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: Re: Re: new work


Rob Myers wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, at 09:29AM, Kate Southworth
> <katesouthworth@gloriousninth.com> wrote:
>
> >And 'beautiful' is quite a complex concept surely - one that changes
> its
> >meaning through time, just as 'art' and 'creativity', for example,
> change
> >their meaning.
>
> As are and do all concepts if one examines them. :-)

I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> >So, I'm open to any ideas whatsoever regarding intentionality.
>
> I'd recommend Adorno's writing on commited art and commitment. I think
> some is in "Art in Theory", I can't find anything useful with a quick
> web search.
Many thanks for that Rob.

Kate

>
> - Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: new work


Hi Michael

Thank you for your interest in our work, and for your comments.

I'm really interested in what you're saying, but not quite clear exactly
what you mean. Are you saying that because you find the work beautiful then
it can't adequately express emotion?

And 'beautiful' is quite a complex concept surely - one that changes its
meaning through time, just as 'art' and 'creativity', for example, change
their meaning.

I know you fairly well Michael, so would be surprised if you were advocated
a kind of illustrative response to war. I've played the piece a few times
since your post, and the more I look at it, the more I understand my own
response to the war. It is response that draws on emotion, intuition,
analysis, sensations, and relates, like all our work tries to, to the
constant changes and interactions, processes and relations that make up our
world.

Intentionality of the artist is something I am becoming increasingly
interested in, and it seems to be quite a contested area amongst art
historians. A real understanding of the implications of the different
positions regarding intentionality seems to me to be critically important
right now, because so many of the processes, tools, methods etc. that
artists use are being increasingly incorporated.

So, I'm open to any ideas whatsoever regarding intentionality.

kindest regards
Kate

5/14/04 17:09Michael Szpakowskiszpako@yahoo.com

> For a cry of rage, Patrick, it's extraordinarily,
> viscerally beautiful.
> ( and this is true of the sound too, the intensity of
> which complements the visuals wonderfully)
> There's a real intentionality problem for me with
> yours and Kate's work - I just find it gobsmackingly
> gorgeous.
> best
> michael
>
> --- Patrick Simons <patricksimons@gloriousninth.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.gloriousninth.com/flaming.html
>>
>> Glorious Ninth
>> Flaming (our/your/their rage) 2004
>>
>>
>> All debate about ownership and empowerment,
>> democracy and accountability, long term perspectives
>> and global, environmental issues are trodden
>> underfoot and a chilling efficiency in dehumanising
>> whole societies and populations, is allowed to
>> remove any possibility of debate and empathic shared
>> existence with those about to die.
>>
>> Flaming (our/your/their rage) is a release of anger
>> and frustration against the powerful. Power and rage
>> smashes a country already suffering. A lack of
>> power to control everything provokes this rage.
>> Artist, activist, freedom fighter, terrorist - where
>> do our liberal values start and stop? Rage of the
>> new yorkers, rage of america as they experienced
>> violation. Rage at our collective lack of insight
>> and our/your/their crouched/couched response. Rage
>> that they/you/we want revenge. Rage at the twittery
>> of politicians, their sell-out, and our stupidity to
>> think they might be something they could be. Rage
>> at our own hypocrisy. Rage at the defeat of the
>> left, and at the utter abandonment of real hope.
>> Rage at the inadequacies of intellectual arguments.
>> Rage that there isn't an easy answer. Rage that
>> it???s complex and there's not enough time in a
>> life-time. Rage that there's no serious debate about
>> what we actually want and about how it can be
>> achieved and about how we understan!
>> d the world.
>>
>>
>> What is dished out from our representatives is
>> simplistic, fundamentalist medieval crap. How can it
>> be that I am either with you or against you? How can
>> the means justify the ends justify the means? How
>> can there be an axis of evil? How can this axis of
>> evil shift so much that it obliterates ???allies???
>> who ???stood by our side??? so recently. How can
>> this be the path of righteousness and the act of a
>> democratic society when carpet bombing, depleted
>> uranium shells and the full might of the very latest
>> technologies - which we spend so much time
>> discussing in terms of the alienating nature of its
>> inherent logic - is used to incapacitate
>> people/countries/societies in the name of progress
>> and future generations?
>>
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>> open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>> out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
> http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: "Protocol"--Excerpt from Chapter 7 "Internet Art"


Dear Alexander,

This excerpt is absolutely fascinating. I'm not sure if you've posted it in
order to discuss it but as it is pertinent to the current debates, I am
supposing that you have. Also, as I haven't as yet read your book, I am
just relying on the text you submitted to Rhizome.

I'm particularly interested in the internet art that you say 'can be called
the corporate or commercial phase'. You go on to say that this phase has
been concerned primarily with software, and is the 'consequence of a rather
dramatic change in the nature of art making concurrent with the control
societies and protocological media discussed throughout this book'.

I think you are spot on with this statement. I think this is the ground
over which superbly passionate arguments are currently being shaped.

game on!

respect and best wishes
Kate

Kate Southworth
Glorious Ninth
http://www.gloriousninth.com

>
>
> The Web Stalker doesn't produce art but, in Matthew Fuller's words,
> "produces a relationship to art." The Stalker slips into a new category,
> the "not-just-art" that exists when revolutionary thinking is
> supplemented by aesthetic production.
>
> Let me now propose a simple periodization that will help readers
> understand Internet art practice from 1995 to the present. Early
> Internet art--the highly conceptual phase known as "net.art"--is
> concerned primarily with the network, while later Internet art--what can
> be called the corporate or commercial phase--has been concerned
> primarily with software. This is the
>
> The first phase, net.art, is a dirty aesthetic deeply limited, but also
> facilitated, by the network. The network's primary limitation is the
> limitation on bandwidth (the speed at which data can travel), but other
> limitations also exist such as the primitive nature of simple network
> protocols like HTML. Because of this, one sees a type of art making that
> is a mapping of the network's technological limitations and failures--as
> the wasp is a map of the orchid on which it alights, to use Deleuze and
> Guattari's expression. Examples include Jodi, Olia Lialina, Heath
> Bunting, Alexei Shulgin, Vuk Cosic, and many others. Net.art is a very
> exciting aesthetic, full of creativity and interesting conceptual moves.
>
> Yet this first phase may already be coming to an end. Baumgartel
> recently observed that it is "the end of an era. The first formative
> period of net culture seems to be over." He is referring to a series of
> years from 1995 to 1999 when the genre of net.art was first developed.
> In this period, due to prominent technical constraints such as bandwidth
> and computer speed, many artists were forced to turn toward conceptual
> uses of the Internet that were not hindered by these technical
> constraints, or, in fact, made these constrains the subject of the work.
> All art media involve constraints, and through these constraints
> creativity is born. Net.art is low bandwidth through and through. This
> is visible in ASCII art, form art, HTML conceptualism--anything that can
> fit quickly and easily through a modem.
>
> But this primary limitation has now begun to disappear. Today Internet
> art is much more influenced by the limitations of certain commercial
> contexts. These contexts can take many different forms, from commercial
> animation suites such as Flash, to the genre of video gaming (a
> fundamentally commercial genre), to the corporate aesthetic seen in the
> work of RTMark, Etoy, and others. My argument is aesthetic, not
> economic. Thus, it is not a question of "selling out" but rather of
> moving to a new artistic playing field. As computers and network
> bandwidth improved during the late 1990s, the primary physical reality
> that governed the aesthetic space of net.art began to fall away. Taking
> its place is the more commercial context of software, what may be seen
> as a new phase in Internet art.
>
> [Excerpt reprinted with the permission of The MIT Press.]
>
> ----
>
> "Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization"
> by Alexander R. Galloway
> The MIT Press (March, 2004), 248 pages, ISBN 0262072475
>
> book homepage: http://mitpress.mit.edu/protocol
> table of contents: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~ag111/Protocol-contents.doc
> amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262072475
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

hot new topics?


Privacy and surveillance are the new hot topics, Mr. Tribe said". If this is an accurate report of what Mark Tribe said on the subject of the undeadness of net art, then I disagree with him on a number of points.

First of all, yes of course, privacy and surveillance are massively important areas of concern, but within a very specific critical framework.

I would argue that issues of privacy and surveillance are related to the intensification of commodification, and that artists' ownership of the processes of commodification is critically important.

It is critically important, because the commodification of parts of our lives previously untouched by capitalism is intensifying, and those areas being affected are areas such as

DISCUSSION