gift economy money open system Isolated physical system picture thinkin=
g hierarchy of needs reversible processes potlatch Nikola Tesla, Overview o=
f Bataille La part maudite, 1949 (The Accursed Share)Nikola Tesla Museum a=
ccursed share homogeneity's need for deviance HomeostasisReflective equilib=
rium Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (pt.1) schizoanalysis Open=
source chaos theory.
rhizomes What is Property?, mycorrhizal nanotechnology equilibrium wireles=
s communication Maribor, blood bank "sharing" http://my.execpc.com/~teba/ma=
in.html
Sunday, August 07, 2005 9:46 PM
RHIZOME_RAW: HOWTO Writeup
In the second half of 2004 I began exchanging emails with a pair of
artists called MANIK (MArija Vauda & NIKola Pilipovic). We had met on
the New-York-based Rhizome mailing list. I live in Peterborough in
England. Manik live in Belgrade in Serbia (formerly Yugoslavia). The
Internet dissolved that distance, allowing us to discuss art,
aesthetics, and occasionally old television comedy programs.
Early in 2005 MANIK suggested that I have a show of my work in
Belgrade, and began working to find a suitable gallery. The gallery
that eventually agreed to show my work, O3one, specialises in new
media art, and had exactly the kind of space and technology that I
needed. With the show confirmed for the end of July, The British
Council agreed to pay for me to travel to Belgrade.
In Belgrade I stayed with MANIK (who were the perfect hosts) for a
week to set up the show, attend the private view and give a talk.
Setting up the show went quickly and smoothly, although I had to do
some last minute hacking to ensure the software part of the show
would run well unattended.
The work I showed was:
Canto - http://www.robmyers.org/art/canto
1969 - http://www.robmyers.org/art/1969
draw-something - http://rob-art.sourceforge.net/
paintr - http://paintr.robmyers.org/
At the private view people liked the work and some had interesting
questions. The talk two days later - about my work, free software and
free culture - also went well. I chatted to a couple of other artists
before and after.
One thing I wasn't prepared for was giving interviews to radio and
television (a music TV channel called Metropolis, and a national TV
arts program). That and the heat of Belgrade's summer were the only
two real surprises I had.
Whilst in Belgrade I had enough time to see MANIK's work and talk art
with them in real life, to see some of the city, to visit some of
MANIK's artist friends, and to look around some of the city's
galleries and museums. Like Jack White I had to see the Nikola Tesla
Museum.
This experience has confirmed my belief in the potential of
collaboration over the internet, and driven home the importance of
real world, international, collaboration between artists.
Show photos - http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2005/08/02/rob-myers-
howto-images/
My web site - http://www.robmyers.org/
MANIK's weblog - http://tiija.blogspot.com/
O3one - http://www.o3.co.yu/
Rhizome - http://www.rhizome.org/
British Council http://www.britishcouncil.org/
Remix Reading - http://www.remixreading.org/
Creative Commons - http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5509
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:16 AM
RHIZOME_RAW: ROB MYERS-EXHIBITION
(please scroll down for the English version)
Rob Majers u galeriji o3one od 27. jula do 8 avgusta 2005. (Andricev venac =
12, Beograd)
Otvaranje 27. jula u 8 uvece.
Javno predavanje 29. jula u 8 uvece).
Rob Majers pripada pokretima za slobodni softver i slobodnu kulturu. On ne=
posredno nadogradjuje rad drugih i svoj rad slobodno pruza drugima za dalje=
nadogradjivanje. Sav njegov umetnicki rad na ponudi je pod licencom Creati=
ve Commons, a softver koji radi dostupan je pod GNU General Public License.
"paintr" ("slikr" u slobodnom prevodu), koji se po prvi put demonstrira u o=
3one, je program koji koristi boje i fotografije sa interneta da bi kreirao=
apstraktnu umenost za slobodnu upotrebu od strane drugih umetnika i obicni=
h ljudi. "draw-something" ("nacrtaj-nesto", u slobodnom prevodu) takodje kr=
eira originalnu umetnost, i to putem koriscenja veoma jednostavnih pravila =
u svrhu razumevanja kako umetnici crtaju.
Robov softver prokazuje takodje nacin na koji on stvara elektronske slike k=
oje takodje izlaze. Izvori tako razliciti kao sto je to umetnost visokog mo=
dernizma, simulacije nuklearnog rata, posteri za koncerte i smajliji sa int=
erneta remiksovani su da bi stvorili slike sveta oko nas i skrivenih odnosa=
u njegovom okrilju.
Linkovi:
http://www.o3.co.yu/ (O3one galerija)
http://www.robmyers.org/art - umetnost ovog autora, Creative Commons Licen=
sed.
http://www.robmyers.orgt/weblog - Free Culture i Generative Art blog
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5509
Podrzao British Council
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rob Myers at gallery o3one, 27th July 2005 - 8th August 2005.(Andricev vena=
c 12,Belgrade)
Opening on 27th of July at 8PM
Public lecture on 29th of July at 8PM
Rob Myers is part of the Free Culture and Free Software movements. His work=
builds directly on the work of others and is freely available for others t=
o build on in turn. All his art is available under a Creative Commons licen=
se, and all his software is available under the GNU General Public License.
"paintr", shown for the first time at o3one, is a program that uses colours=
and photographs from the Internet to create abstract art that is free for =
other, human, artists to use. "draw-something" also creates original art, b=
ut it does so according to simple rules as part of an attempt to understand=
how artists draw.
Rob's software mirrors the way he makes the electronic images that he is al=
so exhibiting. Sources as diverse as high modernist art, nuclear war simula=
tions, concert posters and internet "smileys" are remixed to create images =
of the world around us and the hidden relationships within it.
LInks:
http://www.o3.co.yu/ - o3one galerija
http://www.robmyers.org/art - All my art, Creative Commons Licensed.
http://www.robmyers.orgt/weblog - Free Culture and Generative Art blog
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5509
Supported by the British Council
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Friday, June 17, 2005 6:05 AM
RHIZOME_RAW: WITH THE NAKED EYE-Interview with Rob Myers
by MANIK
1.The highly developed products of software, net. or web art require a tran=
sparent (free) infrastructure and free access to source (code). Your work i=
s connected with Creative Commons, Free Software, Free Culture.
Yes. I was using other people's work in my own from when I first started se=
riously making art. When I was at college I asked other people If I could p=
hotograph their work to scan in to the computer, and I took photographs at =
galleries (when you were still allowed to do that in London!). And when I d=
id programming later we were given lots of code and we all looked at each o=
thers code.
Free Software/Free Culture is a way of reclaiming that way of working, of p=
rotecting and extending it.
How do you feel as an Individual, (after your experience in the collective =
project SoDa),
SoDA was a group of people who'd been at college together taking what we'd =
learnt out into the worlds of business and art. In 1996 at the height of th=
e Internet boom those worlds seemed like they were very close, or that they=
could be.
I didn't like working on catalogues or websites with other people, with a c=
lient and a deadline.
about working in groups, institutions? Differences? Advantages? Difficultie=
s?
Possibly I'm just antisocial but I like the way that the Internet and 'copy=
left' licenses allow you to build on other people's work without having to =
have more than one ego in the room. I like being able to use what other peo=
ple have made, culture is my nature. I'd hate to work on a project like Art=
& Language's early Indices, they had such bad internal politics. I'd rathe=
r share and participate in a public culture than get caught up in the probl=
ems of a private project.
But perhaps that just comes from feeling such an outsider and feeling so sh=
y and awkward as a child.
"Net" art supposed the presence of many (virtual) people. You said that you=
r work's connected with other people's work. But you don't like "more than =
one ego in the room". What is the artist's ego in the epoch of new technolo=
gies?
I suppose the danger of the artist's ego now is what programmers call "not =
invented here syndrome", resisting 'standing on the shoulders of giants'. F=
or example people always want to write their own free/open license for thei=
r work, even though that's a bad idea. And people always want to write thei=
r programs from scratch, even though they could use other people's code. It=
's the same for making images.
The potential of the artist's ego is that individuals' sense of self will d=
rive them to distribute and seek out work globally, which with free licensi=
ng and peer to peer technology means more people can build on each other's =
work than ever before. Imagine a global chain of Picassos and Braques.
Less body, more idea?
In films and television the expression of someone's self is usually through=
their body, how it looks, how they move and the actions they take, rather =
than their words or ideas. This is romanticism. But it is not the case that=
removing the limits of the body removes the negative expression of the ani=
mal self. Without physical limits animal minds tend to engage in flamewars =
on mailing lists…
Could you explain what "ego" represents to you?
I suppose it's arrogance and self-interest, self-defeatingly so. The negati=
ve of the social self, the bit that gets in the way of art being made by tr=
ying to make art. Possibly I mean "id" rather than "ego", but I don't know =
that there's such a clean split, and common usage of "ego" is generally neg=
ative; egomaniac, egotism.
2. Once you mentioned "Photoshop fascism". Could you explain that?
I did??? was probably referring to the use of image processing software (su=
ch as PhotoShop) to make people look more like an impossible, Romantic idea=
l:
like this.
Fascism loves "perfect" bodies. Beautiful bodies are seductive, they can hi=
de ugly ideology. Technology allows most bodies to be made to look "perfect=
", ideal. It is anti-individualistic, it is certainly not democratic. The v=
isual trappings of fascism imposed through technology. Are the ideological =
trappings hiding behind the pretty visuals?
If we use new technology as a weapons (to rebuild ourselves and the whole w=
orld) does that mean that our (supposed) ethic changes the weapon-nature of=
new technology into something good-natured?
It depends how strong the technology and the user are. Or maybe how strong =
their aesthetics are? In Surgical Strike I think I assumed that the technol=
ogy, and the ideology it presupposed, was more powerful. I wouldn't be so d=
efeatist now. As William Gibson said, "the street finds its own uses for th=
ings".
If it does we have a paradox: weapons questionable by the definition…?
Certainly the weapons can be used to attack themselves. And perhaps with ge=
neral purpose machines (computers), the definition of what they are is what=
they are.
3. The aesthetic is kind of your "obsession".
Yes. It's an obsession because I feel I understand it so little but that it=
*must* be what art is about. I don't believe that a truly ugly art can be =
made, an art that is un-aesthetic but still conceptually interesting. All a=
rt "looks good" to someone if it is art.
I don't even know what 'aesthetic' means other than 'looks good'. But why d=
oes something look good? And what does that mean?
What about a "trash aesthetic" It looks like a rhetorical question, but cou=
ld "ugly" things become a branch of aesthetics that you could accept?
My work has always had low cultural or non-artistic inspiration. And I like=
uncool popular music, and films, and television. Including MTV. And I am a=
big fan of Jeff Koons.
I went to London last week, and I saw a work by the graffiti artist "Banksy=
" in a new gallery near Denmark Street. I've never liked pictures of Banksy=
's work, but the real thing was very fresh and funny. It's not that I'm a s=
nob, quite the opposite: I don't like the idea of bourgeois artists making =
authentic low culture inauthentic by appropriating it and doing it on canva=
s like 'proper' art.
I don't know about really embracing a "trash aesthetic". I'll need to think=
about that. I'd be worried about producing an "urban pastoral" (Julian Sta=
llabrass). I'd rather not use low culture as a ventriloquist's dummy for my=
morality or my aesthetic. But maybe it could be liberating.
Aesthetic, ideology and technology in your work?
Every person has an aesthetic, every company or politician or religion does=
. I suppose that 'aesthetic' here means 'style', but 'style' that links to =
ideology. And I also feel there's a deeper sense of 'aesthetic', one that t=
ells us how all these little aesthetics work. Like Chomsky Grammars. Aesthe=
tics is to art as linguistics is to language. Maybe.
Ideologies are aesthetic, they are choices are about how things should look=
. Philosophy is actually a branch of aesthetics, and ideologies are degenra=
te philosophies. ;-)
And technologies are the products of ideologies. In a way they are physical=
ideologies, they are rules about what you can and cannot do. And technolog=
y is aesthetic, very aesthetic, it has to be made to 'look good' to the peo=
ple who use it, not just visually but in its effects, what it does.
The best example of this connection is Surgical Strike, that was about, how=
the history of a technology (computing) that has come from a particular id=
eology (American militarism) may affect attempts to make an aesthetic (comp=
uter art). But 1968 and 1969 are about that as well, and Psychetecture was =
about how architecture serves capital by affecting your perceptions.
4. "Remixing"?
Not all of my work is literally remixing. That's more an early theme I've r=
ecently returned to. It's a theme I'm very glad to return to.
The series that are most obviously remix based are my early Mixes and sampl=
ing based work, Surgical Strike, 1968 and 1969, and Canto.
But my work always uses the ideas and imagery of others. Psychetecture was =
based on the calligrams of Ahmed Mustafah, Titled uses colour diagrams from=
famous twentieth century artists and I've mentioned the designers that inf=
luenced me. The only work I've made that wasn't directly influenced by anyo=
ne else is San Jose, which I regard as my weakest work.
But your works are formally ("they look like") Neo-Modern, Post- Hard-Edge.=
Does that style have a quality of expression that is lacking in more recen=
t work?
When I got to art school there was a Macintosh there for the design student=
s to use. But none of the artists were using it, so I had to look to design=
ers to see how it could be used. The look of much of my work therefore come=
s from British graphic design in the early 1990s, especially design by the =
design groups 'Designers Republic' and 'Me Company'. The look of their work=
was in many ways a result of the availability of the Macintosh and program=
s like Illustrator or Freehand. The Macintosh was the lithographic stone of=
the 1980s/1990s. Think of Toulouse-Lautrec a hundred years earlier.
I have no problem with the idea that my art has been so heavily influenced,=
even determined, by technology. There's more to Lautrec than lithography a=
nd toothbrushes, there's more to the Impressionists than paint in tubes and=
state-sponsored colour theory, there was more to the Renaissance than plas=
ter, perspective and archeology. There's always technology, and there's alw=
ays more than technology.
I believe that much of the traditional role of art has passed into graphic =
design anyway. But some of its content remains left behind. Certainly its m=
ost important content. And that content is not caught by conceptual art, pe=
rformances, or other attempts at making an "expanded image". Not in the way=
I personally wish to catch it. So I have to make images rather than any ne=
wer form of expression.I feel very awkward doing so.
5. Art & Language are your favorite artists. Your latest works are inspired=
by Matisse. Could you explain that?
It was an accident. :-)
Art & Language are interested in the canonical works of Modernism, which me=
ans they have based paintings on work by Picasso, Pollock, Rothko and other=
s. They use these works to analyse their social content through their form.=
So I'd love to be able to say that I read up on Matisse's work then decide=
d to make work that uses the social content of his work to make a serious p=
oint.
What really happened is that I found an image on the Remix Reading website,=
I liked some of the shapes in it, and I wanted to make work that was a rem=
ix. So I used those shapes, without thinking very much about what they mean=
t, just enjoying working hard on the compositions. I think my subconscious =
remembered the Matisse prints that I sit next to in McDonalds with my child=
ren when we go for hamburgers sometimes(!), and that is what guided me.
But I am open to accident and humour (and embarrassment) in my work, so onc=
e I realised that the first work (Canto For Evie) looked like Mattise, I de=
cided to make more work from the same source material. And I had to re-eval=
uate Mattisse, who I didn't like before. I'm now doing some paper cut-outs.
There is a quality my work often has where I don't know if I am being very,=
very serious or very, very silly. I think that quality is present in my be=
st work, and I think it means that the work is doing something that can't b=
e fully described in words. Which is one reason Art & Language give for mak=
ing art rather than doing anything else; if it says something that you can'=
t describe any other way.
6. Connection between theory and praxis? In computer generated art the arti=
st must know so many thing. Isn't that a paradox in a time of narrow specia=
lization?
But art is made for the ruling classes, and the ruling classes are now mana=
gers. Even the politicians are managers. Managers are not specialists, they=
have only general, conceptual skills. And so these are the skills we see a=
rtists using to make art now, to reflect the ego of the manager.
Therefore for an artist to learn a practical skill, like programming, well =
enough to practice it themself is the real paradox. Even although they do s=
o alongside learning about many other things, such as aesthetics, or drawin=
g, or art history. Specific ability in any area, rather than just general, =
conceptual, managerial ability is the paradox.
The Modernist artist was not a modern subject: even when they tried to be b=
oring or ordinary they made this interesting and it took a heroic effort on=
their part to do so.
Your last comment invokes an essential, romantic vision of the artist. Trag=
ic and impractical for contemporary aims. But your activity seems to us lik=
e something quite far from that. How do you live with this opposition?
Hacking is technological Romanticism. I am an art hacker (in the sense of a=
good programmer rather than a computer criminal).
My work is Romantic; emotion projected onto the environment. It's also trag=
ic, it's melancholic and it's dispossessed. But it is a romanticism that fi=
nds its excesses funny, like the best Goths do.
A perky Romanticism. My Smileys are the art Munch would have made if he'd h=
ad access to a Macintosh and a presciption for Prozac. :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
more LInks:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5509
http://www.seecult.org/portal/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&fil=
e=article&sid=10702
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php
http://ptrvc.blogspot.com
FREE MANIFESTA: PROJECTS: LUXURIOUS
www.freewords.org/biennial/artist/vegetable.html
WITH THE NAKED EYE-MANIK/MYERS PROJECT
-
Type: discussion