a posteriori

Yep - I agree!

marc


>People do projects like this all the time without funding or
>recognition. The solution is not to convince institutional artists
>to start working this way. The solution may be to stop looking
>solely to institutional artists.


> Hi Dyske,
>
> Here's a project I did a while back:
> http://www.lab404.com/data/
> And some recent accidental results that arose:
> http://www.lab404.com/misc/obits/
>
> Here's another project that has evolved beyond anything I expected:
> http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/
> and another series of accidental results:
> http://www.playdamage.org/getty/
>
> People do projects like this all the time without funding or
> recognition. The solution is not to convince institutional artists
> to start working this way. The solution may be to stop looking
> solely to institutional artists.
>
> best,
> curt
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> dyske wrote:
>
> It seems apparent to me that the institutions and the communities of art
> now need to foster this type of art–the activities and the products
> that are not art until they turn into art in the process of interaction
> and evolution–a posteriori art, if you will, so that certain projects
> that possess the possibility of becoming a posteriori art can be funded
> or supported. All too often certain projects are shot down,
> self-censored, or criticized, because they do not possess any meaning in
> advance. Rather than rationalizing the legitimacy of art in advance by
> using cultural, political, or metaphysical theories, which breeds
> conservatism, we could do better by judging the potential by our gut
> instincts.
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> 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
>
>