BIO
Lewis LaCook makes things. He is a programmer/poet. He likes unstable objects. He doesn't eat enough. Send him all your money.
Re: WHALELANE No. 7 AVAILABLE
CHECK OUT DENNIS MILLER'S SECOND THOUGHTS---IT IS ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!!
bliss
l
bliss
l
Re: Re: Re: curating the curators
(Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
just make cool stuff?!?)
YES!
BLISS
L
> > The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds
> of
> >various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on
> (as
> >you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
> >make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the
> circle of
> >artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do
> net/on &
> >offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max
> but this
> >keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
>
> By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
> way. Right now we may have $200 in the bank. It comes and goes.
> But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
> reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
> myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
> become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
>
>
>
> >I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are
> fame-
> >mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art
> &
> >the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
> >their on.
>
> If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
> subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
> still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
>
>
>
> >True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the
> most
> >open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the
> have
> >chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
> >projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
> >endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the
> remit
> >of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> >conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip'
> and 'net'.
>
> The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
> funding these organizations to agree with your feeling? Wouldn't it
> be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
> institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
> distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
> abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
> just make cool stuff?!?)
>
>
>
> > > If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher
> nut
> > > to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no
> less
> > > valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> > > Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> > > cultural archive.
> >cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> >sorry:-)
>
> My fault. I'll try agian... There is more than one legitimate way
> to be remembered by posterity. Just because the Velvet Underground
> aren't usually taught in college (except as a footnote to Warhol),
> that doesn't mean The Velvet Underground didn't leave their mark on
> posterity. They just did it via pop culture. There is already a
> mechanism in place for net artists to do the same sans institutions.
>
abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
just make cool stuff?!?)
YES!
BLISS
L
> > The 'no great money' is usually between $500 -$20,000 in the kinds
> of
> >various institutional grants, commissions etc. Not enough to live on
> (as
> >you might get maybe one a year if you are very lucky) but that can
> >make all difference in the world to being able to continue. In the
> circle of
> >artists I'm working with most of us are clubbing together to do
> net/on &
> >offline exhibitions or projects that might bring in $50 - $400 max
> but this
> >keeps the ISP's fed and watered (not to mention the kids:-)
>
> By way of personal disclosure, I've got 2 kids and another one on the
> way. Right now we may have $200 in the bank. It comes and goes.
> But if I start considering my art as something from which I may
> reasonably expect an income (or even a modest stipend), I deprive
> myself of a precious opportunity to celebrate life unobliged, and I
> become the poorer for it. (Local mileage may vary.)
>
>
>
> >I really don't know these artists that you are talking about who are
> fame-
> >mongering. Particularly in the UK, people are too busy balancing art
> &
> >the tescos budget to bother about which curators christmas card list
> >their on.
>
> If nobody came, would they still build it? That's my (admittedly
> subjective) criterion for artistic integrity. Howard Finster would
> still build it. Tracy Emin would not.
>
>
>
> >True, but (and with the exception of turbulence who I think are the
> most
> >open and diverse of curators) I think we need to look at a) why the
> have
> >chosen the projects they have chosen and b) how successful these
> >projects have been (as I said before) as artworks that will attract,
> >endure and if 'deserve' the funds. My feeling is that currently the
> remit
> >of many of these these grants etc are watered down versions of the
> >conditions set by offline institution/curators as to what is 'hip'
> and 'net'.
>
> The logistical question is, how do you convince the trustees who are
> funding these organizations to agree with your feeling? Wouldn't it
> be more feasible (maybe it wouldn't) to establish your own
> institution and get your own grant money from the trustees to
> distribute as you see fit? (Wouldn't it be more feasible yet to
> abandon the acquisition and distribution of money altogether, and
> just make cool stuff?!?)
>
>
>
> > > If it's about going down in the academic record, that's a tougher
> nut
> > > to crack. But there are other ways to be remembered that are no
> less
> > > valid. The White Stripes are the new Stooges. How do I know the
> > > Stooges? Because there is more than one agreed upon artistic
> > > cultural archive.
> >cultural VOOOOOOOIDDD - no idea what you are talking about here,
> >sorry:-)
>
> My fault. I'll try agian... There is more than one legitimate way
> to be remembered by posterity. Just because the Velvet Underground
> aren't usually taught in college (except as a footnote to Warhol),
> that doesn't mean The Velvet Underground didn't leave their mark on
> posterity. They just did it via pop culture. There is already a
> mechanism in place for net artists to do the same sans institutions.
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: dream7 piece
References sooner or later become symbols, signifiers and insipid
> catch
> phrases.
EXACTLY! and this was really the source of my disappointment with this piece...
>A common problem with the artist these days is that in the rejection
> of
> > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we can "pick and
> choose"
> > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we "like". It's
> not
> true.
>
> Who cares? Are you my dad or something?
who's my daddy?
bliss
l
> catch
> phrases.
EXACTLY! and this was really the source of my disappointment with this piece...
>A common problem with the artist these days is that in the rejection
> of
> > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we can "pick and
> choose"
> > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we "like". It's
> not
> true.
>
> Who cares? Are you my dad or something?
who's my daddy?
bliss
l
The Pleasure Is All Mine
http://www.lewislacook.com/sound/LewisLaCook_ThePleasureIsAllMine.mp3
computer noize
(no instruments were harmed during the making of this mp3)
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
computer noize
(no instruments were harmed during the making of this mp3)
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Re: Re: onCelestialEvent (creation)
> Lewis says of http://www.systemsoular.com/LifeProgram
>
It seems once linear web animation is barred passage through the
> official "interactive" net art door, it is most conveniently disposed
> of in the "shallow greeting card" dis bin.
not at all---i loved the red smoke video, actually...
this, though...i mean, i just think it's a tired metaphor...not inaccurate, just cliche...
bliss
l
> "simplistic slick crap. the actionscript equivalent of a greeting
> card."
>
> ++++++++++++
>
> Last week, in an offlist correspondence, M. Turner says of
> http://www.redsmoke.com/TIOTR/
>
> "There's a 13 year old kid who makes tons of Yahoo greeting cards
> who's far more charming, witty, and original."
>
> ++++++++++++
>
>
> It seems once linear web animation is barred passage through the
> official "interactive" net art door, it is most conveniently disposed
> of in the "shallow greeting card" dis bin.
>
> Also, you can't make net art that looks slick. It can look like some
> housewife's 1996 personal home page, but it can't look slick.
>
It seems once linear web animation is barred passage through the
> official "interactive" net art door, it is most conveniently disposed
> of in the "shallow greeting card" dis bin.
not at all---i loved the red smoke video, actually...
this, though...i mean, i just think it's a tired metaphor...not inaccurate, just cliche...
bliss
l
> "simplistic slick crap. the actionscript equivalent of a greeting
> card."
>
> ++++++++++++
>
> Last week, in an offlist correspondence, M. Turner says of
> http://www.redsmoke.com/TIOTR/
>
> "There's a 13 year old kid who makes tons of Yahoo greeting cards
> who's far more charming, witty, and original."
>
> ++++++++++++
>
>
> It seems once linear web animation is barred passage through the
> official "interactive" net art door, it is most conveniently disposed
> of in the "shallow greeting card" dis bin.
>
> Also, you can't make net art that looks slick. It can look like some
> housewife's 1996 personal home page, but it can't look slick.