ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
for news of visual language projects: afsnitp.dk
http://www.afsnitp.dk / http://www.afsnitp.dk/plog/ is a very good blog
concerning visual language projects/digital poetry. Now if only I read
Danish. However, the visuals and the links and some curiosity about the text
go a long way. There are a couple of online Danish-to-English auto
translators around, also. The visual element is usually very well done here,
ie, the bitmaps are usually very descriptive of the project. you can find
out about projects in many languages from this blog. amazing.
ja
concerning visual language projects/digital poetry. Now if only I read
Danish. However, the visuals and the links and some curiosity about the text
go a long way. There are a couple of online Danish-to-English auto
translators around, also. The visual element is usually very well done here,
ie, the bitmaps are usually very descriptive of the project. you can find
out about projects in many languages from this blog. amazing.
ja
Re: Kids Working with Art History through Digital Art. An Interview with Nicolas Clauss.
Fabulous! The http://www.delartsijeveux.com piece is wonderful to play with.
And the situation of it arising from working with kids, that's inspiring.
ja
And the situation of it arising from working with kids, that's inspiring.
ja
Re: Artist Anti-Defamation League!
Some of the writing here is very amusing. I particularly liked the 'About
Us' section.
"Astrid's Work is influenced by the Vienna Actionists of the 1960s, who
expressed themselves by making love in the blood and entrails of eviscerated
bovines. As a Vegan and Animal Rights Activist however, Astrid works
primarily in Tofurky, Facon, BologNo, and occasionally, Glitter Glue."
The name and bio of 'Bl8antly Obtuse - Aesthetics Czar' is also quite
amusing.
The site pokes fun both at artists and 'art haters'.
The site design is right, also. A bit 'sloppier' than I associate with your
work, but right for this concept.
I ended up with a feeling of the depressing insularity of art, but perhaps
that was part of the point.
Also, the news items are well-done. They could be true.
ja
> Artist Anti-defamation League!
>
> http://artistadl.org/
>
> From the manifesto:
> Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of
> society being at all relevant to artists, there remains to
> civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking artists only to overthrow the
> government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation
> and destroy the art-haters.
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
Us' section.
"Astrid's Work is influenced by the Vienna Actionists of the 1960s, who
expressed themselves by making love in the blood and entrails of eviscerated
bovines. As a Vegan and Animal Rights Activist however, Astrid works
primarily in Tofurky, Facon, BologNo, and occasionally, Glitter Glue."
The name and bio of 'Bl8antly Obtuse - Aesthetics Czar' is also quite
amusing.
The site pokes fun both at artists and 'art haters'.
The site design is right, also. A bit 'sloppier' than I associate with your
work, but right for this concept.
I ended up with a feeling of the depressing insularity of art, but perhaps
that was part of the point.
Also, the news items are well-done. They could be true.
ja
> Artist Anti-defamation League!
>
> http://artistadl.org/
>
> From the manifesto:
> Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of
> society being at all relevant to artists, there remains to
> civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking artists only to overthrow the
> government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation
> and destroy the art-haters.
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
Re: Critical condition (LA Times)
Polarization" seems to be a key word in the current climate, doesn't it.
Not only between 'critic' and 'artist', perhaps, as you point out, but also
more broadly in society. Not only in matters of politics but also concerning
the distribution of wealth and the availability of good education, access to
knowledge and training in it, despite the rise of the Internet.
In this sad state of affairs, digital art is situated. Sometimes it is quite
remote. Art for the monied. Yet on the net, where there is a world of
people, just who it is for is often mysterious, and the audience is among
the educated.
The really popular computer art is entertainment oriented and as savage as
the day (is long). Counter Strike, for example. A global network playing
terrorist versus counter-terrorist shooting at one another 24x7x365.25.
Even within net.art the divisions and rivalries are acrimonious.
It seems like there's a lot of work to do. The critics can be very useful in
this regard.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marisa S. Olson [mailto:marisaso@gmail.com]
> Sent: May 22, 2005 8:52 PM
> To: jim@vispo.com; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Critical condition (LA Times)
>
>
> Jim, thanks for your comments.
>
> I think there are a few other/additional points to make. They all sort
> of revolve around the fact that the relationship between the critic
> and the audience is often polarized. This, to me, is unfortunate,
> becomes it places the critic in the position of being expected to
> "bring something" to the work that the "audience" does not. It also
> not only unfairly deitizes the critic, but it leaves artists making
> work for critics and not for audiences. I agree that the critic should
> be more involved in an unpacking of poetics than a passsing of
> judgement (though many of us have to cop to passing judgement as a
> result of a work's poetics, or lack thereof). But I think that a
> reading of the rhetoric of a work (in any medium) has to consider how
> the work positions itself in relation to its audience. When the critic
> is divorced from the audience, no such reading can occur.
>
> There's come to be an interesting situation vis a vis the criticism of
> media art, under the influence of a number of factors... In general,
> there is a lack of viable arts publications as sustaining one in this
> economic climate is difficult. Media arts publications are even harder
> to come by, and most of those pay poorly if at all. For these reasons
> and others (not the least of which is the perceived novelty of the
> field and resultant dissonance), there is a lack of seasoned, educated
> media arts critics. A look at recent NY Times pieces on new media art
> (or the lack thereof) will provide a good example. The few good
> writers do not seem to be getting assignments and one less-good writer
> has unfortunately been given more there, lately, but all in all,
> coverage is minimal. We've thrown ourselves into a self-critiquing
> system which is wildly disproportionate in relation to, well, all
> kinds of things... Some of us are over-educated and under-informed,
> some of us look at a lot of work and can't find a means of critiquing
> it, others of us are daunted by the technical and philosophical
> vocabularies that pervade our field. The many processes of
> appropriation, sampling, and reiteration that have come to make so
> many great media artworks great does not make the system of critique
> any more cohesive, wherein those who don't know their art history are
> doomed to misrepeat it. There are, particularly on this list, a
> handful of seriously talented, intelligent, and well-versed critics,
> and so many of them are struggling against production barriers and
> within faulty communication channels, so that the flow of ideas and
> meaningful exchanges all to often becomes buried under other forms of
> labor, if not under animosity and competition within the pecking order
> of a rank struggling for classification.
>
> My hope is that this will just get better with time, with pedagogy,
> with the long view, etc.
>
> Marisa
Not only between 'critic' and 'artist', perhaps, as you point out, but also
more broadly in society. Not only in matters of politics but also concerning
the distribution of wealth and the availability of good education, access to
knowledge and training in it, despite the rise of the Internet.
In this sad state of affairs, digital art is situated. Sometimes it is quite
remote. Art for the monied. Yet on the net, where there is a world of
people, just who it is for is often mysterious, and the audience is among
the educated.
The really popular computer art is entertainment oriented and as savage as
the day (is long). Counter Strike, for example. A global network playing
terrorist versus counter-terrorist shooting at one another 24x7x365.25.
Even within net.art the divisions and rivalries are acrimonious.
It seems like there's a lot of work to do. The critics can be very useful in
this regard.
ja
http://vispo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marisa S. Olson [mailto:marisaso@gmail.com]
> Sent: May 22, 2005 8:52 PM
> To: jim@vispo.com; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Critical condition (LA Times)
>
>
> Jim, thanks for your comments.
>
> I think there are a few other/additional points to make. They all sort
> of revolve around the fact that the relationship between the critic
> and the audience is often polarized. This, to me, is unfortunate,
> becomes it places the critic in the position of being expected to
> "bring something" to the work that the "audience" does not. It also
> not only unfairly deitizes the critic, but it leaves artists making
> work for critics and not for audiences. I agree that the critic should
> be more involved in an unpacking of poetics than a passsing of
> judgement (though many of us have to cop to passing judgement as a
> result of a work's poetics, or lack thereof). But I think that a
> reading of the rhetoric of a work (in any medium) has to consider how
> the work positions itself in relation to its audience. When the critic
> is divorced from the audience, no such reading can occur.
>
> There's come to be an interesting situation vis a vis the criticism of
> media art, under the influence of a number of factors... In general,
> there is a lack of viable arts publications as sustaining one in this
> economic climate is difficult. Media arts publications are even harder
> to come by, and most of those pay poorly if at all. For these reasons
> and others (not the least of which is the perceived novelty of the
> field and resultant dissonance), there is a lack of seasoned, educated
> media arts critics. A look at recent NY Times pieces on new media art
> (or the lack thereof) will provide a good example. The few good
> writers do not seem to be getting assignments and one less-good writer
> has unfortunately been given more there, lately, but all in all,
> coverage is minimal. We've thrown ourselves into a self-critiquing
> system which is wildly disproportionate in relation to, well, all
> kinds of things... Some of us are over-educated and under-informed,
> some of us look at a lot of work and can't find a means of critiquing
> it, others of us are daunted by the technical and philosophical
> vocabularies that pervade our field. The many processes of
> appropriation, sampling, and reiteration that have come to make so
> many great media artworks great does not make the system of critique
> any more cohesive, wherein those who don't know their art history are
> doomed to misrepeat it. There are, particularly on this list, a
> handful of seriously talented, intelligent, and well-versed critics,
> and so many of them are struggling against production barriers and
> within faulty communication channels, so that the flow of ideas and
> meaningful exchanges all to often becomes buried under other forms of
> labor, if not under animosity and competition within the pecking order
> of a rank struggling for classification.
>
> My hope is that this will just get better with time, with pedagogy,
> with the long view, etc.
>
> Marisa
Re: Critical condition (LA Times)
Thanks for Scott Timberg's "Critical Condition" at
http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-ca-critics22may22,0,42636
05.story?coll=cl-home-
The relation between artist and critic has always been tense.
But what is at stake? What's a critic good for besides pr and trading in the
market of reputation?
Walt Whitman said "great art demands a great audience".
There's something at stake to a great audience in what art does. Besides
entertainment. What is it? Ezra Pound said that "art is news that stays
news." Note how that idea references both the contemporary and beyond the
contemporary. Contemporary art can be intensely relevant to what's happening
now, but it's aware of the larger contexts of the events that continue to
reverberate through the corridors of eternal existence. Whether you think of
the corridors as in The Shining or Myst or whatever.
A great audience is involved in the construction of the meaning of a work of
art. There's the obelisk. And then there's the story it is part of. Works of
art may tell stories, but they're also involved with everyone in the culture
doing their bit to impart insight and meaning to contemporary life.
It isn't that the critic is irrelevant. It's that the culture cannot bear to
look.
The below quote from Timberg's article (he is quoting Andras Szanto) misses
the enduring point of criticism.
"In fact, anything now can be art, from a ray of light to a bit of feces in
a plastic box. But it has ultimately enfeebled the critic in that
traditional chest-thumping, oracular way, where he or she can prescribe or
pass judgment. If the very premise of the art world is that anything goes,
what do you base judgments on?"
Criticism isn't just about judgements on the value of art. It's also about
taking the poetics further, unfolding it, engaging with it, seeing where it
works as an instrument of thought and feeling and insight and where it
doesn't. Seeing what the poetics implies.
Thanks for pointing out the article, Marisa. Very interesting and worth
reading!
ja
http://vispo.com
http://www.calendarlive.com/galleriesandmuseums/cl-ca-critics22may22,0,42636
05.story?coll=cl-home-
The relation between artist and critic has always been tense.
But what is at stake? What's a critic good for besides pr and trading in the
market of reputation?
Walt Whitman said "great art demands a great audience".
There's something at stake to a great audience in what art does. Besides
entertainment. What is it? Ezra Pound said that "art is news that stays
news." Note how that idea references both the contemporary and beyond the
contemporary. Contemporary art can be intensely relevant to what's happening
now, but it's aware of the larger contexts of the events that continue to
reverberate through the corridors of eternal existence. Whether you think of
the corridors as in The Shining or Myst or whatever.
A great audience is involved in the construction of the meaning of a work of
art. There's the obelisk. And then there's the story it is part of. Works of
art may tell stories, but they're also involved with everyone in the culture
doing their bit to impart insight and meaning to contemporary life.
It isn't that the critic is irrelevant. It's that the culture cannot bear to
look.
The below quote from Timberg's article (he is quoting Andras Szanto) misses
the enduring point of criticism.
"In fact, anything now can be art, from a ray of light to a bit of feces in
a plastic box. But it has ultimately enfeebled the critic in that
traditional chest-thumping, oracular way, where he or she can prescribe or
pass judgment. If the very premise of the art world is that anything goes,
what do you base judgments on?"
Criticism isn't just about judgements on the value of art. It's also about
taking the poetics further, unfolding it, engaging with it, seeing where it
works as an instrument of thought and feeling and insight and where it
doesn't. Seeing what the poetics implies.
Thanks for pointing out the article, Marisa. Very interesting and worth
reading!
ja
http://vispo.com