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 Solon in that her 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.

We are pleased to announce that patrick lichty has changed his race.

Meet the new patrick by picking up your e-card at:

http://www.changemyrace.com/ecard.php?surname=lichty&forename=patrick &g=his&dir5BM&img=short.jpg&card=pickup

-----------------------------------------------------------------
A personal message from patrick :

These have been out 2-3 years.
Thought I'd have my wife made into one of these.
After she passed on, of course...

A relative was serious about the pet thing.

----- Original Message -----
From: "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:48 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Life Gem

> http://www.lifegem.com/
> just came across this in an article in Cabinet...
> if i had come across this without the article, i would have thought it was
a parody.
> definitely check out the "for pets" option.
> +
> -> 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
>
>

Hello, all.

I love this thread, and I love Boxer's article. Mainly because her article
shows that in many cases that art which once stood on the merits of its
techne alone last decade aren't allowed to now. That's the pitfall of the
increasing acceptance/cooptation of the larger art world. The New Media
culture has been known for a real culture of supportiveness and kindness,
and I don't think that should change; it's a refreshing place to live.
However, the larger art world is beginning to frame New Media in its
parameters, and for whatever reason, there's a lot of New Media that is not
meeting the standards/tastes ot the "high art" world.

This is not so much a definitive statement as an observation. A number of
gallerists that once championed the digital are now taking an integrated
approach, and in the five years since the Whitney Bi 2000, where internet
art was introduced to the New York scene, a lot of the lustre has left.

I'm not being so critical of the works that Boxer is a bit too harsh on, but
there is a lot of New Media that just doesn't hack it, for reasons of
obsessions with techne, the selling of technophilia, cultural myopia, etc.
There are niche levels of engagement, for sure, but those artists have to be
ready to operate in the niche. However, New Media is entering a next
iteration, and as such, is going to change in regards to is placement within
society, its function, etc. We as artists, curators, critics, etc. need to
address the changes that are placed upon us as we have been agents of change
upon our milieu - it's quid pro quo, and I think that we're starting to get
the pro quo. I just see a lot of work that has gotten attention that
doesn't stack up, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in those
cases the criticism isn't deserved. This is actually welcome, as it signals
the coming of New Media's age of majority.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

>Selling ephemeral art is not new, but it remains problematic.

funny, anyone conjures up a problem. probably just a form of
xenophobia, a variation of seeing jesus face in a tortilla. people
not comfortable with strange things and interpreting it with what
they do know, which seldom makes any sense.

I don't see there being a problem to it; I just don't see many people
making a marketing model work. These are two very different. We all
market, one way or another at one time or another.

so you can start selling what are essentially kinetic electric
sculptures but mostly balls in the court of the reticent buyers.

Maybe. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a social contract that buyers
can make sense of at the moment (or many instances of them)