joy garnett
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.

Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.

extended network >


The Bomb Project

First Pulse Projects

NEWSgrist - where spin is art

Discussions (685) Opportunities (5) Events (8) Jobs (0)

Fwd: Nuclear Weapons Archive needs a host

FYI: Nuclear Weapons Archive has been a mainstay of image research @ The
Bomb Project:

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Carey Sublette <>
Subject: Nuclear Weapons Archive Needs a New Host
Date: Sun, May 22 2005 9:45 am
Groups: alt.war.nuclear, sci.military.moderated,,,

For the last three years the Nuclear Weapons Archive has been
hosted by the very gracious Sidd who runs the "Membrane Domain",
but next month he will have to stop hosting it.

As a result the Nuclear Weapons Archive which is operated as a
free public information resource and is the most visited site on the
Internet on this very important topic of public interest needs a
new host.

The size of the site is not large (100 megabytes) by today's
standards, but the bandwidth is substantial due to its popularity.

If anyone can provide a host for this site, please drop me an

Carey Sublette


Re: Call for Participation: Experimental Exhibition - "Summer of MySpace"

I'd agree with Pall: the key term here is "non-exclusive" -- they basically
are covering their asses so you can't turn around and sue them if, say,
someone grabs your image off MySpace and makes a derivative work ;-) It's
essentially a license to distribute, which is what you want them to do:
distribute your work via the internet. i don't find it scary at all (just
thorough legalese) and not at all at odds with a CC license.

On 5/24/06, Pall Thayer <> wrote:
> Pretty scary license. Especially the part where they reserve the
> right to "sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees".
> However, I'm not sure that it's really much to worry about and
> perhaps not even unreasonable (from a very corporate point of view).
> They also say, "...and distribute such Content on and through the
> Services." This sounds to me like they are only reserving the right
> to use material on MySpace _within_ MySpace to make sure they don't
> get sued for posting your image on the splash page as one of the
> "cool new people", or something along similar lines. So, I'm not sure
> that it's quite correct to say that this license grants MySpace "all
> of the rights" to content posted there.
> Pall
> On 24.5.2006, at 10:00, Christine Hart wrote:
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Although this sounds like a great idea for the exploration of
> > social networking and it's relationship to net art, I have to take
> > issue with asking people to post "art". I have had several friends
> > who are illustrators and artists remove the bulk of their art work
> > from MySpace because of a recent change to the Terms and Conditions
> > which can be found here:
> > z=1
> >
> > Basically it grants MySpace all of the rights to any "Content"
> > posted to MySpace as long as it is on the MySpace servers.
> > Proprietary Rights in Content on
> > By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content, messages,
> > text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, profiles, works of
> > authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") on or
> > through the Services, you hereby grant to, a non-
> > exclusive, fully-paid and royalty-free, worldwide license (with the
> > right to sublicense through unlimited levels of sublicensees) to
> > use, copy, modify, adapt, translate, publicly perform, publicly
> > display, store, reproduce, transmit, and distribute such Content on
> > and through the Services. This license will terminate at the time
> > you remove such Content from the Services. You represent and
> > warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through
> > the Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set
> > forth in this section, and (ii) the posting of your Content on or
> > through the Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity
> > rights, copyrights, contract rights or any other rights of any
> > person. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other
> > monies owing any person by reason of any Content posted by you to
> > or through the Services.
> > I am a big believer in the Creative Commons lisencing and open
> > source art and code. I still maintain my profile on the site but I
> > no longer post any creative works of writing, art, or sound because
> > I feel that these terms are a bit unreasonable.
> >
> > This might make the experiment of using MySpace as an art venue
> > more interesting or posit more problems.
> >
> > How does this list feel about soical networking sites and lisencing
> > issues of creative works and images associated with them?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Christine
> >
> >
> > On 5/21/06, patrick lichty <> wrote:
> > Call for Participation:
> >
> > "The Summer of MySpace"


Recently posted at

Recently posted at <>
(a resource hub about climate change for artists, writers and activists)
May 16, 2006
Battle for the North Pole

Busan Sculpture Project: 'Homage to the Earth'


A Series of Practical Performances In The Wilderness

May 13, 2006
Thousands Flee From Active Volcano in Indonesia

May 07, 2006
Planet in Peril: Atlas of Current Threats to People and the Environment

May 02, 2006
Climate Change Casino?

April 22, 2006
Laurie David on Global Warming

Public Programs for The Drop, @ Exit Art



Tonight @ Roulette / Location One: XIX with Mimi Goese

music by Ben Neill

vocalist Mimi Goese
(Mimi, Hugo Largo, Moby)
Interactive video by Bill Jones
John Conte on bass, and Jim Mussen on drums

Tonight at

Roulette / Location One
20 Greene Street between Canal and Grand
9PM, $10

ambient electronics sampled from 19th century music combined with the
futuristic sounds of Neill's mutantrumpet and deep live
grooves...interactive video played live through VJ software... XIX explores
the dynamics of 19th century romanticism with new digital technologies,
acoustic instruments and voice.


COMEDIES OF FAIR U$E: transcripts and commentary

Dear rhizomers, fair use advocates, joywar people et al.;

Here are some rough notes/transcripts of some of the sessions that took
place at the COMEDIES OF FAIR U$E conference at NYU/NYIH this past weekend.
The taped transcripts + notes come via IPTAblog, a law + creativity blog
edited by Andrew Raff, a "recent law school graduate and geek based in
Brooklyn, NY."; please note that these transcripts are as yet incomplete and
contain many errors. Eventually, NYIH will post MP3 files of the entire
conference, synced to Power Point slides, mash-ups, etc. on their site. The
current info is also up on NEWSgrist with links to images, bios, etc.:

cheers, and thanks again,

Comedies of Fair Use (via IPTAblog)
April 28, 2006, by Andrew Raff
I'm here blogging live (on tape) from the Comedies of Fair Use at NYU.

These posts are written in real time and represent notes, more than polished
thoughts. But since there's no WiFi signal here, you're getting them on tape

Friday, April 28
Keynote address:
Lawrence Lessig on The Current State of Fair Use with responses by Allan
Adler and Hugh Hansen; Siva Vaidhyanathan (moderator)
Lawrence Lessig:
Vaidhyanathan, Adler and Hansen:

Saturday April 29
Joy Garnett, Susan Mieselas, Art Spiegelman, Lebbeus Woods, Carrie McLaren,
Joel Wachs; Lawrence Weschler (moderator)

The Permissions Maze
Geoff Dyer, Susan Bielstein, Allan Adler; James Boyle (moderator)

(above postings incomplete; hopefully to be completed...)

Also, here is a very lovely post by Laura Quilter about my and Susan
Meiselas's joint presentation on the Art panel:

comedies & tragedies of fair use
The Comedies of Fair Use meeting wrapped up a few hours ago. Among the best
presentations were the art panel Saturday morning, in which Joy Garnett and
Susan Meiselas each discussed their side of the incident that became known
as JoyWar. (There were other panelists in this session too; for instance,
Art Spiegelman, who was hilarious.)

"JoyWar" began when Joy Garnett appropriated a photograph she found on the
Internet, and repainted it. Shortly after exhibiting it, she got a
cease-and-desist letter from the photographer, Susan Meiselas. Joy's art
rapidly became a cause celebre among Internet artists and activists, who
reposted Joy's art and remixed it with many new works.

Susan and Joy had never met before the conference, but they both agreed to
come and tell their story in a joint session.

Joy explained that she sought images on the Internet of people exhibiting
strong emotions; she found the images, and then set them aside for a time,
specifically seeking to decontextualize the images so she could later focus
solely on their aesthetics. She then repainted the photo, and exhibited it
as part of an exhibition called "Riot". Mieselas' photograph was perfect: it
showed a young man about to throw a molotov cocktail, an expression of
intensity on his face.

Susan introduced herself by explaining that her goals as a photographer were
precisely the opposite of Joy's: That it was critical to her to
re-contextualize the photograph, to embed the image in the subject, the
historical and political moment in time. The photo, she explained, was of a
young man on July 16, 1979, the night that Somosa was finally driven out of
Nicaragua, and the Sandinistan revolution triumphed. The photograph of this
young man in fact became emblematic of the entire movement, of the
revolution itself, and was stenciled and appropriated by all kinds of
people. Susan felt a strong social contract with the subjects of her
photographs, and went back years later to contact them. This young man, it
turned out, was still deeply committed to the movement.

The striking thing was the obvious pain that both women felt at the
conflict. Though their artistic goals and methods clashed, bptj Susan and
Joy were thoughtful and sincere. Susan, for instance, really seemed to feel
that she was possibly "old-fashioned"; that she just didn't get the new
methods of appropriation. Joy, for her part, seemed to really appreciate
Susan's goals and interests; but stood firm on her own principles. It really
seemed in some respects a tragic conflict of interests, because, yes, Susan
had real interests at stake. You couldn't but respect Susan's interests and
the respect that she herself had for the subject of her work. I'm certain it
took tremendous courage for Joy and Susan to come together in a public
forum, after such a well-publicized conflict. And it's a testament in
particular to Susan's courage and honesty that she presented her beliefs and
reasons so articulately and passionately in the face of a potentially
hostile audience.

The problem is that the interests Susan was seeking to uphold, through the
tool of copyright, are not traditional copyright interests. Susan wasn't
particularly interested solely (or possibly at all) in trying to protect her
licensing revenue. She was interested, rather, in protecting her right to be
custodian of the image: an interest that really isn't even captured in moral
rights as defined in Europe.

At the end of the day, Hank Shocklee, of Public Enemy, gave a "times they
are a'changing" / "to the barricades, comrades" speech: He basically said
that the old models of control are dead. It was a great moment, and I hope
it's true. There's no question that we are paying too high a cost right now
from excessive control over information. We are losing works, we are losing
consumer rights, we are losing new forms of artistic expression.

But with every change, there are costs. Those who control information
sometimes do it for the right reason. The hypertrophic growth of copyright
law (as Jamie Boyle put it) has harmed the essential purpose of copyright
law, the encouragement of creativity. But that same hypertrophic, harmful
growth, nevertheless allowed Susan to pursue other interests not well
protected in any other way: privacy, dignity, trust, political context and
memory. I hope we find other ways