manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic
Since 2002
Works in United States of America

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.

Discussions (1017) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

(no subject)


marc wrote:
Perhaps we are - we need to watch out for the pruning shears, that aim
to prune net art (and media art) into a more cosy bonsai, centralized
plant...

" The art of growing dwarfed, ornamentally shaped trees or shrubs in
small shallow pots or trays."
http://www.answers.com/bonsai&rg

marc

When I was teacher one of my student was in extremely anti-bonsai mood.
She mentioned every day how she hate bonsai,but she couldn't explained why.
I couldn't find any term under 'bonsaiphobia'on wiki,or google,so this case
remain one bizarre thing in my life.
I see what you mean by this 'metaphor',but this(our)world must be very
small, almost invisible to accept whole creative potential and
ethic/aesthetic
which is still left .In this space relations bonsai tree could be whole
universe.Also Chinese traditional method of squeeze foot was,also,
following this logic art of woman foot shape.It was very painful-this
bonsaied foot.Maybe I can see
root(foot)of my student obsession.
MANIK

DISCUSSION

in 'art'-.or .?


Could you help me,please,which one's better for usage in 'art'-.or .?
Sincerely yours
MANIK

7/30/06 4:18:11 PM"T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com>wrote:

Hi all,

re: the discussion about net art being
weakend/not-as-interesting/killed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it

There has been several assertions made that the dot.com bust poured
cold water on the movement but I wanted to look at it a little more
closely.

As some of you know, M.River and I were very much involved with the
net art movement from 97 onward. I was also working within the dot.com
bubble at the time and was very attuned to its movements.

I remember knowing there was trouble with the bubble in mid-'00. Then,
by late 00/early 01, it was obvious to everyone that the burst had
happened. (See this graph of the nasdaq:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/NASDAQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bu=
bble_small.png).

I was out of work in early/mid 00 and it was super-easy to get a
dot.com gig at the time due to the fact that the forward momentum of
companies isn't as easily stopped as the rise of their stock price.

Remembering the crash, I was thinking at the time that it *would*
throw cold water on the net art movement and thinking that it didn't
seem to be happening.

Probably due to the fact that museums and art institutions are even
slower moving than businesses, it took a good year or two after the
dot.com burst for the net art fad to fizzle in the art institutions.
Not to say that the dot.com collapse didn't help cause it, but it took
a while for it to be felt.

--
<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

DISCUSSION

botanical garden?


Hi Marc & all,
Are you talking there about botanical garden?
Love
MANIK

7/30/06 3:09:40 PM,marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>wrote:
Are you
Hi Silva & all,

As many probably know from long ago on this list, I have been very much
pro- net art, and still am. At Furtherfield, we still view Net Art as
being a main interest and passion, even though we have adapted with the
aim of exploration, not because net art is dying but because we feel
that it is expanding its roots into multi-various forms of creative
outreach, and contemporary contexts.

I personally come from a place of activism, art and networked
consciousness, linking very much with a net art focus - not from a film
perspective, 'soft cinema' (Manovich etc).

I feel that there has been a divide between those who have officially
been placed in the history books as 'net.artists' and those seen as 'net
artists', and because only a few top names have been repeatedly banded
about as the main figures of this net-based creativity, Internet art
suffered a kind of cultural drought. Which is not good for any artist
working in such closely related mediums. Although, things are changing.

There have been certain curators who have kept on showing the same old
faces, over and over again - who have not opened up their curatorial
remits for other lesser known creatives, who may not be using the same
inscribed protocols, or academic language to justify their intentions.

"In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art died..."

Net.Art did not die - it became a historical commodity for those who
planned it in such a way. It was not the dot.com boom that shattered the
(hoped) growth of the movement, it was those who decided to hand in
their cultural cache at that time to move on to different pastures so
that they could move into a gallery system, keeping themselves valid in
a curatorial context.

"and net art or internet art became the standard category for online
based artistic projects..."

I feel that net art has always been (officially) a sub-category, along
side net.art, in terms of institutional control. They both happened at
the same time as far as I am concerned - net art, is probably a poorer
relative of the very well promoted and deliberately inserted form of
net.art.

In fact, I suppose net art, was the main movement and net.art was a
smaller more specific, trendier, personality driven and modernist
proposed version of it. It worked well for those who really believed in
the myth of the artist as 'star' so that they could get a piece of the
'heroic-artist' pie.

The irony is that, some of these groups such as irational.org are
actually brilliant (well i think so), as well being supporting by such
systems - so it is not as black and white as some of us would wish to
presume - just because certain groups get recognised and supported does
not mean that they are evil - it has much more to do with the culture
around it, and what ethical responsibilities were seriously explored (if
any) by the more centralized, 'top-down' orientated organizations, such
as ars electronica and 'older' rhizome - remits.

I say 'old' rhizome because it seems that the new rhizome, in its
character, even though it is not primarily net art focused alone, in its
behaviour is net art, and the new team of rhizome have made a tremendous
effort to break down the older more centralized way of being, that it
was once. It seems less elitist, and more open minded in the way that it
engages, in working with people who use the list these days, and willing
to try out a few things.

Let's not forget that net art is also thriving elsewhere, other than
just on this list and on rhizome - the syndicate mailing list still has
some serious net artists working on there, such as Auriea Harvey
(entropy8zuper) and lo_y, and a dynamic (sometimes scary) community,
dedicated to net art, and related contexts. and more of course...

I was with irational.org, in the early days - working with Heath Bunting
on various projects. The Cybercafe BBS, and Savage yet tender pirate
radio and alternative networked art projects, that hacked phones
(phreaking) and other things - but was much more interested in more
collaborative net art and the communities that formed with it, and those
who were not seen as net.art, still am. Even though I value some these
net.artists and what they have given our culture, I also wish that some
them were less desperate in getting their own names known and more
interested in breaking down the patriarchal barriers that supported
their endeavours.

Some of the net.artists out there are still radical, yet there are those
who pretend that they are great by proposing themselves as great, as
(supposed) brilliant academics who are really just interested in power
alone and where that gets them - I see these types, as weak and shallow
individuals, hiding behind institutional walls, rather than changing
institutions for the better - cowards.

The spirit of net.art, has been supported by net art - and those
net.artists owe much to net art for bringing in a larger audience and
context, which has at the same time kept it all alive.

Net art lives on but in various forms. I have been involved in 3 new
classes last year, where students are exploring and learning about net
art as part of the curriculum, I teach a balanced version of what that
is, featuring those who have not been allowed into the hall of fame as
'net.art', as well as those who have...

Now history is being rewritten - at last by young new writers who are
not diverted by the pressure of net.art 'star' orientated fractions,
which is beginning to include those who were left out and others who did
not quite fit the prescribed remit of institutional, academic laziness.
In fact, I think that it is a great time to be doing net art :-)

marc

In my opinion net.art is pretty much what can be thought of a movement,
both geographically and chronolically defined... eventually net.art
died... and net art or internet art became the standard category for
online based artistic projects...

________________________________

De: owner-list@rhizome.org em nome de marc
Enviada: qui 27-07-2006 16:31
Cc: list@rhizome.org
Assunto: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?

Why has everyone conformed to using the term 'net.art', as in net.dot.art?

Historically net.art, mainly belonged to just a few elite artists
working on th Internet, Vuk Cosic made sure of this, and Manovich etc...

I have always been interested in those who did not bandwagon jump onto
the term 'net.art '- those who used 'net art' (without the dot), are the
real blood of net art - for they have to deal with not being supported
by history and cannons, and institutions.

marc

+
-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: ARNO BECKER IN DISNEYLAND


----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: ARNO BECKER IN DISNEYLAND

Dear Rhizomers ,
MANIK have no problem with your stubbornness and illogical praxis to avoi=
d his/her name in discussions(and stupid/Digest).We are worried about some=
of you who have some chance (still).
What's going to happened to them if they continued to follow rhizome.org =
Nazi(onnalistic)American-corporative-capitalistic path?If you doubt in MANI=
K'S word just see Lauren Cornel interview in one online magazine(sorry,we'v=
e forgot which one).
It's not the problem you don't want to see problem existed(:-),problem's =
that you can't see them,but you pretend you 'just don't care' .But how can =
you pretend if you are not conscious that 'it' exist?(Lacane,1957)
OK.-we have little time to help you:
First- you could see one Nazis artist triumphal return(Arno Becker)on art=
scene-http://wt.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060725/NEWS=
/607250382 )?
So,conclusion's that Nazi ideology is not so bad after all,not even in ar=
t,it's produced some object of art,isn't it?Just like you,like in net(nyet =
art).
Are you fallow us?
Our English is equivalent with your (un) knowledge,so...don't be nervous =
-please.
Our nyet art,and process of deartisation's not attack on your 'artistic'e=
xistance.It's just warning that all of us should be careful in thinking abo=
ut nyet art,because fact that something existed in physical world couldn't =
be guaranty (at all) that this 'object',or creation belong to world of arti=
stic imagination,it's not sublime 'par excellence.So:Manevich,Shulgin,Cory,=
Cosic,MTTTAR9vggrtr,Jody and other from your "Father"list belong to art in =
same way as Arno Becker,or,in other word,as O.D.Balzac said in 'Cuisine Bet=
a:"She belong to chastity like a whore to virtue."Fact that we produced *fa=
ct for art*(artefact)mean exactly the same like in Arno's Becker case.To be=
deep and completely involve in one capitalist-corporative-theroristic and =
plunder society-USA(same as poor Arno was in such 'heavy calumniate' Nazi G=
erman),and pretend that you have no 'idea about what MANIK talking about' i=
s your poor defense,and in spite of moral disgust, we must try to understan=
d,especially younger people among you.
Love you all
MANIK

DISCUSSION

ARNO BECKER IN DISNEYLAND


Dear Rhizomers ,
MANIK have no problem with your stubbornness and illogical praxis to avoid =
his/her name in discussions(and stupid/Digest).We are worried about some o=
f you who have some chance (still).
What's going to happened to them if they continued to follow rhizome.org Na=
zi(onnalistic)American-corporative-capitalistic path?If you doubt in MANIK'=
S word just see Lauren Cornel interview in one online magazine(sorry,we've =
forgot which one).
It's not the problem you don't want to see problem existed(:-),problem's th=
at you can't see them,but you pretend you 'just don't care' .But how can yo=
u pretend if you are not conscious that 'it' exist?(Lacane,1957)
OK.-we have little time to help you:
First- you could see one Nazis artist triumphal return(Arno Becker)on art =
scene-http://wt.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060725/NEWS/=
607250382 )?
So,conclusion's that Nazi ideology is not so bad after all,not even in art,=
it's produced some object of art,isn't it?Just like you,like in net(nyet ar=
t).
Are you fallow us?
Our English is equivalent with your (un) knowledge,so...don't be nervous -p=
lease.
Our nyet art,and process of deartisation's not attack on your 'artistic'exi=
stance.It's just warning that all of us should be careful in thinking about=
nyet art,because fact that something existed in physical world couldn't be=
guaranty (at all) that this 'object',or creation belong to world of artist=
ic imagination,it's not sublime 'par excellence.So:Manevich,Shulgin,Cory,Co=
sic,MTTTAR9vggrtr,Jody and other from your "Father"list belong to art in sa=
me way as Arno Becker,or,in other word,as O.D.Balzac said in 'Cuisine Beta:=
"She belong to chastity like a whore to virtue."Fact that we produced *fact=
for art*(artefact)mean exactly the same like in Arno's Becker case.To be d=
eep and completely involve in one capitalist-corporative-theroristic and pl=
under society-USA(same as poor Arno was in such 'heavy calumniate' Nazi Ge=
rman),and pretend that you have no 'idea about what MANIK talking about' is=
your poor defense,and in spite of moral disgust, we must try to understan=
d,especially younger people among you.
Love you all
MANIK