Re: Re: new media art should/can/should entertain...thecharlie thread

Eric,

No, not censuring you. Just saying that my particular argument really isn't
applicable to you if you aren't concerned with your audience - the whole point
of my stance is how to get an audience.

Personally, I don't care about an audience for my own work. Hell, I don't
even call what I do art. But I AM pretty sick of everyone ELSE on the list
bitching and moaning about it, albeit disguised as different discussions. At
the end of the day though,
everyone of them comes back down to the question of "why doesn't NMA have an
audience outside of the NMA community?"

Frankly, I'm baffled as to the continual moan amongst the art world, not
just NMA, as to "why doesn't anyone view art any more?" As the
occasional art viewer, I find it pretty fucking offensive that most artists
want me as an audience…and then turn around and treat me like I'm the enemy
once I'm there. If I wanted to get enemy-status, I'd visit the family at the
holidays, not view a work of art. There's nothing magical or academic or
complex about this argument, which is probably why it resoundingly bounds
off the heads of those that need to hear it most. It's plain old common sense,
something both rare and in general disregard these days.

Take the following:

The Monks are a good band. I like the Monks. Their music tells me (and
pretty much the whole world) to go fuck myself. BUT it is well written and makes
me shake my ass. I therefore become more receptive to them telling me that
people kill themselves for me. I accept and think about their message. Having
done this, I also become more receptive to their more ludicrous and/or
experimental songs, and my mind is opened to new ways of listening to music. I
give their album to my friends. Perhaps I even look up other bands who
influenced/were influenced by The Monks and listen to them, too. Success.

See? Simple.

At any rate, my suggestions on here are to "assist" in addressing this issue
which keeps coming up over and over. I understand that there are problems with
obtaining an audience - particularly the ones you mentioned in your message
below. That said, there are problems with obtaining food in a
forest if you are morally opposed to killing animals. You can perhaps live off
shoots, but it won't be pretty, and you will almost definitely not have enough
strength to undertake the 3 month hike to find civilization again. You die 50
years later, still alone, still sitting in the forest. if your goal is to be a
hermit, you have obtained success. If you goal is to be rescued and interact
with other people, you have failed.
-Alexis



On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 [email protected] wrote:

::>why
::> can't
::> we get an audience?! Waaahhh!
::
::Van Eyck's Marriage of the Arnolfini had an original audience of 2.
::Rothko's Huoston Chappel sees fewer and fewer visitors every year.
::What does audience size have to do with anything?
::If its money you want, and the only way to get it is going to be through a
::largely non-art audience then you will wait6 a long time. On the other
::hand the museum/public gallery market has potential for income generation.
::But you will then have to deal with Academic circles which determine your
::income level. This Academic community has grown enormousely over the past
::30 yrs, thanks in part to a changing social climate, and wealth that
::didn't exist before. There must be a network of curators/critics that you
::can appeal to for funding/ audience. As for a model similar to Van Eyck's,
::thats tougher but still doable, George Soros is an example.
::> doing and feel free to ignore most of what I say - it has no application
::> to you.
::
::Well, so I'm censured then? no problem.
::
::+
::-> 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
::

One of the comments made by Charlie and we've seen this elsewhere on the
list is that New Media exists in some kind of Ghetto.
Searching Amazon returns 1423 books on "new media art" in the topic area
of "Arts and Photography".
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_kk_3/104-8222300-8632728?ie=UTF8&search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=new%20media%20art
I'm guessing it would be easier to get a book published about New Media
than it would about Painting or Drawing.
The MIT press currently lists 86 books in the New Media category, so I
guess the serious critical/academic ambivalence Charlie mentioned is a
myth as well.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidG&pcid=2

There are only 28 books in the MIT catalog about Sculpture:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidP&pcid=2
So where is the New Media wasteland everyone is refering to?
It's a myth as well, but it makes great press.
Eric

Yeah, because MIT publishing academic treatises on technology is not
the usual audience publishing to the usual audience. Come on now, I hope you
can do better than that. My ears might have perked up if you'd mentioned fi5e
or someone else getting the message to points beyond.
-Alexis


On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 [email protected] wrote:

::One of the comments made by Charlie and we've seen this elsewhere on the
::list is that New Media exists in some kind of Ghetto.
::Searching Amazon returns 1423 books on "new media art" in the topic area
::of "Arts and Photography".
::http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_kk_3/104-8222300-8632728?ie=UTF8&search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=new%20media%20art
::I'm guessing it would be easier to get a book published about New Media
::than it would about Painting or Drawing.
::The MIT press currently lists 86 books in the New Media category, so I
::guess the serious critical/academic ambivalence Charlie mentioned is a
::myth as well.
::http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidG&pcid=2
::
::There are only 28 books in the MIT catalog about Sculpture:
::http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidP&pcid=2
::So where is the New Media wasteland everyone is refering to?
::It's a myth as well, but it makes great press.
::Eric
::

Well Alexis, where are points beyond?
Where is this public you talk about?
Do you believe the general public needs, sees, requires the traditional art forms of painting sculpture etc.?
Get on a subway with a reproduction of let's say a Kapoor sculpture. Hell, even a one of John's Flags, and find out how many recognize the artist or even know what it is.
Please, c'mon, which world is this you are talking about?


Alexis Turner wrote:

> Yeah, because MIT publishing academic treatises on technology is not
> the usual audience publishing to the usual audience. Come on now, I
> hope you
> can do better than that. My ears might have perked up if you'd
> mentioned fi5e
> or someone else getting the message to points beyond.
> -Alexis
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 [email protected] wrote:
>
> ::One of the comments made by Charlie and we've seen this elsewhere on
> the
> ::list is that New Media exists in some kind of Ghetto.
> ::Searching Amazon returns 1423 books on "new media art" in the topic
> area
> ::of "Arts and Photography".
> ::http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_kk_3/104-8222300-8632728?ie=UTF8&search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=new%20media%20art
> ::I'm guessing it would be easier to get a book published about New
> Media
> ::than it would about Painting or Drawing.
> ::The MIT press currently lists 86 books in the New Media category, so
> I
> ::guess the serious critical/academic ambivalence Charlie mentioned is
> a
> ::myth as well.
> ::http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidG&pcid=2
> ::
> ::There are only 28 books in the MIT catalog about Sculpture:
> ::http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/browse/default.asp?cidP&pcid=2
> ::So where is the New Media wasteland everyone is refering to?
> ::It's a myth as well, but it makes great press.
> ::Eric
> ::

::Well Alexis, where are points beyond?
Um. Outside of the new media community. As crytpic and postmodern as my
arguments usually are, I would hope at least this one point would have come
through?

::Where is this public you talk about?
Playing Google Earth at their desks. Definitely not looking at art.

::Do you believe the general public needs, sees, requires the traditional art forms of painting sculpture etc.?
Yes, no, and that depends on if you mean require for themselves or require to
function (because the answer is no and yes, respectively).

::Get on a subway with a reproduction of let's say a Kapoor sculpture. Hell, even a one of John's Flags, and find out how many recognize the artist or even know what it is.
::Please, c'mon, which world is this you are talking about?
This is EXACTLY the world I am talking about. My point is that artists'
eltist, condescending, protectionist attitude has created the exact situation
you just described. As long as artists insulate themselves from the world,
they likewise insulate the world from their art. Congratulations. It's a
shitty view from up here.
-Alexis

> ::Well Alexis, where are points beyond?
> Um. Outside of the new media community. As crytpic and postmodern as my
> arguments usually are, I would hope at least this one point would have
> come
> through?
>
> ::Where is this public you talk about?
> Playing Google Earth at their desks. Definitely not looking at art.
>
> ::Do you believe the general public needs, sees, requires the traditional
> art forms of painting sculpture etc.?
> Yes, no, and that depends on if you mean require for themselves or require
> to
> function (because the answer is no and yes, respectively).
>
> ::Get on a subway with a reproduction of let's say a Kapoor sculpture.
> Hell, even a one of John's Flags, and find out how many recognize the
> artist or even know what it is.
> ::Please, c'mon, which world is this you are talking about?
> This is EXACTLY the world I am talking about. My point is that artists'
> eltist, condescending, protectionist attitude has created the exact
> situation
> you just described. As long as artists insulate themselves from the
> world,
> they likewise insulate the world from their art. Congratulations. It's a
> shitty view from up here.
> -Alexis
>
>
>

Well ya know, you could always become a Pop Star?
Adulation, big crowds, lots of attention, cash, novelty, fashion. That
would improve your view, at least for a little while.
Eric