Liza Sabater
Since the beginning
Works in New York, Nebraska United States of America

Discussions (186) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: how to be a net.artist: lesson one: the name game


you us killed us man.
tears of laughter, tears of laughter.

On Monday, Aug 18, 2003, at 19:34 America/New_York, abraham linkoln
wrote:

> how to be a net.artist: lesson one: the name game
>
> is your name mark? if so you are 10 times more likely to become a
> net.artist than someone named vuk or netochka. look at all these
> net.artists named mark:
>
> mark amerika, mark tribe, mark napier,

DISCUSSION

How was your blackout?


Hope you are all well,

These things are never fun unless you have a sick child. Our little one
is still on the mend. Read about our 28 hours @ <a
href="http://liza.typepad.com>burundanga</a>. Hopefully, I'll have some
blackout pics following.

Be well,
l i z a
=============================
http://culturekitchen.com
http://liza.typepad.com

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


On Saturday, Jul 12, 2003, at 09:46 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:
> btw:
> this is the model that OSX is built on too. the kernel of the OS,
> Darwin, is open source and based on a version of unix called BSD. It
> even runs on intel machines. the graphics layer (the software that
> draws the windows and stuff) called Quartz, is proprietary. You can
> even run another windowing system on OSX called X11 (using this you
> can run apps built for unix/x11, like openoffice.org). So, you can see
> that Apple is providing a level of openness that MS would never even
> contemplate.
>

I am having a helluva great time following this thread (and the
previous one too, the one about flash, but it's too late to add to
that). anyway, I just wanted to add to this : the DOJ is not all over
Apple's ass thanks to how the company has chose to define open source.
Apple has bent over backwards to stick to every form of standard
compliance that it can, from W3 to JAVA and it shows in OSX. MS wanted
to create its own proprietary version of JAVA and call it JAVA. And we
know the mess that we are in when MS was not stopped from mucking up
HTML. At MS, they want to call the shots on every single aspect of the
computer environment because their business model is based on not a
monopoly but on creating a hegemony through proprietary information. MS
wants to be THE standard and have complete control over it.

At any Bus101 class we are told that proprietary information is what
separates the haves from the have nots. The problem is that the level
of complexity of the technologies developed and the velocity at which
they are happening is creating a stress in not just technology
companies but almost every single aspect of our economy. Case in point
: If you are a company and you buy your computer hardware, the
depreciation of this capital investment is almost nil compared to
acquiring the hardware through a lease. This means that you have to
basically re-invent your system every two or three years AT THE MOST.
Given that tech changes occur every 18 to 22 months, you can see how
keeping up with capital investment-depreciation can become a nightmare.
So to go back to the whole idea of proprietary information : MS by
going on the defensive has basically split the playing field on the
importance of the proprietary model. It is not that businesses do not
think it is necessary; on the contrary, it is still vital as a way of
differentiating one company from another (RedHat comes to mind); but
after the JAVA RoundTable, you can see that there is a reckoning if not
a push by everybody but MS to evaluate the COST of the proprietary
model.

http://www.ftponline.com/reports/javaone/2003/roundtable/default.asp

The way I see it, MS is suffering from what Wired has called the "first
out syndrome". Their obsession with reigning supreme is just pushing
multibillion dollar companies into the "bazaar economy" that many of
these same people dismissed as for small players just a couple of years
ago. I find all of this fascinating. I believe it mirrors what is
happening on other parts of the culture. Will get into that later
--gotta go the supermarket and relieve the geek from his parenting
duties.

/ l i z a


DISCUSSION

Random thought on how to share net art (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)


(This article can be commented and trackbacked through
http://www.culturekitchen.com)

On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 22:19 America/New_York, Eduardo Navas
wrote:
> The above of course is explained to better understand the initial
> question
> of this thread, that is why it is so hard for friends and family to
> see a
> purpose in net art.

Eduardo and all,

If is hard to explain to people what is the purpose of net art, this
probably has to do with your definition of purpose. Art has no purpose.
The artist does --and so the audience or (in the case of interactive
net art) the user. The question, then, should have been: Why is it so
hard for friends and family to see MY PURPOSE in net art?

I am not talking here about 'statement of purpose'. That is an academic
masturbatory tool. I'm talking here about why do you make art? What is
art's purpose in YOUR LIFE?

If your purpose is to communicate, what does that mean?
If your purpose is to narrate, what does that mean?
If your purpose is to explore creativity, what does that mean?

Once you have identified that then the next question FOR YOU TO ANSWER
is, how do I express my purpose through the artwork itself. Or putting
it differently, how does the artwork's structure express my purpose?

If your purpose is to communicate, how is that structured into the
artwork?
If your purpose is to narrate, how is that structured into the artwork?
If your purpose is to explore creativity, how is that structured into
the artwork?

Even the most accomplished of artists will not think about these things
but only after the fact. Still, as an avid appreciator and sounding
board for net artists, I have to say that not until you have resolved
these two issues will the work unfold. There are way too many artists
in search of a purpose and it shows in their work. If people don't get
it is because you have not gotten it either. (This by the way is a
general statement. If you want specific opinions, I would need specific
URLs).

I have said this to people in the net art scene in NYC and I am going
to repeat it here: Test your work with children and the art
"incogniscenti". If they cannot be engaged by your work, you may want
to go back to the drawing board. This is not about finding the lowest
common denominator --nobody would look at ''Waiting Room" and call it
crass or commercial. This has to do with clarity of purpose. If there
is no clarity, no matter how many pages of explanatory text you tack on
the project, it is still a failure. After all, Art should not come with
a FAQ or rule book.

Which leads me to the idea of 'selling'.

Contrary to popular opinion it is possible to sell net/digital art.
Actually, anything can be sold because selling has never involved
objects. Selling has always involved ATTACHMENT TO A NEED. In the
everyday realm of the imaginary we need 'things', 'ideas', 'people'. We
turn our emotions into objects and thus externalize what has always
been an internal process. It has always been like this --it is not a
Madison Avenue contrivance but an observation that goes back to sources
such as the Tao Te Ching.

So the question regarding net art is, what are you selling?

In the case of software and net art it is not an object what we are
selling, it is an experience. Software and Net Art (or artware in my
lexicon) is purely about desire --what you are bringing to the world is
a space in which desire can be unabashedly unleashed. Look at Ultima,
Everquest or The Sims ---they are revolutionizing the way people
commodify not just things but experiences.

Net art and software art are not about ephemera. Ephemera is not
interesting --it puts a limit on what you can do. With a lot of Net art
and software art lies the possibility of unlimited experience --even if
it means that what you experience now is gone in an instant. The things
I have seen people do with multi-user artware pieces is definitely the
stuff of cultural anthropologists. People actually give up their
attachment to the rules of art (what you see is unique and thus has to
be preserved for ever) and go for the uniqueness of the experience
(what you do and the way you do it, is unique and thus the proof of
art).

My advice to all is not to focus on the art 'object' when talking about
net art. I have learned through the years that the best way to talk
about net art is about the experience --what is it that people can
expect, actually do and in the process effect through the piece. Which
takes me to the definition of net art --just because it is deployed
over the Internet it is not necessarily net art. If it can be deployed
elsewhere (such as a cd-rom or dvd) call it something else. Case in
point: M Napier is a painter, sculptor, net and software artist. You do
yourselves a disservice by your attachment to one definition.

Did you see attachment once again mentioned?

There is nothing so unpleasant as an artist telling me what to think
about their work. I call them aesthetic fascists. I have no interest in
people telling to read/use/admire/appreciate their work this way or
that way. Again, art should not come with a FAQ or rule book. The true
measure of Art vis-a-vis art is its allowance for spontaneity and even
chaos --not just in the work itself but in the response.

There is much to learn by people's lack of understanding to one's work.
Sometimes the best criticism comes from those unexpected responses,
like laughter in the middle of a dramatic scene. Just because you have
a sense of what is your purpose it does not mean that it is being
communicated. And sometimes it means that we have to invent new rules
for expressing our selves.

If people don't get what you are trying to communicate, take it as a
gift. It means it's time to break the rules and start from scratch.
It's your cue to dwell on what's important to you and give the finger
to what you believe others think is art. It's your license to chaos.

Take it and run with it.

/ l i z a
=============================
http://culturekitchen.com