Michal Brzezinski
Since 2009
michal@brzezinski.net
Works in United States of America

PORTFOLIO (5)
BIO
Michał Brzeziński - Artist combining software-video activities with biological material systems, futurologist of culture. His roots of the artistic activitiy have ground in music subcultures and video art. His wide, theory based, artistic and curatorial activity had animated theoretical discourse touching video-identity problem in the years 2000 to 2010 in Poland. Curator working with galleries such as the Museum of Art in Łódź, Center for Contemporary Art Łaźnia in Gdańsk, and Contemporary Art Center Bunkier Sztuki in Kraków. Referring to the conceptual art and mediated experience of recent art transforms art itself and englobe into video art, formulated the strategy describes this process as Fake Art, arising from the antimaterialistic theory of art as communication.
Discussions (26) Opportunities (24) Events (11) Jobs (0)
OPPORTUNITY

GALERIA NT


Deadline:
Sun May 30, 2010 00:00

Location:
Poland

GALERIA NT is public funded, not-commercial institution in Poland
Before you ask please check the address: http://galeria-nt.pl

We are waiting for proposals for NEW MEDIA ART exhibitions.
please prepare PDF with your proposal including draft of budget plan
[each email up to 2 mb] and send it to address:
rhizome@galeria-nt.pl
Please one proposition in one email.

We are waiting for proposals for VIDEO ART screenings.
We will negociate the fee for the screenings individualy after delivery.

Please send the DVD's (about 60 minutes) and include also short description of the project, each work, and each of artists (the best with statement). It will really help us if you will send all your details that we will need to prepare your future contracts, and your fee proposition.

Send it for the address:

GALERIA NT - Michal Brzezinski
ul. R. Traugutta 18,
90-113 Łódź, Poland


All proposals can include also solo, as curatorial, multi artists projects.

There are no restrictions. The best proposition will be taken as part of the official program for the 2011, or we will ask also about screenings in 2010.


OPPORTUNITY

4rd IN OUT Festival 2010


Deadline:
Mon May 17, 2010 00:00

Location:
Poland

21-22.10.2010
4rd IN OUT Festival 2010

http://laznia.pl/pliki/extra/IN\%20OUT/kazet\_do\_pl.pdf

IN-OUT Festival will take place in Laznia for the fourth time. Just like last year, it will be open for the artists from all over the world. The Festival is supposed to select the most interesting video works which search for new formal solutions. The spectrum of interest is defined by the issues of non-narrative presentation of aesthetic problems, and conceptual attempts at posing questions about the nature of the image and its technologic layer. The Festival will be accompanied by special screenings. The prizes will be granted by an international Jury.

Works complete with an application card must be submitted until 1 September 2010.

1st prize: 2000 PLN

2nd prize: 1000 PLN

Honorary mentions (2): 500 PLN

Mieczysław Struk, the Marshal of Pomorskie Voivodeship is the Honorary patron of the project.
The awards in 4rd IN OUT Festival 2010 are founded by the Marshal of Pomorskie Voivodeship, Mieczysław Struk.

4th edition of the IN OUT Festival 2010

Rules of the competition:
1. The competition consists of two stages. Both professionals and students of art faculties creating their works on the basis of motion picture, hereinafter referred to as 'films', are invited to take part.
2. Each participant may put forward up to three films.
3. Prizes and Honourable mentions in the competition are as follows:
1st prize: PLN 2 000.00
2nd prize: PLN 1 000.00
Honorary mentions (2): PLN 500.00
The Organizer reserves the right to divide prizes differently or not to grant them at all. Prizes and the Honourable mentions shall be paid not later than within 30 days from the date of public presentation of films at the 2 stage of the competition. Prizes and Honourable mentions shall be subject to taxation on general terms and conditions: the tax shall be collected and paid by the Organizer.
4. To each film put forward for the competition there shall be attached an application form, filled in legibly by the person registering the film for the competition, a short biography of the author(-s) (up to 10 sentences) as well as a still image or graphics in the JPG format. Where the character
of the film requires an additional description or a suitable technical information, this shall be also attached to the film.
5. In the competition one can register a film fulfilling the criteria mentioned below:
a) rendition - by any technique; recorded on a DVD in the AVI or MPG format
b) required form of presentation: projection, 1-channel video,
c) duration from more than 1 minute to 20 minutes,
d) opening credits shall contain the title of the work.
6. Films to be shown at the 2 stage of the competition will be selected by the competition jury, appointed by the Organizer.
7. The results of the 2 stage of the competition shall be settled by the 4-person international Jury.
8. The results of the 2 stage of the competition shall be announced on the last day of presentation of films.
9. By registering a film in the competition, the author simultaneously consents for the free presentation of his work during the 4th edition of the IN OUT Festival 2010 in the registered office of Laznia Centre for Contemporary Art in Gdansk as well as during other presentations promoting the statutory activity of Laznia CCA and also to use films according to the paragraph13th.
10. The competition films shall be sent by 1st September 2010 and the competition shall be settled on 22nd October 2010.
11. The Organizer does not return review copies of films or materials attached thereto. At the request of authors, review copies may be returned to them at their expense.
12. The Organizer shall not be liable for the loss of or damage to films during transport.
13. Films registered for the competition may be used in television programmes and digital publications related to the IN OUT Festival 2010. The films shall be archived, so that they can be non-commercially made available for the purpose of promotion, education and research. It is also
admissible to record the films on a common DVD carrier and put them in circulation, non-commercially, in order to promote programme actions of the Organizer.
14. Works with an application form shall be delivered, to the Organizer by the final and absolute deadline falling on 1st September 2010 at 3 p.m. (the date of receipt counts) to the following address:
Festiwal IN OUT 2010
Laznia Centre for Contemporary Art
ul. Jaskolcza 1
80-767 Gdansk
Poland
15. Films sent without the filled application form and failing to meet the technical requirements shall be rejected due to formal reasons. Information concerning the author shall not be available for Jury members.
16. Sending of a film for competition together with an application form shall be tantamount to the acceptance of the regulations of the IN OUT Festival 2010 and the consent for the presentation of the work during the festival and use in accordance with paragraphs 9th and 13th of this Regulations.
IN OUT Festiwal 2010
8th February 2010
Laznia Centre for Contemporary Art in Gdansk
info: www.laznia.pl tel.: (058) 305 40 50 e-mail: office@laznia.pl

Application form
http://laznia.pl/pliki/extra/IN\%20OUT/kazet\_do\_pl.pdf


DISCUSSION

GALLERY OF NEW TECHNOLOGY - manifesto


GALLERY OF NEW TECHNOLOGY - manifesto
http://galeria-nt.pl

I would like to focus on the issue of functioning of the art of new technologies in public institutional space. Considerations concerning whether the traditional institutions associated with art are needed for new media art have become an inspiration to take up this subject. I would like to pick up the discussion in the context of a substantial text of Ryszard W. Kluszczyński which is the last chapter of his book “Interactive Art. From the Work-instrument to Interactive Performance”. The author considers situations in which new media art gets in contact with art institutions. But, this text would become a kind of a manifesto for the particular gallery and cover specific situation: a public art gallery of new technologies.
At the outset I would like to define the differences between the concepts of new media art and the art of new technologies used in the text. By defining a new medium I refer to audiovisual media such as film, video and Internet, rather than to the context of artistic expression of medium within the meaning of a brush, paint, stone, chisels, etc, which also used to be new. I understand the art of new technologies in a broader manner than the art of new media, because this term - for me - includes such areas as biotechnology or nanotechnology.
It seems that many of contemporary works, whether video or interactive network installations, software-art works, or those using mobile devices, no longer need art institutions such as galleries, museums and centres of contemporary art. Indeed, they are able to function outside their environment, and spread as well as be experienced outside the walls of the host institution. What is more, certain works of art themselves are able to generate communities centred around them and they transform themselves in such new and virtual institutions. Should it be noted that the time of galleries defined as forums has ended with the advent of interactive art?
The participation of the viewer in the internal structure of a work of art is certainly a new element. The community dimension generated by the work of art is also new. Art has always generated a community, but the community met in art galleries or museums. Today, works of art invite you to itself, but are the communities, which are created by them, the same communities as those which emerge around various galleries? The answer is simple, but on this occasion the question could be examined here if web galleries - sometimes having an institutional anchor and which represent the Internet art or video art - are able to build a competitive artistic environment in relation to institutional galleries? If they do not have institutional anchors as Saatchi, their virtual beings usually end up as sad and empty spaces, and with time filling with a random creativity. YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, or other portals seemingly promoting art like Facebook, serve entirely different purposes not related with art and, certainly, they cannot compete with the gallery environment. Surely, you will find a competitive environments in terms of quality of discourse in relation to the those focused around galleries. Portals such as Artfacts, ArtReview, Rhizome, Rhiz, or environmental initiatives based on specific issues such as Digicult, concentrate people actively working as artists, curators, and critics. However, they have a completely different function and they are a wonderful complement to the world of art institutions. We cannot choose between institutions, galleries and themselves because they are solely those platforms of cooperation with other cultural institutions, or grass-roots initiatives, they are also media writing on art, engaged in the labour market in the art sector: they are peculiar billboards, a point of contact for curators and artists offering their ideas. This sphere does not exist without the institutional dimension, which is designed to be upsized.
The justification of presenting in galleries of net-art projects that are created for the needs of a different dispositive remains an open question. They are created in order to be able to come into contact with them from any point on the Earth if only we have, of course, Internet connectivity and a computer. Such works often affect privacy issues. So, the role of gallery in this context becomes not so much sharing, but paying attention to items which are generally available. Searching for the nature and justification for the institution of art related to these projects, please refer to history and perhaps look for differences. Today the distribution scale and allowing for interaction with the internal structure of the work as well as detachment from one item related to the evolution of mechanical reproduction systems and the generation of objects deprived of the original are really exceptional. Is the relationship of painting and new media art to the institutions of art so different? Yet paintings do not usually work for museums or galleries. They function for the private, domestic or public spaces, but usually for non-artistic ones. Perhaps they do not create such community platforms in the internal structure of work and do not replace galleries in this area, but the way of their operation in relation to the institution of art is in many respects identical. Both painting and Internet art expect promotion from galleries. Typically, a gallery is intended to be just an indirect element, sanctioned for the work by a specific exhibition, a place of exposure of an object, which could eventually live in the non-artistic space, illuminate and mark it. In this context, the art of new technology uses galleries as often as the so defined traditional art, tradycyjna. although, of course, the Internet replaces somehow and only rarely the institutions of art in the area of distribution of artworks and creation of communication platforms. The gallery of new technologies is to be a place where the same object, experienced e.g. through the YouTube, Vimeo, and Flickr channels, or the same network installation, experienced owing to recalling the appropriate web page from the server, separated by an ocean from the gallery, will be an artwork by the context of an institutionalized meeting at the artistic level, which does not exclude, but is designed to enhance individual reception.
Public galleries can therefore assume one of two strategies: either they may enter into connections, create and strengthen the art market, recognizing it as something good, or enhance artistic activities which by their nature are non-market oriented, leaving the market to itself. I am of the opinion that public institutions should support non-profit artists and developing art, often young and just entering the market context, or knowingly giving it up and should have such a possibility without regard for profit, since this activity would be a defence of public interest. I also think that the promotion of art only present in the form of digital resources artificially snatched away from the area of network space and not accessible to the public, which is unusual for artists of the information society, is unethical, because it causes that works with commercial value are sponsored by public means. This situation cannot be avoided in the overall model of the functioning of the gallery, but the lack of public availability should not be an asset of the work, but in this case its shortcoming, as it endeavours to bounce the old order based on instinct and possession capital. Public and modern galleries should support above all the works that are available in a natural way for everyone, unless, of course, there is such a possibility. The role of museums is, however, to create accessible platforms, public servers, etc. in which this kind of art can find its free space.
It should be noted here that this is only a part of the phenomena within the so-called new media art, and artistic events occurring only in the gallery space, or possible to organize outside the gallery space only by the organizational structure of the gallery, or by other art institutions are very common.
Installations and actions (performances) are such a form of new media art. Ephemeral nature of media activities is also the specificity of new media galleries, which play an inspiring and stimulating role for similar creative phenomena. The actions themselves often take place outside the gallery, in the urban space, or private one. Installations can be initiated, created in the gallery space, however, it is only possible to ultimately store them in museums. They use technology usually available at the time of their formation, but generally it is quite elitist. However, it requires maintenance, and its negligence sometimes causes irreversible damage to the work. An example of this is the part of interactive films by Graham Weibren or some Mirosław Rogala’s installations which are no longer possible or it is very expensive to reconstruct. Disappearing technologies represent a trace of the epoch, reflecting not only in the matter, but also aesthetics. Videotape, chisel or a brush, a book, similarly as the software developed for Atari or Commodore computers, interactive installation using COM and LPT ports, or standards absent in modern equipment, are all a part of daily life existing then, but also a philosophy which is always a metaphorical plane of the medium, and they are also united in an artistic whole, and are a work of art which can only be maintained by art collectors and museums. The role of public galleries is only ad hoc. They may seek to inspire the emergence of new and the reconstruction of some ancient works, but they usually do not have space to store them.
The third kind of works appearing in the area of new media art those which broaden conceptual activities and introduce elements such as open source, or D.I.Y. to them. A significant part of the artistic works, which are interactive installations, cannot be implemented in a physical way, but, continuing a physical trail, it treats a physical being as an artefact . An implementation is really an artistic idea, and a company, the recipient of a work of art, or, sometimes, a random person may often be the executor of this work. Such works are in fact only intellectual constructs that potentially anyone can do by following the instructions. So, they are realized only at the level of ideas, but they have a dimension of existence, or physical beings. Sometimes they are objects that contain a suggestion to use, but at the same time they are designed so that the recipient seems to realize that using them he/she may endanger his/her life or health. If any form of creativity should be supported by public galleries, it is the one that is characterized by egalitarianism of distribution. The gallery space is a kind of a platform to promote human activity. Art becomes therefore the activity itself, the realization of the purpose outlined by the artist. The collector shall not be treated as depersonalized source of capital, but one attempts to convert him/her into a co-creator, who trying to make contact with art through action, could confront himself/herself with the given artistic idea, attempt to reconstruct a model, proceed into the world of art behind a white bunny set free from artist’s hat..
In conclusion, one could tempt to summarize and draw a line connecting the outlined points. From the projects existing in the network, the projects constituting a type of information enforced by a computer which converts them into a video stream, or an interactive object, to information in the form of commands issued for the recipient of art. It is possible to call this type of media activities the art of information emerging on the ground of technology. Media activities and installations that function in real space may be conventionally called the art of technology. The Gallery of New Technologies is to be a place where owing to public funding both the first and the second realizations find their origins.
GALLERY OF NEW TECHNOLOGY I would like to focus on the issue of functioning of the art of new technologies in public institutional space. Considerations concerning whether the traditional institutions associated with art are needed for new media art have become an inspiration to take up this subject. I would like to pick up the discussion in the context of a substantial text of Ryszard W. Kluszczyński which is the last chapter of his book “Interactive Art. From the Work-instrument to Interactive Performance”. The author considers situations in which new media art gets in contact with art institutions. But, this text would become a kind of a manifesto for the particular gallery and cover specific situation: a public art gallery of new technologies. At the outset I would like to define the differences between the concepts of new media art and the art of new technologies used in the text. By defining a new medium I refer to audiovisual media such as film, video and Internet, rather than to the context of artistic expression of medium within the meaning of a brush, paint, stone, chisels, etc, which also used to be new. I understand the art of new technologies in a broader manner than the art of new media, because this term - for me - includes such areas as biotechnology or nanotechnology. It seems that many of contemporary works, whether video or interactive network installations, software-art works, or those using mobile devices, no longer need art institutions such as galleries, museums and centres of contemporary art. Indeed, they are able to function outside their environment, and spread as well as be experienced outside the walls of the host institution. What is more, certain works of art themselves are able to generate communities centred around them and they transform themselves in such new and virtual institutions. Should it be noted that the time of galleries defined as forums has ended with the advent of interactive art? The participation of the viewer in the internal structure of a work of art is certainly a new element. The community dimension generated by the work of art is also new. Art has always generated a community, but the community met in art galleries or museums. Today, works of art invite you to itself, but are the communities, which are created by them, the same communities as those which emerge around various galleries? The answer is simple, but on this occasion the question could be examined here if web galleries - sometimes having an institutional anchor and which represent the Internet art or video art - are able to build a competitive artistic environment in relation to institutional galleries? If they do not have institutional anchors as Saatchi, their virtual beings usually end up as sad and empty spaces, and with time filling with a random creativity. YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, or other portals seemingly promoting art like Facebook, serve entirely different purposes not related with art and, certainly, they cannot compete with the gallery environment. Surely, you will find a competitive environments in terms of quality of discourse in relation to the those focused around galleries. Portals such as Artfacts, ArtReview, Rhizome, Rhiz, or environmental initiatives based on specific issues such as Digicult, concentrate people actively working as artists, curators, and critics. However, they have a completely different function and they are a wonderful complement to the world of art institutions. We cannot choose between institutions, galleries and themselves because they are solely those platforms of cooperation with other cultural institutions, or grass-roots initiatives, they are also media writing on art, engaged in the labour market in the art sector: they are peculiar billboards, a point of contact for curators and artists offering their ideas. This sphere does not exist without the institutional dimension, which is designed to be upsized. The justification of presenting in galleries of net-art projects that are created for the needs of a different dispositive remains an open question. They are created in order to be able to come into contact with them from any point on the Earth if only we have, of course, Internet connectivity and a computer. Such works often affect privacy issues. So, the role of gallery in this context becomes not so much sharing, but paying attention to items which are generally available. Searching for the nature and justification for the institution of art related to these projects, please refer to history and perhaps look for differences. Today the distribution scale and allowing for interaction with the internal structure of the work as well as detachment from one item related to the evolution of mechanical reproduction systems and the generation of objects deprived of the original are really exceptional. Is the relationship of painting and new media art to the institutions of art so different? Yet paintings do not usually work for museums or galleries. They function for the private, domestic or public spaces, but usually for non-artistic ones. Perhaps they do not create such community platforms in the internal structure of work and do not replace galleries in this area, but the way of their operation in relation to the institution of art is in many respects identical. Both painting and Internet art expect promotion from galleries. Typically, a gallery is intended to be just an indirect element, sanctioned for the work by a specific exhibition, a place of exposure of an object, which could eventually live in the non-artistic space, illuminate and mark it. In this context, the art of new technology uses galleries as often as the so defined traditional art, tradycyjna. although, of course, the Internet replaces somehow and only rarely the institutions of art in the area of distribution of artworks and creation of communication platforms. The gallery of new technologies is to be a place where the same object, experienced e.g. through the YouTube, Vimeo, and Flickr channels, or the same network installation, experienced owing to recalling the appropriate web page from the server, separated by an ocean from the gallery, will be an artwork by the context of an institutionalized meeting at the artistic level, which does not exclude, but is designed to enhance individual reception. Public galleries can therefore assume one of two strategies: either they may enter into connections, create and strengthen the art market, recognizing it as something good, or enhance artistic activities which by their nature are non-market oriented, leaving the market to itself. I am of the opinion that public institutions should support non-profit artists and developing art, often young and just entering the market context, or knowingly giving it up and should have such a possibility without regard for profit, since this activity would be a defence of public interest. I also think that the promotion of art only present in the form of digital resources artificially snatched away from the area of network space and not accessible to the public, which is unusual for artists of the information society, is unethical, because it causes that works with commercial value are sponsored by public means. This situation cannot be avoided in the overall model of the functioning of the gallery, but the lack of public availability should not be an asset of the work, but in this case its shortcoming, as it endeavours to bounce the old order based on instinct and possession capital. Public and modern galleries should support above all the works that are available in a natural way for everyone, unless, of course, there is such a possibility. The role of museums is, however, to create accessible platforms, public servers, etc. in which this kind of art can find its free space. It should be noted here that this is only a part of the phenomena within the so-called new media art, and artistic events occurring only in the gallery space, or possible to organize outside the gallery space only by the organizational structure of the gallery, or by other art institutions are very common. Installations and actions (performances) are such a form of new media art. Ephemeral nature of media activities is also the specificity of new media galleries, which play an inspiring and stimulating role for similar creative phenomena. The actions themselves often take place outside the gallery, in the urban space, or private one. Installations can be initiated, created in the gallery space, however, it is only possible to ultimately store them in museums. They use technology usually available at the time of their formation, but generally it is quite elitist. However, it requires maintenance, and its negligence sometimes causes irreversible damage to the work. An example of this is the part of interactive films by Graham Weibren or some Mirosław Rogala’s installations which are no longer possible or it is very expensive to reconstruct. Disappearing technologies represent a trace of the epoch, reflecting not only in the matter, but also aesthetics. Videotape, chisel or a brush, a book, similarly as the software developed for Atari or Commodore computers, interactive installation using COM and LPT ports, or standards absent in modern equipment, are all a part of daily life existing then, but also a philosophy which is always a metaphorical plane of the medium, and they are also united in an artistic whole, and are a work of art which can only be maintained by art collectors and museums. The role of public galleries is only ad hoc. They may seek to inspire the emergence of new and the reconstruction of some ancient works, but they usually do not have space to store them. The third kind of works appearing in the area of new media art those which broaden conceptual activities and introduce elements such as open source, or D.I.Y. to them. A significant part of the artistic works, which are interactive installations, cannot be implemented in a physical way, but, continuing a physical trail, it treats a physical being as an artefact . An implementation is really an artistic idea, and a company, the recipient of a work of art, or, sometimes, a random person may often be the executor of this work. Such works are in fact only intellectual constructs that potentially anyone can do by following the instructions. So, they are realized only at the level of ideas, but they have a dimension of existence, or physical beings. Sometimes they are objects that contain a suggestion to use, but at the same time they are designed so that the recipient seems to realize that using them he/she may endanger his/her life or health. If any form of creativity should be supported by public galleries, it is the one that is characterized by egalitarianism of distribution. The gallery space is a kind of a platform to promote human activity. Art becomes therefore the activity itself, the realization of the purpose outlined by the artist. The collector shall not be treated as depersonalized source of capital, but one attempts to convert him/her into a co-creator, who trying to make contact with art through action, could confront himself/herself with the given artistic idea, attempt to reconstruct a model, proceed into the world of art behind a white bunny set free from artist’s hat.. In conclusion, one could tempt to summarize and draw a line connecting the outlined points. From the projects existing in the network, the projects constituting a type of information enforced by a computer which converts them into a video stream, or an interactive object, to information in the form of commands issued for the recipient of art. It is possible to call this type of media activities the art of information emerging on the ground of technology. Media activities and installations that function in real space may be conventionally called the art of technology. The Gallery of New Technologies is to be a place where owing to public funding both the first and the second realizations find their origins.

OPPORTUNITY

Parakino


Deadline:
Mon Apr 19, 2010 00:00

Location:
Poland

we are looking for intersting projects for PARAKINO in CSW LAZNIA
propositions please sedn to email:

m.brzezinski@laznia.pl

http://laznia.pl/index.php?idDzial=26&status=2

PARAKINO - a way to show broader connections between film and art, and embed the language of the film within the aesthetic discourse. By means of screenings prepared by the curators invited PARAKINO will show phenomena occurring in the world situated against the background of the film and video and initiate the atmosphere of the active co-creation of the discussion concerning the role of the film and video in the context of the new media language. We would like to present the prospects of developing arts, in particular the video art, which continues in the very space of art the gesture of the film-makers moving beyond the cinema which, in its radical activity, is ahead of technology. We would like to achieve it by availing ourselves of the experimental film history andrzeja the expanded cinema.
Curator: Michał Brzeziński


EVENT

GLOBALNE OCIEPLENIE / THE MEDIAGATE


Dates:
Sat Mar 20, 2010 00:00 - Sat Mar 20, 2010

Location:
Poland

Exhibition curated by: Marco Mancuso and Claudia D'Alonzo for Digicult & Michal Brzezinski

Exhibition period: 16/04/2010 - 16/05/2010
Opening: Friday 16/04/2010

Artists:

Milycon / En, Dorota Walentynowicz, Sašo Sedlaček, Jan Van Neuenen, Les Liens Invisibles, Marc Lee, Yorit Kluitman, Vít Klusák a Filip Remunda
Concept:

On November 20, 2009, just few days before the COP 15 in Copenhagen, the credibility of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the government body that monitors the UN climate change studies, suffered a severe blow. A group of Russian hackers had published a series of documents, e-mails and confidential data from Hadley Center, Research Center of East Anglia University, one of the major international institutions of climate studies, strongly affiliated with the IPCC itself. The action seems to expose efforts of scholars and researchers to falsify data on one of the hottest media topics of the millennium: anthropic global warming, the so-called AGW. The ‘Climategate’ has shaken the conscience of many: if international government bodies, research centers, environmental organizations and even ecologist organizations like Greenpeace and even eco-activists groups have been warning us for years that independent fundamental problems like global warming, the greenhouse effect, emission harmful gases, are based on solid scientific foundations, what should we think about the leak? That global warming is all a big media game, serving superior economic and political interests? It's a doubt that many are beginning to have.

In early days of January 2010, many international media revealed a striking news: the A(H1N1) flu seems to be a hoax orchestrated by the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical companies. It was claimed not by some no-global critics, but the chairman of the Health Council of Europe, Wolfgang Wodarg, who forced the Council to approve a tough resolution demanding an international inquiry into the matter. After months of warnings and measures against the risk of infection involving the media and institutions around the world, one wonders when we can speak of trusted sources on a subject as important as health.

"Frankly, I believed beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction" - said the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, on 29th of January 2010, in front of the Commission of Inquiry on Iraq at the Queen Elizabeth Center in London. Blair denied that the government had put the idea, in the intelligence dossier, that Baghdad could use weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, admitting, however, to have said so in his speech to the Commons in September 2002, although "without too much emphasis”. The emphasis was placed by the press, raising the issue that Blair now denies. So, how many and what threats are real? How and why is 'global fear' started?

These 'cases' exposed the incredibility of news that for months, if not years, have filled the media all over the Western world. We talk about cases and not news, because in them is put into question the very meaning of news, of factual information.

The world that we live in, with its division into mediasphere and biosphere, have been defined in many ways, among which two ideas are best known and best describe the relation between man and medium. Coined over 50 years ago by Marshall McLuhan, these ideas seem not too precise, however prophetic. One of them is the ‘global village’ theory (as a result of media becoming the extension of our nerve system), the other is the division of media into ‘hot’ (the ones that send a lot of impulses to stimulate senses) and ‘cold’ (the ones that require imagination in creating the transfer). Paradoxically, it is frequent that the ‘cold’ media generate bigger emotions as they involve imagination and feelings attached to it. Hot media, on the other hand, often cause greater distance towards the experiences. All visual media are hot as the visual communication absorbs around 80 per cent of attention. However, when interactivity is involved, visual media become cold, as they require complacement from the recipient. Contemporary visual art, that use abstraction or the beauty of artistic matter, are losing the figurative forms. They are the means of ‘cooling’ the visual art and involving the imagination or knowledge in it. Viewer’s distance towards the classic forms of art, which created a certain beauty canon, started evolving in the beginning of the 19th century. Visual art tend to approach literature, so much as through developing the conceptual layer of the work. The apogee of the process is achieved in the art of new technologies. With this exhibition, we try to present different attitudes of artists towards global warming of the media in our global village.

In recent years, we are witnessing the disintegration of the belief that the Internet was, for its unique nature, a free, participatory medium, in contrast to the medium of television. Positivity of the early years of the Internet is giving way to a situation in which one cannot help but admit that the Interet, even with large areas of autonomy, is subject to the same dangerous political and economic dynamics of traditional media. It becomes crucial not just to understand what is the most democratic medium of the third millennium, but rather open our eyes to the dual nature of all media, to identify ways in which we learn to move strategically between truth and deception.

These methodologies are the focus of many works of new media art: art is in fact the territory within which lays the duality of the media, playing creatively between liabilities and autonomy of the viewer's interpretation of misconceptions and information. The art is able to expose the media automation because it puts the audience, and our role as spectators, in the center of the discourse on media.

Globalne Ocieplenie / The Mediagate exhibition aims at reflecting, through the new media artworks by international artists, our constant battle between questioning and faith towards the media, without suggesting solutions, but triggering questions and doubts about our role as users. Globalne Ocieplenie / The Mediagate wants to become explicit homage to the word Watergate, that has entered common parlance to describe an embarrassing and outrageous discovery, often used as a measure to test the seriousness of a sudden truth, considered to be big enough to be able to undermine any system.