ARTBASE (1)
BIO
born in 1962 in Lier, Belgium.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
Re: Commissions
Amidst dinner preparations the arguments you bring us do not strike me as
particularly pertaining to the discussion, ay, even faulty to the point of
outright invalidness. The beloved initials you seek to invoke aggregate an
individual living under the strong impression that the voting process was
installed with the explicit aim of bringing openness and democracy to the
selection process.
Instead you seem to advocate a stronger directive impuls coming from the
subsidized and delegated organisers, under the guise of educational
purposes. There are and will always be ofcourse some folk in need of better
education but i do not see that as a primary aim of a commissions program.
Next you further seem to specify the educational part should be directed at
making the aspiring worker
a master of copywriting. I do believe there are some valuable artistic
impulses coming from the world of advertisement. Yet, thinking of the rice
that is about to burn, i do wonder wether we are talking about the same
processes here.
Nay, 't will have to wait, that's for sure, or we'll eat out tonight.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens T.Whid
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 april 2006 16:46
> Aan: rhizome
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
>
> I don't agree with dv here.
>
> As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the
> process (I think I went through about 20), it would be a much
> more enjoyable process to review a smaller amount of
> higher-quality proposals.
>
> Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best
> 25% of the proposals and then the community could choose half
> and the jury could choose half. It might be nice because
> Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller amount of applicants
> to have them write more informative and concise descriptions,
> provide images, etc.
>
> My main problem with the proposals is that the first
> paragraph in most cases does a horrendous job of describing
> the project. If you want to get a grant (esp. with the Rhiz
> process) you need to write one graf that describes your
> project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06, dv@vilt.net <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through
> proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> -----Original message-----
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >>> subscribe.rhiz
> > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <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/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >>> 29.php
> > >>>
> > >> +
> > >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >> subscribe.rhiz
> > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <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/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >> 29.php
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pall Thayer
> > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
particularly pertaining to the discussion, ay, even faulty to the point of
outright invalidness. The beloved initials you seek to invoke aggregate an
individual living under the strong impression that the voting process was
installed with the explicit aim of bringing openness and democracy to the
selection process.
Instead you seem to advocate a stronger directive impuls coming from the
subsidized and delegated organisers, under the guise of educational
purposes. There are and will always be ofcourse some folk in need of better
education but i do not see that as a primary aim of a commissions program.
Next you further seem to specify the educational part should be directed at
making the aspiring worker
a master of copywriting. I do believe there are some valuable artistic
impulses coming from the world of advertisement. Yet, thinking of the rice
that is about to burn, i do wonder wether we are talking about the same
processes here.
Nay, 't will have to wait, that's for sure, or we'll eat out tonight.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens T.Whid
> Verzonden: woensdag 26 april 2006 16:46
> Aan: rhizome
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
>
> I don't agree with dv here.
>
> As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the
> process (I think I went through about 20), it would be a much
> more enjoyable process to review a smaller amount of
> higher-quality proposals.
>
> Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best
> 25% of the proposals and then the community could choose half
> and the jury could choose half. It might be nice because
> Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller amount of applicants
> to have them write more informative and concise descriptions,
> provide images, etc.
>
> My main problem with the proposals is that the first
> paragraph in most cases does a horrendous job of describing
> the project. If you want to get a grant (esp. with the Rhiz
> process) you need to write one graf that describes your
> project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06, dv@vilt.net <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through
> proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> -----Original message-----
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> > >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >>> subscribe.rhiz
> > >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <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/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >>> 29.php
> > >>>
> > >> +
> > >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> > >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > >> subscribe.rhiz
> > >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> <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/ <http://rhizome.org/info/>
> > >> 29.php
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pall Thayer
> > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>