ARTBASE (3)
BIO
Jess Loseby is a digital artist from the UK whose main medium is the internet. Her work ranges from small and intimate online installationsto large scale digital projections and video. In a relatively brief time, her work has become known internationally such as the ‘cyber-kitchen’ (lead artist and co-curator) and ‘the Digital Pocket’ (lead artist and co-curator), which is currently listed in the Whitney Artport. In August 2003, she became the first virtual artist in residence at Furtherfield.org (FurtherStudio) one of the first virtual artists residencies of its kind. She has exhibited in digital festivals such as the Split Film Festival, Pixxelpoint 2003, FILE 2003 and the Stuttgart Filmwinter. In 2003 she created interactive digital sets for the production of ‘The Dadaists’ at The Met Theater in Hollywood. Also in 2003 she was also awarded a grant from the Daniel Langlois Foundation, with the resulting work 'views from the ground floor...' being currently exhibited internationally.
Thematically, her projects continue her fascination with borderlands and ‘beautiful seams’ between the ubiquitous worlds of computing and the ‘real’ (domestic). A staunch opponent of new media's absorption with VR, her on and offline installations create flows and streams in the relational space of art and technology. Loseby’s unashamedly low-tech approach to new media build comparisons of the network and digitally (in its frustrations, attention to triviality and repetition) as absurdly compatible to the female domestic routine.
Jess Loseby has 3 children, 2 wheels, 1 husband and 0 days off.
Thematically, her projects continue her fascination with borderlands and ‘beautiful seams’ between the ubiquitous worlds of computing and the ‘real’ (domestic). A staunch opponent of new media's absorption with VR, her on and offline installations create flows and streams in the relational space of art and technology. Loseby’s unashamedly low-tech approach to new media build comparisons of the network and digitally (in its frustrations, attention to triviality and repetition) as absurdly compatible to the female domestic routine.
Jess Loseby has 3 children, 2 wheels, 1 husband and 0 days off.
curating the curators
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">thoughts on a tuesday eve with no
coffee in the house...</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm going to write this as I think
it (hey, whats new) but I wanted to put
down my thoughts as I have been reading the posts regarding the
lastest developments at Walker etc and rhizomes continuing struggle.
Eryk's dismissal that rhizome would be around in 2004 set me off.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I was saddened by the Walkers 'downsizing',
I haven't always agreed
with Dietz curatorial decsions but simply the idea of a new media
curator alone is something that is only being realised in a much smaller
and independent capcity here in the UK. The fact this could be seen as
a failed experiment of new media curating by major galleries could be
detrimental outside the US too. I am also frustrated at rhizomes
continual need for change and justify its own existence to maintain
financial support. I have only been here two years so haven't got the
history to morn for the good ol' days<u>,</u>  but as with anything successful
(and I would - despite current areas of frustration class rhizome as a
success) I think a combination of the pressure both financially and to
remain 'new', 'educational' and 'slick' (can you be all three?) has
distracted from 'resource', 'discuss/promote' and 'archive'.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">However, I'm mildly stunned in what
I seem to be reading as the
general surprise of many artists and the american institutions during the
emails of this last week, that somehow, the public have failed to 'get'
new media (net art) and that its percieved failure to thrive (resulting in
the museums last-in-first-out approach or rhizomes struggles for
funding) is as a result of various accusations. These seem to  include
an institutional desire to repackage the net as video or film,  the
technical complexity in exhibiting and archiving new media or the
widespread economic cutbacks restricting 'ambitious' curating etc etc
etc. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">My question is - when does a harsh
examination of the curatorial
decisions of what aspect and how net art and new media has been
exhibited and supported take place? How have the grants been
distributed (in terms of curatorial decisions) and how 'successfull' (in
terms of producing significant works and promoting and advancing new
media as a genre) have selected projects been? If the public have
failed to 'get' net.art/new media, is it a failure of the exhibiting policies of
the museums/organizations in terms of promotion and accessibility
and/or a failure of the works selected themselves to engage and to be
able to exist as rounded artworks outside the texts, the seminars and
the hype....</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">We've been through these conversations
before in one way or another,
from Curts suggestions of limitations on the genre being placed in the
subtexts of critical writings to Marcs essential argument that institutions
need to get in touch with their grass roots or watch their own growing
irrelevancy. What I wonder is how, despite this list, despite all the other
lists we all belong to and despite our own work independently as artists
- is how we get heard.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">As artists, we know why we a practising
on the net or new media
(although these reasons are as eclectic and an various as the
methodologies employed), we know that within these works can be
absorption, playfulness, shock, subversion and unsettling intimacy -
traditional foundations for artworks that both endure and attract. Most of
us on raw are predominantly net based, we have artworks delivered to
our inboxes. The works we create are contextualised by whats around
us or else they are quite literally being created out of them.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> But what about the curators? In their
bid to keep the NEW in new
media, textual combinations seem constrained; unsettling playfulness,
shocking subversion and...what then  ?? Have Bloggers patronisation of
say, E8Z's 'old fashioned themes' or Dietz's self styled curatorial 'filter'
finally literally sieved out what makes net and new media so rounded. I
have never though the net 'needs' the institutions, but without their input
my fear is the kind of sthetic gameplay of Amerika & PS2 will be the
only sources of substantial sponsership and longevity that will remain.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I've just read that Walkers cutbacks
will save $1m per annum. Though
peanuts compared to the overall budget, curatorially that's a pretty
decent sized wallet in which to establish (and bloody hell) <i>at least</i> set
up contingency so the work can be decently and permanently archived.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">have to go, just thinking outloud.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">thoughts on a tuesday eve with no
coffee in the house...</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm going to write this as I think
it (hey, whats new) but I wanted to put
down my thoughts as I have been reading the posts regarding the
lastest developments at Walker etc and rhizomes continuing struggle.
Eryk's dismissal that rhizome would be around in 2004 set me off.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I was saddened by the Walkers 'downsizing',
I haven't always agreed
with Dietz curatorial decsions but simply the idea of a new media
curator alone is something that is only being realised in a much smaller
and independent capcity here in the UK. The fact this could be seen as
a failed experiment of new media curating by major galleries could be
detrimental outside the US too. I am also frustrated at rhizomes
continual need for change and justify its own existence to maintain
financial support. I have only been here two years so haven't got the
history to morn for the good ol' days<u>,</u>  but as with anything successful
(and I would - despite current areas of frustration class rhizome as a
success) I think a combination of the pressure both financially and to
remain 'new', 'educational' and 'slick' (can you be all three?) has
distracted from 'resource', 'discuss/promote' and 'archive'.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">However, I'm mildly stunned in what
I seem to be reading as the
general surprise of many artists and the american institutions during the
emails of this last week, that somehow, the public have failed to 'get'
new media (net art) and that its percieved failure to thrive (resulting in
the museums last-in-first-out approach or rhizomes struggles for
funding) is as a result of various accusations. These seem to  include
an institutional desire to repackage the net as video or film,  the
technical complexity in exhibiting and archiving new media or the
widespread economic cutbacks restricting 'ambitious' curating etc etc
etc. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">My question is - when does a harsh
examination of the curatorial
decisions of what aspect and how net art and new media has been
exhibited and supported take place? How have the grants been
distributed (in terms of curatorial decisions) and how 'successfull' (in
terms of producing significant works and promoting and advancing new
media as a genre) have selected projects been? If the public have
failed to 'get' net.art/new media, is it a failure of the exhibiting policies of
the museums/organizations in terms of promotion and accessibility
and/or a failure of the works selected themselves to engage and to be
able to exist as rounded artworks outside the texts, the seminars and
the hype....</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">We've been through these conversations
before in one way or another,
from Curts suggestions of limitations on the genre being placed in the
subtexts of critical writings to Marcs essential argument that institutions
need to get in touch with their grass roots or watch their own growing
irrelevancy. What I wonder is how, despite this list, despite all the other
lists we all belong to and despite our own work independently as artists
- is how we get heard.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">As artists, we know why we a practising
on the net or new media
(although these reasons are as eclectic and an various as the
methodologies employed), we know that within these works can be
absorption, playfulness, shock, subversion and unsettling intimacy -
traditional foundations for artworks that both endure and attract. Most of
us on raw are predominantly net based, we have artworks delivered to
our inboxes. The works we create are contextualised by whats around
us or else they are quite literally being created out of them.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> But what about the curators? In their
bid to keep the NEW in new
media, textual combinations seem constrained; unsettling playfulness,
shocking subversion and...what then  ?? Have Bloggers patronisation of
say, E8Z's 'old fashioned themes' or Dietz's self styled curatorial 'filter'
finally literally sieved out what makes net and new media so rounded. I
have never though the net 'needs' the institutions, but without their input
my fear is the kind of sthetic gameplay of Amerika & PS2 will be the
only sources of substantial sponsership and longevity that will remain.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I've just read that Walkers cutbacks
will save $1m per annum. Though
peanuts compared to the overall budget, curatorially that's a pretty
decent sized wallet in which to establish (and bloody hell) <i>at least</i> set
up contingency so the work can be decently and permanently archived.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">have to go, just thinking outloud.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
Re: Re: Re: dream7 piece
As much as I have enjoyed reading the discussion too, I have to agree
with Lewis that this piece is 'ok' but little more.
My natural response is to defend Flash as aggressively as possible (as
I primarily think much the usual criticism of its use in artwork comes
form a technological snobbery rather than criticism of the form and
content of the work in question) but I'd don't think this work is a great
advocate for it.
I use the word hesitantly (as there is some really original work coming
out of many colleges at the moment) but does no-one else think it feels
a little 'studenty'? By this I mean, I feel the piece is trying to put a lot of
ticks in a lot of boxes in terms of how it functions and it's thematics (and
perhaps, in what is felt it 'should' be doing) but doesn't really quite
reach any of them....???
jess.
Date sent: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
To: Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com>,
list@rhizome.org
Send reply to: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
> Hi Lewis
> < i hate to disagree here,>
> Why!? Disagreement, preferably friendly disagreement,
> is the life blood of something like this list.
> As to the dream7 piece -I like it -I don't use flash
> so I'm very outside of the technical discussion,
> but anyway sometimes, often, technical skill is not
> the key question, just part of the equation. In the
> case of individual works like this I guess it does
> come down to taste but I tried to list some of the
> stuff that made me warm to it.
> As for interactivity -I'm neither "for" nor "against"
> it per se.
> What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
> do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
> particular work but which measures things against a
> particular technical or conceptual yardstick,
> especially when this orthodoxy is the one that is used
> to measure funding for new work.
> (as clearly *does* happen in the official art bodies
> here in the UK; I'm happy to be be instructed on the
> situation in the US ) If "noninteractive " ,
> "nonconceptual " or anything else felt like the
> orthodoxy I'd be inclined to have a tilt at *that*.
> I think the questions you raise about what is net
> idiomatic are good ones. its just that I find the
> answers "network" and "interactive" a bit glib as
> answers.
> I agree that this engendered a good discussion and I
> think it's interesting that the best ones recently
> have been spawned by posts on particular works.
> I would encourage people to post their reasoned
> reactions to particular pieces. It seems to me that
> its in the detailed, concrete examination of specific
> works that masses of very pertinent general issues
> arise in a natural way.
> best
> michael
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
with Lewis that this piece is 'ok' but little more.
My natural response is to defend Flash as aggressively as possible (as
I primarily think much the usual criticism of its use in artwork comes
form a technological snobbery rather than criticism of the form and
content of the work in question) but I'd don't think this work is a great
advocate for it.
I use the word hesitantly (as there is some really original work coming
out of many colleges at the moment) but does no-one else think it feels
a little 'studenty'? By this I mean, I feel the piece is trying to put a lot of
ticks in a lot of boxes in terms of how it functions and it's thematics (and
perhaps, in what is felt it 'should' be doing) but doesn't really quite
reach any of them....???
jess.
Date sent: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
To: Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com>,
list@rhizome.org
Send reply to: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
> Hi Lewis
> < i hate to disagree here,>
> Why!? Disagreement, preferably friendly disagreement,
> is the life blood of something like this list.
> As to the dream7 piece -I like it -I don't use flash
> so I'm very outside of the technical discussion,
> but anyway sometimes, often, technical skill is not
> the key question, just part of the equation. In the
> case of individual works like this I guess it does
> come down to taste but I tried to list some of the
> stuff that made me warm to it.
> As for interactivity -I'm neither "for" nor "against"
> it per se.
> What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
> do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
> particular work but which measures things against a
> particular technical or conceptual yardstick,
> especially when this orthodoxy is the one that is used
> to measure funding for new work.
> (as clearly *does* happen in the official art bodies
> here in the UK; I'm happy to be be instructed on the
> situation in the US ) If "noninteractive " ,
> "nonconceptual " or anything else felt like the
> orthodoxy I'd be inclined to have a tilt at *that*.
> I think the questions you raise about what is net
> idiomatic are good ones. its just that I find the
> answers "network" and "interactive" a bit glib as
> answers.
> I agree that this engendered a good discussion and I
> think it's interesting that the best ones recently
> have been spawned by posts on particular works.
> I would encourage people to post their reasoned
> reactions to particular pieces. It seems to me that
> its in the detailed, concrete examination of specific
> works that masses of very pertinent general issues
> arise in a natural way.
> best
> michael
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Re: Re: dream7 piece
Hi Charlotte,
great you were there keeping check - give 'em hell;-)
I was going to be there but I didn't think my currently vomiting toddler would go down
well with the panel (although his response would have some interesting interactivity)
cheers,
jess.
(ps pinch me a biscuit - I always wanted something stolen from the Tate!!!)
Date sent: Sun, 11 May 2003 22:59:40 +0100
Send reply to: "Charlotte Frost" <charlotte.frost@talk21.com>
> The User_Mode symposium consisted of several artists who were some how
> embarrassed to call them selves artists; some who seemed to think that a
> good command of power point made them artists; and many who had totally
> forgotten that emotion and interactivity were the remit! - and made excuses
> for this by saying 'all art is emotional and everything is interactive'
> giving them carte blanche to talk about anything.
>
> And a pair working in scented fashion design pretty much stole the show when
> they gave us sex pheromones to smell!
>
> On the plus side, I am slightly addicted to symposiums because of all the
> bonding you can do with the rest of the audience when you 'critique'
> everything! ;-)
>
> I also found Honor Harger (webcasting curator) and Jemima Rellie (Head of
> Digital Programmes) very generous and accessible, so not all was lost!
>
> Charlotte
>
> PS Very nice shortbread on the tea breaks too!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
> Jess Loseby
> Sent: 11 May 2003 21:59
> To: marc.garrett; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece
>
>
>
>
> Absolutely marc,
>
> participants for user-mode include Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
> for emotion and 'reality' content, Len Manovich and David Ross whose talks
> and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and emotional
> catharsis - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and graphics guys,
> all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in interactive art' (the
> promoted theme) is just primary to their practise:-)
> bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.
>
> jess.
>
>
>
> > I am looking forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy
> > with net art comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of
> lip
> > service) using quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at
> the
> > Tate this weekend for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their
> own
> > theme in actuality & when one observes the function of the conference a
> > realization clouts one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is
> merely
> > an excuse for an institutional 'get together'.
>
>
>
> o
> /^ rssgallery.com
> ][
> + 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
>
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
great you were there keeping check - give 'em hell;-)
I was going to be there but I didn't think my currently vomiting toddler would go down
well with the panel (although his response would have some interesting interactivity)
cheers,
jess.
(ps pinch me a biscuit - I always wanted something stolen from the Tate!!!)
Date sent: Sun, 11 May 2003 22:59:40 +0100
Send reply to: "Charlotte Frost" <charlotte.frost@talk21.com>
> The User_Mode symposium consisted of several artists who were some how
> embarrassed to call them selves artists; some who seemed to think that a
> good command of power point made them artists; and many who had totally
> forgotten that emotion and interactivity were the remit! - and made excuses
> for this by saying 'all art is emotional and everything is interactive'
> giving them carte blanche to talk about anything.
>
> And a pair working in scented fashion design pretty much stole the show when
> they gave us sex pheromones to smell!
>
> On the plus side, I am slightly addicted to symposiums because of all the
> bonding you can do with the rest of the audience when you 'critique'
> everything! ;-)
>
> I also found Honor Harger (webcasting curator) and Jemima Rellie (Head of
> Digital Programmes) very generous and accessible, so not all was lost!
>
> Charlotte
>
> PS Very nice shortbread on the tea breaks too!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
> Jess Loseby
> Sent: 11 May 2003 21:59
> To: marc.garrett; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece
>
>
>
>
> Absolutely marc,
>
> participants for user-mode include Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
> for emotion and 'reality' content, Len Manovich and David Ross whose talks
> and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and emotional
> catharsis - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and graphics guys,
> all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in interactive art' (the
> promoted theme) is just primary to their practise:-)
> bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.
>
> jess.
>
>
>
> > I am looking forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy
> > with net art comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of
> lip
> > service) using quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at
> the
> > Tate this weekend for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their
> own
> > theme in actuality & when one observes the function of the conference a
> > realization clouts one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is
> merely
> > an excuse for an institutional 'get together'.
>
>
>
> o
> /^ rssgallery.com
> ][
> + 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
>
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Re: Re: dream7 piece
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Absolutely marc, </span></font></p>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">participants for user-mode include
Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
for emotion and 'reality' content, Len </span></font><a href="participants/lev.html"><font face="Arial">
Manovich</font></a><font face="Arial">
 and David Ross whose
talks and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and
emotional catharsis  - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and
graphics guys, all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in
interactive art' (the promoted theme) is just </font><font face="Arial">
<i>primary</i> to their practise:-)</font></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I am looking
forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> with net art
comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of lip</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> service) using
quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Tate this weekend
for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their own</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> theme in actuality
& when one observes the function of the conference a</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> realization clouts
one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is merely</span></font></div>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> an excuse for an institutional
'get together'.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Absolutely marc, </span></font></p>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">participants for user-mode include
Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
for emotion and 'reality' content, Len </span></font><a href="participants/lev.html"><font face="Arial">
Manovich</font></a><font face="Arial">
 and David Ross whose
talks and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and
emotional catharsis  - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and
graphics guys, all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in
interactive art' (the promoted theme) is just </font><font face="Arial">
<i>primary</i> to their practise:-)</font></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I am looking
forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> with net art
comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of lip</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> service) using
quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Tate this weekend
for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their own</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> theme in actuality
& when one observes the function of the conference a</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> realization clouts
one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is merely</span></font></div>
<p><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> an excuse for an institutional
'get together'.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
Re: On the profound and meaningful (was A Posteriori art)
> The sharpest contribution I read was from Jess who can
> hardly be accused of being at the centre of the
> international art establishment-
I'll take that as a compliment - I think !!!
hee! hee! hee!!
j.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> hardly be accused of being at the centre of the
> international art establishment-
I'll take that as a compliment - I think !!!
hee! hee! hee!!
j.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][