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

it's YOUR art!


check it out!

Who's the Biggest Spazz?
download the spazz watcher, spazz out for a camera, and pics/high
score is uploaded.
http://plasmastudii.org/arch/spazz/spazz.html

Evaporating Haiku
write a haiku for everyone to watch float to heaven.
http://plasmastudii.org/arch/haiku/haiku.html

Epidemiolgy
revised for interactivity. watch evolution, the competition for
survival, the dynamic landscape of infections.
http://plasmastudii.org/arch/epidemiology/epidemiology.html

it's YOUR art! make a web page, upload your art and go to the Plasma
site to add it. from there everyone can rank it (effects position
and visibility).

just added the ability for anyone to edit submissions (so if you
abuse it, anyone can fix it), and a thing that generates read-able
copies of the current server scripts for you. Plasma Studii is YOUR
site now. left a few pieces (including those above) uploaded, just
so it isn't empty. they'll gradually get replaced. add whatever you
want for people to come see, a gallery with an open door and free
walls. No membership, passwords or required fields. No ownership,
censorship, propriety. just what makes the web cool.

~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDii
501(c)(3) non-profit
stages * galleries * web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025
http://plasmastudii.org

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.


graffiti is a great example. one way around the presentation biases
is to completely alter the context. in graffiti, the wall doesn't
have the same context as the portfolio. an impressive (usually
expensive looking) portfolio gets attention and the work inside gets
a free ride. an ugly portfolio just doesn't. ideally everyone would
appreciate inner beauty too, but that's not the real world. in the
real world, not everyone is so enlightened. and everyone contributes
to or diminishes from your (outward) "success".

inner success needs no portfolio at all, fancy or makeshift. and
those artists who've achieved it need not show their work to anyone,
subscribe to listservs of other artists, or even mention the word
"art". the rest of us have to deal with the real human race. and
humans just don't always behave ideally. (particularly when pack
mentality takes over, when they see themselves as part of a
(conceptual) grouping.)

but more and more even the new context is unexpectedly replaced.
part of what makes graffiti more interesting is that it keeps showing
up in unexpected places. there's something written on the inner
doors of our elevator. the sides of overpasses. how the hell did
they get there?

computer art examples are horrible only because the hardware costs,
software costs and hourly rate would add up to a fortune. but the
same principal applies. web art that looks like a professional job,
gets more interest than a sloppy looking page. i personally disagree
with the popular aesthetics of web art, the look that says
"professional". looks really ugly to me. but it still influences us
all subconsciously. some just make an effort to decide too over-ride
that.

there's also a good book about why good looking things are more
useful. "The Design of Everyday Things" (or maybe it was the one
Donald Norman wrote before that one? probably both though). cost
dosn't equal quality. but money + skill gets you a good result
almost every time while a lack of money + eagerness will almost never
help.

about the holocaust survivors (another post). art saved some, not
all certainly. the Frankl book is interesting. he was one too and
says it's when people have something to strive for, can see light at
the end of the tunnel. no matter how bad the tunnel stinks. if you
have a goal, you can see past and survive most anything. making art
can be your goal. but not everyone is going to agree it's worth
living through a concentration camp for. many did it for family.
everyone wants to have artistic ideas worth that much to them.

but that's putting the cart before the horse. just enjoy, be glad
your not in a concentration camp, and in life, be open to feeling
everything can be important to you. you can't artificially generate
importance any more than you can convince a cat to let you keep
petting it. it will decide on it's own, don't drive yourself crazy
trying to will these things. if art is important (to us) or not,
it's not at all related to enjoying the particular processes, not our
concern.

On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:45 AM, Zev Robinson wrote:

>
>> The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
>> And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
>
> I have to disagree very stongly with you on this Eric. all sorts of
> art can be presented, made and displayed without it being very
> expensive, nor does it lose its appeal (at least not to me).
> graffitti art, web art, new media, video art, photography, public
> interventions, all can be done, not without any expense, but
> without it being prohibitively expensive. You just have to see art
> as something that exists beyond the art world and its mythologies
> (as well as with in it, too).
>
> Zev
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.


kinda agree. evolution favors presentation above any other quality
you might consider "quality". and presentation gets expensive. it's
too discouraging to go into though.

hence, the anarchy thing. can't wait til the whole system
collapses. and odds of that look great. already most of the soho
gallery scene has gone under. it's just a matter of time.

On Dec 31, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> Plasma Studii wrote:
>
>> so clarify for me, i'm not getting you. "Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff
>>
>> Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major
>> financial backing." ... "who remembers the works of "privelged
>> artists" from years gone by". or like michaelangelo (from earlier in
>>
>> this thread)?
> well, these are "expensive works" made by expensive artists.
> They have a sheen that only money can buy, and the artistic merit
> is a second thought, I'm sure. How much would it cost to make one
> of these artists work.
> Could you do it on a teachers salary? answer... no.
> You might have to be at leats a lwyer or investment counsellor.
> A dentist or doctor would do.
> The point is, the presentation is a very,very expensive affair.
> And the idea loses its appeal without the expensive presentation.
> Could you afford the expense of creating works the way these 2
> artists do?
> If so, then hey, could you lend me a few?
>> am not sure what you mean by "relevant" either though.
>>
>> doubt i have an IQ of 10, much less 110. can i still make art?
> no..., probably not
> well you had to ask.
> Eric
>
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Fwd: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.


so clarify for me, i'm not getting you. "Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff
Wall, and any number of avant avant avant gardists who have major
financial backing." ... "who remembers the works of "privelged
artists" from years gone by". or like michaelangelo (from earlier in
this thread)?

i do tend to agree with a lot of this though. had an art teacher
years ago who tried to emphasize how difficult it is to be wildly
imaginative for a few hours and then switch on cue and be practical
at a job. it's probably possible to do it, but bet a lot of folks
find it hard. particularly if they come home from a job too beat to
shlep over to the studio after they eat, visit with the kids, etc.
bet a lot of artists and their work gets lost/forgotten that way.

am not sure what you mean by "relevant" either though.

doubt i have an IQ of 10, much less 110. can i still make art?

> I don't think being a devout anarchist is necessary here.
> Anyone with money can produce "important" works.
> Think of Damien Hirst, Jeff Wall, and any number of avant avant
> avant gardists who have major financial backing. Isn't being an
> avant gardist by nature an economic filter?
> To be one, for any extended period of time requires major economic
> commitment. I almost admire Eric Fischl, he had to sell actual
> paintings! What a scam that must be.
>
> But making art needn't be a luxury.
> Anyone with an IQ over 110 can work out a method that can contain
> the pressues of the market, yet still manage to produce relevant
> works (at least to themselves).
> Think of poor Ponge, one poem a day (during the 1/2 hour between
> work and sleep)
> If it needs to made, it will be.
> It's not fair, but who remembers the works of "privelged artists"
> from years gone by. They are usually relegated to the aftermarket
> of ideas.
>
>>>> Being an artist isn't something
>>>> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
>>>> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills
>
> Yes it is.
> And there are too many examples of great art made part time.
> I doubt that Ponge, Irwin, Brainard, Cornell, Artschwager etc. and
> a host of others ever thought that devoting all their energy really
> made the art better.
> Sometimes the best works are made in 5 minutes after the fact( or
> act).
>
> The Art world is a business, that has very little to do with Art.
> Always was, always will be that way.
> Sell your art investments now, before everyone else forgets about
> them.
> And good luck.
> A Knowledge based telepresence will out them all...., I promise.
> Eric
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: not so sad, Re: The sadness of the dream of Pixar.


check yer dates. WS and WCW weren't living in today's economy.

though most art can be made as cheaply as you want (particularly
poetry, but not computer art), it's the time that gets expensive.
but most artists aren't too resourceful and will spend a fortune on
their "careers", materials, presentations, marketing, etc. whereas a
mediocre doctor, with his head elsewhere, just is not going to
compete. nowadays, to make a living requires focusing, and except in
super rare cases, art is not making anyone a living. teaching art
isn't making art. and an artist is only a person making art. great
to get teaching gigs, but during those hours, for all practical
purposes, you aren't an artist.

i don't mean to be discouraging. but obviously, the system favors
art by kids who's parents support them. those same parents probably
keep institutions like the MoMA and art schools afloat. it isn't the
artists. it's a messed up system. i'd personally love to see it
collapse, but i'm a devout anarchist. when the kids can start
supporting the institutions, it's because they discarded putting all
their effort into art.

the only folks who can make art are the ones with idle cash. folks
who don't have to do double shifts pumping gas just to pay rent on a
slum apartment. art is a luxury akin to crossword puzzles. it's a
nice way to waste time if you have spare time to waste. not many
do. we're lucky to have discovered and managed to squeeze into
loopholes. it's important not to loose sight of that. most of us
will be squeezed right back out and it's something we all have to
face daily.

when an artist becomes too hungry, they do lousy work. play time's
over.

On Dec 28, 2005, at 1:29 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

>
>> Being an artist isn't something
>> that you do "on [your] own time". It's a full-time job. It's not a
>> hobby. Sometimes artists need a job on the side to pay the bills but
>> being an artist takes a lot of devotion. Devotion that you're not
>> going to muster if you're working a pion 8 am to 10 pm job at Pixar.
>> Sure, if that's what you want, go for it. But don't fool yourself
>> into thinking that you're going to be able to have a meaningful art
>> practice on the side.
>>
>> Pall
>
> Some arts are not this way. Wallace Stevens (poet) was an insurance
> executive. William Carlos Williams (poet) was a doctor, though not
> a very
> good one, I gather. He wrote poems between patients. Geez I can't
> read this
> prescription. What does it say? "A poem is a machine made out of
> words"???
> Can someone help me with this??
>
> But with the sort of work some of us do, yeah, it's more time
> consuming and
> demanding of different types of full concentration than some other job
> permits.
>
> You may have heard this one only with a different name and
> situation, I'm
> thinking:
>
> So Margaret Atwood is at some cocktail party talking with a brain
> surgeon.
> He tells her that he loves writing and plans to become a novelist
> when he
> retires. "Isn't that funny," she replies, "I plan to become a brain
> surgeon
> when I retire."
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>