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

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (984) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

A small new piece of work


A small new piece of work:

http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/breathe/breathe.html

michael

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


Hi Ivan
good?- ( including honourable failures) - this last
year on the net- jorn ebners 'lee marvin toolbox',
david crawford's stop motion work, lewis lacook, lot
of Eryk Salvaggio's work, lot of jess loseby's stuff,
lots of other small delights.
Elsewhere: bruce nauman, bartok, shostakovich,brecht,
shakespeare,beethoven ,picasso,hopper.
some of shirin neshat, cornell, joan
brossa,kitaj,harry callahan,william
kentridge,francesca woodman, berio, steve reich, howe
gelb, will oldham,wim vanderkeybus, david foster
wallace, primo levi, w.g sebald, richard ford.
& loads more in both categories ..but with the
reservation that nothing on the net yet matches for me
any of the second category,
which quite possibly could mean that I'm a dinosaur.
What makes all the above notable for me?- engagement
with the human and with the human being in society;
high degree of technical ability ( and a willingness
to undertake drudgery) sometimes bordering on
virtuosity but not to an obsessional extent & rarely
entirely for it's own sake; universality - relatively
independent of context -even though often very much of
it's time nevertheless it resonates for us now..
..and I think I'd want to argue that somewhere in
there lies a framework for what justifies art as a
human activity.
Maybe we have a semantic problem here -what I meant by
relativism is the belief that valuations are and can
only ever be relative - absolutely true in a trivial
sense (in the long run we're all dust) but not in the
historical, hundreds of yearsy medium term scale which
is the only really graspable and meaningful one for us
humans- us and our culturally preserved memories - in
this light Mozart undoubtedly wrote more important (
and better) music than Salieri &c.
Of course it's a complex area and full of
philosophical pitfalls (and I'm certainly don't claim
immunity here) but I think it's terrain worth
contemplating and contesting.
best
michael

--- Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
>
> > why?- do we just have to be endlessly relativist?
> -
>
> Well, I don't want to get too literal about this,
> but you used the term
> 'artistically and
> > intellectually bankrupt'. To me that implies that
> the piece had run out of
> artistic and intellectual credit, i.e. positioned
> against those works that
> still had artistic and intellectual currency to
> hand. That's a relative
> argument to me.
>
> > -it seems to me
> > it is worth arguing about what constitutes "good"
> in
> > art and why.
>
> ok, point taken about polemic. I'd like to see you
> set out what you consider
> 'good' (which is of course another relativist
> concept).
> Also, did you consider Cory's piece to be bad art or
> not art at all. Your
> original statement that it is 'artistically
> bankrupt' implies that it is
> art, but art that has gone bust.
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


Hi Ivan et al
<At least we are arguing about art for a change!>
absolutely
< I would say one thing that is just not worth
claiming is that something is
'artistically and intellectually bankrupt'.>
< This obviously works for a lot of people and is
withing a long and honorable
tradition (as was the lights on/lights off piece for
the Turner prize).>
why?- do we just have to be endlessly relativist? -
the longer tradition is one of polemic in art- I'm
glad for them if people like the piece -I can't see it
at all myself.
Duchamp and Cage in their time were quite interesting
sideshows on the fringes of art - to try to quarry the
same terrain today seems to me to be indicative of a
deep poverty of ideas and a deep disconnection from
the world.
Gareth Gates 'works' for a lot of people, Big
Brother 'works' for a lot of people and the Daily
Sport 'works' for a lot of people - but we can go
deeper than that!
Naturally I'm expressing an *opinion* here - I'm not
in a position to *stop* work like this nor of course
would I want to, but I think in terms of an attempt to
foster critical dialogue an appeal simply to let a
hundred flowers bloom doesn't cut it -it seems to me
it is worth arguing about what constitutes "good" in
art and why.
So - one concept,which has to be explained to us in an
intro, some vaguely attractive patterns and perhaps a
feeling that "we're in the loop". Thin fare!
best
michael

> It's bankrupt to claim an absolute position in
> relation to art.
> I just love to see this sort of work come into the
> world. I'm glad there are
> people who bother to do this.
> More of everything, please.
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
> + 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

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


What can I say -I'm glad it does it for you.
I found it utterly trite. I'm not interested in
arguing whether it's net art or not ( who cares
whether it's this or that critical category).
I meant poverty in the sense of artistically and
intellectually bankrupt.
michael
--- "Marisa S. Olson" <marisa@sfcamerawork.org>
wrote:
> "data diaries" is one of the most beautiful things
> i've see on the
> net in quite some time and, in all honesty, it's
> restored some of my
> recently lost faith/enchantment with net art.
>
> {of course, one may argue that it is not "net art"
> because arcangel
> is not a "net artist," per se, but it's rendered in
> a way that bears
> site-specificity/-reflexivity, given that it's
> encoded for a
> primarily internet-based video medium/channel and
> is, afterall,
> presented on the internet...}
>
> "poverty"? arte poverte this is not, if only because
> it clearly has a
> very specific content (to bracket medium-specific
> issues). if
> "poverty" refers to a certain aesthetic void, i
> would strongly
> disagree. the work is far from static and is
> visually stunning--yes,
> i said stunning... nonetheless, some of history's
> greatest painters
> gave us work that might also be called "wallpaper"
> but their blue
> boxes, white on white, image loops, pinstripes, and
> swaths of
> camouflage remain rich in both content and poetics.
>
> to me, this trumps the work currently being called
> "net art" simply
> because it exists on the net, without awareness of
> network conditions
> or which simply caters to a darwinian-"evolutionary"
> lust for higher
> technologies, resulting in self-congratulatory
> didactics.. two main
> pitfalls in much contemporary "net art," as i see
> it. this is another
> reason that arcangel's interest in "defunct' media
> and dirt-style
> design are refreshing, if not downright
> nostalgia-inducing.
>
> marisa
>
> > > DATA DIARIES is <...>
> >..but of course that's not what we see at all.
> There's
> >no way the viewer can know that what is on the
> screen
> >has some connection to Cory's this and that except
> by
> >way of the artist statement.
> >Take the 'concept' away and the poverty of the
> thing
> >immediately becomes apparent - if the artist simply
> >constructed the images we see we might say, OK
> that's
> >vaguely interesting and attractive in a kind of
> >wallpaper way for about 2 seconds but 11 hours
> >...please!
> >By far the most interesting thing about the piece
> is
> >the neat lo fi handwritten bubbles and the general
> >presentation of the piece, but then maybe that took
> a
> >little bit of craft.
> >michael
>
> _________________
> Marisa S. Olson
> Associate Director
> SF Camerawork
> 415. 863. 1001
> + 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

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence


<there's nothing
wrong with having to
know a few things to appreciate an artwork. you've
been trained from
birth to look at media in different ways and there
is no reason why you
shouldn't learn something that takes 15 seconds to
read to appreciate
another level of this work.>
I absolutly agree -if there's any substance there.
Here there is none.
It's about as interesting as the lights on/off piece
which won the Turner prize here last year.
<what's interesting is it's organic yet
machine-like
animation. it's full of surprises if you watch it
for a little while.>
so's the visual that comes with my defrag utility.
michael

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com