Here's the problem with this show-
BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o

(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
art!)

Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
home for that time.

When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
sale management...

Two points here.
One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".

Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
close, though.

Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
Falcon, out the door...

I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
another small notch down, IMO.

I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)

I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.

But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.

Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
voyd@voyd.com

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of T.Whid
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
MoMA

On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
> What would Jackson do?
>
> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
>
> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
> Culture instead of Visual Art.

I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
Pixar as opposed to PS1.

I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.

Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
just damn good entertainers.

>
> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
> making expressive paintings?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
consider...
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > >
> > > who? example?
> > >
> > > jason
> > >
> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
> > > >
> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
more
> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
accord
> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
visual
> > > > disciplines, especially design."
> > > >
> > > > To which he added this commentary:
> > > >
> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
What
> > > > the two share is Design."
> > > >
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Van Anden
> > > http://www.smileproject.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com
>

--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

+
-> 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

A Conversation between Manovich and Lichty
LM: We live in 'remix' culture. Are there limits to remixing? Can
anything be remixed with anything? Shall there be an ethics of remixing?

PL: Actually, I don't think we live in a 'remix' culture, I liken it
more to pastiche or collage, or even object-oriented culture. To remix
is to take cultural elements and transform/repurpose them tot he point
where the source referent is obscured, idsappears, or its signifying
power is backgrounded to the point where the new 'author's intent
overrides. This is actually tightly linked to issues of intellectual
control/copyright...

In an object-oriented culture, the artist is more like a
bricoleur/collage artist where elements of culutral and content and
contextual 'code' are combbined and thend compiled for transmission
throughout that culture. The material is then, ideally, available in
the cultural databes, with the new components added by the artist, to be
upgraded/reassembled/recompiled..

Therefore, I have few or no problems with an ethics of the remix as
such, as the singularityof the artist as such as singular entitiy in
light of a distributed, networked culture, is circumspect.

LM: In the last few years information visualization became increasingly
popular and it attracted the energy of some of the most talented new
media artists and designers. Will it ever become as widely used as type
or photography - or will it always remain a tool used by professionals?

PL: Actually, in the hands of the VJ, there are alrready real-time data
visualization tools ready and in use through inexpensive packages,
freeware, & open source. I also understand that many VJ packages are
severly limited, but others have excellent potential for low-cost data
visualization.

In addition, programs like VVVV, PD, Onadime, Keyworx, and even fairly
accessible programming environments like Blitz3d, Java, Programming, and
Python can allow users to c reat data visualizatin environments (2-or
3D) _fairly easily_ and at low cost.

LM: Today cinema and literature continue the modern project or rendering
human psychology and subjectivity, while fine art seems to be not too
concerned with this project. How can we use new media to represent
contemporary subjectivity in new ways? Do we need to do it?

PL: This really depends on what we mean by being subjective. Some of
the award-winning fine media art seems to be very much about conveying a
human moment/experience. David Crawford's SMS contains a great deal of
frozen pathos in the way his programs access his stop-motion experices.
Barney's Cremaster does not seem to be wholly formal, either. But I do
agree that a lot of fine art does lack a subjective component at this
time, and I consider this part of the era. This will come and go.

LM: 'Blobs' in architecture and design - is this a new 'international
style' of software society, here to stay, - or only a particular effect
of architects and designers starting to use software?

PL: Probably towards the latter. Adoption of new technologies often
spurs practitioners to explore their new potentials, and this becomes
evident. My belief is that after a certain point in time that the
'styles' of the blob and other architectural forms will see some sense
of integration.

LM: While the tools to produce one own media have been more accessible
and more powerful, people never consumed more commercial media than now.
Thus the essential division between 'media amateurs' and 'media
professionals' which got established in the beginning seems to be as
strong as ever. In short, the 1960s idea that new technologies will turn
consumers into producers failed over and over again. Will this situation
ever change? What will be the next stage in media consumption after MP3
players, DVD recorders, CD burners, etc, etc, etc.?

PL: The producer/consumer model really depends on the modes of
production and consumption being examined. If we look at Antin's model
of video vs. television (grass roots/distribution vs. institutional
transmission), I would say probably not, although the model might be
changing. To consider this question, I think that one has to reevaluate
the models of the producer and the consumer. Production is not merely
about making the product; it is also about having the promotional and
distribution methods/infrastructures to transmit the message-unit and
get it seen/consumed.

Can we say that the consumer will somehow get access to mass-market
distribution channels mainly because they can make mass-market format
media? Mostly not, for obvious reasons. However, can distributed media
transmission models like Video IPods redefine transmission and
distribution models? I don't know - maybe.

To ask which medium will arise next is difficult, and seems more of
interest to marketers/manufacturers than consumers and grass-roots
producers.

I think we can look at criteria for such a medium. There will have to
be mass market saturation of technology. This is evident in terms of CD
players, DVDs, VCR, IPOD, and so on. In short, there has to be a format
and a platform that there can be a one-to-many model. For the
grass-roots, there has to be some ease of use and ability to
effortlessly get basic elements of high quality. Media artisanry is more
of a cultural than a technical issue, and is beyond the scope of the
question.

Lastly, and probably the most compelling, is the argument that there has
to be content worth looking at, and making people aware of it. In an
era in which there is exponential growth in media production, it's
increasingly difficult to get media in front of eyes, so one has to be
increasingly savvy. That might be the reason for tactical media, but
that's another topic.

Thanks for the questions.
Patrick

Exactly!
A lot of that figures in the way I answered the questions.

Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
voyd@voyd.com

"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of LuAs da Silva
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 12:58 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: 10 questions a net.artist has to be aware of

Why should a net artist be awareof these questions?

I think I am missing the point

:P

michael kargl wrote:

> 1) what is it?
> 2) why is it art?
> 3) is programming art?
> 4) why are you doing that?
> 5) who is paying for such a s**t ?
> 6) do you make a lot of money with your art?
> 7) are you famous?
> 8) what are you talking about?
> 9) are you a hacker ? (read: are you a criminal/ terrorist?)
> 10) have you ever had sex?
>
> ----------------------------------
> http://tinyurl.com/dc655
+
-> 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

Interesting questions, but almost too much like a net.chainmail.
Here goes:

1) what is it?
Depends on your context, the way you look at it, etc.
I can only go half way on this - the rest is up to you.

2) why is it art?
To paraphrase Cage, "What else would it be?"

3) is programming art?
Some programming is art, but not all art is programming.

4) why are you doing that?
Because I can't see myself doing many other things with such conviction.

5) who is paying for such a s**t ?
The two asterisks leave open a lot of words. Shit, Shot, Slut, Shut,
Slot, Scot, Spot (my favorite), Spit, Spat, Scat...
I am - as usual.

6) do you make a lot of money with your art?
Occasionally, but not lately.

7) are you famous?
Sometimes, but a lot of people don't realize it's me.

8) what are you talking about?
Again, depends on the context. Futures of grad students, synnoetics,
codes and deconstruction, transhumanism, Spinach pie, djembe drumming,
multiple human/machine languages, culture jamming, VJ culture, my cat's
illness, and so on.

What are you talking about in asking this?

9) are you a hacker ? (read: are you a criminal/ terrorist?)
Would I really tell you if I were? Not the best question.
Also, hacking is not necessarily criminal. Look at makezine.com.

10) have you ever had sex?
Sure, after I quite my job at Wal-Mart as a stock boy, dropped my
Ritchie book on C programming, and quit the Star Trek club...

Another odd question. Why should I say so?
Ask my wife. She's the best judge of this.

IRONY <->
IRONY

PATRICK
LICHTY,OCTOBER 2005