marc garrett
Since the beginning
Works in London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (7)
BIO
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80's from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular 'Savage Yet Tender' alternative broadcasting 1980's group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) for a while with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS, dedicated to arts, technology and hacking.

Co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the net arts collectives and communities- furtherfield.org, furthernoise.org, netbehaviour.org, also cofounder and co-curator/director of the gallery space called HTTP Gallery in London, UK. Currently involved in co-running, collaborating with many others on Node.London. Also co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, nationally and Internationally such as Game/play a touring exhibiton.
Discussions (1664) Opportunities (12) Events (175) Jobs (2)
DISCUSSION

I Want To Be A Machine


------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C21007.351A80A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank I Want To Be A Machine
I found the bones of all your ghosts
Locked in the wishing well
While birdsong gourmets dragged empty nets
I slumbered in my shell

In mitternacht, die mensch-maschine
Kissed me on my eyes
I rose and left the fire-ladies
Glowing lonely in the night
With all the pornographers
Burning torches beneath the sea

Chorus:

I want to be a machine
I want to be a machine
I want to be a machine
I want to be a machine

I stole a cathode face from newscasts
And a crumbling fugue of songs
From the reservoir of video souls
In the lakes beneath my tongue
In flesh of ash and silent movies
I walked at boulevards again
A nebula of unfinished creatures
From the lifetimes of my friends
I hope your innocence has depraved me

(Chorus)

Broadcast me, scrambled clean
Or free me from this flesh
Let the armchair cannibals take their fill
In every cell across wilderness
We'll trip such a strangled tango
We'll waltz a wonderland affair
Let's run to meet the tide tomorrow
Leave all emotion dying there
In the star cold beyond all of your dreams

(Chorus)

Ah!

------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C21007.351A80A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:00e201c20ffe$d353a7a0$d228fdd5@FURTHERFIELD>
<DIV align=center><FONT size=3>&nbsp;</FONT><A
href="file:///C:/lyrics/Ultravox/IWantToBeAMachine.asp"><FONT size=3>I =
Want To
Be A Machine</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=3>I found the bones of all your
ghosts<BR>Locked in the wishing well<BR>While birdsong gourmets dragged emp=
ty
nets<BR>I slumbered in my shell<BR><BR>In mitternacht, die
mensch-maschine<BR>Kissed me on my eyes<BR>I rose and left the
fire-ladies<BR>Glowing lonely in the night<BR>With all the
pornographers<BR>Burning torches beneath the sea<BR><BR>Chorus:<BR><BR>I wa=
nt to
be a machine<BR>I want to be a machine<BR>I want to be a machine<BR>I want =
to be
a machine<BR><BR>I stole a cathode face from newscasts<BR>And a crumbling f=
ugue
of songs<BR>From the reservoir of video souls<BR>In the lakes beneath my
tongue<BR>In flesh of ash and silent movies<BR>I walked at boulevards again=
<BR>A
nebula of unfinished creatures<BR>From the lifetimes of my friends<BR>I hop=
e
your innocence has depraved me<BR><BR>(Chorus)<BR><BR>Broadcast me, scrambl=
ed
clean<BR>Or free me from this flesh<BR>Let the armchair cannibals take thei=
r
fill<BR>In every cell across wilderness<BR>We'll trip such a strangled
tango<BR>We'll waltz a wonderland affair<BR>Let's run to meet the tide
tomorrow<BR>Leave all emotion dying there<BR>In the star cold beyond all of=
your
dreams<BR><BR>(Chorus)<BR><BR>Ah!</FONT><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_001_00E4_01C21007.351A80A0--

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


I don't reject anything that is what makes me an artist...I close my eyes to
any concepts. I will think about them and even use them. Whether they are
termed as dead or alive, I use what ever it takes to procure my idea and
intention. If one closes off options then they paint themselves and into a
corner. (scuze the pun)

marc

>
>
> Kate Southworth wrote:
>
> >
> >The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful
objects
> >without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
> >spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.
> >
>
>
> Why?
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> + fuck
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Hi there,

> I have to disagree here. The tools (or the technology) speak volumes.
> Whilst not advocating technological determinism at all, I would argue that
> contained within any technology, is the logic, language, structure, etc.
of
> the society/system within which it was produced. A vast amount of art is
> produced through/with technology, and has been since the caves. Because
> technology isn't neutral in the sense that it isn't developed in isolation
> from the world, from markets, military, etc. the use of technologies in
the
> production of art is one of the factors which artists address and argue
> about.

I agree that tools change the style of what one creates. I agree that it
would not be a good idea to advocate determinism via the use of technology.
Yet we see it happening all the time, a lot of net artists (not all) have
been boasted how great they are - and now pushing coding as the new thing
for the arts. Personally if I create music it is art, if I write it is art,
if I draw it is art, if I put poetry on the streets it is art, if I deface
posters it is art, if I make film it is art. Even marketing the art is art.
And certain business strategies can be seen as art. The medium can be a
distraction from the message(s) - if there is no message, then that is art
being seen by protocol of the medium itself. That's fair enough but I find
that sort of thing pretty slack.

>
> Painting isn't pure. It isn't produced through/with technology that is
> devoid of ideology.
>
> What I think, perhaps is more relevant to this discussion are the
competing
> arguments (politically motivated, of course) regarding the nature of the
> so-called 'information society'. This debate, for me, contains a number
of
> issues around which this list has been hovering for some time.

I agree with your notion on 'information society'. It is obvious to me
(probably to you also) that information is a freedom that many are fighting
to explore freely currently. It is political and it is critical. Many
governments are keen to present other information to their citizens that
many free thinking types can see are lies. The Internet has been great for
forming debates questioning issues such as this globally. Contradicting the
information that is being shoved down people's throats. The so called
revolution has happened in relation to the Internet, it might not be exactly
what everyone expected but it certainly has scared many organizations who
would prefer not to be challenged for their inadequate and inhumane
behavior. Digital hooliganism, some of the decent hackers have played a very
important part in pushing technology in a direction that puts many
exploiting agencies ob edge. There are various conceptual digital artists,
Heath Bunting for instance - who has actively taken it upon themselves to
explore these areas. He makes technology a more social event by offering the
facility for the many. Who enjoy the choice to use cheap technology as a
function, make your own computers - setup your networks. That is his art -
and that is the poetry in his work, that is the beauty in his work, the
message is in the function.

> > Could just as well be a chunk of wood someone found after a storm, or
> > a computer program. Whatever inspired the artist to lend form to
> > some message. All artist are inspired by different tools at
> > different times. There is no rule about better or worse tools that
> > applies to all.
> I completely agree that different tools suit the artist at different
times.

I kind of disagree here - it is the academia and the market place that
decides what suits who. Not the artists. Artists, just like actors - are a
ubiquitous creature. Redesigning themselves to adapt to the need of academic
thought and the market place. In this case Net Artists have taken the bait.
Let's be very truthful here, I bet there are many artists on this list who
used to paint. What is so great about technology is that many people have
moved into the realm of creative thought/activity via the use of technology.
Now that is brilliant, it blows apart the cannon that so many art groups
advocate to justify their supposed lineage via college education. This means
that anyone can make art on their own terms - now that is revolutuionary...

> And as I was being purposefully provocative in my previous mail, I should
> just like to make it absolutely clear here, that I would really never
> advocate rules for art at all. ever.

fair enough...

> What I'm trying to get at by saying painting as an art form is obsolete is
> this:
>
> There is an undoubted relationship between art and the system within which
> it is produced.
>
> To be ignorant of that system, and the ways in which we interact with it
(as
> people, as people who make art, etc.) is lazy.

This dictates a notion of elitism to me, if someone wants to make art on
their own terms this does not make them lazy. What is lazy is the
presumption that everyone needs to be like oneself, or do I mean
conservatism. If everyone used the same materials, had the same haircut,
wore the same dark sun glasses, wore the same poloneck jumper. I would have
to leave this planet very quickly becuase the place would be extremely
boring. I am glad there are painters, digital artists - who gives a shit
whether they are dealing with the same issues or protocol or reasoning. What
system are you refering to? Do you mean society, their own home lives, do
you mean that they are uneducated? Do you mean that they are old fashoined?
Do you mean that they have their own circumstance and situation that does
not apply to the contenporary rules of computer networking? I'm a digital
artist and anarchist - the kind of people i believe whom are lazy those who
for some reason believe their own press or the press that they have been
given - the college histories and myths that have been fed. Intellectual
snobbery by x students who have not really left college yet, still using
that spoon fed baby language. Life is not that easy and people reflect this
fact and I value this kind of thing. There are enough Net Artists now its
getting tedius almost.

>
> The system isn't separate from us. We are part of it, and can affect it
> (not so much as individuals, but collectively) as much as we are affected
by
> it.
>
> The perception of ourselves as artists inspired to create beautiful
objects
> without consciously knowing how we make work (for fear that knowing might
> spoil the magic) has to be rejected. Completely rejected.

mmm - this worries me slightly. Why are you so keen on people not rejecting
what you dislike? The psychology here smells of determinism even though you
said that this was not your stance earlier in the message.

>
> I believe we need to re frame our experiences of producing art so that we
> can hold on to what is valuable to us, without having to buy into the
whole
> creative genius package.

I agree here. Everyone has genius within them. Always have done. But what if
that someone is a painter? In your world they would be extricated.

> In the west, painting and sculpture, more than any other art forms,
> culturally (not literally) contain within them those notions of genius and
> creativity, of individual artist inspired by god, by life, to create works
> of art, masterpieces. This is my main reason for claiming painting as an
> art form to be obsolete. It is these notions that are obsolete. I am not
> sure if they can be separated from painting, hence the leap to painting as
> obsolete art form.

So you want to delete a whole art form because you thin that they have
common link that you. Yourself do not think is relevant. have been
influenced by big subjects 'inspired by god, by life' So if you are not
influenced by life what are you influenced by? Your arguments are not
realistic because they do not take life into account, that is precisely what
is in the way of your terms.

> > Modern art is so bad, we need help anywhere we can get it. Why
> > eliminate the artists who just like to paint and don't want
> > computers. To many, a computer = boring job. Some would rather
> > paint.
>
> This raises a really interesting point, I feel. I get truly sick of
> working on my computer, inside, not using my body very much. I yearn to
be
> a carpenter or a gardener. I think many people feel the same. Painting
> seems the equivalent of being a gardener. Physicality, smells, dirt etc.
> Is it just a hobby then?

This makes me want to change all that I have said in my e-mail to you so
don't get too heavy with me for I see different side too your mind now. Your
humanity exudes an essence that no one can ignore in this last bit. Art to
me is exactly all the things you said above except a hobby, it is a way of
life, it is a way of existing, it is a way of hearing and seeing, it is
about exploring and feeling, it is intuitive and playful, it is stupid and
it is intelligent, it is vulnerable, it is angry, it is obsolete.

marc garrett

DISCUSSION

Re: Press:Rhizome.org Elects Magdalena Sawon toBoard of Directors


Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Press:Rhizome.org Elects Magdalena Sawon to Board of Direc=
torsHello Ivan,

Mark Tribe an Artist? Good question though...

marc

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 7, 2002

Rhizome.org Elects Magdalena Sawon to Board of Directors

In addition to Ms. Sawon, Rhizome.org's Board of Directors consists of:

DISCUSSION

Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much


Re: RHIZOME_RAW: what if and tid bits i cry to muchI agree here but with a =
shift - "art or not" & "Is it art?" could be more obsolete than painting is=
even...

marc

My point exactly. Except I don't think there is an "art or not" equation.=
"Is it art?" is as obsolete as painting is.