PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Re: PDPal and the continual nature of digital art
Hi Ryan,
You raised some interesting questions that I don't have good answers to, but
I'll try my best here.
Q: "Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on some
form of rationalized set of desires?"
I would say yes. When a critic can think and see things from the perspective
of the artist, setting aside his/her own slant on things, it is possible for
the critic to make helpful comments for the artist and the audience. This
type of criticism is often expressed in a form of: If A is what the artist
is trying to convey, then B is not effective because of C. So, you use the
logic and the language of the artist to see what is effectively being
achieved and what is not. In this sense, it is more like advice than
criticism. And, it is very different from the form of: A is more significant
because of B, or any other forms of normative criticism that try to measure
art work against a standard.
Q: "Is the problem making the desires conscious, on the "surface" that is
problematic?"
Q: "Is it the stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a
surface level) that is bothersome?"
It doesn't bother me. There are certain things that go beyond our logic. You
can try to explain, but it is often futile and uninteresting.
Q: "Is it because 'socially engaged' art has become institutionalized, or at
least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as 'new media'?
Does this make it seem more conventional, expected?"
I'm not so concerned about specific styles of art becoming
institutionalized. Rather, I'm more concerned about what institutionalizes
them. Social, abstract, emotional, political, conceptual, etc. in themselves
do not have anything inherently prone to institutionalization. The main
culprit of institutionalization, I feel, is the over-use of normative
critical theories.
Q: "Is it the search for the new, the 'art thing' that doesn't look like art
that creates the dissappointment with 'socially engaged' new media art."
Q: "Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic becomes
"conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect to be
recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's no longer
self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take your pick)?"
I would say: Don't expect anything. Appreciate what you appreciate.
Expectation is what sets the standard and promote the normative thinking.
Don't create some sort of idealized vision of what art is. I stated my
reasons for liking PDPal, but the reasons came after the fact, not before. I
wasn't looking for art work that fits those particular reasons. I wasn't
expecting anything. Art criticism should not judge any art work in advance.
No art work is a priori good or bad. All theories come after the fact.
Regarding "pomo" points:
Unfortunately I've never read Brecht, Lukacs, nor Douglas Crimp, so I cannot
respond with any credential on this matter, but my use of the term
"postmodern" was not in a strict sense of the term (as per Lyotard), but as
a roundabout point in time. I meant the critical practices since Clement
Greenberg (I guess he is considered a modernist critic). Many writings of
conceptual artists from the 60's and 70's were normative in their
perspective. In many ways, they used writing to rationalize the value of
their work.
<quote>
socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno called "committed"
art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular ideology, even though he knew
all art represented an ideology. but i do see some cause for concern in the
fetishization of "service" being (unfortunately) played out by many on the
work of artists like Tiravanija. and the old arguments of "community"
exploitation are still valid, but these are socially concerned aesthetics
questions.
</quote>
Or rather that, in the West, something is called "art" because it represents
ideology. It is not what art is, but how it is defined. This is where the
trouble comes in with works like PDPal which is more of a product of
innocent curiosity than that of an ideology (I may be wrong here.). If any
work is a product of curiosity, passion, or sheer fun, we tend not to call
it art. If you build a sand castle because you are curious or simply amused,
you probably would not call it art. But if someone else sees it as art, then
why not? Especially in our postmodern era, this type of purity of passion is
often dismissed and ignored. All artists must begin their work with the
premise that they are making art. This is what I feel is alienating.
<quote>
while i agree with the assertion that too well defined objectives leads to
stale expressions, what does it mean to desire something that's not social?
(i find ambivalence works its way in no matter the intention anyway.) this
seems more a symptom of pomo (as a cultural-economic condition) than
"committed" art. it's also highly utopic - what's not social? raising a
child? surely you didn't mean to define that as asocial. I know Lacan is
dead, but Mary Kelly did have a point (as well as some interesting
ambiguity).
</quote>
I didn't meant to say that non-social art is better. I did not mean to say
that any type of art is better. I would not "desire" something social or
asocial. If it is social then fine, if not, that's fine too. I'm rather
troubled with the perspective that one is better than the other; it does not
matter which one you favor.
Regards,
Dyske
You raised some interesting questions that I don't have good answers to, but
I'll try my best here.
Q: "Is there a form of criticism that is not normative, not based on some
form of rationalized set of desires?"
I would say yes. When a critic can think and see things from the perspective
of the artist, setting aside his/her own slant on things, it is possible for
the critic to make helpful comments for the artist and the audience. This
type of criticism is often expressed in a form of: If A is what the artist
is trying to convey, then B is not effective because of C. So, you use the
logic and the language of the artist to see what is effectively being
achieved and what is not. In this sense, it is more like advice than
criticism. And, it is very different from the form of: A is more significant
because of B, or any other forms of normative criticism that try to measure
art work against a standard.
Q: "Is the problem making the desires conscious, on the "surface" that is
problematic?"
Q: "Is it the stripping of "mystery," the "evocative," (at least on a
surface level) that is bothersome?"
It doesn't bother me. There are certain things that go beyond our logic. You
can try to explain, but it is often futile and uninteresting.
Q: "Is it because 'socially engaged' art has become institutionalized, or at
least more visible, especially in an arena as tight knit as 'new media'?
Does this make it seem more conventional, expected?"
I'm not so concerned about specific styles of art becoming
institutionalized. Rather, I'm more concerned about what institutionalizes
them. Social, abstract, emotional, political, conceptual, etc. in themselves
do not have anything inherently prone to institutionalization. The main
culprit of institutionalization, I feel, is the over-use of normative
critical theories.
Q: "Is it the search for the new, the 'art thing' that doesn't look like art
that creates the dissappointment with 'socially engaged' new media art."
Q: "Isn't this just old-fashioned avant garde-ism? Once an aesthetic becomes
"conventional" (even though it all must be in some respect to be
recognized - if it gets called "Art" in the first place) it's no longer
self-critical, expansive, progressive, pioneering (take your pick)?"
I would say: Don't expect anything. Appreciate what you appreciate.
Expectation is what sets the standard and promote the normative thinking.
Don't create some sort of idealized vision of what art is. I stated my
reasons for liking PDPal, but the reasons came after the fact, not before. I
wasn't looking for art work that fits those particular reasons. I wasn't
expecting anything. Art criticism should not judge any art work in advance.
No art work is a priori good or bad. All theories come after the fact.
Regarding "pomo" points:
Unfortunately I've never read Brecht, Lukacs, nor Douglas Crimp, so I cannot
respond with any credential on this matter, but my use of the term
"postmodern" was not in a strict sense of the term (as per Lyotard), but as
a roundabout point in time. I meant the critical practices since Clement
Greenberg (I guess he is considered a modernist critic). Many writings of
conceptual artists from the 60's and 70's were normative in their
perspective. In many ways, they used writing to rationalize the value of
their work.
<quote>
socially concerned art seems more akin to what adorno called "committed"
art, relegating it's autonomy to a particular ideology, even though he knew
all art represented an ideology. but i do see some cause for concern in the
fetishization of "service" being (unfortunately) played out by many on the
work of artists like Tiravanija. and the old arguments of "community"
exploitation are still valid, but these are socially concerned aesthetics
questions.
</quote>
Or rather that, in the West, something is called "art" because it represents
ideology. It is not what art is, but how it is defined. This is where the
trouble comes in with works like PDPal which is more of a product of
innocent curiosity than that of an ideology (I may be wrong here.). If any
work is a product of curiosity, passion, or sheer fun, we tend not to call
it art. If you build a sand castle because you are curious or simply amused,
you probably would not call it art. But if someone else sees it as art, then
why not? Especially in our postmodern era, this type of purity of passion is
often dismissed and ignored. All artists must begin their work with the
premise that they are making art. This is what I feel is alienating.
<quote>
while i agree with the assertion that too well defined objectives leads to
stale expressions, what does it mean to desire something that's not social?
(i find ambivalence works its way in no matter the intention anyway.) this
seems more a symptom of pomo (as a cultural-economic condition) than
"committed" art. it's also highly utopic - what's not social? raising a
child? surely you didn't mean to define that as asocial. I know Lacan is
dead, but Mary Kelly did have a point (as well as some interesting
ambiguity).
</quote>
I didn't meant to say that non-social art is better. I did not mean to say
that any type of art is better. I would not "desire" something social or
asocial. If it is social then fine, if not, that's fine too. I'm rather
troubled with the perspective that one is better than the other; it does not
matter which one you favor.
Regards,
Dyske
PDPal and the continual nature of digital art
Hi all,
It seems that the primary concern of many net/digital artists is for their
work to have a social meaning. This is understandable given the nature of
the medium which was invented as a social communication tool, however, there
seems to be a tendency in the digital artists' community that perceives art
work that is not social in nature to be less meaningful. I personally see no
reason to establish such a standard. This type of normative critique of art
has been going on for a long time, and I feel that it is the main culprit of
the institutionalization and the commercialization of art.
Please note that I do not mean to state that Jess is against non-social art
work, nor that PDPal is non-social. My observation here was triggered by
their discussion, but is independent of their positions.
I found PDPal to be interesting for the following reasons:
1. It does not ostensively claim or feel like "art" in the traditional sense
of the term. The PDPal team seems to be less concerned about its status as
art than they are about their own fascination with the concept and the
possibilities of the medium. This is an interesting aspect of digital art
where the definition of art becomes secondary to the sheer fascination and
curiosity with the new medium. A variety of people from different fields
tend to get together and collaborate on a project. It often involves people
who would not otherwise have been called "artists." This blurring of artist
and non-artist is an interesting and, I feel, healthy phenomenon.
2. The postmodernism with its over-use of critical theories has stripped
elements of adventure, fun, and innocent curiosity from the process of art
making. It expects art to have specific objectives. Artists tend also to
work with specific objectives in mind. I do not necessarily find this
meaningful. In their effort to be meaningful, everything becomes reducible
to its final objectives, and in that process, it loses much of the
meaningfulness that it would have had naturally.
Digital art is inherently continual. As with the difference between the web
and print, a digital form of expression is temporally intangible and
ephemeral. In many cases, there are no clear ending or finishing of a
project. That is, the notion of "finished" art work does not necessarily
apply to digital art. If it is not finished, then is it unfinished? I would
say no. We need to shift our thinking in terms of art being "finished" or
"unfinished." Digital works of art can be neither finished nor unfinished.
The notion of "finished" is not relevant here. Digital art can organically
grow, evolve, transform, and change, just as we can as humans. To live life
strictly to achieve specific objectives is boring, lifeless, and I would
even say misguided. To live a full life, we must be open-minded and let our
environments and circumstances influence the course of our lives. Digital
art has a potential to reflect this aspect of life, and I believe PDPal team
is doing exactly this. They don't want their work to simply fulfill their
specific objectives; they want to let their art work evolve by accepting
unforeseen influences. Personally I find their lack of clear objectives to
be refreshing. Even if it were not "social", what is wrong with it? It is
like raising a child; let the child take its own natural course, rather than
dictating its life. This is an exciting possibility of digital art.
Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
It seems that the primary concern of many net/digital artists is for their
work to have a social meaning. This is understandable given the nature of
the medium which was invented as a social communication tool, however, there
seems to be a tendency in the digital artists' community that perceives art
work that is not social in nature to be less meaningful. I personally see no
reason to establish such a standard. This type of normative critique of art
has been going on for a long time, and I feel that it is the main culprit of
the institutionalization and the commercialization of art.
Please note that I do not mean to state that Jess is against non-social art
work, nor that PDPal is non-social. My observation here was triggered by
their discussion, but is independent of their positions.
I found PDPal to be interesting for the following reasons:
1. It does not ostensively claim or feel like "art" in the traditional sense
of the term. The PDPal team seems to be less concerned about its status as
art than they are about their own fascination with the concept and the
possibilities of the medium. This is an interesting aspect of digital art
where the definition of art becomes secondary to the sheer fascination and
curiosity with the new medium. A variety of people from different fields
tend to get together and collaborate on a project. It often involves people
who would not otherwise have been called "artists." This blurring of artist
and non-artist is an interesting and, I feel, healthy phenomenon.
2. The postmodernism with its over-use of critical theories has stripped
elements of adventure, fun, and innocent curiosity from the process of art
making. It expects art to have specific objectives. Artists tend also to
work with specific objectives in mind. I do not necessarily find this
meaningful. In their effort to be meaningful, everything becomes reducible
to its final objectives, and in that process, it loses much of the
meaningfulness that it would have had naturally.
Digital art is inherently continual. As with the difference between the web
and print, a digital form of expression is temporally intangible and
ephemeral. In many cases, there are no clear ending or finishing of a
project. That is, the notion of "finished" art work does not necessarily
apply to digital art. If it is not finished, then is it unfinished? I would
say no. We need to shift our thinking in terms of art being "finished" or
"unfinished." Digital works of art can be neither finished nor unfinished.
The notion of "finished" is not relevant here. Digital art can organically
grow, evolve, transform, and change, just as we can as humans. To live life
strictly to achieve specific objectives is boring, lifeless, and I would
even say misguided. To live a full life, we must be open-minded and let our
environments and circumstances influence the course of our lives. Digital
art has a potential to reflect this aspect of life, and I believe PDPal team
is doing exactly this. They don't want their work to simply fulfill their
specific objectives; they want to let their art work evolve by accepting
unforeseen influences. Personally I find their lack of clear objectives to
be refreshing. Even if it were not "social", what is wrong with it? It is
like raising a child; let the child take its own natural course, rather than
dictating its life. This is an exciting possibility of digital art.
Dyske
--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything
Re: the upgrade
Scott,
> didn't simply come up to me an introduce themselves - putting a name to a
> face, you included. What gives? You knew who I was. I often think this
I actually tried to. I was waiting for my turn to say hello, but I was
pressed for time, and I couldn't wait any longer. So, unfortunately I missed
you.
Before your presentation started, I was randomly approaching people to talk
to. I did meet some interesting people.
The more we rely on the Internet, the less we deal with people in real life.
I almost feel like I have to force myself to meet people in real life. It is
sort of like the way we now have to force ourselves to exercise in order to
stay healthy. Our modern life is seen to be convenient and efficient, but in
some ways, as long as we are humans, I feel that there are no shortcuts in
accomplishing something meaningful.
Dyske
> didn't simply come up to me an introduce themselves - putting a name to a
> face, you included. What gives? You knew who I was. I often think this
I actually tried to. I was waiting for my turn to say hello, but I was
pressed for time, and I couldn't wait any longer. So, unfortunately I missed
you.
Before your presentation started, I was randomly approaching people to talk
to. I did meet some interesting people.
The more we rely on the Internet, the less we deal with people in real life.
I almost feel like I have to force myself to meet people in real life. It is
sort of like the way we now have to force ourselves to exercise in order to
stay healthy. Our modern life is seen to be convenient and efficient, but in
some ways, as long as we are humans, I feel that there are no shortcuts in
accomplishing something meaningful.
Dyske
Re: the upgrade
What would be helpful next time is for everyone to wear a "Hello My Name Is"
sticker with their email address on it.
I was there, but I didn't meet anyone from this list.
Dyske
> Here are some photos of last weekend's Upgrade brunch:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/upgrade_brunch/
>
> If you don't know what The Upgrade is, then you can look at this URL
> and find out:
>
> http://www.treasurecrumbs.com/theupgrade/
>
> But, it's 'A monthly gathering of new media artists and curators in New
> York City'
>
> it was fun and there were krispy kreme donuts in effect.
>
> Jess Losseby showed up and it was nice to meet her and her husband.
> --
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
sticker with their email address on it.
I was there, but I didn't meet anyone from this list.
Dyske
> Here are some photos of last weekend's Upgrade brunch:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/upgrade_brunch/
>
> If you don't know what The Upgrade is, then you can look at this URL
> and find out:
>
> http://www.treasurecrumbs.com/theupgrade/
>
> But, it's 'A monthly gathering of new media artists and curators in New
> York City'
>
> it was fun and there were krispy kreme donuts in effect.
>
> Jess Losseby showed up and it was nice to meet her and her husband.
> --
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
Re: Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
<quote>
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
</quote>
Curt,
Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
gonna fly.
Dyske
evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on to the
idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut."
</quote>
Curt,
Forget it. If "punk" is too open, then discussing "art" or "not art" ain't
gonna fly.
Dyske