joy garnett
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
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 >

homepage:
http://joygarnett.com

The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org

First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net

NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/

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

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: holy shit: MASS MoCA - it ain't art but if it is, we're co-authors


>This situation is simply fucked.

Agreed. I have to say, as an artist I can't imagine negotiating the
situation as Buchel has done. This reads like an instruction booklet for
what not to do. And it could end up having really bad reverberations for
folks on both sides...

On 7/26/07, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>
> I can see both sides too. They're both making it harder for institutions
> to mesh with artists. This is a no-win situation for anyone.
>
> Buchel's actions are going to lead to more restrictive contracts for
> artists when dealing with museums.
>
> MASS MoCA's actions, if accepted by the courts, are going to require
> artists to deal with institutions from a more hostile stance as museum's
> could simply co-opt a work without the artists agreement if they're
> ridiculous claims are upheld.
>
> This situation is simply fucked.
>
> On 7/26/07, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, guys. I've been kind of following this story. There have been a
> > number of articles, but here are some key ones, I think:
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_=
a_world_unseen/
> >
> > Buchel's demands:
> > http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2007/03/buechel_lis=
t_of.html
> >
> >
> > Op Ed:
> > http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/07/01/no_admittan=
ce/
> >
> >
> > And here's a nice piece by Nick Stillman, offering some art historical
> > context:
> > http://www.nyfa.org/level3.asp?id=602&fid=4&sid=8
> >
> > I don't know... I've heard both sides of the story. It's intense.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > > How did it get to this?
> > >
> > > marc
> > > > still trying to digest this...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buch=
el_project_is.html
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > > > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on
> > the
> > > > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of
> > the
> > > > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that
> > Buchel's
> > > > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > > > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient
> > original
> > > > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > > > Copyright Act."
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are
> > barred
> > > > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the
> > Materials
> > > > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> > > >
> > > > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful
> > owners
> > > > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > > > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> > > >
> > > > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > > > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > > > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not
> > be
> > > > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990
> > (VARA).
> > > > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > > > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > > > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > > > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > > > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA
> > Acts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.p=
hp
> >
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>

--
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: holy shit: MASS MoCA - it ain't art but if it is, we're co-authors


thanks Marisa -- I will add the two Boston Globe articles to the rest of the
batch on newsgrist... it is really intense....

On 7/26/07, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
>
> Hey, guys. I've been kind of following this story. There have been a
> number of articles, but here are some key ones, I think:
>
> Background:
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_a_=
world_unseen/
>
> Buchel's demands:
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2007/03/buechel_list_=
of.html
>
> Op Ed:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/07/01/no_admittance/
>
> And here's a nice piece by Nick Stillman, offering some art historical
> context:
> http://www.nyfa.org/level3.asp?id=602&fid=4&sid=8
>
> I don't know... I've heard both sides of the story. It's intense.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > How did it get to this?
> >
> > marc
> > > still trying to digest this...
> > >
> > >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_pro=
ject_is.html
> > >
> > >
> > > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> > > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> > > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel=
's
> > > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient origin=
al
> > > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > > Copyright Act."
> > >
> > > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are bar=
red
> > > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> > > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> > >
> > > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> > > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> > >
> > > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> > > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> > > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA
> Acts.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

--
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RAW: holy shit: MASS MoCA - it ain't art but if it is, we're co-authors


I just did a quick search and post turnaround, starting w/ ken Johnson's
Boston Globe article here:

Mass MoCA: "sad, dumb, and shameful"
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/mass-moca-sad-d.html

On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
> How did it get to this?
>
> marc
> > still trying to digest this...
> >
> >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_pro=
ject_is.html
> >
> >
> > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel's
> > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient original
> > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > Copyright Act."
> >
> > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are barred
> > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> >
> > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> >
> > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA Act=
s.
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

--
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

DISCUSSION

Bill Jones + Ben Neill @ SCANNERS, The 2007 NY Video Festival JULY 27-29


via:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/bill-jones-ben-.html

Friday, July 27 9pm: Ben Neill will play his hybrid electro-acoustic
"mutant trumpet" in the liminal spaces created by video artist Bill
Jones in Circuits Maximus, a special live music and interactive video
event.

Scanners: The 2007 New York Video Festival
http://filmlinc.com/wrt/onsale/scanners07.html
July 27

DISCUSSION

NYC Film Permits? Independent Filmmakers et al. Fight Back


via:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/nyc-film-permit.html

Marshall Reese (of ligorno/reese) writes in that he and Svetlana
Mintcheva of the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) have
been crafting a letter in response to the regulations under
consideration by the Mayor's Office.

[...] there are a number of individuals and organizations, (the New
York Civil Liberties Union for one), who are also suggesting
appropriate actions. The initial regulations proposed by the Mayor's
Office seem unrealistic, hard to enforce, and potentially stifling to
filmmakers and photographers in New York, as well as to have serious,
negative, first amendment consequences.

[...] download the letter at:

http://ncac.org/NYCfilmphotorestrictions.pdf

If you agree and would like to sign it, please contact Svetlana
Mintcheva at NCAC.

svetlana@ncac.org

Please include your name, professional affiliation and city of
residence to be added to the letter. We will send the letter out by
end of this week, July 27, 2007. The deadline for comments by the
Mayor's Office is August 3rd and we want to send the letter to them
before that.

We feel that the more options that the Mayor's office receives, the
better the likelihood they will make a decent decision.

Thanks for your time. & please feel free to circulate the letter.

Sincerely,
Marshall Reese
=====================
the letter:

Ms. Julianne Cho
Assistant Commissioner
Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10019

July 27, 2007

Re: Chapter 9, Title 43 of the City Rules of New York Film Permits

Dear Ms. Cho:
We are writing to you to express our concern about the adverse impact
the new rules on Film Permits (Chapter 9, Title 43 of the City Rules
of New York), currently under consideration, will have on independent
filmmakers, photographers and film and photography students in the
City. While we understand and appreciate the need for written
guidelines regarding photographic and film making activities in New
York