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.
Re: On the profound and meaningful (was A Posteriori art)
Ultimately, this is where this kind of critical writing takes you... having
arguments that are only for people who agree with you. That's not an
argument its a clique.
> Hi all,
>
> My arguments are for those who share similar views with me. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
arguments that are only for people who agree with you. That's not an
argument its a clique.
> Hi all,
>
> My arguments are for those who share similar views with me. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Re: A Posteriori Art - follow-up
And that 'art' and 'other stuff' can be
> separated into neat compartments.
> Of course there are people like that, but what of it? For most artists the
> struggle is their life.
> Cheers,
> Ivan
Absolutely, and it is this enforced separation (particularly endorsed by
academics) between the 'real' and' the art' that is creating what is so
often called digital divide. I think one of the most current and pressing
questions (re potentials of net.art) is how artists respond to the
pressure from critical writing and institutional thematics to keep the
internet and domesticity (the 'real') worlds apart.
jess o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> separated into neat compartments.
> Of course there are people like that, but what of it? For most artists the
> struggle is their life.
> Cheers,
> Ivan
Absolutely, and it is this enforced separation (particularly endorsed by
academics) between the 'real' and' the art' that is creating what is so
often called digital divide. I think one of the most current and pressing
questions (re potentials of net.art) is how artists respond to the
pressure from critical writing and institutional thematics to keep the
internet and domesticity (the 'real') worlds apart.
jess o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Re: A Posteriori Art - follow-up
> Supposed you are an artist, but you find that you really enjoy cooking.
> Since you have a very little chance at achieving something profound with
> cooking, you suppress this desire, or keep it moderate, not to take too much
> time away from making "art".
actually its possible to do both. I'm an artist but the profundity of my
chocolate cake is breathtaking;-)
The events that create the ['net.] artist as genius' is multiple texts like
this by people that go to bed with a copy of derrida's greatest hits under
their pillow.
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/cookthecode.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/computerand-cup_red.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/rundamnyou.html
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> Since you have a very little chance at achieving something profound with
> cooking, you suppress this desire, or keep it moderate, not to take too much
> time away from making "art".
actually its possible to do both. I'm an artist but the profundity of my
chocolate cake is breathtaking;-)
The events that create the ['net.] artist as genius' is multiple texts like
this by people that go to bed with a copy of derrida's greatest hits under
their pillow.
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/cookthecode.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/computerand-cup_red.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/trivialconnections/rundamnyou.html
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
Re: [syndicate] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: MOUCHETTE - Franklin Furnace'sfirst "Future of the Present 2003" Artist
eryk,
thanks for your comments.
Personally (now I've stopped asking you questions) mouchette is
something that I have never settled on how I really feel but I can give
you one female perspective in as much as I have.
In one respect (much as the hype gets me down but then all hype does)
I think the site is pretty amazing and a example of how net.art can be
well done but on a viewer level I don't like being there. It disturbs and
upsets me, which is what I trust is at least part of the aim. I have to try
and switch to 'viewer' mode and turn the sound off (why is it sound gets
into you so much more than visuals?) Differently, for me its not the
sexual connotations that disturbs me I've always just looked flippantly
at that as a an artists who has been hanging round the dali museum too
long, or a sarah lucas wannabe (though why anyone would want to be
sarah lucas is beyond me) - the sexuality part does seem 'real' enough
to disturb me as being titillating. Its the suicide kit and the message
boards that do my head in. I'm looking at it, my 'viewer mode' slipping
off, thinking 'fuck are these comment for real??', how many are people
joining in the 'game' and how many are real emails sent to the site
thinking shes real. How do you take responsibility or respond to that?
What if some are real, how can I even be reading it as art??? I realise
then that I'm the one who suddenly cannot tell the difference between
what pretend and what not. That in itself disturbs the hell out of me and
possibly why (even though I dislike being there) it is a pretty radical
piece of net.art. How many other side mess up your head or blur this
distinction between role play, imagination, danger, despair and reality
like that??
Obviously I am not in the 'in crowd' but I would still like to place a
serious bet that there is a woman as the artist[s] somewhere. There is
something about 'playing' with danger and blackness within it that
seems more female than male to me. I may be wrong through, I often
am.
jess.
>
>
> Hi Jess. Don't worry about offending me.
>
> I've been thinking about the nudes myself now that I am in a re-evaluation
> process of my old work. There are two possible answers to the ascii nudes.
>
> 1. The work was made when I had less of an awareness of what I was doing.
> 2. The work was made with a deliberate unwillingness to exploit. The model
> was already presenting these images, the model consented, the model approved
> the pieces before they were put on line.
>
> But answer number two does not affect how the work is percieved, which is at
> the heart of your question- how much control do we have over how others
> percieve our own work? This much can be said: I don't have any control over
> how the work is percieved, but I can take responsibility for making sure it
> doesn't say things I don't want them to say. Does it say "Women are objects
> to be stared at?" I don't know. I think the works are beautiful to a degree-
> and I don't think there is anything exploitative about them per se, some of
> them aren't even nude. They are more or less about the idea of simultaneous
> distance and intimacy.
>
> The difference is whether art manipulates what I concieve of as worse
> elements of our own human nature. I think Mouchettes piece is based on a
> manipulation of the viewers sexuality and base power constructs.
>
> I'll take your questions in context from here on in:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jess Loseby" <jess@rssgallery.com>
>
> > Does it make a difference to the piece if the creator is
> > male of female? For example, if the creator of mouchette is female
> > could it be argued by some that mouchette is an valid investigation of
> > female pre-adolescent sexuality (and the male gaze) whereas your own
> > male gaze of the ascii nudes is questionable as you are (at its base
> > level) a male gazing .
>
> To my connections to "in-crowd" knowledge of what goes on in the net.art
> world, Mouchette was created by a 43 year old man. However, the site does
> not make any reference to that, nor does any literature on the artists work.
> In this regard, I think the question you pose doesn't have much of an effect
> on reality because no one knows how the work is to be presented- ie, if it
> is the work of a woman or a man, we don't know, so the point is moot. Also,
> the site is not really an "investigation" of female pre-adolescent sexuality
> so much as the invitation to participate in it. It is not a healthy
> evaluation of sexuality, it is not a loving one or a fair one. It is
> entirely exploitative and I believe is deliberately from the viewpoint of
> the "male gaze." It is a vulgar male sexual fantasy version of
> pre-adolescent sexuality.
>
>
> > It could be argued that you dehumanize the nude
> > through ascii thus making the fact (and the reasons why) the 'cam girls'
> > exist acceptable.
>
> The work really isn't about cam girls per se, its about intimacy and
> distance. The Cam Girl phenomenon is more or less a metaphor for this. I
> know this seems like slippery language- the fact is, like I said, I am
> re-evaluating this piece, and a lot of my other work. For the most part I am
> happy and comfortable with all of them. I can say that a lot of people I
> know are moderate to extreme feminists and they have no problems with the
> work, this, however, doesn't mean I don't, or that there is "no problem"
> with the work.
>
>
>
> > If the cam girls are 'acceptable' as art why the
> > distinction? Is it because the female adult body falls under aesthetic
> > where as the idea of a sexualized 13 year old falls under abject?
>
> Here's my base level response to that question: If someone sees nudity as
> sexual exploitation, that is thier filter- the model is nude- that is not an
> invitation to fuck or rape or use that models nudity for sexual
> gratification It's prelapsarian innocence vs nudity after we ate the apple.
> The girl in the ascii nudes is happy about them, happy about her sexuality,
> comfortable about her body, is choosing to do what she does. A 13 year old
> fictional character created by what I assume to be a 43 year old man [and
> given mouchettes history, I seriously doubt we will ever know for sure] to
> play out male sexual fantasies is the ultimate level of control and abuse of
> sexual development and sexuality, period- done with a fictional character in
> order to have total control, whereas the ascii nudes were completely in the
> control of the model.
>
> Ascii is more or less a metaphor for the processing of the world- a metaphor
> for the base level of zero "processing" that everything operates on, which
> we project upon with our own interpretations as a result of that processing-
> as I said before, the ascii work is never actually an image, it is an
> abstract text which we draw an image out of, it is the reality we cast our
> images on. Mouchette's website strikes me as the inverse- they are
> "exciting" in the same way that watching "Americas Most Wanted" re-enact a
> rape scene is "exciting"- and everyone says its appalling, but its still on
> the air, eh?
>
> Again, how is my work percieved? I don't know- but I am, at this point,
> willing to take responsibility for them. I do not intend my work to
> manipulate the base level of the human [and particularly male] sexual
> impulse as a justification for the works claims to "art". I can not control
> the filters people have on when they look at this work; and as Ivan says,
> neither can Mouchette. But I see mouchette as an intentional manipulation of
> those filters- the deliberate winking at the worst elements of human nature,
> with a nod that "it's okay, it's art". I see my own work as aiming towards
> the removal of those filters. I don't know if I am good enough or capable
> enough to do that- or if it is possible to do that, but that is the aim I
> have with my work. A lot of artists don't share my aims- that is not the
> problem. Some people don't share my sense of humor, either- that's not a
> problem. The problem is when the work is intentionally harmful and
> manipulative, especially on the level that mouchette.org is. The problem is
> that Mouchette.org is nothing short of a rape joke.
>
>
> -eryk
>
>
> + 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
][
thanks for your comments.
Personally (now I've stopped asking you questions) mouchette is
something that I have never settled on how I really feel but I can give
you one female perspective in as much as I have.
In one respect (much as the hype gets me down but then all hype does)
I think the site is pretty amazing and a example of how net.art can be
well done but on a viewer level I don't like being there. It disturbs and
upsets me, which is what I trust is at least part of the aim. I have to try
and switch to 'viewer' mode and turn the sound off (why is it sound gets
into you so much more than visuals?) Differently, for me its not the
sexual connotations that disturbs me I've always just looked flippantly
at that as a an artists who has been hanging round the dali museum too
long, or a sarah lucas wannabe (though why anyone would want to be
sarah lucas is beyond me) - the sexuality part does seem 'real' enough
to disturb me as being titillating. Its the suicide kit and the message
boards that do my head in. I'm looking at it, my 'viewer mode' slipping
off, thinking 'fuck are these comment for real??', how many are people
joining in the 'game' and how many are real emails sent to the site
thinking shes real. How do you take responsibility or respond to that?
What if some are real, how can I even be reading it as art??? I realise
then that I'm the one who suddenly cannot tell the difference between
what pretend and what not. That in itself disturbs the hell out of me and
possibly why (even though I dislike being there) it is a pretty radical
piece of net.art. How many other side mess up your head or blur this
distinction between role play, imagination, danger, despair and reality
like that??
Obviously I am not in the 'in crowd' but I would still like to place a
serious bet that there is a woman as the artist[s] somewhere. There is
something about 'playing' with danger and blackness within it that
seems more female than male to me. I may be wrong through, I often
am.
jess.
>
>
> Hi Jess. Don't worry about offending me.
>
> I've been thinking about the nudes myself now that I am in a re-evaluation
> process of my old work. There are two possible answers to the ascii nudes.
>
> 1. The work was made when I had less of an awareness of what I was doing.
> 2. The work was made with a deliberate unwillingness to exploit. The model
> was already presenting these images, the model consented, the model approved
> the pieces before they were put on line.
>
> But answer number two does not affect how the work is percieved, which is at
> the heart of your question- how much control do we have over how others
> percieve our own work? This much can be said: I don't have any control over
> how the work is percieved, but I can take responsibility for making sure it
> doesn't say things I don't want them to say. Does it say "Women are objects
> to be stared at?" I don't know. I think the works are beautiful to a degree-
> and I don't think there is anything exploitative about them per se, some of
> them aren't even nude. They are more or less about the idea of simultaneous
> distance and intimacy.
>
> The difference is whether art manipulates what I concieve of as worse
> elements of our own human nature. I think Mouchettes piece is based on a
> manipulation of the viewers sexuality and base power constructs.
>
> I'll take your questions in context from here on in:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jess Loseby" <jess@rssgallery.com>
>
> > Does it make a difference to the piece if the creator is
> > male of female? For example, if the creator of mouchette is female
> > could it be argued by some that mouchette is an valid investigation of
> > female pre-adolescent sexuality (and the male gaze) whereas your own
> > male gaze of the ascii nudes is questionable as you are (at its base
> > level) a male gazing .
>
> To my connections to "in-crowd" knowledge of what goes on in the net.art
> world, Mouchette was created by a 43 year old man. However, the site does
> not make any reference to that, nor does any literature on the artists work.
> In this regard, I think the question you pose doesn't have much of an effect
> on reality because no one knows how the work is to be presented- ie, if it
> is the work of a woman or a man, we don't know, so the point is moot. Also,
> the site is not really an "investigation" of female pre-adolescent sexuality
> so much as the invitation to participate in it. It is not a healthy
> evaluation of sexuality, it is not a loving one or a fair one. It is
> entirely exploitative and I believe is deliberately from the viewpoint of
> the "male gaze." It is a vulgar male sexual fantasy version of
> pre-adolescent sexuality.
>
>
> > It could be argued that you dehumanize the nude
> > through ascii thus making the fact (and the reasons why) the 'cam girls'
> > exist acceptable.
>
> The work really isn't about cam girls per se, its about intimacy and
> distance. The Cam Girl phenomenon is more or less a metaphor for this. I
> know this seems like slippery language- the fact is, like I said, I am
> re-evaluating this piece, and a lot of my other work. For the most part I am
> happy and comfortable with all of them. I can say that a lot of people I
> know are moderate to extreme feminists and they have no problems with the
> work, this, however, doesn't mean I don't, or that there is "no problem"
> with the work.
>
>
>
> > If the cam girls are 'acceptable' as art why the
> > distinction? Is it because the female adult body falls under aesthetic
> > where as the idea of a sexualized 13 year old falls under abject?
>
> Here's my base level response to that question: If someone sees nudity as
> sexual exploitation, that is thier filter- the model is nude- that is not an
> invitation to fuck or rape or use that models nudity for sexual
> gratification It's prelapsarian innocence vs nudity after we ate the apple.
> The girl in the ascii nudes is happy about them, happy about her sexuality,
> comfortable about her body, is choosing to do what she does. A 13 year old
> fictional character created by what I assume to be a 43 year old man [and
> given mouchettes history, I seriously doubt we will ever know for sure] to
> play out male sexual fantasies is the ultimate level of control and abuse of
> sexual development and sexuality, period- done with a fictional character in
> order to have total control, whereas the ascii nudes were completely in the
> control of the model.
>
> Ascii is more or less a metaphor for the processing of the world- a metaphor
> for the base level of zero "processing" that everything operates on, which
> we project upon with our own interpretations as a result of that processing-
> as I said before, the ascii work is never actually an image, it is an
> abstract text which we draw an image out of, it is the reality we cast our
> images on. Mouchette's website strikes me as the inverse- they are
> "exciting" in the same way that watching "Americas Most Wanted" re-enact a
> rape scene is "exciting"- and everyone says its appalling, but its still on
> the air, eh?
>
> Again, how is my work percieved? I don't know- but I am, at this point,
> willing to take responsibility for them. I do not intend my work to
> manipulate the base level of the human [and particularly male] sexual
> impulse as a justification for the works claims to "art". I can not control
> the filters people have on when they look at this work; and as Ivan says,
> neither can Mouchette. But I see mouchette as an intentional manipulation of
> those filters- the deliberate winking at the worst elements of human nature,
> with a nod that "it's okay, it's art". I see my own work as aiming towards
> the removal of those filters. I don't know if I am good enough or capable
> enough to do that- or if it is possible to do that, but that is the aim I
> have with my work. A lot of artists don't share my aims- that is not the
> problem. Some people don't share my sense of humor, either- that's not a
> problem. The problem is when the work is intentionally harmful and
> manipulative, especially on the level that mouchette.org is. The problem is
> that Mouchette.org is nothing short of a rape joke.
>
>
> -eryk
>
>
> + 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: Vote for ada1852
hi,
I'd like to vote for ada if you can promise me two things
1. teach her what a british artist is. She crashes or declines to comment if you ask. Very
funny and ironic but.... pretty important considering her 'heritage'
2. tell her to stop wilting around like a drama queen and stop being ill so often. Very
victorian but also very annoying....
:-)
jess
> Hi Rhizomers!
>
> Hey, who wants to vote my bot "best bot"? I'd love it if you would!
> Please vote for me!
>
> Visit the bot:
> http://www.rhizome.org/ada1852
>
> Then vote for her:
> http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/bots/bot_Ada1852.html
>
> Vote for me! Vote for art! Vote for ada1852!
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.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
I'd like to vote for ada if you can promise me two things
1. teach her what a british artist is. She crashes or declines to comment if you ask. Very
funny and ironic but.... pretty important considering her 'heritage'
2. tell her to stop wilting around like a drama queen and stop being ill so often. Very
victorian but also very annoying....
:-)
jess
> Hi Rhizomers!
>
> Hey, who wants to vote my bot "best bot"? I'd love it if you would!
> Please vote for me!
>
> Visit the bot:
> http://www.rhizome.org/ada1852
>
> Then vote for her:
> http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/bots/bot_Ada1852.html
>
> Vote for me! Vote for art! Vote for ada1852!
>
> -Cf
>
> [christopher eli fahey]
> art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> sci: http://www.askrom.com
> biz: http://www.behaviordesign.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