PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Patrick Lichty is a digital intermedia artist, writer, and independent curator of over 15 years whose work comments upon the impact of technology on society and how it shapes the perception of the world around us. He works in diverse technological media, including activism, printmaking, kinetics, video, generative music, and neon. He is Editor-in Chief of Intelligent Agent, an electronic arts/culture journal, part of the activist group The Yes Men, and operates IALA Gallery in Baton Rogue, Louisiana.
Re: montage video projection
It's a little pricey, but I recommend Derivative Touch over at
derivativeinc.com
It has its limitations, but for multi-scree, and flexibility, it really rocks.
---- judsoN <office@plasmastudii.org> wrote:
>
> >hey all!
> >
> >So i am loooking into doing a large video projection project, on 3
> >screens. All 3 screens might have everything from live straming
> >video to images to projections of actual things that are going on in
> >the space.
> >I keep getting conficting suggestions about what to use to diplay
> >all of this. People keep telling me to use Montage, and then others
> >tell me that Montage is a hack program and should be avoided at all
> >costs.
> >As i do some research on this, because i know nothing at the
> >moment... I thought i would put the question out to you all.
> >Curious if there are answers within the rhizome community.
> >thanks.
> >-jeremy
> >
>
>
> director rocks hands down.
>
> it'll run about any kind of video (pre-recorded or a live feed with
> the coolest xtra (TTCPro, does screen shots, and shockwave), reads
> files from the web or local. and super easy presentation/authoring
> functions. (warning, using it for more than a few seconds requires a
> hefty mac. win version can't hold up for long. nothing for
> unix/linux obviously though)
>
> max with jitter sounds close, but not ideal for presentation or a lot
> of web functions. do the screens need to be coordinated? could you
> have one program (like max) handle the local feed, one like
> (quicktime) handle pre-recorded stuff, one (like perl) handle the web
> feed, and write a mother program that switches between these (in
> about anything)?
>
> i wish director would just come with computers, because it is by far
> the best stuff can be done with them. 99% of what makes computers
> not just boring boxes of wires. lingo should be one of the required
> languages in school. other programming languages do much more but
> are much more difficult and development takes too much. there's a
> lot you may want to customize (like C/C++ would let you do) in an app
> but especially for staged performances, it's not worth all the extra
> work.
>
> if you don't own a mac, but do these a few times a year, it's
> probably even worth getting one of those $500 mini's or something for
> shows, just to run director.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
derivativeinc.com
It has its limitations, but for multi-scree, and flexibility, it really rocks.
---- judsoN <office@plasmastudii.org> wrote:
>
> >hey all!
> >
> >So i am loooking into doing a large video projection project, on 3
> >screens. All 3 screens might have everything from live straming
> >video to images to projections of actual things that are going on in
> >the space.
> >I keep getting conficting suggestions about what to use to diplay
> >all of this. People keep telling me to use Montage, and then others
> >tell me that Montage is a hack program and should be avoided at all
> >costs.
> >As i do some research on this, because i know nothing at the
> >moment... I thought i would put the question out to you all.
> >Curious if there are answers within the rhizome community.
> >thanks.
> >-jeremy
> >
>
>
> director rocks hands down.
>
> it'll run about any kind of video (pre-recorded or a live feed with
> the coolest xtra (TTCPro, does screen shots, and shockwave), reads
> files from the web or local. and super easy presentation/authoring
> functions. (warning, using it for more than a few seconds requires a
> hefty mac. win version can't hold up for long. nothing for
> unix/linux obviously though)
>
> max with jitter sounds close, but not ideal for presentation or a lot
> of web functions. do the screens need to be coordinated? could you
> have one program (like max) handle the local feed, one like
> (quicktime) handle pre-recorded stuff, one (like perl) handle the web
> feed, and write a mother program that switches between these (in
> about anything)?
>
> i wish director would just come with computers, because it is by far
> the best stuff can be done with them. 99% of what makes computers
> not just boring boxes of wires. lingo should be one of the required
> languages in school. other programming languages do much more but
> are much more difficult and development takes too much. there's a
> lot you may want to customize (like C/C++ would let you do) in an app
> but especially for staged performances, it's not worth all the extra
> work.
>
> if you don't own a mac, but do these a few times a year, it's
> probably even worth getting one of those $500 mini's or something for
> shows, just to run director.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
ArtBase 101 & Boxer
Hey, all.
In a couple weeks I'll be publishing an edit of my comments as the IA
editorial for this issue. I think that the Boxer issue is something
that's driving the wedge deep in our collective psyche.
Stay tuned.
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 Geert Dekkers
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Rhizome
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
And just to show (again and again) that art sometimes asks you go the
extra mile, an exerpt about Cy Twombly...
from brentriley.com
"I've liked his work since I was a freshman in college. His paintings
are abstract and impenetrable, the only guideposts are occasional
references to mythology buried in the scribbles and blobs of color on
canvas. Twombly is an artist that a lot of people say "I could do
that" or "It looks like my 5 year old drew that."
I smile when I hear that because I've been frustrated by his
paintings too. To crack the shell and dig out the meaning is
difficult. But I'm drawn back to him again and again."
On 1-jul-2005, at 22:05, Geert Dekkers wrote:
> Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time
> were invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour
> piece by Jan Fabre -- yes it was tedious, and yes I might have
> walked off (I actually think I did) but that's not the point. The
> point (of the piece was) -- obviously -- that it was EIGHT hours.
>
> And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have
> fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time.
>
>
> On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>> "Every Icon" and
>>
>>
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---that's making a huuuge assumption--i mean, gee, t,
>> we get it and all--boxer has less patience with the
>> conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems--i
>> like both works myself, but i can stray into
>> conceptual work and appreciate it--
>>
>> one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
>> cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
>> conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"--in
>> which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
>> IS about time...
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
>>> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
>>> comments back.
>>>
>>> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
>>> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
>>> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>>>
>>> Philip Galanter wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect that a
>>>
>>>
>>>> good number of internet artists started out as
>>>>
>>>>
>>> primarily visual
>>>
>>>
>>>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
>>>>
>>>>
>>> internet art is in
>>>
>>>
>>>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>>>>
>>>> You can see this in the classroom everyday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Student painters or
>>>
>>>
>>>> photographers who decide to take up video are
>>>>
>>>>
>>> usually (at least at
>>>
>>>
>>>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
>>>>
>>>>
>>> terribly awful.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
>>>>
>>>>
>>> defended in class
>>>
>>>
>>>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> aesthetic rather than
>>>
>>>
>>>> being called what it is...bad filmmaking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interminable static shots
>>>
>>>
>>>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> enough. And so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
>>>>
>>>>
>>> becomes the audiences
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> burden.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't argue with your point that many video or
>>> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
>>> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
>>> can't remember which one, that made me want to
>>> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
>>> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
>>> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>>>
>>> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
>>> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
>>> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
>>> time as a significant element in the work in very
>>> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
>>> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
>>> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
>>> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
>>> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
>>> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
>>> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
>>> how computers and humans are different in a very
>>> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
>>> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
>>> airhead reviewer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists
>>>>
>>>>
>>> turn to the
>>>
>>>
>>>> internet as a new medium. That time counts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> shouldn't be a surprise.
>>>
>>> You seem to be making general points that you might
>>> make to your students. It comes off a bit
>>> condescending since you're referencing a specific
>>> show and a specific review of it.
>>>
>>> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
>>> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
>>> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
>>>>
>>>>
>>> asks the audience
>>>
>>>
>>>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> entire work without
>>>
>>>
>>>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
>>>>
>>>>
>>> payoff at the very
>>>
>>>
>>>> end. Music frequently begins with the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> introduction of compelling
>>>
>>>
>>>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go
>>>>
>>>>
>>> further. Good films
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
>>>>
>>>>
>>> along the way.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How much internet art does this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
>>> misses the point of most of the work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that seem to
>>>
>>>
>>>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ignore or
>>>
>>>
>>>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
>>>>
>>>>
>>> be sure the
>>>
>>>
>>>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> compositional
>>>
>>>
>>>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But that's no
>>>
>>>
>>>> excuse...that's exactly the challenge the artist
>>>>
>>>>
>>> has willingly taken
>>>
>>>
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> not care a whit
>>>
>>>
>>>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the audience, or the
>>>
>>>
>>>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> away. It's not their
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> fault. It's yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
>>> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
>>> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
>>> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>> +
>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>>> open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>>> out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ******
>> No More Movements...
>>
>> Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://
>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>>
>>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
In a couple weeks I'll be publishing an edit of my comments as the IA
editorial for this issue. I think that the Boxer issue is something
that's driving the wedge deep in our collective psyche.
Stay tuned.
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 Geert Dekkers
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 8:01 AM
To: Rhizome
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
And just to show (again and again) that art sometimes asks you go the
extra mile, an exerpt about Cy Twombly...
from brentriley.com
"I've liked his work since I was a freshman in college. His paintings
are abstract and impenetrable, the only guideposts are occasional
references to mythology buried in the scribbles and blobs of color on
canvas. Twombly is an artist that a lot of people say "I could do
that" or "It looks like my 5 year old drew that."
I smile when I hear that because I've been frustrated by his
paintings too. To crack the shell and dig out the meaning is
difficult. But I'm drawn back to him again and again."
On 1-jul-2005, at 22:05, Geert Dekkers wrote:
> Iit's not as if art works that deliberately take *too* much time
> were invented yesterday. I remember sitting through an eight hour
> piece by Jan Fabre -- yes it was tedious, and yes I might have
> walked off (I actually think I did) but that's not the point. The
> point (of the piece was) -- obviously -- that it was EIGHT hours.
>
> And it was equally obvious that the artist didn't intend us to have
> fun. Which is good, because you don't have to have fun all the time.
>
>
> On 1-jul-2005, at 6:41, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>> "Every Icon" and
>>
>>
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---that's making a huuuge assumption--i mean, gee, t,
>> we get it and all--boxer has less patience with the
>> conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems--i
>> like both works myself, but i can stray into
>> conceptual work and appreciate it--
>>
>> one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
>> cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
>> conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"--in
>> which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
>> IS about time...
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
>>> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
>>> comments back.
>>>
>>> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
>>> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
>>> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>>>
>>> Philip Galanter wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect that a
>>>
>>>
>>>> good number of internet artists started out as
>>>>
>>>>
>>> primarily visual
>>>
>>>
>>>> artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
>>>>
>>>>
>>> internet art is in
>>>
>>>
>>>> fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
>>>>
>>>> You can see this in the classroom everyday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Student painters or
>>>
>>>
>>>> photographers who decide to take up video are
>>>>
>>>>
>>> usually (at least at
>>>
>>>
>>>> first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
>>>>
>>>>
>>> terribly awful.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
>>>>
>>>>
>>> defended in class
>>>
>>>
>>>> critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> aesthetic rather than
>>>
>>>
>>>> being called what it is...bad filmmaking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interminable static shots
>>>
>>>
>>>> are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> enough. And so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
>>>>
>>>>
>>> becomes the audiences
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> burden.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't argue with your point that many video or
>>> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
>>> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
>>> can't remember which one, that made me want to
>>> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
>>> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
>>> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>>>
>>> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
>>> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
>>> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
>>> time as a significant element in the work in very
>>> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
>>> ways.
>>>
>>> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
>>> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
>>> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
>>> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
>>> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
>>> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
>>> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
>>> how computers and humans are different in a very
>>> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
>>> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
>>> airhead reviewer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> These problems become multiplied when fine artists
>>>>
>>>>
>>> turn to the
>>>
>>>
>>>> internet as a new medium. That time counts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> shouldn't be a surprise.
>>>
>>> You seem to be making general points that you might
>>> make to your students. It comes off a bit
>>> condescending since you're referencing a specific
>>> show and a specific review of it.
>>>
>>> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
>>> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
>>> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
>>>>
>>>>
>>> asks the audience
>>>
>>>
>>>> to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> entire work without
>>>
>>>
>>>> satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
>>>>
>>>>
>>> payoff at the very
>>>
>>>
>>>> end. Music frequently begins with the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> introduction of compelling
>>>
>>>
>>>> themes that give the listener an incentive to go
>>>>
>>>>
>>> further. Good films
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
>>>>
>>>>
>>> along the way.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How much internet art does this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
>>> misses the point of most of the work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've seen far too many examples of internet art
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that seem to
>>>
>>>
>>>> disregard the element of real time, and thereby
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ignore or
>>>
>>>
>>>> miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
>>>>
>>>>
>>> be sure the
>>>
>>>
>>>> nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
>>>>
>>>>
>>> compositional
>>>
>>>
>>>> problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> But that's no
>>>
>>>
>>>> excuse...that's exactly the challenge the artist
>>>>
>>>>
>>> has willingly taken
>>>
>>>
>>>> on.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
>>>>
>>>>
>>> not care a whit
>>>
>>>
>>>> for the audience's experience. But don't blame
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the audience, or the
>>>
>>>
>>>> critic, if they click a few times and then walk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> away. It's not their
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> fault. It's yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
>>> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
>>> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
>>> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
>>> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
>>> in their time-based component, but neither of the
>>> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
>>> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
>>> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
>>> running the concept in your head long after you're
>>> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
>>> of.
>>> +
>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
>>> open to non-members
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
>>> out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> ******
>> No More Movements...
>>
>> Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://
>> lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
>> subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>>
>>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
Listen:
The difference between art and prostitution is as follows:
In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
And with art, people see if they want to pay to see you have sex with
yourself in the gallery.
Simple as that.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of Lewis LaCook
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
To: t.whid; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
So we only make art for other artists?
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
************************************************************************
***
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
The difference between art and prostitution is as follows:
In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
And with art, people see if they want to pay to see you have sex with
yourself in the gallery.
Simple as that.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of Lewis LaCook
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
To: t.whid; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
So we only make art for other artists?
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
************************************************************************
***
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
TWhid Wrote:
I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested
party felt that I should hold my comments back.
Hey, so am I, but doesn't seem to stop me. :)
I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since I'm an interested
party felt that I should hold my comments back.
Hey, so am I, but doesn't seem to stop me. :)
CLARIFICATION ON MY NOTES - NYT/Boxer
I want to clarify that I meant that Boxer's notes were cursory, not
Marisa Olson's. Marisa's spot on.
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 patrick lichty
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:01 AM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
All of the conversation here has been very interesting, and I have a
certain ambivalence regarding the writings of Susan Boxer. I agree for
the most part with Marisa Ollon in that Boxer's analyses (if we can call
them that) are cursory, lack a certain literacy in the field, and are
indicative of the casual viewer.
Now, let me say why I have an ambivalence about this. On one hand,
let's consider that this is the NYT and not the Toledo Blade (which, by
the way, has a wonderfully acute editor who writes some beautiful
cultural critiques). The contemporary idea of the neoconservative
delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush
statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and
the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big
heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of
the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but
I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent.
Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the
man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I
like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts
festival.
On the other hand, Boxer illustrates one of New Media art's cardinal
sins - its cultural myopia and aesthetic specificity. Although the mark
of significant art is its experimental spirit, truly great art 'grabs'
you. And, one of the problems that I have seen with New Media is that
it has exhibited a cultural arrogance that demands that the audience
must almost do research in order to know the context of a work.
These works mirror my contention regarding much of 80's Contemporary
Art; in that it resembled a bad joke about postmodernism that required
the viewer to read countless volumes of Foucault, Barthes, and Lyotard,
only to find that the punch line was rather abject in itself. The joke
is one that is on all parties involved.
However, as I state two poles of the argument, I see a number of quantum
points in the continuum between these points. One is that I see that
New Media that does not transcend its medium may remain marginalized,
with those crossover works which can speak to the Contemporary Art
culture punching through the membrane and going into the museums.
Another might be that there could be niche cultures (such as Contagious
Media) that will serve as a public conduit for other works, and others
may be mass media hacks which address the populace. The contemporary
art world is a milieu is one that gives the New Media artist the
challenge of engaging, subverting, or even hacking in order to address
the Susan Boxers of the world, if one truly cares about them at all.
But I think that from a personal perspective, New Media practitioners
should care, if the genre (sic) wants to engage the larger art milieu.
However, I see Boxer's last two reads of New Media works problematic to
be sure. But then, with her rather cursory treatment of the subject, she
also brings up an opinion of art in general that one should probably
consider. Although I personally differ with some of Susan Boxer's reads
of technological art, she does represent the viewpoint of many
gallery-goers that I have experienced, and is a viewpoint that one
should consider.
But if I had my druthers, I'd put Mirapaul over there in a heartbeat.
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Marisa Olson's. Marisa's spot on.
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 patrick lichty
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:01 AM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
All of the conversation here has been very interesting, and I have a
certain ambivalence regarding the writings of Susan Boxer. I agree for
the most part with Marisa Ollon in that Boxer's analyses (if we can call
them that) are cursory, lack a certain literacy in the field, and are
indicative of the casual viewer.
Now, let me say why I have an ambivalence about this. On one hand,
let's consider that this is the NYT and not the Toledo Blade (which, by
the way, has a wonderfully acute editor who writes some beautiful
cultural critiques). The contemporary idea of the neoconservative
delegitimization/dismissal of expertise which ranges from the Bush
statement that the "C" students can look forward to being President and
the fundamentalist Christian assertion that it is better to have a big
heart than a big head smacks of a Harrison Bergeron-esque privileging of
the mediocre. Forgive me if I conflate terms on my prior statement, but
I think that it comes down to a contemporary anti-meritocratic bent.
Boxer epitomizes this, in that she appears to represent the
man-on-the-street, "I Don't know much about this, but I know what I
like" rationale in this article and the one on the Boston CyberArts
festival.
On the other hand, Boxer illustrates one of New Media art's cardinal
sins - its cultural myopia and aesthetic specificity. Although the mark
of significant art is its experimental spirit, truly great art 'grabs'
you. And, one of the problems that I have seen with New Media is that
it has exhibited a cultural arrogance that demands that the audience
must almost do research in order to know the context of a work.
These works mirror my contention regarding much of 80's Contemporary
Art; in that it resembled a bad joke about postmodernism that required
the viewer to read countless volumes of Foucault, Barthes, and Lyotard,
only to find that the punch line was rather abject in itself. The joke
is one that is on all parties involved.
However, as I state two poles of the argument, I see a number of quantum
points in the continuum between these points. One is that I see that
New Media that does not transcend its medium may remain marginalized,
with those crossover works which can speak to the Contemporary Art
culture punching through the membrane and going into the museums.
Another might be that there could be niche cultures (such as Contagious
Media) that will serve as a public conduit for other works, and others
may be mass media hacks which address the populace. The contemporary
art world is a milieu is one that gives the New Media artist the
challenge of engaging, subverting, or even hacking in order to address
the Susan Boxers of the world, if one truly cares about them at all.
But I think that from a personal perspective, New Media practitioners
should care, if the genre (sic) wants to engage the larger art milieu.
However, I see Boxer's last two reads of New Media works problematic to
be sure. But then, with her rather cursory treatment of the subject, she
also brings up an opinion of art in general that one should probably
consider. Although I personally differ with some of Susan Boxer's reads
of technological art, she does represent the viewpoint of many
gallery-goers that I have experienced, and is a viewpoint that one
should consider.
But if I had my druthers, I'd put Mirapaul over there in a heartbeat.
+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
