Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (996) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


Hi
I just wanted to add my threepennyworth.
I often disagree with T Whid but I always read his
posts. They're informed, intelligent and often funny.
I was *deeply* unhappy with the tone of his recent
post and I said so.
He replied in some detail and as far as I'm concerned
we've said our pieces on this matter & we simply
disagree. I've no wish to pursue endless pesonalised
wrangling - my preference as always is for fierce but
courteous debate on the issues.
best
michael

--- furtherfield <info@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of
> the more polite dudes on
> rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make
> himself feel better. That's
> not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome
> dead-heads who used the
> identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on
> the list as an in-house
> joke on the list users - kool eh!
>
> That's why I was surprised...but I am beginning to
> get the gist that it was
> not personal - I hope.
>
> Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was
> one of the least snotty
> and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome
> list users that we met
> (other than you good self of course).
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
> > May I point out to one and all that the extent of
> a certain t.whid's
> brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost
> entirely of the words
> >
> > "crappy work"
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus
> and a black hawk?
> > A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
> >
> > <applause><applause>
> >
> > joseph
> >
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit
> disingenuous
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> > >
> > >
> > > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's
> work
> > > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and
> closely
> > > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> > >
> > > no argument, i was responding specifically to
> the posts i quoted in
> > > my
> > > original post.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts
> has more
> > > > to do with the fact that many of those posting
> have
> > > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted
> positions on
> > > > this list that are opposed to your idea of
> what
> > > > constitutes good or serious art.
> > >
> > > no, that could not be.
> > >
> > > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you
> had
> > > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only
> other
> > > > possible reading of your post is that you
> believe that
> > > > you have some sort of privileged access as to
> what
> > > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> > >
> > > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the
> specific remarks
> > > quoted in the post where not serious art
> discussion but rather mere
> > > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than
> being able to read the
> > > english language. I had no doubt that the
> back-slapping was genuine,
> > > my
> > > critique was with the depth of the praise, not
> that it wasn't genuine
> > > or deserved.
> > >
> > > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday
> painters,
> > > > the dilettantes of your post?
> > >
> > > people who aren't on this list. most on this
> list don't fit into this
> > > category. that was my critique, we are
> collectively better than
> > > that and i was hoping to raise the level of
> discussion.
> > >
> > > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good
> then why
> > > > not address *that* rather than impugning the
> motives
> > > > of those who did?
> > >
> > > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess'
> piece have nothing to
> > > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up
> whatever my reaction to the
> > > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks
> surrounding it.
> > >
> > > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an
> extended
> > > > and detailed discussion about the actual
> artistic
> > > > issues involved.
> > >
> > > that's all fine and good, but my point was to
> address the level of
> > > critical discussion and i think i'm through with
> it.
> > >
> > > take care,
> > > <twhid>
> > > http://www.mteww.com
> > > </twhid>
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
instrument there.
Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
them.
My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
content in advance?
best
michael

--- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> following.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
>
>
> > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> that
> > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> movers
> > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > entertainment.
>
>
> "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> our work in such a
> context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> being seen. And because
> we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> that is so corrupt.
> Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> conversation- we talk about
> the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> was easier. And while we
> could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> that, as well, because
> having our art in the streets with trash and car
> exhaust is a disservice to
> our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> by actualization.
>
> But if they changed this system of appraising
> "quality" based on things they
> did not understand, I might be able to participate
> in the art world. As it
> is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> refuse to compromise. And
> it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> money based solely on an
> artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> reject the institutions
> altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> complaints about them."
>
> -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
>
>

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
here.
All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
argued stuff over the last few months.
I for one posted a good deal about the Arcangel piece
that I think was pretty closely argued and as you may
recall, extremely critical and unclubby.
I seem to remember that your reaction was incredulity
that anyone could dislike the piece or, in a connected
issue, dismiss the sainted Duchamp and Cage, for,
after all, they have been canonized by "art history".
Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
to do with the fact that many of those posting have
either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
this list that are opposed to your idea of what
constitutes good or serious art.
In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
possible reading of your post is that you believe that
you have some sort of privileged access as to what
constitutes the worthwhile.
Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
the dilettantes of your post?
If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
of those who did?
I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
issues involved.
michael

--- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
> At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> >Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics',
> i posted to
> >Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists
> being invited to
> >submit work, with an assurance that their work
> would not challenge
> >the interests of the sponsors.
> >
> >'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis
> and damning
> >judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation
> among artists and
> >writers who have each shared work in progress and
> contributed
> >thoughtful and critical debate to this list over
> the last year.
>
> ++
> hiya ruth,
>
> i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning
> judgement', simply
> reminding people that i (and many others i imagine)
> expect at least a
> bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been
> a trend on Rhiz
> that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months
> so I took
> advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise
> surrounding Jess's
> latest as my chance to address it.
>
> It simply goes back to the long-running debate on
> Rhiz as to whether
> this space should function more as a cocktail party
> or should it
> function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate
> doesn't need reviving?
> I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as
> guilty as anyone
> in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time
> to time (or even
> more often).
>
> personally, i like cocktail parties much better when
> there are actual
> cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists
> function better when
> more thought is put into posts than is put into your
> average cocktail
> party chatter IMO.
> ++
>
> >
> >The first represents a money/power taboo and the
> second a human
> >emotion taboo.
> >I wonder how useful or necessary are these
> restrictions are?
> >
> >Artist's self censorship- who needs the first
> amendment?
> >
> >regards
> >ruth
>
> --
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


I wasn't moaning at you Rachel -it always strikes me
as a bit over fussy to complain about double postings.
Neither do I think "it shouldn't be posted on this
list" or anything like that...no, it was the content
of both versions of the call that I thought called for
comment- besides the politics and "pornography"
exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces that
will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
braincells or attention span of the corporate movers
and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
entertainment.
best
michael

--- Rachel Greene <rachel@rhizome.org> wrote:
> Sorry about the double posting -- I get many emails
> asking me to
> forward on to the list, and while I check to see if
> something has
> already been posted, I don't always catch
> everything. Especially as
> people post announcements on different days. Anyway,
> glad there was a
> distinction between posts that merited note. --
> Rachel
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Michael
> Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > This call was posted to the list directly a couple
> of
> > days back.
> > Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
> > willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor
> for
> > the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
> > extraordinary turn of phrase was " non
> pornographic
> > and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly
> this
> > appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
> > attachment here.
> > So politics and pornography is out but apparently
> a
> > bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
> > best
> > michael
> > --- Rachel Greene <rachel@rhizome.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Trevor Smith <TSmith@newmuseum.org>
> >>> Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> >>> To: "'rachel@rhizome.org'" <rachel@rhizome.org>,
> >>> "'d.kreckler@ecu.edu.au'"
> <d.kreckler@ecu.edu.au>
> >>> Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jon Tomlinson
> >> [mailto:digital@bigdaddyenterprises.biz]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> >>> To: jon@bigdaddyenterprises.biz
> >>> Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Good morning...
> >>>
> >>> As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
> >> like to feature the
> >>> work of
> >>> approximately 10 digital artists. The nice
> thing
> >> is that I'll be able
> >>> to
> >>> pay them for the efforts. So... if you know of
> >> anyone who would like
> >>> to
> >>> participate, would you mind passing along the
> >> attached Call for
> >>> Entries?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks... take care,
> >>> Jon Tomlinson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf
> x-unix-mode66;
> > name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is
> for the use is that
> > of the sender and does not bind the precautions to
> minimise authority
> > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by
> software viruses email.
> > We have taken the risk of transmitting software
> viruses, but we advise
> > that you carry out your own virus attachment to
> this message. Internet
> > email that you observe this lack is not a secure
> communication
> > medium, and we advise of security when emailing
> us. District
> > Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> 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
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries


This call was posted to the list directly a couple of
days back.
Both Ruth Catlow & I pointed out then that they're
willing to pay , if you're willing to self censor for
the benefit of their corporate sponsor. The
extraordinary turn of phrase was " non pornographic
and nonpolitical" I think, althoguh interestingly this
appears only as "non pornogrphic" in the pdf
attachment here.
So politics and pornography is out but apparently a
bit of corporate whoring is completely acceptable.
best
michael
--- Rachel Greene <rachel@rhizome.org> wrote:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: Trevor Smith <TSmith@newmuseum.org>
> > Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:00:52 AM US/Eastern
> > To: "'rachel@rhizome.org'" <rachel@rhizome.org>,
> > "'d.kreckler@ecu.edu.au'" <d.kreckler@ecu.edu.au>
> > Subject: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Tomlinson
> [mailto:digital@bigdaddyenterprises.biz]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:54 AM
> > To: jon@bigdaddyenterprises.biz
> > Subject: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
> >
> >
> > Good morning...
> >
> > As part of an event I am putting together, I'd
> like to feature the
> > work of
> > approximately 10 digital artists. The nice thing
> is that I'll be able
> > to
> > pay them for the efforts. So... if you know of
> anyone who would like
> > to
> > participate, would you mind passing along the
> attached Call for
> > Entries?
> >
> > Thanks... take care,
> > Jon Tomlinson
> >
> >
> >
>

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pdf x-unix-mode66;
name=DIGITALCFE_2.pdf

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com