
> > keep
> > > it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
> > are
> > > silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
> > the
> > > mainline art institutions.
> > >
> > > Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for
> support,
> > > and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't
> support
> > > you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
> > >
> > > Eric

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: funding and rhizome comissions


Funding? I'm now on the cusp of becoming totally self funded.

After Art School(Fine Art Painting) I decided to do a Masters in Computing and after a few years in corporate internet land I began my own technology company purely to fund my art FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. I realised that there's no point in wasting time trying to fit one's art into the tastes of bureaucrats or 'communities of artists'(sounds a bit Soviet to me) - I might have more in common with my neighbour building his shed at the bottom of his garden than with 'crazy' cyber art dudes trying to lay seige to the current art establishment in the hope that they'll become the establishment someday!

curt cloninger wrote:

> I'm still hesitant to buy into this assumption that becoming accepted
> in the contemporary art wold inherently benefits an artist or a genre
> of art. Did Alan Kaprow book his happenings into a gallery space?
> Did Alexei Shulgin move to New York to break into the net art scene?
> Is it in the spirit of Duchamp that his urinal is now enshrined in
> museum plexiglass? Was May '68 instigated by overt partisan activism,
> or by years of perpetual underground situationist mindscrew
> disruption? Did Howard Finster's work improve or get worse after his
> being "discovered?" Did Fugazi court Warner Brothers for a record
> deal?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW5vo-QMlFk ,
> curt
>
>
>
> Eric Dymond wrote:
>
> > Jason, you are so dead on with this observation.
> >
> > The funding model for net art is certainly the source of most of the
> > dissatisfaction we see in the threads related to the commissions.
> > Had Rhizome a budget of say 500,000 dollars then we could have
> > numerous funded community voted projects and curated exhibits (and
> pay
> > Lauren, Patrick and Marisa what they deserve).
> > Ten years ago I thought that by now, the funding model would have
> > evolved into something more substantial than it is.
> > Fortunately network artists continue to make net art, to our great
> > benefit.
> > And even more surprisingly, it continues to evolve without the
> support
> > structures that traditional (and even non-traditional) arts enjoy.
> > We are certainly driven.
> >
> > I don't think we should remain satisfied with the current support
> > shown by *all* art institutions. It's about time some online
> artsists
> > started to get more vocal about the lack of financial support
> Rhizome
> > receives.
> >
> > There is an existing wall between traditional art venues (museums,
> > galleries, funding bodies) and online art. This has to be
> surmounted.
> > How do we address and that problem, twist their arms, embrace their
> > budgets and get on to the next iteration of distributed art.
> >
> > Lets not forget how conservative even the most forward thinking
> > institutions are compared to Rhizome.
> >
> > We need to find ways to bridge that gap, encourage support, without
> > losing independence. Thats a tricky project but doable. When
> curators,
> > and critics point to the flaws they see in the theory and practice
> of
> > network based art, then we need do some educating and if necessary
> > bribe them. The Abstract Expressionist once picketed the Met (when
> > their work was ignored and dismissed as second rate) they helped to
> > establish a new role for that artist at mid-century and gave it a
> face
> > as well. It might be time for more active role of the networked
> artist
> > in this new century.
> >
> > If they can ignore you, they will. If you make enough noise, and
> keep
> > it up, they might just change. They definitely won't change if you
> are
> > silent. Science Centers and Libraries are great, but lets aim for
> the
> > mainline art institutions.
> >
> > Online activism is the starting point. Create a demand for support,
> > and openly and loudly criticize the institutions that don't support
> > you. Then get into the streets, make it a noisy summer.
> >
> > Eric