ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The McElroys are a husband and wife collaborative artist, technology, and business team who bring significant artistic, technology and community development skills to Corporate Performance Artists. Joseph, is a graduate of Computer Science from Duke University and a former team leader at IBM. He has been a CEO of several companies, and has been responsible for raising $2 million to fund a startup company called EveryDayPrint.com, which while part of the dot-com boom and bust, he managed to bring to profitability and which still survives to this day.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Re: feel like danciing?
Try http://www.ghentmag.com/site/deepdish.html
joseph
www.corporatepa.com
www.electrichands.com
lydia wrote:
> hello. i am a dancer living in new york city. i am trying to find a
> group of people of all areas in the arts to ....well...make something
> out of something. do you or anyone you know have any ideas? maybe you
> are a member of a performance prohect and want to help me get
> involved? i am inspired and determined so get back to me!
>
> lao02@hampshire.edu
joseph
www.corporatepa.com
www.electrichands.com
lydia wrote:
> hello. i am a dancer living in new york city. i am trying to find a
> group of people of all areas in the arts to ....well...make something
> out of something. do you or anyone you know have any ideas? maybe you
> are a member of a performance prohect and want to help me get
> involved? i am inspired and determined so get back to me!
>
> lao02@hampshire.edu
Re: A Dookie for Every Sandanista
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> how do you make a piece of art that doesn't have a potential negative
> ramification, that doesn't somehow support the status quo, the
> patriarchy,
> the whateveryouwannablameyourproblemsonogarchy? I can only think of
> one way,
> which is not to make work that attempts to subvert those paradigms,
> but
> rather, work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them.
>
The moment you use any definition to describe a work, you enter into the paradigm. You would have to create work that has no description and no determination of its relative value. But to formulate such work, you would have to be a savant the moment you were born and capable of building such. Perhaps aliens will land.
The question is how do you make art that has a positive power. It's not the art, its the artist. The other question is how do you get people to make a change? Take matters to the extreme.
BTW - check out how we are decorating the Bronx...
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May_2003_Beauty_Salon
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May31_2003_Bruckner_A&A Fair
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/Labrynth_Pagent_May_2_2003
joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:47 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Corporate [Art]Rule[s]
>
>
> > it seems like "political" has become a narrowly defined term here -
> by
> accepting the way it was used in the original call (i would assume it
> was
> meant to discourage references to US electoral politics/partisanship),
> though eryk offered alternatives to the binary logic that are no less
> "political," i.e. seeking to engage in some kind relationship
> involving
> persuasion. i don't mean this to sound corrective - i'm sure
> everyone's
> aware of the semantic use of "politics." but the insidious demotion of
> the
> word (in the US) to the vulgar and dishonest has given far too much
> power to
> oppressive ideologies that rely on anti-intellectualism and populist
> rhetoric, while discouraging civic involvement. i mean, when saying
> that a
> political debate is "just about politics" is used as a negative - what
> the
> hell does that mean? or "get the government out of our lives" -
> shouldn't it
> be "get our lives into the government?"
> > now i'm just ranting about linguistics (sorry) - but it does matter.
> > defining the context of what is "political" or "pornographic" would
> be of
> interest - as many corporations thrive on images of "radicality" that
> many
> might consider to be both of those terms. there's always regulating
> structures (and counter structures) for culture, but determining the
> power
> afforded to some is worth considering, maybe. joseph's idea of
> subversion
> has a history of practice (from muralists like Ben Shaun and Rivera),
> but
> eryk's got a point, subversion (reaction) is easily just appropriated
> by the
> media machine it tries to oppose. positive proposals are too, as PR
> "greenwashing" illustrates. both seem necessary to me.
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> how do you make a piece of art that doesn't have a potential negative
> ramification, that doesn't somehow support the status quo, the
> patriarchy,
> the whateveryouwannablameyourproblemsonogarchy? I can only think of
> one way,
> which is not to make work that attempts to subvert those paradigms,
> but
> rather, work that stands outside of it to give perspective into them.
>
The moment you use any definition to describe a work, you enter into the paradigm. You would have to create work that has no description and no determination of its relative value. But to formulate such work, you would have to be a savant the moment you were born and capable of building such. Perhaps aliens will land.
The question is how do you make art that has a positive power. It's not the art, its the artist. The other question is how do you get people to make a change? Take matters to the extreme.
BTW - check out how we are decorating the Bronx...
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May_2003_Beauty_Salon
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/May31_2003_Bruckner_A&A Fair
http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/Labrynth_Pagent_May_2_2003
joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:47 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Corporate [Art]Rule[s]
>
>
> > it seems like "political" has become a narrowly defined term here -
> by
> accepting the way it was used in the original call (i would assume it
> was
> meant to discourage references to US electoral politics/partisanship),
> though eryk offered alternatives to the binary logic that are no less
> "political," i.e. seeking to engage in some kind relationship
> involving
> persuasion. i don't mean this to sound corrective - i'm sure
> everyone's
> aware of the semantic use of "politics." but the insidious demotion of
> the
> word (in the US) to the vulgar and dishonest has given far too much
> power to
> oppressive ideologies that rely on anti-intellectualism and populist
> rhetoric, while discouraging civic involvement. i mean, when saying
> that a
> political debate is "just about politics" is used as a negative - what
> the
> hell does that mean? or "get the government out of our lives" -
> shouldn't it
> be "get our lives into the government?"
> > now i'm just ranting about linguistics (sorry) - but it does matter.
> > defining the context of what is "political" or "pornographic" would
> be of
> interest - as many corporations thrive on images of "radicality" that
> many
> might consider to be both of those terms. there's always regulating
> structures (and counter structures) for culture, but determining the
> power
> afforded to some is worth considering, maybe. joseph's idea of
> subversion
> has a history of practice (from muralists like Ben Shaun and Rivera),
> but
> eryk's got a point, subversion (reaction) is easily just appropriated
> by the
> media machine it tries to oppose. positive proposals are too, as PR
> "greenwashing" illustrates. both seem necessary to me.
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
Re: Corporate [Art]Rule[s]
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> I disagree that any corporation showing art in the first place would
> be
> unwilling to show work of a "pornographic" or "political" nature based
> on
> some idea of "diminishing corporate share value". It makes more sense
> to me-
Depends upon the mission of the corporation, since some corporations share value might increase due to publicity that enhances their mission (think Playboy, etc).
> considering that these people are humans, not stock tickers- that they
> want
> the art to be a catalyst for ideas as opposed to debates or arguments.
They are humans subject to the responsibilities they assume due to their roles in a corporation. To remain within the corporation, they have to meet their responsibilities. Destroying share value will get them fired.
>
> Simply because art is not political or pornographic does not mean it
> can't
> be "dangerous". In fact, pornographic and political art is the least
> dangerous art there is, in any environment. The problem is that many
> artists
> are blind to what that they could actually endanger with their work,
> for
> better or for ill. A corporate environment that is actually interested
> in
> ideas is one of the better places where art can "make a difference"
> today-
Only (for the most part) small companies work with new ideas, large corporations (who can afford to buy art) look for successful ideas they can capitalize upon.
> particularly art that is not overwrought with confrontational conceit
> about
> "the evils of corporate rule". [Endangerment for ill.] What if a piece
> could
> show the possibility of corporate responsibility, could show some kind
> of
> opening for action or provide some sort of alternative to a
> detrimental
> methodology? [Endangerment for better.]
Exactly. I (and we) work on this.
http://www.electrichands.com/sketches/plan.pdf
joseph
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joseph mcelroy" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:37 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
>
>
> > I agree with Eryk on this one. With the legal responsibility that
> corporations have to shareholders to not diminish the corporate share
> value,
> which can happen easily with offending artwork, officers are not in a
> position to take chances and it would be "unethical" for them to do
> so. And
> large institutions placing restrictions on the content of artwork it
> sponsors is nothing new. Do you think Mike could have painted a bunch
> of
> satan worshipers and fornicators on the Sistine (other than showing
> them go
> to hell of course;)? Creating worthwhile art within restrictions is a
> challenge, not an obstacle.
> >
> > joseph
> >
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > > And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may
> want
> > > to
> > > participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior
> because
> > > it
> > > might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is
> only
> > > relevant if it offends buisiness people?
> > >
> > > Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show
> pornography
> > > or
> > > political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> > > Whether
> > > we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't
> know
> > > why we
> > > have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> > > Shouldn't we
> > > be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> > > With the
> > > way the government is going and has been going, corporate
> sponsorship
> > > may be
> > > the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> > > corporations
> > > insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> > > buisiness
> > > practice should be not only allowed but funded by those
> corporations
> > > whose
> > > sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> > > institutions
> > > for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> > > compromise."
> > >
> > > Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > > > instrument there.
> > > > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > > > them.
> > > > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > > > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > > > content in advance?
> > > > best
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > > > following.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > > > that
> > > > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > > > movers
> > > > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > > > entertainment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > > > our work in such a
> > > > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > > > being seen. And because
> > > > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > > > that is so corrupt.
> > > > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > > > conversation- we talk about
> > > > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > > > was easier. And while we
> > > > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > > > that, as well, because
> > > > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > > > by actualization.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > > > "quality" based on things they
> > > > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > > > in the art world. As it
> > > > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > > > money based solely on an
> > > > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > > > reject the institutions
> > > > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > > > complaints about them."
> > > > >
> > > > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is
> that
> > > of
> > > the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in
> > > any
> > > way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We
> have
> > > taken
> > > the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> > > carry out
> > > your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> > > observe
> > > this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> > > security
> > > when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> > > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > > > http://calendar.yahoo.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 disagree that any corporation showing art in the first place would
> be
> unwilling to show work of a "pornographic" or "political" nature based
> on
> some idea of "diminishing corporate share value". It makes more sense
> to me-
Depends upon the mission of the corporation, since some corporations share value might increase due to publicity that enhances their mission (think Playboy, etc).
> considering that these people are humans, not stock tickers- that they
> want
> the art to be a catalyst for ideas as opposed to debates or arguments.
They are humans subject to the responsibilities they assume due to their roles in a corporation. To remain within the corporation, they have to meet their responsibilities. Destroying share value will get them fired.
>
> Simply because art is not political or pornographic does not mean it
> can't
> be "dangerous". In fact, pornographic and political art is the least
> dangerous art there is, in any environment. The problem is that many
> artists
> are blind to what that they could actually endanger with their work,
> for
> better or for ill. A corporate environment that is actually interested
> in
> ideas is one of the better places where art can "make a difference"
> today-
Only (for the most part) small companies work with new ideas, large corporations (who can afford to buy art) look for successful ideas they can capitalize upon.
> particularly art that is not overwrought with confrontational conceit
> about
> "the evils of corporate rule". [Endangerment for ill.] What if a piece
> could
> show the possibility of corporate responsibility, could show some kind
> of
> opening for action or provide some sort of alternative to a
> detrimental
> methodology? [Endangerment for better.]
Exactly. I (and we) work on this.
http://www.electrichands.com/sketches/plan.pdf
joseph
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joseph mcelroy" <joseph@electrichands.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:37 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
>
>
> > I agree with Eryk on this one. With the legal responsibility that
> corporations have to shareholders to not diminish the corporate share
> value,
> which can happen easily with offending artwork, officers are not in a
> position to take chances and it would be "unethical" for them to do
> so. And
> large institutions placing restrictions on the content of artwork it
> sponsors is nothing new. Do you think Mike could have painted a bunch
> of
> satan worshipers and fornicators on the Sistine (other than showing
> them go
> to hell of course;)? Creating worthwhile art within restrictions is a
> challenge, not an obstacle.
> >
> > joseph
> >
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > > And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may
> want
> > > to
> > > participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior
> because
> > > it
> > > might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is
> only
> > > relevant if it offends buisiness people?
> > >
> > > Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show
> pornography
> > > or
> > > political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> > > Whether
> > > we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't
> know
> > > why we
> > > have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> > > Shouldn't we
> > > be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> > > With the
> > > way the government is going and has been going, corporate
> sponsorship
> > > may be
> > > the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> > > corporations
> > > insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> > > buisiness
> > > practice should be not only allowed but funded by those
> corporations
> > > whose
> > > sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> > > institutions
> > > for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> > > compromise."
> > >
> > > Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for
> Entries
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > > > instrument there.
> > > > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > > > them.
> > > > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > > > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > > > content in advance?
> > > > best
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > > > following.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > > > that
> > > > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > > > movers
> > > > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > > > entertainment.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > > > our work in such a
> > > > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > > > being seen. And because
> > > > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > > > that is so corrupt.
> > > > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > > > conversation- we talk about
> > > > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > > > was easier. And while we
> > > > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > > > that, as well, because
> > > > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > > > by actualization.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > > > "quality" based on things they
> > > > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > > > in the art world. As it
> > > > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > > > money based solely on an
> > > > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > > > reject the institutions
> > > > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > > > complaints about them."
> > > > >
> > > > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is
> that
> > > of
> > > the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
> in
> > > any
> > > way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We
> have
> > > taken
> > > the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> > > carry out
> > > your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> > > observe
> > > this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> > > security
> > > when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> > > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > > > http://calendar.yahoo.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
>
Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
I agree with Eryk on this one. With the legal responsibility that corporations have to shareholders to not diminish the corporate share value, which can happen easily with offending artwork, officers are not in a position to take chances and it would be "unethical" for them to do so. And large institutions placing restrictions on the content of artwork it sponsors is nothing new. Do you think Mike could have painted a bunch of satan worshipers and fornicators on the Sistine (other than showing them go to hell of course;)? Creating worthwhile art within restrictions is a challenge, not an obstacle.
joseph
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may want
> to
> participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior because
> it
> might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is only
> relevant if it offends buisiness people?
>
> Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show pornography
> or
> political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> Whether
> we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't know
> why we
> have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> Shouldn't we
> be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> With the
> way the government is going and has been going, corporate sponsorship
> may be
> the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> corporations
> insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> buisiness
> practice should be not only allowed but funded by those corporations
> whose
> sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> institutions
> for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> compromise."
>
> Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>
>
> > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > instrument there.
> > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > them.
> > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > content in advance?
> > best
> > michael
> >
> >
> > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > following.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > that
> > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > movers
> > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > entertainment.
> > >
> > >
> > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > our work in such a
> > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > being seen. And because
> > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > that is so corrupt.
> > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > conversation- we talk about
> > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > was easier. And while we
> > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > that, as well, because
> > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > by actualization.
> > >
> > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > "quality" based on things they
> > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > in the art world. As it
> > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > money based solely on an
> > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > reject the institutions
> > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > complaints about them."
> > >
> > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of
> the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in
> any
> way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have
> taken
> the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> observe
> this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> security
> when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> >
>
joseph
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> And what will we do if we are not happy? Chastise those who may want
> to
> participate anyway? Or do we assume that our work is superior because
> it
> might offend some buisiness people? Or do we assume that art is only
> relevant if it offends buisiness people?
>
> Corporate Sponsors are obviously not going to want to show pornography
> or
> political work at a buisiness meeting. That's how the world works.
> Whether
> we're happy with it or not. I'm not participating, but I don't know
> why we
> have to publically disavow any corporate-sponsored art event.
> Shouldn't we
> be happy that corporations are bothering with internet art at all?
> With the
> way the government is going and has been going, corporate sponsorship
> may be
> the only art patrons we have. Or should we "hold out" until
> corporations
> insist that pornographic and political art that offends thier own
> buisiness
> practice should be not only allowed but funded by those corporations
> whose
> sensibilities are being criticized? "And it is the fault of the
> institutions
> for not paying money based solely on an artists unwillingness to
> compromise."
>
> Who should pay for pornographic and political art?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:22 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
>
>
> > Well Eryk - it seems to me you're using a pretty blunt
> > instrument there.
> > Did you read the two calls for work? - have a look at
> > them.
> > My point was a very specific one - should we be happy
> > about corporate sponsors actually excluding specific
> > content in advance?
> > best
> > michael
> >
> >
> > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems Oro Bourous, Outsider Net.Artist has a
> > > following.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > > besides the politics and "pornography"
> > > > exclusions it seems also to be demanding pieces
> > > that
> > > > will be light and diverting and not overly tax the
> > > > braincells or attention span of the corporate
> > > movers
> > > > and shakers - digital "art" as corporate
> > > > entertainment.
> > >
> > >
> > > "We reject the idea that we should even try to have
> > > our work in such a
> > > context, because our work should not be enslaved by
> > > being seen. And because
> > > we feel we could not have our work shown in a system
> > > that is so corrupt.
> > > Instead, our work exists in real life, and in
> > > conversation- we talk about
> > > the projects we would make, if only getting a grant
> > > was easier. And while we
> > > could simply make art in the streets, we reject
> > > that, as well, because
> > > having our art in the streets with trash and car
> > > exhaust is a disservice to
> > > our ideas. In this way, our ideas remain untainted
> > > by actualization.
> > >
> > > But if they changed this system of appraising
> > > "quality" based on things they
> > > did not understand, I might be able to participate
> > > in the art world. As it
> > > is, I want to make a living off of my art, but I
> > > refuse to compromise. And
> > > it is the fault of the institutions for not paying
> > > money based solely on an
> > > artists unwillingness to compromise. That is why I
> > > reject the institutions
> > > altogether, and why I have dedicated my life to
> > > complaints about them."
> > >
> > > -Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
> of
> the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in
> any
> way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have
> taken
> the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you
> carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you
> observe
> this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of
> security
> when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> > http://calendar.yahoo.com
> >
>
Re: for the record
t.whid wrote:
> if memory serves, i was defending Charlotte against your abuse when i
Very patronizing of you. Defending your own club. Pats on the back all around.
joseph
> if memory serves, i was defending Charlotte against your abuse when i
Very patronizing of you. Defending your own club. Pats on the back all around.
joseph