Jim Andrews
Since the beginning
Works in Victoria Canada

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.
Discussions (847) Opportunities (2) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

TouchGraph GoogleBrowser


TouchGraph GoogleBrowser V1.01

I've seen several pieces related to the sort of thing we see at
http://www.touchgraph.com/TGGoogleBrowser.html -- going back to the Visual
Thesaurus, I guess, which was based on a sample applet that Sun
distribute(d, s?) with Java, I think -- but somehow the TouchGraph Google
browser seems like the most rewarding implementation of this sort of tree
structure I've seen. Not sure how long this has been around--perhaps a
while, but I missed it, if so.

Put in the url of your site and see how it interprets your relationships
with other sites. And if it misses stuff, you can add urls.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

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

+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

DISCUSSION

Re: New Membership Policy


> >This let people browse various lists. Is that project
> >still up? What is the URL if so?
> >
> http://www.x-arn.org/hub/

Right, so it seems hooking into databases is part of what ARN does.

> >And what is ARN, by the way?
> >
> ARN is a small organization, a kind of collective. You can check
> http://www.x-arn.org/w3/NumericalNetworksActions for more.

Very interesting. So the group works both on net projects and offline
projects. Are you all in the same city? Whereabouts are you?

> >That seemed 'flatter' in the sense you mention, ie, less
> 'hierarchical' for
> >some reason. As I said, I did not find your http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
> >piece exploitative, but it is something I wonder about
> concerning curatorial
> >projects--particularly when they involve sufficiently many works
> that each
> >work begins to look like a data point in a data set that has the
> real focus
> >and attention, not the art works themselves. Usually I do not find such
> >projects of artistic interest, though not always. Often, when a project
> >curates a hundred works (or whatever--more than 4), the
> statement is 'look
> >at the curation, not the art'. Again, I didn't really get that sense from
> >your project.
> >
> >The word 'database' is used quite loosely these days. What separates a
> >database from 'a bunch of collected things' is that a database is
> >relational. In other words, it is cross-indexable and queriable
> concerning
> >the cross-indexed information.
> >
> Absolutely. This work focuses on the identifier (primary key) which
> allows the cross-reference, not used here.
>
> >It is one thing to encounter a work as an anonymous data point in a huge
> >collection of artworks. It is quite another to encounter it in
> some sort of
> >context where one already has been told interesting facts about
> the artwork
> >which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
> >http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
> >works. I was not motivated to do so, to view anonymous data
> points in a huge
> >data set.
> >
> >I did not find your project exploitative, but neither did I find it an
> >interesting art experience of the works themselves.
> >
> >
> Your critic is really interesting. It means this piece has a kind of
> autonomy despite it completely relies on other pieces ?

What was your feeling about that? I would have thought so, yes.

> >I think the relational aspect of databases make it possible to
> rescue large
> >databases from presenting art works in vacuo, but it would seem to be an
> >ambitious undertaking that usually doesn't work very well. Part of the
> >ambition, I take it, of the Rhizome artbase is to try to present the art
> >works themselves in contexts wherein the works can be experienced
> >rewardingly.
> >
> >Part of the work of art is to battle the forces of dullness, deadening
> >sameness. If works are not significantly distinguished, and also
> >significantly related, the forces of dullness triumph and the
> universe yawns
> >once more, poor thing.
> >
> You're right, but didn't Duchamp show us a long time ago that you make
> the artwork when experiencing it ? It means you're able to create a
> landscape in your mind when looking at grey numbers.

Perhaps so. But the frame is certainly influential on what we make of
things.

*

of course the ultimate triumph of the forces of dullness occurs if all
distinction disappears from the universe, rendering everything deadly the
same and the universe returns to the state of the undifferentiated monad.
it's only through distinction and relation that the universe is rescued from
undifferentiable dullness. this is a bit like the 'primitive' story in which
the obeisances must be performed each day or the sun will fail to rise. as
artists we are impelled to create/discover significant distinction and
relation, perhaps to help manifest complex ideals such as justice, beauty,
truth etc.

the relational database of art objects is like a periodic table made up of
imaginative art elements. I am pure flatulence therein. It's mine. I insist.
There are the elements but it's the relations between them and distinctions
between them and what happens when you put them together that interests us
most about the periodic table, though we may take special interest in
particular elements. And indeed each element has its rich lore which the
cunning chemist cultivates over the course of a career.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: New Membership Policy


> >Once again, though, the artists seem to be at the bottom of this
> >hierarchy.
> >Do you think so? I suppose it is possible to see it otherwise.

> Yes it is possible to see it otherwise. People (artists, critics, ...)
> and objects (pieces, projects, events, organizations...) are nodes in a
> network. These nodes are linked if, for example, someone works on a
> project or someone takes part in an organization, or, if a work needs
> another one to exist, we can link the works. It is the case as you
> pointed out with with any kind of interface to the artbase. So with this
> model, there is no hierarchy, we are on a flat network, nodes are more
> or less connected to others, and that's how i think about art in a
> networked environment. I guess also this kind of network map would be
> very useful to give us a picture of what new media art, or whatever we
> call it, is globally.

First let me say I enjoyed the ARN Hub work you or your organization did
previously, I think? This let people browse various lists. Is that project
still up? What is the URL if so? And what is ARN, by the way?

That seemed 'flatter' in the sense you mention, ie, less 'hierarchical' for
some reason. As I said, I did not find your http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
piece exploitative, but it is something I wonder about concerning curatorial
projects--particularly when they involve sufficiently many works that each
work begins to look like a data point in a data set that has the real focus
and attention, not the art works themselves. Usually I do not find such
projects of artistic interest, though not always. Often, when a project
curates a hundred works (or whatever--more than 4), the statement is 'look
at the curation, not the art'. Again, I didn't really get that sense from
your project.

The word 'database' is used quite loosely these days. What separates a
database from 'a bunch of collected things' is that a database is
relational. In other words, it is cross-indexable and queriable concerning
the cross-indexed information.

It is one thing to encounter a work as an anonymous data point in a huge
collection of artworks. It is quite another to encounter it in some sort of
context where one already has been told interesting facts about the artwork
which predispose one to view the work. For example, in viewing your
http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/ , I did not actually view any of the art
works. I was not motivated to do so, to view anonymous data points in a huge
data set.

I did not find your project exploitative, but neither did I find it an
interesting art experience of the works themselves.

I think the relational aspect of databases make it possible to rescue large
databases from presenting art works in vacuo, but it would seem to be an
ambitious undertaking that usually doesn't work very well. Part of the
ambition, I take it, of the Rhizome artbase is to try to present the art
works themselves in contexts wherein the works can be experienced
rewardingly.

Part of the work of art is to battle the forces of dullness, deadening
sameness. If works are not significantly distinguished, and also
significantly related, the forces of dullness triumph and the universe yawns
once more, poor thing.

cordially,
ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: New Membership Policy


> http://www.x-arn.org/rhizome/
>
> "This is not a cloned object"
>
> The first purpose of this work is to provide a simplified access to
> artworks contained in the Rhizome Artbase. Using Artbase parameters such
> as art object identifiers, the work focuses on anonymity wich can emerge
> from the relatively large amount of artworks. Furthermore, it's an
> illustration of the possible relations between interfaces and a database
> as described by Lev Manovich : "The new media object consists of one or
> more interfaces to a database of multimedia material. If only one
> interface is constructed, the result will be similar to a traditional
> art object; but this is an exception rather than the norm."

That's pretty anonymous, yes.

As a work of its own, the piece is interesting as a piece of code, perhaps
as software art.

As a way to present the work in the artbase, it's a bit depressing in the
way it reduces each of the works to a near anonymous cipher. Until you click
on a number, of course, and then the work becomes a bit more than a number.
And thence into the work itself. Where it attains...what status of
existence? Can it overcome its having been reduced to one among so many?

I admire the efforts Rhizome has made to rescue the works in the artbase
from negligability among many and the attempts to reveal relationship
amongst the works and also to open the artbase to multiple interfaces such
as yours and several others. I'm thinking of the chatbot, in particular,
that queens on and drops links. Impressive, really.

So if your piece uses the works in the artbase as material in a piece of its
own, the rhizome artbase perhaps uses your piece in its work of multiple
interfaces into the artbase.

Once again, though, the artists seem to be at the bottom of this hierarchy.
Do you think so? I suppose it is possible to see it otherwise.

A little bit similar to the artist-curator relationship, I suppose. One
sometimes wonders about the role of the art and artists in many curatorial
projects in which the focus seems more on the art of the curator than the
presented works. Sometimes it seems that the art and artists are merely
pawns.

Your piece perhaps highlights this sort of phenomenon rather than covering
it up. It doesn't seem exploitative, somehow, if only because of the
simplicity of your own interface, which is without pretension to artistic
extravagance. Nicely done, actually, in its spareness, which leaves room for
these sorts of questions to emerge uncluttered by complex curatorial agenda.

ja
http://vispo.com