Plasma Studii
Since the beginning
Works in New York United States of America

PORTFOLIO (8)
BIO
judsoN = computer artist for shows internationally on stages, galleries and the web, and the Artistic Director of Plasma Studii, a non-profit arts organization in New York. His goal is to use technology as a tool to fuse arbitrary distinctions in art, such as dance and sculpture, color and sound frequencies, stages and web sites. His live interactive pieces appear in such venues as plays in circus tents across Europe, installations for places like the Arts Council of Mildura, Australia, on web sites at ISCAM (in Istanbul) and cTheory for Cornell University (twice). His artwork published in books (US, Europe, South America) and on CD-Roms worldwide. Studied choreography under Doug Elkins, music composition with a student of Stockhausen.
Discussions (278) Opportunities (1) Events (3) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101


philip
>> 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.

others
>both [pieces] 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.

philip gave a mature answer. the reply isn't at all unique to any
individual but hardly a useful attitude. who knows why there is a
faction of computer artists bent on self-destructive (and thus
destructive to the rest of us) pouting. but after 10+ years of
computer art, it's pretty clear why it still isn't ubiquitous. cell
phones, GPS, iPods, ... all took off after about 3 years, and we're
still here bickering with some sort of teenage angst ("they just
don't understand!"), rather than fixing what we do.

pretend the anti-boxer argument is right for a moment. pretend boxer
really is dumb. audiences really can't handle these heavy concepts.
where does that leave us? still with no one but ourselves
interested. art funding diminishing anyway, ours being a
particularly expensive practice, we're looking at a potentially
dismal future, as long as we keep it up.

instead of arguing against these critiques, focus on improving our situation.

boxer's review has some helpful ideas philip clearly found in it. if
you just can't find anything useful in the review yourself, no reason
to dwell on it. drop it. but submit a constructive idea from
somewhere else then. he can't be the only adult on this list?

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101


>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.

while i agree with the sentiment, this is not at all what's happening
here. more complex ways of saying a stupid thing is still a stupid
thing. "artist statement: i am currently exploring the matrix of
cyphers representing the digital methodologies inherent in this
computer keyboard."

boxer may not subscribe to "art speak". but the fact that she
writes, not like an idiot, but more conversational, less pretentious,
is totally refreshing. she panned cyberarts, said most of the
artbase 101 show was mediocre (but also saw good things in some of
the works). but it seems to be interpreted through a dense filter.
people are seeing her words as saying "it's great to be dumb and hate
it all." if that's what people see, they rely on those filters too
much.

her speaking style may easily be in reaction to the language of
self-importance that she's just been bombarded with. and as a
result, many must not see what she's saying because they get caught
up in how it's said. but if you don't get anything helpful out of
it, so be it. it's not keeping you from making art. and the more
you make the more they'll need to get used to you. we didn't lose
some state of popularity. maybe this is a different track that will
help in the long run. just press (good or bad) does amazing things.

to insist on art speak as somehow a sign of intelligence is pretty
much eugenics. to only see the packaging and not the content of
what's said is really just another way the arts can be dumbed down.
she actually might be undoing some damage from previous art speakers.
to learn from a variety of conflicting voices and methods is just
common sense. people who agree too much, subscribe to one point of
view, are (like the Bush clan) just not using evolution to improve.
they are either deciding (like nazis) what is best, or letting
changes be just random. (a concept in self-organizing systems) boxer
is finally a real person among thousands of self-important
authorities.

but what can we do to have the same effect were striving for?

show how computer art fits in to what people are already interested
in. they don't develop interest spontaneously. right now there's no
such thing for many as GREAT computer art, just like it'd never occur
to them they could be looking at an example of GREAT shoe tying.
we're not fighting a 0 rating, it's a null, rating still doesn't
apply. people keep fighting this criteria of GREATness. but so far
nothing in computers has much to do with what people already consider
potentially GREAT. the more art shows are neither about computer art
(self-destructive) or banish it entirely (doomed), the more the
average visitor (at a gallery or theater) will actually see an
example or two. no one person can do it, it takes all of us.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101


> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.

there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to
differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make
creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity
thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is
unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush,
and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but
distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to
buy it.

in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone
(especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by
just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by
theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge
in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true
but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make
something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.

how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans
determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using
pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years
ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your
point with production.

How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as
something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still
not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor
either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not
going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make
a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the damn market if you
have to, but make your point with production.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101


> They suggest that it doesn't warrant the same treatment as other art.

there's really no reason for us to adhere to their ignorance and to
differentiate between this and other arts. we use computers to make
creative stuff. some artists use tap shoes. there's no validity
thinking that painting with code or having a running CPU on stage is
unique. we've all seen painters document their dance with a brush,
and dance performances that make a painting on stage. but
distinguishing them must have some nostalgic hold. we don't have to
buy it.

in the mean time, you can prove pretty clearly to everyone
(especially yourself) that computer art is extremely applicable by
just plain doing more of it. so much, it can't be ignored. not by
theorizing that people shouldn't not (why the double negative?) judge
in such-n-such a way. whatever's distracting everyone may be true
but isn't ultimately helpful to dwell on. drop it and make
something. public attention is drawn to a buzz of activity.

how many professional stage shows feature interactivity (shenanigans
determined by a running processor monitoring live events, not using
pre-determined or recordings)? not many more than there were 5 years
ago. we're not exactly being impressively prolific here. make your
point with production.

How many big shows feature interactive art right with (not as
something separate from) traditional work? getting there. but still
not enough to wield much weight. you have to account for the visitor
either predisposed to try this one along with hundreds a year or not
going to choose it to be among the 5 a year. either way, we can make
a much bigger impact than under 1%. flood the danm market if you
have to, but make your point with production.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: NYT review


>> >hmmmmmmmmmm
>> >
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/arts/design/28rhiz.html?
>> >
>> >Please discuss...
>>
>> cool article. makes great points.
>
>I am surprised to see ... critique

try not to take this art thing too seriously. If you like making web
art, nobody's stopping you.

If you want others to like engaging in it, stop whining when it at
least get a little attention. most of em won't even give that much,
so just listen to them. we can be humble for ten minutes and learn.
everybody is an expert, no need to prove you are or they aren't.
assume they know something you don't (because they actually do).
they have something to offer, but often you have to figure out how to
get it.

It can be great to finally hear a critic/reporter/reviewer who can
say "cut the bullshit." is any critique perfect? especially not
when it's saying what we don't want to hear. just listen, cull what
you can and let go of these blame assessment binges (both hers and
ours). there's no right/wrong unless you choose to take it that way.
whereas boxer is offering some clues as to what grabs her interest,
what doesn't and most importantly what bugs her. that's all there is
to it.

ja:
The more interesting challenge for rhizome and the curators would be to
create interfaces into the rhizome database which are intriguing and allow
an experience in the gallery that is as good or better than selecting 40
particular works.

jim, good point/idea.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA 10025

(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org