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

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (995) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
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

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: fresh air & real soul...


I can't speak for the others but in my case perhaps I
wrote what I wrote because I *meant* it in exactly the
same way that I *meant* the critical things that I
wrote about the Arcangel piece awhile back.
I *actually think* this particular piece by Jess is
worth a 1000 Data Diaries. That is my *opinion*. It
may or may not be justified in the long run - I don't
know at the moment and neither do you.
I don't say what I don't mean or believe.
best
michael

--- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
> I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit
> the critics.
>
> It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping
> copied below is
> all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and
> 'sunday painters',
> but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more
> than a mutual
> applause society. We should strive for professional
> level of
> critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some
> quick praise for
> a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend
> into a perpetual
> 'i'm ok, you're ok' session.
>
> Of course, artists are the worst critics there are.
> jealousy and/or
> one's own blinders get in the way more often than
> not. It would be
> nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on
> thingist
>
> Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially
> helpful to an
> artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much
> better. I would
> rather have no 'social integration' with pithy
> remarks eviscerating a
> piece of mine than all the good natured cheers
> combined.
>
> What gets me about this praise, which may be my
> inference totally, is
> that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting.
> I've met Jess, she
> definitely doesn't need her head patted.
>
>
> At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
> >
> >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of
> social intigration grace,
> >this blows it all away.
> >
> >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with
> you, its real & is not
> >pretentious or self-conscious.
> >
> >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
>
>
> At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> >I love this piece of work!
> >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing
> long?
>
> At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
> >fantastic jess..
> >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
> >creating a 'fingermouse' remix
>
>
> At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
> >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
> >moving.
> > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence
> about
> >the piece.
> >I think you've done something that has way more
> >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start
> with.
>
>
> At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >better than anything i could ever do---
> >
> >(which is probably why i'm thinking about
> quitting...)
> >
> >bliss
> >l
> >
>
> --
> <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