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

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (998) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: The Third Place


Well! After my anti corporate rant not only was I
blessed with four copies of the below in my inbox, I
got my own personal one with a nice flyer attached.
Was it something I said?
michael
--- Jman <info@dinkiburo.com> wrote:
> PlayStation2 rewards digital expressions and net art
>
>
> Just go to www.thirdplacegallery.org
>
> Login and upload your link!
> + 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

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

DISCUSSION

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


Hi Eryk (and Joseph ,Pall)
Well none of the below really
< And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise
those who may want to
participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is
superior because it
might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume
that art is only
relevant if it offends buisiness people?>
especially the last which is really a caricature of my
position.
Ironically I think one of the criticisms that could be
levelled about my own work is that it *is* lacking in
politics ot shock value of any sort ( I'm not saying
it would be a valid criticism but I can imagine
someone making it, especially in these fevered times)
-but its that way because that's what I feel moved to
make, not because someone tells me to.
Neither do I want to defend actual pornography.
( I fact I suspect that "pornographic art" is a
contradiction in terms)
It's just that even a cursory glance at the history of
art will show that "pornography" has been used over
and over again as a code word to attack the new and
challenging.
Furthermore I have no problem with taking the
corporate or state shilling under many circumstances .
Quite recently in fact I accepted a sum from a
foundation run by an East London property developer
with whom I imagine I would see eye to eye about very
little but who significantly makes no limitations
whatsoever upon what I am going to make with the
money.
*Nor* am I particulalrly opposed to the notion of
restriction or commission, if it's honestly stated.
I'm not religious so I always make it abundantly clear
that I will not accept work with a religious flavour
but I don't attack the right of the church or any
other body to commission work with specifically
religious intentions.
Even the vanity portrait has created great work.
No, my beef with this call is very specific,
which is why the deploymnet of oro bouros felt more
like a bludgeon than a clinical dissection.
The call purports to be about digital art in general,
the restrictions are added as an afterthought.
I find it's tenor completely dishonest - I don't even
think it's a call for artwork - it's a call for
circuses to amuse the assembled dignitaries.
The honest thing to do would be to say " corporate
entertainment required" - for me art means something
more than this.
And I do , forgive me, find it offensive that this is
the one, the call says, where we might actually make
some money, especially in light of the current
cutbacks in arts and education funding ( and the
concomitant dismissal of figures associated with new
media art.)
There is a history of wealthy and discerning people (
and the wealthy are often very discerning because they
have more time to cultivate that discernment -this is
a fact) commissioning great art; anyone who denies
that in capitalist society art is tied up with the
market is naive or foolish, an oro bouros, but this
call represents something completely different.
I do think its legitimate to raise on this list,
which is after all a discussion list about art and
often about the society in which it is made, what I
believe to be the dishonesty at the heart of this call
and it's rather worrying implications in times like
these when many freedoms are under attack.
best
michael

=====
*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: 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