ARTBASE (1)
BIO
The Harry Potter of the Digital Avant Garde." - Pieter van Bogaert, of the Belgian Newspaper "TIJD", 09/03/02.
Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Dear Internet,
I was making net.art in the mid 90's. At the same time, there was a record label coming out of Olympia, Washington, called K Records. The idea of the internet and the idea of K Records will always be lodged together in my brain: a label consisting
of guys hanging out in a basement, putting out records that were half punk, half indie rock, printing the records in another room in the basement, and distro'ing it themselves. The label spawned some semi-major bands, but also bands that never went
anywhere, in terms of coverage in Rolling Stone. I doubt that K is in any music encylopedia, but it's spawned homemade documentaries...
I've always thought of net.art as more of a "scene" than an industry. In music scenes, you find the people who are naturally enthusiastic about your work, and you build a structure to support that work, together. If the industry wants some of that
action, it comes and absorbs you. But if not, you just exist, making what you're making for the people who are into it. (furtherfield seems to get this).
In net.art, "the scene is dead, man!" Few people ever seemed to nurture this; they wanted someone else to construct a scene and place them into the mold. (For "they", think of anyone who has ever started, contributed to, or actively read a rhizome
thread about why galleries just don't care). In music-scene terms, Net art's been selling out since it was invented. And it's baffling, because it is the art scene that is the least dependant on institutional support to thrive.
Point is: In a DIY culture, where you can do whatever you want, who gives a damn whose list you're on? If it doesn't sound like rock and roll, you're not gonna be a rock star. So what? I'm bored of rock and roll. And I'm bored with rock stars.
Except for Jodi.
Godspeed,
-er.
marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 7:51 AM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Eric & all,
>
> >Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
>innovative work but they never are.
>
>I would have to disagree here, I think that there are some innovative
>works by some interesting groups/artists in this book. I actually admire
>some of the works by some of these people presented in the publication
>but also admire many who are not included.
>
>In my humble opinion, there are a few profound and 'blinkered' items
>that are questionable, in how the book assumes its branding as an
>absolute, think of the title - 'New Media Art'. By naming it in such a
>way, it proposes that, anything outside of the edited, vicinity of the
>book is, not 'new media art'. This migt not even be conscious but, this
>is what it does. Creating an 'all too regular' binary situation of
>'them and us' - 'winners and losers' of history, which is a
>patriarchical and modernist syndrome supported by institutional (and
>capitlaist) default. This is a very common mistake and I find it
>disturbing that such singular 'whole' representations are re-introduced
>far too regularly by, 'supposed' intellegent and critically engaged,
>learned individuals.
>
>The premis of the book puts across the notion that it is seriously
>engaged in declaring to the world, a wholesome set of (supposed) truths,
>beginning from the position of cultural status in respect of the writer
>being a co-founder of Rhizome etc (for example), and of course the use
>of academic cache. Which initself, is not a negative mannerism; yet -
>out of this lazy or prhaps even cynical nuances can prevail, with the
>incorporating, and acceptance of misinterpretions, ignoring the possible
>relational nature of what such a book could be.
>
>*IMPORTANT FACT TO REMEMBER*
>-just because a writer is involved in such an interesting and
>increasingly diverse and contemporary culture, does not mean that they
>are going to be more critical in tbe imaginative sens, and democratic
>their representation of that culture...
>
>If one considers who the writer feels that they are actually writing for
>- one would have to say that it is for themselves first of all (no
>problem), to peers, associates, institutional rhetoric and of course, 'a
>certain history', not artists and related groups, in the larger scheme
>of things. For if it was really about critical exploration of a
>contemporary practise and its various interconnectness, and
>crossing-overs between other cultures and those interesting people
>coming out of that, it would be more open and generous to include less,
>already supported individuals, and focusing more on groups that infuence
>culture on their own terms (such as grass root groups and individuals),
>not just via already regurgitated, historicized protocol. Not just
>because they have successfully managed to conform to a controlling set
>of mechanistic and masculine orientated, regimes and processes - who
>have adapted their behaviour and potentialiaties to the lowest form and
>level of function, 'pissing up the post of insitutionlized territorialism'.
>
>"It is no longer enough to experiment, ponder serendipitously, discover.
>There is a crushing competitive pressure to be first with a formula, a
>method, a product. The first to publish may get a Nobel award; the first
>in the market makes the most gain. We are in the age of the short-cut,
>corporate espionage and falsified results
I was making net.art in the mid 90's. At the same time, there was a record label coming out of Olympia, Washington, called K Records. The idea of the internet and the idea of K Records will always be lodged together in my brain: a label consisting
of guys hanging out in a basement, putting out records that were half punk, half indie rock, printing the records in another room in the basement, and distro'ing it themselves. The label spawned some semi-major bands, but also bands that never went
anywhere, in terms of coverage in Rolling Stone. I doubt that K is in any music encylopedia, but it's spawned homemade documentaries...
I've always thought of net.art as more of a "scene" than an industry. In music scenes, you find the people who are naturally enthusiastic about your work, and you build a structure to support that work, together. If the industry wants some of that
action, it comes and absorbs you. But if not, you just exist, making what you're making for the people who are into it. (furtherfield seems to get this).
In net.art, "the scene is dead, man!" Few people ever seemed to nurture this; they wanted someone else to construct a scene and place them into the mold. (For "they", think of anyone who has ever started, contributed to, or actively read a rhizome
thread about why galleries just don't care). In music-scene terms, Net art's been selling out since it was invented. And it's baffling, because it is the art scene that is the least dependant on institutional support to thrive.
Point is: In a DIY culture, where you can do whatever you want, who gives a damn whose list you're on? If it doesn't sound like rock and roll, you're not gonna be a rock star. So what? I'm bored of rock and roll. And I'm bored with rock stars.
Except for Jodi.
Godspeed,
-er.
marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 7:51 AM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Eric & all,
>
> >Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
>innovative work but they never are.
>
>I would have to disagree here, I think that there are some innovative
>works by some interesting groups/artists in this book. I actually admire
>some of the works by some of these people presented in the publication
>but also admire many who are not included.
>
>In my humble opinion, there are a few profound and 'blinkered' items
>that are questionable, in how the book assumes its branding as an
>absolute, think of the title - 'New Media Art'. By naming it in such a
>way, it proposes that, anything outside of the edited, vicinity of the
>book is, not 'new media art'. This migt not even be conscious but, this
>is what it does. Creating an 'all too regular' binary situation of
>'them and us' - 'winners and losers' of history, which is a
>patriarchical and modernist syndrome supported by institutional (and
>capitlaist) default. This is a very common mistake and I find it
>disturbing that such singular 'whole' representations are re-introduced
>far too regularly by, 'supposed' intellegent and critically engaged,
>learned individuals.
>
>The premis of the book puts across the notion that it is seriously
>engaged in declaring to the world, a wholesome set of (supposed) truths,
>beginning from the position of cultural status in respect of the writer
>being a co-founder of Rhizome etc (for example), and of course the use
>of academic cache. Which initself, is not a negative mannerism; yet -
>out of this lazy or prhaps even cynical nuances can prevail, with the
>incorporating, and acceptance of misinterpretions, ignoring the possible
>relational nature of what such a book could be.
>
>*IMPORTANT FACT TO REMEMBER*
>-just because a writer is involved in such an interesting and
>increasingly diverse and contemporary culture, does not mean that they
>are going to be more critical in tbe imaginative sens, and democratic
>their representation of that culture...
>
>If one considers who the writer feels that they are actually writing for
>- one would have to say that it is for themselves first of all (no
>problem), to peers, associates, institutional rhetoric and of course, 'a
>certain history', not artists and related groups, in the larger scheme
>of things. For if it was really about critical exploration of a
>contemporary practise and its various interconnectness, and
>crossing-overs between other cultures and those interesting people
>coming out of that, it would be more open and generous to include less,
>already supported individuals, and focusing more on groups that infuence
>culture on their own terms (such as grass root groups and individuals),
>not just via already regurgitated, historicized protocol. Not just
>because they have successfully managed to conform to a controlling set
>of mechanistic and masculine orientated, regimes and processes - who
>have adapted their behaviour and potentialiaties to the lowest form and
>level of function, 'pissing up the post of insitutionlized territorialism'.
>
>"It is no longer enough to experiment, ponder serendipitously, discover.
>There is a crushing competitive pressure to be first with a formula, a
>method, a product. The first to publish may get a Nobel award; the first
>in the market makes the most gain. We are in the age of the short-cut,
>corporate espionage and falsified results
Re: from a b-grade (indy?) net artist
I haven't read Mark's book. I am sure my name is not in it. I'm not worried. His name isn't in mine.
-er.
-er.
Question...
Perhaps someone onlist is aware of the name of the artists, or the CD, where the composers took polls in several countries to determine what would make "the best" and "the worst" music in each particular country? It was also done with paintings. The
end result was a 28 minute long opera-hip hop mash with children singing commercial jingles over accordion.
Thanks for any help!
-eryk
end result was a 28 minute long opera-hip hop mash with children singing commercial jingles over accordion.
Thanks for any help!
-eryk
Re: New Media Ghetto
I feel like "computer based contemporary art" is a synonym for new media. So if he's succesful perhaps in a few years he will attempt to bring some new thing out of the computer based contemporary art ghetto. But it all comes down to figuring out
new ways of getting paid, from what I can tell? (Not Heath especially, just anyone who talks about getting out of an "art ghetto"- so do it, already!).
What they call it never really matters, no one's getting paid anyway. All this talk about ghettos seems like it might be a distraction from investing oneself into making good work in a self-defined sort of way. Good for Heath, if that's what he
wants to do for all of us. I'm not particularly exhausted with gratitude, however, nor am I holding my breath for the Ghetto to dissolve. Like the situationists say, "I'll liberate myself, thank you."
-e.
Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 12:51 PM -0500 wrote:
>In todays announcement of Heath Buntings new exhibition, the announcement had an inetersting comment. Has Heath Bunting gone over the wall? Good work! Here's the quote:
>"The project is the result of an ongoing collaboration between
>OVERGADEN Institute of Contemporary Art and Artnode with the
>ambition to bring international computer-based contemporary art to
>Denmark and to get computer-based contemporary art out of the new
>media ghetto."
>Do you feel disenfranchised, marginalized, forgotten?
>
>Eric
>
>+
>-> 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
new ways of getting paid, from what I can tell? (Not Heath especially, just anyone who talks about getting out of an "art ghetto"- so do it, already!).
What they call it never really matters, no one's getting paid anyway. All this talk about ghettos seems like it might be a distraction from investing oneself into making good work in a self-defined sort of way. Good for Heath, if that's what he
wants to do for all of us. I'm not particularly exhausted with gratitude, however, nor am I holding my breath for the Ghetto to dissolve. Like the situationists say, "I'll liberate myself, thank you."
-e.
Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca> on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 12:51 PM -0500 wrote:
>In todays announcement of Heath Buntings new exhibition, the announcement had an inetersting comment. Has Heath Bunting gone over the wall? Good work! Here's the quote:
>"The project is the result of an ongoing collaboration between
>OVERGADEN Institute of Contemporary Art and Artnode with the
>ambition to bring international computer-based contemporary art to
>Denmark and to get computer-based contemporary art out of the new
>media ghetto."
>Do you feel disenfranchised, marginalized, forgotten?
>
>Eric
>
>+
>-> 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