Kate Southworth
Since the beginning
Works in Cornwall United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (4)
BIO
glorious ninth (http://www.gloriousninth.net) is a collaboration between artists Kate Southworth and Patrick Simons. They make artworks and DIY installations for galleries, online and other places. Recent works have started to explore the use of protocol as a medium. Kate Southworth is research leader of the iRes research cluster in Network Art at University College Falmouth (http://www.ires.org.uk).
Discussions (51) Opportunities (1) Events (5) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


From: "Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com>
Reply-To: "Kanarinka" <kanarinka@ikatun.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:38:53 -0400
To: "'Kate Southworth'" <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com>, "'Eryk
Salvaggio'" <eryk@maine.rr.com>, <list@rhizome.org>
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much
Hi Kanarinka and List

I agree with what you're saying to an extent Kanarinka. Take a look at our
work at Glorious Ninth and, as has been said on this list before, it is very
visually and aurally orientated. But beauty as the definition of
aesthetics, beauty as the definition of art surely has been and gone. Of
course we are dealing with the visual and aural, and therefore aesthetics
plays its part. But what we define as aesthetics changes with time. Its
pointless in a way to talk about aesthetics without saying what those
aesthetics are. Contemporary aesthetics are not the same as those that
supported painting, for example. Liza Sabater Napier got tantalizingly
close to really describing contemporary aesthetics (well, netart etc.
aesthetics) in earlier posts.

best, Kate

>>>
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.
>>>

Hi folks -- While I agree with some of the other statements in Kate's
message I disagree entirely with this one. While I might not call it
"beauty" i think that emphasis on balance/harmony/aesthetics in the
perception and absorption of the work by a person on the other end
(participant, audience, user) is one of the most important things about
creating art. Ignoring this is privileging the concept over the execution,
something i think that "new media/net.art/digitalia/blah" is often guilty of
because (maybe) the artists tend to be more conceptually inclined than
visually/auditorially inclined.

Just because i have a neat or original idea does not make it art. That's
what the best thing about art is -- this combination of abstract and
concrete, idea and form, etc. Art can be found somewhere between post-modern
word masturbation and meaningless eye candy.

I agree that art is tool to investigate the world but i think that it is
also intimately concerned with the outcome of that investigation -- the form
of the culminating performance of that investigation (the artwork itself)
and whether that can hold up as an aesthetically valid, conceptually
balanced performance/investigation/representation.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Kate Southworth
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM
To: Eryk Salvaggio; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:12 -0700
To: furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

Hi Eryk, and List.

I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.

Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.

The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
If we see the world as fluid, as a collection of interconnected, mutually
dependent units then the art that belongs to that world will have these
characteristics too. These units can be as small or large as we like, and
can be emotion, idea, concept, theory, experience etc. They can be pulled
(abstracted) from the 'whole', 'the system' in any way we choose. The
art that is connected with this understanding of the world seems to be
investigating ways in which units (rotten word, but can't think of an
appropriate other just now) relate to one another: how units are described.
If the whole set of categories that we have used up to now are discarded as
boundaries between categories dissolve, then constructing new categories,
that are meaningful yet fluid and able to change as necessary seems to be
the very stuff that net art, new media art (whatever the term!) is engaging
with right now.

best, Kate

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


From: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Reply-To: Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:12 -0700
To: furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org>, list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to much

Hi Eryk, and List.

I believe painting to be an obsolete art form. Not merely because of its
inability to enable artists to adequately investigate the contemporary
world, but because there are too many residual notions of creativity
contained within the very concept 'painting'.
Your emphasis on beauty and aesthetics, not to mention the emphasis on
inhibited creative energy is, in my opinion, an obsolete perspective. It
produces artefacts as redundant to the contemporary world as any painting.

Your Art 1 - artifacts created by anyone who aims for any external
expression of an idea or emotion or concept - is very very loose. By
itself it could be applied to almost anything art or not.

Art 2 - is the academic side of art, fuelled by innovative ideas fused with
innovative techniques - seems to me, a very bare essential for art.
Surely, art is, and always has been, about understanding our contemporary
world. That world changes, and art investigates. It needs new ways to
describe that world. Hence, my feelings regarding the redundancy of
painting to do the job adequately. Hence, my feelings about the position of
artists whose main frames of reference are informed by residual ideologies.

The contemporary world seems to make sense when we relinquish the solid.
If we see the world as fluid, as a collection of interconnected, mutually
dependent units then the art that belongs to that world will have these
characteristics too. These units can be as small or large as we like, and
can be emotion, idea, concept, theory, experience etc. They can be pulled
(abstracted) from the 'whole', 'the system' in any way we choose. The
art that is connected with this understanding of the world seems to be
investigating ways in which units (rotten word, but can't think of an
appropriate other just now) relate to one another: how units are described.
If the whole set of categories that we have used up to now are discarded as
boundaries between categories dissolve, then constructing new categories,
that are meaningful yet fluid and able to change as necessary seems to be
the very stuff that net art, new media art (whatever the term!) is engaging
with right now.

best, Kate