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: If We All Just Talk About How We Feel We'll All Feel The Same Way
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> Actually, I apologize to the list.
>
> I do not have a right to my opinion. And neither does anyone else. It's a
> very easy mistake to make. It's easy to lose focus. But I can always go back
> to zero, so allow me to do so now.
Actually, you have the right to an opinion, just not the right to suppress
every other one with tactics that include drumming up political support with
derision. Your theoretical framework for reality is not to everyones liking,
nor is it demonstratably true.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Actually, I apologize to the list.
>
> I do not have a right to my opinion. And neither does anyone else. It's a
> very easy mistake to make. It's easy to lose focus. But I can always go back
> to zero, so allow me to do so now.
Actually, you have the right to an opinion, just not the right to suppress
every other one with tactics that include drumming up political support with
derision. Your theoretical framework for reality is not to everyones liking,
nor is it demonstratably true.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Re: If We All Just Talk About How We Feel We'll All Feel The Same Way
quoting Eryk Salvaggio
> I disagree. Merely arguing "different subjective viewpoints" gives you a
> greater awareness of the variety of subjective viewpoints and it has nothing
> to do with reality. Reality is zero, it is not the lump sum of everyone
> elses "1's".
So you believe, I believe differently. Whose belief is better? You want I
should come up there with a tank?
>
> > I am saying that in the sense that an artists view contributes
> > to a cummulative objective view, it documents reality,
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Want to arm wrestle about it?
>
> > I am not trying to present an objective view. I try to present multiple
> > subjective views as closer to (but only a subset of) an objective view.
>
> You can add up infinite layers of opinions and still have no idea what the
> truth of the matter is. Understanding reality is a REDUCTIVE act.
No it isn't. Lets have a spitting contest.
>
> Yes, you took elements of a mediated reality and you presented them as if
> they would lead to any level of greater understanding. You failed, because
> mediated reality has nothing to do with reality, and your opinions on
> mediated reality have even less to do with reality.
Mediated reality is reality. reality is reality. Opinions are reality. Throw it
all on the fire and you get warm.
>
> There is reality, mediated by the web and al-jazeera, and then you run that
> through the mediation of your personal filters, and then you create a piece
> which is your opinion of a mediated view of a mediated reality.
which is closer to an objective view of reality than my personal filters alone -
its incremental.
>
> How much closer to the "truth" are we now?
Some
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> I disagree. Merely arguing "different subjective viewpoints" gives you a
> greater awareness of the variety of subjective viewpoints and it has nothing
> to do with reality. Reality is zero, it is not the lump sum of everyone
> elses "1's".
So you believe, I believe differently. Whose belief is better? You want I
should come up there with a tank?
>
> > I am saying that in the sense that an artists view contributes
> > to a cummulative objective view, it documents reality,
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does. Want to arm wrestle about it?
>
> > I am not trying to present an objective view. I try to present multiple
> > subjective views as closer to (but only a subset of) an objective view.
>
> You can add up infinite layers of opinions and still have no idea what the
> truth of the matter is. Understanding reality is a REDUCTIVE act.
No it isn't. Lets have a spitting contest.
>
> Yes, you took elements of a mediated reality and you presented them as if
> they would lead to any level of greater understanding. You failed, because
> mediated reality has nothing to do with reality, and your opinions on
> mediated reality have even less to do with reality.
Mediated reality is reality. reality is reality. Opinions are reality. Throw it
all on the fire and you get warm.
>
> There is reality, mediated by the web and al-jazeera, and then you run that
> through the mediation of your personal filters, and then you create a piece
> which is your opinion of a mediated view of a mediated reality.
which is closer to an objective view of reality than my personal filters alone -
its incremental.
>
> How much closer to the "truth" are we now?
Some
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
Re: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at Postmasters
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> > You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual
> exploitation,
>
> Oh that's right. So I guess it's totally acceptable then. Because "most
You are putting words in my mouth with an assumption of a pov that I might
have. However, what I am saying is that art exists and has existed that is both
created and observed from various world viewpoints...and I believe that this is
a good thing - the closest we can acheive to an objective view of reality. For
example, I might see a spire and think it a finger pointing to god, another a
phallic symbol, another as an architectural element, etc. It is the
cummulative view that is closest to an objective view. I think it is the
responsibility of the artist to present their view, regardless of its
appropriateness, because this completes the cummulative view best. If I beat up
the artist that presents the phallic view because I think it is obscene, then I
am guilty of suppressing the most objective view possible.
> people" agree that it's acceptable and because "most people" do it and have
> been for a "long time", I guess it is just totally 100% okay. By this logic,
> we "should" all be Chinese Nationals, since they have the "most people" on
> the entire planet. Or would you say that we should instead all be the
> Ashurai people of Mesopotamia, because they're possibly the first
> civilization and therefore "go back the longest time?" Or would you prefer
> if we went so far back as to the "natural" instinctual wandering ape
> practices which predate civilization? You're the techno-nomad after all,
> right?
You are trying to insult me, but I am unconcerned about the number of people
that accept anything. An artist's work should exist because it should.
>
> My ascii nudes don't exploit "naked women"- if I claimed they "did," they
> still wouldn't. Also, if they were going to exploit anyone it would be
> "women". Nude women are not a special category and do not carry any
> different contexts than women with clothes on do, except for the baggage of
> the male gaze or unless they are deliberately exploited in order to suggest
> sexual arousal for the benefit of said male gaze. My pieces are not "erotic"
> pieces, and even erotic pieces are not by the way "exploitative," it depends
> on the context of the pieces themselves. You are speaking from a programmed
> puritanical pov that makes it so that women cannot feed thier children
> breast milk in public. If men could take responsibility for this we'd have
> actual "liberation" of women "from men" (which is not the liberation of
> women, which isn't mens to give them). The sight of a human body is not an
> invitation to fuck it, and while the idea that specifically observing "the
> aesthetics of the human form" does lend some credence to the idea of
> objectification, my work by no way implies that the totality of a woman is
> her sexual ability or desire. There are various vectors that one can
> manipulate in order to evoke sexual arousal and most of these are contextual
> and psychological- my pieces share one of these, nudity. For examples of
> this, look at how pornography tries to sell itself, or your "rub Linda"
> piece. We have already gone through this entire argument and I don't need to
> defend myself against your deflective allegations- if anyone had brought it
> up when it came out, you might have some credibility in this argument now,
> but bringing up "well your work from last year is exploitative but I just
> didn't say anything until just now" doesn't cut it.
I have no opinion about your ascii nudes because I bearly noticed them when
they came out. The point is that you have a view of what they are, and defend
them to the teeth. However, another person can judge them as they see fit, and
even see something that you don't. Because they have this opinion, should not
give them justification for trying to suppress yours. Your ascii nudes have as
much right to exist as their opinion. However, someone could rally numbers of
people to support their opinion and snuff the nudes out of existance. All
opinions are political. Your ferocious defense of opinions leads one to
believe that you are rallying support, thus raising the hackles of those who
fear being suppressed.
>
> Oh and Art is not a documentary, documentaries are documentaries and they
> are a form of art. You can "represent reality" but if you call it
> "documentary" and base it on some simulation of reality you are only
> reinforcing the idea that this simulation we live in is reality itself- it's
> not, its a projected duplicate. If you want to represent reality you have to
> detatch yourself from the simulation, and you are not doing this if your
> work has subjective judgements involved. I'm not saying I can do it, either,
> but I am at the very least aware that I can't do it, and my work is about
> that. If you want to call subjective art objective, go for it, I won't/can't
> "stop" you but I can point out that your work's POV is totally fabricated,
> ie, working completely in the field of simulation. Art, media, etc is itself
> is simulation, and now you are simulating the simulation of reality. It's
> fine and good, and makes for a lot of very interesting art when its made by
> people who understand this concept, but you can't photocopy a photocopy and
> call it an original unless you mean it is an original copy. And if someone
> says that, fine.
I did not say Art is a documentary, I said it is more documentary than
responsible. I am saying that in the sense that an artists view contributes
to a cummulative objective view, it documents reality, and while an artists
view also contributes to the cummulative responsibility of the world, in the
former case artists form a much larger subset of the domain than the latter.
I am not trying to present an objective view. I try to present multiple
subjective views as closer to (but only a subset of) an objective view. Thus
the reason that joseph franklyn mcelroy became joseph & donna and why corporate
performance artist has become a company of artists. Rub Linda was also
consistent with this approach, as I took elements on the web and weaved them
into a subjective american view, and added the photos displayed on Al Jeezeras
site as another subjective view of the world seen transparently through mine.
>
> You can keep arguing- not that you have even attempted to"argue" against any
> of my points, instead, you switch it to a personal attack and then you
> personally attack me "back" against your imagined phantoms of attacks on
> your "character." You are so obsessed with me being wrong that you forget to
> prove yourself right, which is a flip flop from how most people do it but
> it's pretty common anyway, and anyway, in both cases it's totally
> irrelevant.
From my view, you have attacked me with opinions because you personally dislike
me. It is just like a club attack and as such, all is fair. Whatever
frustrates you the most defeats your attack.
>
> For the record, I criticize the hypocrisy present in your public "persona"
> and your work. I don't like either of them. Your obsession with proving me
> "wrong" [and anyone else who crits your work, as Bethany did recently] is to
I did not do so with Blackheart of Marc, thus disproving your assertion. I am
harsh towards people who do a me-too attack without anything to say or someone
who attacks for personal reasons.
> be expected because you haven't proven that you have anything intellegent to
> say about your own work- which is why you needed to quote me in your article
> about the piece in your newsletter. So you resort to defending it on the
> basis of "respect". This has nothing to do with "you", though I do have
> problems with your domineering personality. But thats seperate from your
> work. But you can't believe that. You also think you are running a joke that
> I am not "in on," [ie, "pushing the power button"] but I assure you I am
> aware of it, and it's a waste of your time.
>
When I create software applications, if I have to explain to users how to use
it, I feel that I have failed. The same with an artwork.
> >
> > > I simply stated the truth. My
> > > statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
> >
> > Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk?
>
> No one does, and there is no "line" except for where you acknowledge your
> opinion begins. If you are constantly aware of the seperation you can tell
> the difference between facts and invented stories- and then deal with each
> on thier individual planes. The truth is there regardless of whether you
> want to acknowledge it or not, or "draw a line" or not, or be aware of it or
> not. If you want to play around in a hypermediated reality and say you are
> exposing the "truth" then you're just delusional.
I don't believe any individual can know what is the truth or the facts. You can
assert it, but that does not mean it exists as you assert it.
>
>
> > You don't use your opinion in a
> > discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
> >
>
> All opinions could be defined as "clubs" when the person who is saying it
> only knows how to wield an opinion in such a way. This is the difference
> between "opinion and truth" although most people will fight to the death in
> order to prove that thier opinion "is" truth and therefore fight tooth and
> nail to the "right to thier opinions". I know my opinion is an opinion, I
> have stated this numerous times, and yet people still insist on forcing me
> into "admitting" that what I am saying is "based on opinion" as if no one
> else on this list is writing opinion pieces everytime they crack open thier
> email box. My opinions are drawn from a framework of humanity, compassion,
> and awareness, even if I am not "friendly" about it. I admit to struggling
> with the full awareness of these concepts in my own work, and I take notice
> of works that pretend they are working from that framework when they exhibit
> blatantly contradictory messages. And it strikes me- with all the political
> posturing, all the claims of compassion and humanism on this list, that
> maybe someone ought to start holding people up to thier claims of being
> such, myself included. If someone is making those claims and staying
> intrinsically true to them, there's no reason to worry, because if one is
> genuinely interested in such a debate they can take such crits to heart or
> with a grain of salt. The people who masquerade under that umbrella without
> any internal questioning of what they are doing in regards to that framework
> seem to be the only people raising a fuss. If you don't like it, don't.
My opinion of what I do as an artist is seperate from my personal opinions of
politics. Sometimes I present my opinion in an artwork, and try to present
another view point (or several). However, I don't build work with the idea of
it being compassionate or humanistic.
>
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual
> exploitation,
>
> Oh that's right. So I guess it's totally acceptable then. Because "most
You are putting words in my mouth with an assumption of a pov that I might
have. However, what I am saying is that art exists and has existed that is both
created and observed from various world viewpoints...and I believe that this is
a good thing - the closest we can acheive to an objective view of reality. For
example, I might see a spire and think it a finger pointing to god, another a
phallic symbol, another as an architectural element, etc. It is the
cummulative view that is closest to an objective view. I think it is the
responsibility of the artist to present their view, regardless of its
appropriateness, because this completes the cummulative view best. If I beat up
the artist that presents the phallic view because I think it is obscene, then I
am guilty of suppressing the most objective view possible.
> people" agree that it's acceptable and because "most people" do it and have
> been for a "long time", I guess it is just totally 100% okay. By this logic,
> we "should" all be Chinese Nationals, since they have the "most people" on
> the entire planet. Or would you say that we should instead all be the
> Ashurai people of Mesopotamia, because they're possibly the first
> civilization and therefore "go back the longest time?" Or would you prefer
> if we went so far back as to the "natural" instinctual wandering ape
> practices which predate civilization? You're the techno-nomad after all,
> right?
You are trying to insult me, but I am unconcerned about the number of people
that accept anything. An artist's work should exist because it should.
>
> My ascii nudes don't exploit "naked women"- if I claimed they "did," they
> still wouldn't. Also, if they were going to exploit anyone it would be
> "women". Nude women are not a special category and do not carry any
> different contexts than women with clothes on do, except for the baggage of
> the male gaze or unless they are deliberately exploited in order to suggest
> sexual arousal for the benefit of said male gaze. My pieces are not "erotic"
> pieces, and even erotic pieces are not by the way "exploitative," it depends
> on the context of the pieces themselves. You are speaking from a programmed
> puritanical pov that makes it so that women cannot feed thier children
> breast milk in public. If men could take responsibility for this we'd have
> actual "liberation" of women "from men" (which is not the liberation of
> women, which isn't mens to give them). The sight of a human body is not an
> invitation to fuck it, and while the idea that specifically observing "the
> aesthetics of the human form" does lend some credence to the idea of
> objectification, my work by no way implies that the totality of a woman is
> her sexual ability or desire. There are various vectors that one can
> manipulate in order to evoke sexual arousal and most of these are contextual
> and psychological- my pieces share one of these, nudity. For examples of
> this, look at how pornography tries to sell itself, or your "rub Linda"
> piece. We have already gone through this entire argument and I don't need to
> defend myself against your deflective allegations- if anyone had brought it
> up when it came out, you might have some credibility in this argument now,
> but bringing up "well your work from last year is exploitative but I just
> didn't say anything until just now" doesn't cut it.
I have no opinion about your ascii nudes because I bearly noticed them when
they came out. The point is that you have a view of what they are, and defend
them to the teeth. However, another person can judge them as they see fit, and
even see something that you don't. Because they have this opinion, should not
give them justification for trying to suppress yours. Your ascii nudes have as
much right to exist as their opinion. However, someone could rally numbers of
people to support their opinion and snuff the nudes out of existance. All
opinions are political. Your ferocious defense of opinions leads one to
believe that you are rallying support, thus raising the hackles of those who
fear being suppressed.
>
> Oh and Art is not a documentary, documentaries are documentaries and they
> are a form of art. You can "represent reality" but if you call it
> "documentary" and base it on some simulation of reality you are only
> reinforcing the idea that this simulation we live in is reality itself- it's
> not, its a projected duplicate. If you want to represent reality you have to
> detatch yourself from the simulation, and you are not doing this if your
> work has subjective judgements involved. I'm not saying I can do it, either,
> but I am at the very least aware that I can't do it, and my work is about
> that. If you want to call subjective art objective, go for it, I won't/can't
> "stop" you but I can point out that your work's POV is totally fabricated,
> ie, working completely in the field of simulation. Art, media, etc is itself
> is simulation, and now you are simulating the simulation of reality. It's
> fine and good, and makes for a lot of very interesting art when its made by
> people who understand this concept, but you can't photocopy a photocopy and
> call it an original unless you mean it is an original copy. And if someone
> says that, fine.
I did not say Art is a documentary, I said it is more documentary than
responsible. I am saying that in the sense that an artists view contributes
to a cummulative objective view, it documents reality, and while an artists
view also contributes to the cummulative responsibility of the world, in the
former case artists form a much larger subset of the domain than the latter.
I am not trying to present an objective view. I try to present multiple
subjective views as closer to (but only a subset of) an objective view. Thus
the reason that joseph franklyn mcelroy became joseph & donna and why corporate
performance artist has become a company of artists. Rub Linda was also
consistent with this approach, as I took elements on the web and weaved them
into a subjective american view, and added the photos displayed on Al Jeezeras
site as another subjective view of the world seen transparently through mine.
>
> You can keep arguing- not that you have even attempted to"argue" against any
> of my points, instead, you switch it to a personal attack and then you
> personally attack me "back" against your imagined phantoms of attacks on
> your "character." You are so obsessed with me being wrong that you forget to
> prove yourself right, which is a flip flop from how most people do it but
> it's pretty common anyway, and anyway, in both cases it's totally
> irrelevant.
From my view, you have attacked me with opinions because you personally dislike
me. It is just like a club attack and as such, all is fair. Whatever
frustrates you the most defeats your attack.
>
> For the record, I criticize the hypocrisy present in your public "persona"
> and your work. I don't like either of them. Your obsession with proving me
> "wrong" [and anyone else who crits your work, as Bethany did recently] is to
I did not do so with Blackheart of Marc, thus disproving your assertion. I am
harsh towards people who do a me-too attack without anything to say or someone
who attacks for personal reasons.
> be expected because you haven't proven that you have anything intellegent to
> say about your own work- which is why you needed to quote me in your article
> about the piece in your newsletter. So you resort to defending it on the
> basis of "respect". This has nothing to do with "you", though I do have
> problems with your domineering personality. But thats seperate from your
> work. But you can't believe that. You also think you are running a joke that
> I am not "in on," [ie, "pushing the power button"] but I assure you I am
> aware of it, and it's a waste of your time.
>
When I create software applications, if I have to explain to users how to use
it, I feel that I have failed. The same with an artwork.
> >
> > > I simply stated the truth. My
> > > statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
> >
> > Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk?
>
> No one does, and there is no "line" except for where you acknowledge your
> opinion begins. If you are constantly aware of the seperation you can tell
> the difference between facts and invented stories- and then deal with each
> on thier individual planes. The truth is there regardless of whether you
> want to acknowledge it or not, or "draw a line" or not, or be aware of it or
> not. If you want to play around in a hypermediated reality and say you are
> exposing the "truth" then you're just delusional.
I don't believe any individual can know what is the truth or the facts. You can
assert it, but that does not mean it exists as you assert it.
>
>
> > You don't use your opinion in a
> > discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
> >
>
> All opinions could be defined as "clubs" when the person who is saying it
> only knows how to wield an opinion in such a way. This is the difference
> between "opinion and truth" although most people will fight to the death in
> order to prove that thier opinion "is" truth and therefore fight tooth and
> nail to the "right to thier opinions". I know my opinion is an opinion, I
> have stated this numerous times, and yet people still insist on forcing me
> into "admitting" that what I am saying is "based on opinion" as if no one
> else on this list is writing opinion pieces everytime they crack open thier
> email box. My opinions are drawn from a framework of humanity, compassion,
> and awareness, even if I am not "friendly" about it. I admit to struggling
> with the full awareness of these concepts in my own work, and I take notice
> of works that pretend they are working from that framework when they exhibit
> blatantly contradictory messages. And it strikes me- with all the political
> posturing, all the claims of compassion and humanism on this list, that
> maybe someone ought to start holding people up to thier claims of being
> such, myself included. If someone is making those claims and staying
> intrinsically true to them, there's no reason to worry, because if one is
> genuinely interested in such a debate they can take such crits to heart or
> with a grain of salt. The people who masquerade under that umbrella without
> any internal questioning of what they are doing in regards to that framework
> seem to be the only people raising a fuss. If you don't like it, don't.
My opinion of what I do as an artist is seperate from my personal opinions of
politics. Sometimes I present my opinion in an artwork, and try to present
another view point (or several). However, I don't build work with the idea of
it being compassionate or humanistic.
>
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Re: Mouchette - special event this Sunday at Postmasters
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
>Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
>games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual exploitation,
murder, etc ... you claim your ASCII nudes were not about exploiting naked
women. Art is more documentary than responsible.
> I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk? You don't use your opinion in a
discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
Makes for good quotes though...
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
> > I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
> > accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl', we
> > can still debate it.
>
> You can debate any fact for as long as you like, this is the basis of almost
> all philosophies and the subject of all political discussions, it is how
> people get caught up in "causes and crusades." Nor is this standpoint one of
> "objectivity." "Debate" is just an argument of subjectivities. Debate does
> not change what is fact and what is fiction, no matter how post modern you
> want to be about it. There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
> Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
> games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
> feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to "shock
> people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."
>
>
> > You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character of
> > Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
> > disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male? On
> > what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
> > I DENY IT.
>
> I'm not surprised, denial is very convenient- It seems to be one of the
> greatest human survival mechanisms ever invented. All of these questions are
> irrelevant to what has been said. Do you want me to start preaching about
> why fantasizing about 13 year old girls is an irresponsible thing to
> encourage? Do you want me to titillate you further with more stories of
> girls who have been subject to sexual abuse whose suffering was even more
> prolonged as a result of this invented culture of "invitational
> molestation"? Or would all these things be irrelevant since there is "no
> such thing as truth?" So clearly there is no such thing as this suffering,
> no such thing as a social acceptance of child molestation, no, not at all,
> we're all very good and proper human beings who always "do the right thing."
> Or we can just say "oh well, kids get raped, why not have fun with it?"
> because all Ivan Popes believe in an innate subjectivity. Oh, but I'm
> appealing to emotion now, aren't I? And apparently emotions should be
> completely avoided because fascists had "emotions" too....
>
>
> > I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a 13
> > year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
> > woman.
>
> The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
> inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
> you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
> "wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.
>
>
> > Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
> > totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
> > least.
>
> "We" who? Is there more than one Ivan Pope? Are you a collective? I guess if
> you are a collective I should double-check my entire hypothesis since the
> larger the number of people who agree, the more right they are. All right,
> so now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and has
> a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!
>
>
> > Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
> > think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
> > sort of argument.
>
> It is good that the elections were held which made you rhizome spokesperson,
> unfortunately I seemed to have missed election day. Anyway, this point is
> irrelevant and I don't care enough to research it. I don't even recall that
> my intention was to start an "argument." I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation. The site is
> about a 13 year old girl who invites you to think of her sexually. The
> ramifications of this position are something which can be discussed- maybe
> you think that its fine to have sex with 13 year old girls. And since denial
> is the most pervasive of all human defense mechanisms, I don't subscribe to
> your belief that "the more people that believe it, the more true it is."
> Reality doesn't care about democracy.
>
>
> > That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
> > such a position.
>
> How endearing of all Ivan Popes to speak again on behalf of the rhizome
> community. Let me let you in something, I am not writing for your sake, or
> for the sake of "you all." As if it matters who "respects my rights" to
> "take a position" on this list. What would you do if you didn't "respect"
> that "right"? Nothing, you could do nothing. [Except argue who is "right"
> and who is "wrong" or "deny" everything and then pretend that it is
> "constructive."]
>
>
> > Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.
>
> Yes perhaps I used it incorrectly, though "The emotional import of a passage
> as distinct from its form of expression" comes very close to what I am
> talking about in mouchette.
>
> -e.
>
> + 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
>There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
>Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
>games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
You can go back a long time and find plenty of art about sexual exploitation,
murder, etc ... you claim your ASCII nudes were not about exploiting naked
women. Art is more documentary than responsible.
> I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation.
Who draws the line and defines the Truth Eryk? You don't use your opinion in a
discussion, you use your opinion like a club.
Makes for good quotes though...
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
> > I'm sure we could debate it till the cows come home. I mean, even if we
> > accept that the site is 'about' 'sexuality' and a '13 year old' 'girl', we
> > can still debate it.
>
> You can debate any fact for as long as you like, this is the basis of almost
> all philosophies and the subject of all political discussions, it is how
> people get caught up in "causes and crusades." Nor is this standpoint one of
> "objectivity." "Debate" is just an argument of subjectivities. Debate does
> not change what is fact and what is fiction, no matter how post modern you
> want to be about it. There IS such a thing as truth. In this case:
> Mouchette.org is about a 13 year old girl who invites people to play sexual
> games with her and talks about committing suicide. That's the truth. The
> interpretation I have is that it sends an irresponsible message. Some people
> feel that art has a right to do whatever art wants to do in order to "shock
> people," I don't, and that is my "opinion."
>
>
> > You are just to dogmatic. What is not to be denied? That the character of
> > Mouchette is 'a disgusting male fantasy'. Is it the fantasy that is
> > disgusting? Or the content of the fantasy? Or the fact that it is male? On
> > what basis is it male? Why are things not to be denied?
> > I DENY IT.
>
> I'm not surprised, denial is very convenient- It seems to be one of the
> greatest human survival mechanisms ever invented. All of these questions are
> irrelevant to what has been said. Do you want me to start preaching about
> why fantasizing about 13 year old girls is an irresponsible thing to
> encourage? Do you want me to titillate you further with more stories of
> girls who have been subject to sexual abuse whose suffering was even more
> prolonged as a result of this invented culture of "invitational
> molestation"? Or would all these things be irrelevant since there is "no
> such thing as truth?" So clearly there is no such thing as this suffering,
> no such thing as a social acceptance of child molestation, no, not at all,
> we're all very good and proper human beings who always "do the right thing."
> Or we can just say "oh well, kids get raped, why not have fun with it?"
> because all Ivan Popes believe in an innate subjectivity. Oh, but I'm
> appealing to emotion now, aren't I? And apparently emotions should be
> completely avoided because fascists had "emotions" too....
>
>
> > I'd also like to point out that even if the Mouchette site was about a 13
> > year old girl when it was launched, it must now be about a 20 year old
> > woman.
>
> The site is about a fictional character who is perpetually 13, perpetually
> inviting sexual encounters, and perpetually contemplating suicide. Perhaps
> you should familiarize yourself with the work before talking about how
> "wrong" I am about it and trying to assert how "right" you are.
>
>
> > Well, we're all sentient beings. If you give us almost anything that is
> > totally preposterous we will jump in to discuss it, for a nanosecond at
> > least.
>
> "We" who? Is there more than one Ivan Pope? Are you a collective? I guess if
> you are a collective I should double-check my entire hypothesis since the
> larger the number of people who agree, the more right they are. All right,
> so now I see that my view that Mouchette is about a 13 year old girl and has
> a strong sexual tone is "preposterous." Good work guys!
>
>
> > Anyway, it's not just me that doesn't agree with you sentiments. I don't
> > think anyone on Rhizome agreed with you, or thought you even had made any
> > sort of argument.
>
> It is good that the elections were held which made you rhizome spokesperson,
> unfortunately I seemed to have missed election day. Anyway, this point is
> irrelevant and I don't care enough to research it. I don't even recall that
> my intention was to start an "argument." I simply stated the truth. My
> statements are simply correct, and are above interpretation. The site is
> about a 13 year old girl who invites you to think of her sexually. The
> ramifications of this position are something which can be discussed- maybe
> you think that its fine to have sex with 13 year old girls. And since denial
> is the most pervasive of all human defense mechanisms, I don't subscribe to
> your belief that "the more people that believe it, the more true it is."
> Reality doesn't care about democracy.
>
>
> > That said, I'm sure we all respect your right to strike
> > such a position.
>
> How endearing of all Ivan Popes to speak again on behalf of the rhizome
> community. Let me let you in something, I am not writing for your sake, or
> for the sake of "you all." As if it matters who "respects my rights" to
> "take a position" on this list. What would you do if you didn't "respect"
> that "right"? Nothing, you could do nothing. [Except argue who is "right"
> and who is "wrong" or "deny" everything and then pretend that it is
> "constructive."]
>
>
> > Sentiment is a strange and dangerous word.
>
> Yes perhaps I used it incorrectly, though "The emotional import of a passage
> as distinct from its form of expression" comes very close to what I am
> talking about in mouchette.
>
> -e.
>
> + 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: invitation to participate: your favorite four letter words
Mine also
joseph
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
> "Eryk" is my favorite four letter word.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Jean Hester" <jenajunk@hotmail.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:08 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: invitation to participate: your favorite four letter
> words
>
>
> > Hey Rhizomers,
> >
> > I'd like to ask you to contribute/participate in my latest
> > collaborative-participative-what-the-hell-is-it-ART-THANG. (FYI, I have
> > included my bio at the end of this email.)
> >
> > It's SO EASY: send me a list of your favorite four letter words (as many
> or
> > as few as you want). Yeah, and remember, four letter doesn't have to mean
> > f*ck, sh*t, d*mn, although those certainly are glorious four letter words.
> > Hand, post, June, list, dive, chow, Oslo, poke are all perfectly
> reasonable
> > four letter words as well.
> >
> > The words will be used in a video installation planned for a
> > music/video/art/dance-like-crazy-people event at the Hollywood Athletic
> Club
> > in Los Angeles for May 17. The words will be placed in a database, and
> > reconfigured in odd random pairings based on an algorithm, along with odd
> > random pairings of video footage.
> >
> > Thanks, and send those words in to jenajunk@hotmail.com! I need a lot of
> > them...
> >
> > BIO: <warning: art jargon ahead>
> > D. Jean Hester is a media artist living in Los Angeles, California, whose
> > work combines programming, databases, film and video to create interactive
> > pieces for both physical installations and online platforms. Hester
> wishes
> > to involve users as active, thinking, engaged participant-collaborators in
> > the creation of art. Her work explores the nature of interactivity and
> > audience/user participation, and what happens when a work is no longer a
> > stand-alone authored environment with a tightly controlled author-defined
> > outcome, but when the users themselves are contributing/collaborating
> > through the use of interactivity (be it physical real-world performative
> > actions or interaction with a database or some other program). In this
> > scenario the artist's intention is only part of the puzzle - the art does
> > not exist until it is engaged. Without a user as a contributor, it is
> only
> > a potentiality - not an actuality. Her work has been shown in numerous
> > exhibits, festivals, and screenings in the United States, Canada, and
> > Mexico, and can be seen online at www.divestudio.org.
> >
> > -- D. Jean Hester
> > www.divestudio.org
> > Interviewer: "Must an artist be a programmer to make truly original online
> > art?"
> > John Simon: "Truly original? You Modernist! Whether you make art or not,
> > understanding programming is an amazing understanding."
> > from "Code as Creative Writing: An Interview with John Simon"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> > http://join.msn.com/?pagethatures/junkmail
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
joseph
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
>
> "Eryk" is my favorite four letter word.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Jean Hester" <jenajunk@hotmail.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:08 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: invitation to participate: your favorite four letter
> words
>
>
> > Hey Rhizomers,
> >
> > I'd like to ask you to contribute/participate in my latest
> > collaborative-participative-what-the-hell-is-it-ART-THANG. (FYI, I have
> > included my bio at the end of this email.)
> >
> > It's SO EASY: send me a list of your favorite four letter words (as many
> or
> > as few as you want). Yeah, and remember, four letter doesn't have to mean
> > f*ck, sh*t, d*mn, although those certainly are glorious four letter words.
> > Hand, post, June, list, dive, chow, Oslo, poke are all perfectly
> reasonable
> > four letter words as well.
> >
> > The words will be used in a video installation planned for a
> > music/video/art/dance-like-crazy-people event at the Hollywood Athletic
> Club
> > in Los Angeles for May 17. The words will be placed in a database, and
> > reconfigured in odd random pairings based on an algorithm, along with odd
> > random pairings of video footage.
> >
> > Thanks, and send those words in to jenajunk@hotmail.com! I need a lot of
> > them...
> >
> > BIO: <warning: art jargon ahead>
> > D. Jean Hester is a media artist living in Los Angeles, California, whose
> > work combines programming, databases, film and video to create interactive
> > pieces for both physical installations and online platforms. Hester
> wishes
> > to involve users as active, thinking, engaged participant-collaborators in
> > the creation of art. Her work explores the nature of interactivity and
> > audience/user participation, and what happens when a work is no longer a
> > stand-alone authored environment with a tightly controlled author-defined
> > outcome, but when the users themselves are contributing/collaborating
> > through the use of interactivity (be it physical real-world performative
> > actions or interaction with a database or some other program). In this
> > scenario the artist's intention is only part of the puzzle - the art does
> > not exist until it is engaged. Without a user as a contributor, it is
> only
> > a potentiality - not an actuality. Her work has been shown in numerous
> > exhibits, festivals, and screenings in the United States, Canada, and
> > Mexico, and can be seen online at www.divestudio.org.
> >
> > -- D. Jean Hester
> > www.divestudio.org
> > Interviewer: "Must an artist be a programmer to make truly original online
> > art?"
> > John Simon: "Truly original? You Modernist! Whether you make art or not,
> > understanding programming is an amazing understanding."
> > from "Code as Creative Writing: An Interview with John Simon"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> > http://join.msn.com/?pagethatures/junkmail
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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