ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Belgrade artists Marija Vauda and Nikola Pilipovic have been
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.
"Russian roulette" on Russian Christmas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_roulette (necessary facts about *subje=
ct*)
Hi Carlos Katastrofsky:-),
Why don't you take automatic revolver and play that game along?
Because it's automatic-You are winner!(for sure).You like to win?You like, =
I see that in your syntax,in your text, appearance?
Russian roulette in our days became synonym mainly for
feign something,some small gambling acquire or fake disillusion behavior.(=
Forget"Dear hunter",that's
war glorification,because weakling Nick's looser,and real American hero De =
Niro/I've forgot his name in film-stay alive...)
Last few year "Serbian roulette"became popular:it's game
when (mostly) young people drive trough city at night,full speed,without li=
ght,trough semaphore red light...
So far about hundred people(most innocent)
are dead,and few hundred are wound...Or we can put bet on chaste of heroin=
e(pure one kill,not mixed).Here in Belgrade is 20Euro for gram,pure and leg=
al from Kosovo which is under USA jurisdiction.You can play&gambling cheap.=
Aren't you boy with money,brave Russian roulette player?
Today is orthodox Christmas(don't vory I'm not baptize,so it won't be
religious attack),this day remind me on long tradition of,for this
occasion I can said"Russian school".As you can see this"game"
could be symbol for lose illusion,tsarist officers first *roulette*gambler,=
vere proud people(see film"Siberian barber"by
Nikhita Mikhalkow),also Russian roulette could be expression of proto-nihil=
ist "Weltanschauung",
specific sentiment for world in which human life represent only more or le=
ss phenomenon
among other which could be put on edge same as everything else,for bright =
ideal mostly,but for money also.
In one main line:Russian roulette is maybe last romantic *confront*with God=
's will/Destiny.Even Van Gogh was bit in that "style".
Last years "New-brutality",from media, MTV(idiots who roll in nails,wound t=
hem self's on different ways...),brutal talk show who degrade average peopl=
e(they pay for they 15 sec. of glory,but there's still something sad in the=
ir uncover..,
over new kung-foo films,to artist like Marina Abramovich and Marco B.who pr=
etend dangerous,blinding
all over,for good money,make middle aged people fall in amok(post hippie,ri=
ch people
sorrow for youth,post RAF&Brigatte Rose frustration&intellectual covered ca=
pitalistic aesthetic (which is
worst of all.)So what are you doing:you ask me to risk and put my computer =
which is precious for me
because my income are so insignificant that I don't want to shame you with =
number.You aspect me
to risk to get viruses after I pay 30euros for repairing computer few days =
ago?Silly young man!
Idle,without knowledge about,in the first place symbolic background of ever=
y move in art,because artist have no
other field for express attitude and place in symbolic hierarchy(of The Wor=
ld )except formalization in art.
Your formalization with Russian roulette show us that your sense for value(=
considered other man's money and symbolic investment )are on mushroom level.
Actually you said:"Play with me if you don't care for money(computer).If yo=
u have money,you can play with me.Money make that we can play my game.You c=
an't play my game,because you don't have money..."
I'm not "Art Guard",I'm avant-garde,and I haven't seen such
stupid work as yours for a long time
Mary Christmas
MANIK
MORE FACT ABOUT RUSSIAN ROULETTE
_______________________________________
Russian Roulette is also the title of a game show produced by th=
e Game Show Network.
Russian Roulette is the title of a 1986 album by German heavy metal band =
Accept.
Roulette Russe (French for "Russian roulette") is the title of the second=
album of Alain Bashung.
Russian roulette is the practice of placing one round in a revolver, spin=
ning the cylinder and closing it into the firearm without looking, aiming t=
he revolver at one's own head in a suicidal fashion, and pulling the trigge=
r. The number of rounds placed in the revolver can vary. As a gambling game=
, toy guns are often used to simulate the practice. The number of deaths ca=
used by this practice are unknown.
http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=26617
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991022.html
http://www.all-russian-roulette.com/how.htm
ct*)
Hi Carlos Katastrofsky:-),
Why don't you take automatic revolver and play that game along?
Because it's automatic-You are winner!(for sure).You like to win?You like, =
I see that in your syntax,in your text, appearance?
Russian roulette in our days became synonym mainly for
feign something,some small gambling acquire or fake disillusion behavior.(=
Forget"Dear hunter",that's
war glorification,because weakling Nick's looser,and real American hero De =
Niro/I've forgot his name in film-stay alive...)
Last few year "Serbian roulette"became popular:it's game
when (mostly) young people drive trough city at night,full speed,without li=
ght,trough semaphore red light...
So far about hundred people(most innocent)
are dead,and few hundred are wound...Or we can put bet on chaste of heroin=
e(pure one kill,not mixed).Here in Belgrade is 20Euro for gram,pure and leg=
al from Kosovo which is under USA jurisdiction.You can play&gambling cheap.=
Aren't you boy with money,brave Russian roulette player?
Today is orthodox Christmas(don't vory I'm not baptize,so it won't be
religious attack),this day remind me on long tradition of,for this
occasion I can said"Russian school".As you can see this"game"
could be symbol for lose illusion,tsarist officers first *roulette*gambler,=
vere proud people(see film"Siberian barber"by
Nikhita Mikhalkow),also Russian roulette could be expression of proto-nihil=
ist "Weltanschauung",
specific sentiment for world in which human life represent only more or le=
ss phenomenon
among other which could be put on edge same as everything else,for bright =
ideal mostly,but for money also.
In one main line:Russian roulette is maybe last romantic *confront*with God=
's will/Destiny.Even Van Gogh was bit in that "style".
Last years "New-brutality",from media, MTV(idiots who roll in nails,wound t=
hem self's on different ways...),brutal talk show who degrade average peopl=
e(they pay for they 15 sec. of glory,but there's still something sad in the=
ir uncover..,
over new kung-foo films,to artist like Marina Abramovich and Marco B.who pr=
etend dangerous,blinding
all over,for good money,make middle aged people fall in amok(post hippie,ri=
ch people
sorrow for youth,post RAF&Brigatte Rose frustration&intellectual covered ca=
pitalistic aesthetic (which is
worst of all.)So what are you doing:you ask me to risk and put my computer =
which is precious for me
because my income are so insignificant that I don't want to shame you with =
number.You aspect me
to risk to get viruses after I pay 30euros for repairing computer few days =
ago?Silly young man!
Idle,without knowledge about,in the first place symbolic background of ever=
y move in art,because artist have no
other field for express attitude and place in symbolic hierarchy(of The Wor=
ld )except formalization in art.
Your formalization with Russian roulette show us that your sense for value(=
considered other man's money and symbolic investment )are on mushroom level.
Actually you said:"Play with me if you don't care for money(computer).If yo=
u have money,you can play with me.Money make that we can play my game.You c=
an't play my game,because you don't have money..."
I'm not "Art Guard",I'm avant-garde,and I haven't seen such
stupid work as yours for a long time
Mary Christmas
MANIK
MORE FACT ABOUT RUSSIAN ROULETTE
_______________________________________
Russian Roulette is also the title of a game show produced by th=
e Game Show Network.
Russian Roulette is the title of a 1986 album by German heavy metal band =
Accept.
Roulette Russe (French for "Russian roulette") is the title of the second=
album of Alain Bashung.
Russian roulette is the practice of placing one round in a revolver, spin=
ning the cylinder and closing it into the firearm without looking, aiming t=
he revolver at one's own head in a suicidal fashion, and pulling the trigge=
r. The number of rounds placed in the revolver can vary. As a gambling game=
, toy guns are often used to simulate the practice. The number of deaths ca=
used by this practice are unknown.
http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=26617
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a991022.html
http://www.all-russian-roulette.com/how.htm
Re: SMALL s IS STILL S?
Geert Dekers send this link few days ago:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html
We were inspired to wrote something about that,but "link" is so funny and g=
rotesque,we let it past with other dilettante invention(link,not Geert's ch=
oice)...We thought some student of art history will be hit by unusual quant=
ity of nonsense,favor of American artist(especially in XXI century art-most=
ly unknown),but there's no Jeff Koons,there's no New British sculpture R.De=
acon,A.Kapoor...Russian Actionist-Kulik,Brener,one of funniest performer on=
the world(with Paul McCartney)Marina Abramovich,Russian avant-garde's with=
out Rodchenko(he made first monochrome 1912,see Pontus Hulten book about XX=
century art),Byzantine art is completely without Serbian fresco painting,i=
t's focused on Greek and Russian...etc.List is very long and sad,but that's=
only parts we examine (just have no time for handicraft product like that)=
.But,always some but make us to come out repeating same story about paravan=
e art,about,now not so hidden, games around&in 'world of art"...garrulousne=
ss,boring,minimalist repeating of few decisive fact in contemporary art str=
eaming.
If we study problem of exhibition policy in one of
greatest museum like MoMA as a represent(one of) most powerful art institu=
tion in the world we study politics in USA in generally,and we shall see fa=
rther politics of"Main Subject"(term by J,Habermas)of The World,yes cowboy,=
I see your modest smile-USA again!Our experience with museums is extreme ba=
d;out of current fight for power(which is immanent political) and everythin=
g which goes with that:money for survive before all(in this processes art i=
s only mediator,something from second plan,important but not decisive)we we=
re witness of events,similar to happening in MoMA(everything's reflection o=
f "Main Subject"even in distortion,invalid, without glamour and poor(small =
shit is still shit?).
Not to strong(structurally) for open fight against art(it's hard to find su=
bstitute) ,for open take over field which still laying under 'mystic'protec=
t of beauty and sense(art),museums and their stuff(bureaucracy) used to mak=
e kind of inside subversion against works which doesn't fit in main politic=
al (global) projection well enough,but make something what "we"and "they"st=
ill called aesthetic("cultural product"term by R.Myers).Institutional ackno=
wledgment is first step toward wide public.Wide public's ruling class(race)=
and they,in last instance fix order in art.To be warm accepted from this c=
lass and besides be good artist(like Mathew Barney)is wining combination.Th=
at's how actualize became Myth,almost indestructible culture creation,and f=
ar more how Myth became obstacle and how this mythologized discourse became=
discourse of ruling class before skip over and became empty speech which k=
eep world in unchangeable state.
Last decade is mark by "neo-nato"art,taking space(of art)by force (USA),=
everything wrapping in futile mythologeme about liberalism,globalism and o=
pen borders which is shameless lie ever.Democracy is very slow system incap=
able to adapt one's behavior to fast changes.Most of art,theory and discou=
rse glow like dead star.Today's effort to understand complex problem of art=
and position of this "cultural product"depend of timely reaction and merc=
iless point to possible solution out of clumsy institution.
MANIK
(___________________________________________________________( =
=
)
If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
- Rob.
Rob Myers wrote:
> If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
>
> show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
>
> the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
>
> But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
> the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
> Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take =
> a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
>
> As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
> their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
> And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
>
> how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
>
> - Rob.
I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts =
students) for the past semester.
It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning i=
n art while still maintaining a level of currency.
I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th cent=
ury academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".
What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new students=
, a holy grail.
It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more importan=
t than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur grant cuts no=
ice with them.
It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?
The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students is=
very hard to overcome.
What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them.
I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is overwhel=
ming arts instructors at every major college and University.
Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I =
am right.
Eric Dymond
I only sent this to rob.
However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's
still big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I
might say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly)
because it challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if
only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief.
This is the difference (challenge vs. empowering ) which is the difference.
My original answer is as follows.
In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?
Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual
culture element, and it says something about culture through the way
they use technology and the range of stories they use.
> But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
> challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
> broccoli
> for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.
In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay.
Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment
ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of
virtuosity in form.
Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim?
Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met?
Does Pixar belong in the MoMA?
We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses
if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks,
Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous
conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses.
If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they
should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to
Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting
argument.
Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney
extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big
art money.
If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like
"All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than
The Incredibles.
Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today.
To view this entire thread, click here:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=19702&text=37467#37467
+ + +
Here's the problem with this show-
BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o
(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
art!)
Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
home for that time.
When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
sale management...
Two points here.
One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".
Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
close, though.
Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
Falcon, out the door...
I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
another small notch down, IMO.
I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)
I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
voyd@voyd.com
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of T.Whid
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
MoMA
On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
> What would Jackson do?
>
> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
>
> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
> Culture instead of Visual Art.
I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
Pixar as opposed to PS1.
I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.
Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
just damn good entertainers.
>
> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
> making expressive paintings?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
consider...
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > >
> > > who? example?
> > >
> > > jason
> > >
> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
> > > >
> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
more
> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
accord
> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
visual
> > > > disciplines, especially design."
> > > >
> > > > To which he added this commentary:
> > > >
> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
What
> > > > the two share is Design."
> > > >
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Van Anden
> > > http://www.smileproject.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com
>
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
+
-> 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
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
please email editor@rhizome.org.
To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHLinks.html
We were inspired to wrote something about that,but "link" is so funny and g=
rotesque,we let it past with other dilettante invention(link,not Geert's ch=
oice)...We thought some student of art history will be hit by unusual quant=
ity of nonsense,favor of American artist(especially in XXI century art-most=
ly unknown),but there's no Jeff Koons,there's no New British sculpture R.De=
acon,A.Kapoor...Russian Actionist-Kulik,Brener,one of funniest performer on=
the world(with Paul McCartney)Marina Abramovich,Russian avant-garde's with=
out Rodchenko(he made first monochrome 1912,see Pontus Hulten book about XX=
century art),Byzantine art is completely without Serbian fresco painting,i=
t's focused on Greek and Russian...etc.List is very long and sad,but that's=
only parts we examine (just have no time for handicraft product like that)=
.But,always some but make us to come out repeating same story about paravan=
e art,about,now not so hidden, games around&in 'world of art"...garrulousne=
ss,boring,minimalist repeating of few decisive fact in contemporary art str=
eaming.
If we study problem of exhibition policy in one of
greatest museum like MoMA as a represent(one of) most powerful art institu=
tion in the world we study politics in USA in generally,and we shall see fa=
rther politics of"Main Subject"(term by J,Habermas)of The World,yes cowboy,=
I see your modest smile-USA again!Our experience with museums is extreme ba=
d;out of current fight for power(which is immanent political) and everythin=
g which goes with that:money for survive before all(in this processes art i=
s only mediator,something from second plan,important but not decisive)we we=
re witness of events,similar to happening in MoMA(everything's reflection o=
f "Main Subject"even in distortion,invalid, without glamour and poor(small =
shit is still shit?).
Not to strong(structurally) for open fight against art(it's hard to find su=
bstitute) ,for open take over field which still laying under 'mystic'protec=
t of beauty and sense(art),museums and their stuff(bureaucracy) used to mak=
e kind of inside subversion against works which doesn't fit in main politic=
al (global) projection well enough,but make something what "we"and "they"st=
ill called aesthetic("cultural product"term by R.Myers).Institutional ackno=
wledgment is first step toward wide public.Wide public's ruling class(race)=
and they,in last instance fix order in art.To be warm accepted from this c=
lass and besides be good artist(like Mathew Barney)is wining combination.Th=
at's how actualize became Myth,almost indestructible culture creation,and f=
ar more how Myth became obstacle and how this mythologized discourse became=
discourse of ruling class before skip over and became empty speech which k=
eep world in unchangeable state.
Last decade is mark by "neo-nato"art,taking space(of art)by force (USA),=
everything wrapping in futile mythologeme about liberalism,globalism and o=
pen borders which is shameless lie ever.Democracy is very slow system incap=
able to adapt one's behavior to fast changes.Most of art,theory and discou=
rse glow like dead star.Today's effort to understand complex problem of art=
and position of this "cultural product"depend of timely reaction and merc=
iless point to possible solution out of clumsy institution.
MANIK
(___________________________________________________________( =
=
)
If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take
a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
- Rob.
Rob Myers wrote:
> If MoMA are just presenting Pixar as a gee-whizz cash cow blockbuster
>
> show (as it sounds they are), then I agree that it is bad. Museums in
>
> the UK are starting to do that sort of thing as the funding dries up.
>
> But please don't throw the Pixar baby out with the MoMA water. Rent
> the 2-disc version of The Incredibles and watch the documentaries.
> Consider the finished film as a competent cultural product. And take =
> a look at http://www.renderman.org/ .
>
> As artists we can learn a lot from Pixar. And there is content to
> their films, as much as to any non-cultural-studies-academic art.
> And, if you want to go the subtext route or look at the argument over
>
> how nietzschean The Incredibles is, there's probably more.
>
> - Rob.
I have had to deal with this issue at a new student level (first year arts =
students) for the past semester.
It is a daunting task to point out the need for a conceptual underpinning i=
n art while still maintaining a level of currency.
I must admit there are times when I have said to myself "well the 19th cent=
ury academy wasn't overthrown it was slowly abandoned".
What I think is merely rendering and design is, to many of the new students=
, a holy grail.
It is very difficult to show them why Robert Irwin's fence is more importan=
t than the rendering of Jaba the Huts village.And a MacArthur grant cuts no=
ice with them.
It sounds absurd, but are we missing a major sea change?
The pressure of omni-present multi media productions on the new students is=
very hard to overcome.
What passes for mere culture to me is high Art (with a capital A) to them.
I do not have an answer, but I am very aware of the change that is overwhel=
ming arts instructors at every major college and University.
Before I tell them they are wrong, I should address why they don't think I =
am right.
Eric Dymond
I only sent this to rob.
However, I thought about this, and I still stand on something. It's
still big money either way, (PIXAR/Barney), and neither include you. I
might say that Barney might be a little more empowering (slightly)
because it challenges you to think about possibilities of reality, if
only for a moment. Pixar wants to sell you suspension of belief.
This is the difference (challenge vs. empowering ) which is the difference.
My original answer is as follows.
In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?
Where is there any? Maybe I'm missing something. It's got a visual
culture element, and it says something about culture through the way
they use technology and the range of stories they use.
> But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
> challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
> broccoli
> for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.
In this case, I'd _rather_ look at the essay.
Besides, define 'work' here. I see a lot of interesting entertainment
ephemera that don't challenge me more than in a Modernist criterion of
virtuosity in form.
Does Blue Sky (Robots, Ice Age) belong in the Guggenheim?
Does Final Fantasy belong in the Met?
Does Pixar belong in the MoMA?
We have Blockbuster for that. Seriously - a Beuysian art for the masses
if we want to equate PIXAR with a MoMA space. Therefore, Dreamworks,
Square, et al should not be in the MoMA, as they're doing tremendous
conceptual work, getting the cultural product to the masses.
If we want to revisit the argument that museums are elitist and they
should be torn down to be replaced with cinema, why don't we talk to
Marinetti about that, but I don't find it a particularly interesting
argument.
Actually, I think that Pixar is as elitist as a Matthew Barney
extravaganza. With PIXAR, you just have big entertainment money than big
art money.
If I were to have pop culture in a museum, I'd rather have things like
"All Your Base are Belong to Us" and "The Terrible Secret of Space" than
The Incredibles.
Sorry, I'm totally cranked up today.
To view this entire thread, click here:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=19702&text=37467#37467
+ + +
Here's the problem with this show-
BTW, my masters have unshackled me for 3 weeks from my MFA studies at
which time they will finish polishing the institutional gem they've been
reshaping for the last 18 months. >:o
(or, at least, trying to! For God's sake, Patrick, stop shooting the
art!)
Case in point: Bowling Green State University - which has been my happy
home for that time.
When we woo potential undergrads, the dream for half of them is, what?
PIXAR. "Oh, I wanna work at PIXAR." I just want to make
shaders/textures/meshes, monsters, entertainment, etc. This is enough
to get a New Media high/conceptual artist ready to slam their head
through a titanium wall after hearing it for the 1xxxxxth time. Almost
as bad as hearing the Foundations students wanting to "express their
creativity", and a priori assumption, being they're not enrolled in bake
sale management...
Two points here.
One, the PIXAR show gives the MoMA 'squeal of Approval' like the 'Art of
the Motorcycle show at the Gugg. Not exactly, but you get my drift. The
problem is that we in the classroom are going to get kids popping out
the catalogue, saying "See, who's right? You or the MoMA?".
Fortunately, most of my undergrads aren't quite _that_ sharp. Some are
close, though.
Another is that sure, I actually wanted to work at ILM until I hit 30.
Then my wife got me hooked on philosophy. There goes the Millennium
Falcon, out the door...
I guess I get a bit provoked when I see a show like this, as I think
that the curators don't quite understand the sort of acritical effect
that the show will have on American culture, however small. Just
another small notch down, IMO.
I'm sure it's a lovely show, and yes, I went to the Art of Star Wars at
the Houston MFA (a show I had similar problems with, but sorry, I had to
see the X-wings and Star Destroyers...)
I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat broccoli
for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Patrick Lichty
Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
voyd@voyd.com
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of T.Whid
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:39 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at
MoMA
On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com> wrote:
> What would Jackson do?
>
> There are so many artists making so many different things that I have
> to wonder if the original comment addresses artists at all.
>
> Based upon an abstract definition of what Murphy is calling Visual Art
> (VA) and Visual Culture (VC), I suspect that if anyone is to blame, it
> is the collectors (consumers) rather than the artists. To say
> otherwise suggests that there are a finite of artists in the world at
> any point in time endowned with super hero art skills - and that these
> super talented few have opted to waste their talent making Visual
> Culture instead of Visual Art.
I'm not really following this arg -- I don't see how it follows that
it's not the artists fault if they choose to spend their talents at
Pixar as opposed to PS1.
I think what Murphy meant was that, in art, one usually assumes that
the artist is trying to create an entire package of form, subject and
content (i know, i know -- hopelessly modernist definition of art).
Whereas, in visual culture, most practitioners are consumed with the
form (or technique). Pixar is a great example. As far as 3D
representations of form go they are extremely far advanced -- way
beyond any individual artists working today. But their subject and
content -- tho entertaining -- doesn't attempt a sophistication or
critical awareness that one would presume to find in art.
Murphy was suggesting that a lot of art out there these days may have
the same issue, but since it purports to be art, it's a problem. Pixar
doesn't have a problem because they don't pretend to make art, they're
just damn good entertainers.
>
> If Jackson Pollack was embarking on a career in the arts today -
> would he opt to manufacture well presented one liners instead of
> making expressive paintings?
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
>
> On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps I should have said it's relevant for all of us to
consider...
> >
> > On 12/16/05, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > >
> > > who? example?
> > >
> > > jason
> > >
> > > On 12/16/05, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/arts/design/16pixa.html
> > > >
> > > > Murphy posted on Thingist this quote:
> > > >
> > > > "Still, there is much to see in the show, and if a lot of it is
more
> > > > visual culture than art, much less great art, the focus is in
accord
> > > > with the museum's long tradition of attention to all kinds of
visual
> > > > disciplines, especially design."
> > > >
> > > > To which he added this commentary:
> > > >
> > > > "Yeah, most of what passes for Visual Art these days is Visual
> > > > Culture. A totally respectable field of study but it's not art.
What
> > > > the two share is Design."
> > > >
> > > > ...a relevant thing for some in this forum to consider.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Van Anden
> > > http://www.smileproject.com
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com
>
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
+
-> 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
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
please email editor@rhizome.org.
To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
DEAD END
Quoting Dirc:
>"The search for meaning will always be political. "
>Louis Bec,
>quoted by Raquel Renno in this month's discussion on art and cognition at
>empyre
Man can't talk about his thought without thinking about his own discourse.D=
iscourse is message.To rise up against certain discourse by using other dis=
course always lead to liberation of "new speech",deep and free (of norm) en=
ergy.Publishing book,even about (new media) 'art' is completely public act-=
institutionalization of actuality.In today's historical circumstances this =
kind of institutionalization is political and confirm repressive universe.E=
very thought-out writing establish kind of subversive 'para-writing'.Hopele=
ss situation between those writings is complete,that way they talk about w=
eakness,about alienation,about lack of living space.Schism isn't personal,i=
t's structural.There we can recognize two-dimensional world:world compose o=
f pure opposites out of every mediation.This text here is not action,it's r=
eaction.
MANIK
>"The search for meaning will always be political. "
>Louis Bec,
>quoted by Raquel Renno in this month's discussion on art and cognition at
>empyre
Man can't talk about his thought without thinking about his own discourse.D=
iscourse is message.To rise up against certain discourse by using other dis=
course always lead to liberation of "new speech",deep and free (of norm) en=
ergy.Publishing book,even about (new media) 'art' is completely public act-=
institutionalization of actuality.In today's historical circumstances this =
kind of institutionalization is political and confirm repressive universe.E=
very thought-out writing establish kind of subversive 'para-writing'.Hopele=
ss situation between those writings is complete,that way they talk about w=
eakness,about alienation,about lack of living space.Schism isn't personal,i=
t's structural.There we can recognize two-dimensional world:world compose o=
f pure opposites out of every mediation.This text here is not action,it's r=
eaction.
MANIK
Re: Lev Manovich 5 questions about digital culture - 5 days left.
----- Original Message -----
From: "francesco colella" <frank@pix.it>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Lev Manovich 5 questions about digital culture - 5
days left.
QUESTION:
L.Manovich:
1./ We live in 'remix' culture. Are there limits to remixing? Can anything
be
remixed with anything? Shall there be an ethics of remixing?
ANSWER:
Who are *WE*?Maybe L.M talk to chosen person,race,nation,to him self(see
definition for*we*below)?This *we*have some"that goes without saying"note
which could be paradigm of elitism and latent racism.Or it could be
pantheism and inarticulate love for all people on the world.But his duty is
to be precise.
"We" live in flat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth)
Earth,medieval space imagination-eternal return with,every time worst
consequences,can't except apprehension about
different shape(curve).Why?I suppose because somebody could hide behind
horizon of
"consensus of minority which lied and control majority-west
democracy",behind this perfidious invention of panoptic created mind and
totalitarian
strategy.Earth as a product of their ideology is flat
surface,reservation,prison,always under control-in glance one from
panoptic-tower(video surveillance,satellite) could see suspicious shapes in
bare playground for permanent control and
propaganda...Producing&Consuming...Military presence in every part of The
World,or globalism as euphemism for killing and war as flywheel for new wave
of spending old and producing new technologies(powered uranium for new PC).
Existence
of "Main Subject"(2)determine *we*category in L.M warehouse of
concepts.So,who are *we* in this question and how can "we"continued with
answer without proper question?
(*WE*)myself (used instead of myself when a writer or speaker would refer to
himself in the nominative case as we. Normally, the reflexive case of we is
ourselves).
The speakers, or the speaker and at least one other person(Dictionary)
(2)Term by J.Habermas ,point on U.S.A
MANIK
From: "francesco colella" <frank@pix.it>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Lev Manovich 5 questions about digital culture - 5
days left.
QUESTION:
L.Manovich:
1./ We live in 'remix' culture. Are there limits to remixing? Can anything
be
remixed with anything? Shall there be an ethics of remixing?
ANSWER:
Who are *WE*?Maybe L.M talk to chosen person,race,nation,to him self(see
definition for*we*below)?This *we*have some"that goes without saying"note
which could be paradigm of elitism and latent racism.Or it could be
pantheism and inarticulate love for all people on the world.But his duty is
to be precise.
"We" live in flat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth)
Earth,medieval space imagination-eternal return with,every time worst
consequences,can't except apprehension about
different shape(curve).Why?I suppose because somebody could hide behind
horizon of
"consensus of minority which lied and control majority-west
democracy",behind this perfidious invention of panoptic created mind and
totalitarian
strategy.Earth as a product of their ideology is flat
surface,reservation,prison,always under control-in glance one from
panoptic-tower(video surveillance,satellite) could see suspicious shapes in
bare playground for permanent control and
propaganda...Producing&Consuming...Military presence in every part of The
World,or globalism as euphemism for killing and war as flywheel for new wave
of spending old and producing new technologies(powered uranium for new PC).
Existence
of "Main Subject"(2)determine *we*category in L.M warehouse of
concepts.So,who are *we* in this question and how can "we"continued with
answer without proper question?
(*WE*)myself (used instead of myself when a writer or speaker would refer to
himself in the nominative case as we. Normally, the reflexive case of we is
ourselves).
The speakers, or the speaker and at least one other person(Dictionary)
(2)Term by J.Habermas ,point on U.S.A
MANIK
MODULAR CELLS ADVANTAGE
Modular Cells
http://www.rotondoweirich.com/PublicSec/Projects.asp
Developments Behind Modular Concrete Cells
http://www.pci.org/markets/markets.cfm?path=justice&id=modular.cfm
Module Prison System Offers More Applications
Speed, flexibility, security, maintenance, and durability
http://www.pci.org/markets/markets.cfm?path=justice&id=module.cfm
The modular nature of the individual jail cells also allowed the architect =
to design a floor plan that maximized the visibility of supervisory personn=
el and allowed for service and maintenance to be completely separate from t=
he secure inmate population.
http://www.djc.com/special/concrete99/10052659.htm
a.. Institutional Mirror
b.. GFI Duplex Outlet
c.. Security Supply Grille
d.. Security Return Grille
e.. Sink and Toilet Combination
f.. Fluorescent Light Fixture
g.. Safety Clothes Hook w/ Shelf
h.. Flush Mounted Tamperproof Push Button
i.. Non-Slip Steel Floor
j.. Wall Mounted Stool
k.. Wall Mounted Desk
l.. Security Window w/Tool Resistant Bar
m.. Wall Mounted Bunk (2 supplied w/ proper square footage)
n.. Thermal and Acoustical Insulation
o.. http://sweepermetal.com/prod05.asp
PRISONER: Thanks.
(A second prisoner comes up behind him and stabs him in the abdomen. He dou=
ble
over and collapses.)
(The second prisoner walks away.)
MANIK
http://www.rotondoweirich.com/PublicSec/Projects.asp
Developments Behind Modular Concrete Cells
http://www.pci.org/markets/markets.cfm?path=justice&id=modular.cfm
Module Prison System Offers More Applications
Speed, flexibility, security, maintenance, and durability
http://www.pci.org/markets/markets.cfm?path=justice&id=module.cfm
The modular nature of the individual jail cells also allowed the architect =
to design a floor plan that maximized the visibility of supervisory personn=
el and allowed for service and maintenance to be completely separate from t=
he secure inmate population.
http://www.djc.com/special/concrete99/10052659.htm
a.. Institutional Mirror
b.. GFI Duplex Outlet
c.. Security Supply Grille
d.. Security Return Grille
e.. Sink and Toilet Combination
f.. Fluorescent Light Fixture
g.. Safety Clothes Hook w/ Shelf
h.. Flush Mounted Tamperproof Push Button
i.. Non-Slip Steel Floor
j.. Wall Mounted Stool
k.. Wall Mounted Desk
l.. Security Window w/Tool Resistant Bar
m.. Wall Mounted Bunk (2 supplied w/ proper square footage)
n.. Thermal and Acoustical Insulation
o.. http://sweepermetal.com/prod05.asp
PRISONER: Thanks.
(A second prisoner comes up behind him and stabs him in the abdomen. He dou=
ble
over and collapses.)
(The second prisoner walks away.)
MANIK