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.
Re: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends & family
Eternal returnee"is simple observation,and just because is so simple most
of people can't see the point.Actually we breath,eat,drink
liquid,shit,fuck.Sometimes those process are transparent,sometimes not(like
sex in Victorian epoch,for example...)Try to shit on street,and wrote me
what's happened.
OK,people need to be with someone whom can
trust.Form:marriage,brother,sister,uncle,dentist,godfather,mother in low
etc.Am I clear enough?I see that mentions of Nietzsche's name could be cause
for unexpected frighten in sensible soul.But,it's not so important.His
,yours and my name will be same dust after couple hundred years.After return
with commandment Moses find his people in terrible chaos;public
coitus,public shit,incest...atc.We are in in same situation,but on mental
level.Essence is same, but form of visual presentation are different.My
message,if we can considered that as a message is that in eternal return
people trying again and again to find answers.Art is not answer.Destiny is
more closer,but someone who think about him self as an artist replaced
destiny with art.That's the reason you cry for some justice,for lucrative
painting instead net.art,which is same think.Small community are one of ways
to make life comfortable.Isn't it old,and in same time brand new idea?
About homosematics,what people answer on some question we can discus after
you wrote something about what SERBS answer when you ask them"What do you
do?"
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
To: "manik" <manik@ptt.yu>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family
> > "medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to
talk
> > about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
> > Hispanic,Chinese etc...).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize
> potential
> > of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium
> in
> > new role,actually new context-art. [...]Informatics
> > time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
> > information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
> > seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with
ecstatic
> > form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome
> org.and
> > similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something
we
> > can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
> > AESTETHICS AND
> > REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome
org.could
> > show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we
> talking
> > about
> > when we talking about new concept of new media art.
>
> I like the analogy of video and informatics. As to the essay, I looked it
> up and could not find it on rhizome. I also did a search on google and
all
> I came up with was this:
>
> http://www.skylined.org/melon/wrkdb/
>
> So maybe you can send me the proper link so that I may read your
suggestion.
>
>
> >You don't seal your
> > collection of
> > images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
> > ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of
> pragmatic
> > destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
> > understand this ultra retro idea about small community.
>
> My comments were not dealing with disillusionment of a narrative, but
rather
> with the possibilities as to why net art is not seen with a purpose among
> friends and relatives. I pointed out the idea of purpose in relation to
> labor as most people feel the need to find some sort of use for everything
> in life. A movie is good for entertaining, a car is good for getting
> around, but art -- net art especially because is not as popular as other
art
> forms, gets slippery for people who see the world in terms of obvious use
> value, mainly because there is no obvious role for it in life. Here is an
> interesting quote from Matt Perry:
>
> "Adult life for most people on the planet has always consisted of a daily
> routine of toil. The French slang rhyme'metro, boulot, dodo' (metro work,
> sleep) captures this in contemporary form. Who we are and how we are
> perceived are wrapped up to a considerable extent with the labour we
> perform. For instance, the question 'What do you do?' invites an answer
> that explains what you do at work ('I'm a teacher'), or why you do not
work
> ('I'm a student' or 'I'm a pensioner'). Although the forms of work vary
> enormously both today and in the past, labour is like the DNA of human
> history: ever-present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society."
> -- Matt Perry, Maxism and History: Theory and History, New York: Palgrave,
> 2000. pp. 3
>
> So now let's take the answer "I'm an artist" to the above question. As
you
> may agree that, because of the many fields in art, such an answer is not
> specific enough for most people -- net art is even more complicated due to
> its obscurity from pop-culture. And this is the problem I have been
> addressing. The above platform seemed the most obvious too me in order to
> present my argument. This is different from an ultra retro idea of a
small
> community -- that is another can of worms.
>
> >All I want is to pay
> > your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
> > MANIK
>
> I am not sure how Nietzsche fits here, it would be great for you to
clarify
> this last comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>
of people can't see the point.Actually we breath,eat,drink
liquid,shit,fuck.Sometimes those process are transparent,sometimes not(like
sex in Victorian epoch,for example...)Try to shit on street,and wrote me
what's happened.
OK,people need to be with someone whom can
trust.Form:marriage,brother,sister,uncle,dentist,godfather,mother in low
etc.Am I clear enough?I see that mentions of Nietzsche's name could be cause
for unexpected frighten in sensible soul.But,it's not so important.His
,yours and my name will be same dust after couple hundred years.After return
with commandment Moses find his people in terrible chaos;public
coitus,public shit,incest...atc.We are in in same situation,but on mental
level.Essence is same, but form of visual presentation are different.My
message,if we can considered that as a message is that in eternal return
people trying again and again to find answers.Art is not answer.Destiny is
more closer,but someone who think about him self as an artist replaced
destiny with art.That's the reason you cry for some justice,for lucrative
painting instead net.art,which is same think.Small community are one of ways
to make life comfortable.Isn't it old,and in same time brand new idea?
About homosematics,what people answer on some question we can discus after
you wrote something about what SERBS answer when you ask them"What do you
do?"
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
To: "manik" <manik@ptt.yu>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family
> > "medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to
talk
> > about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
> > Hispanic,Chinese etc...).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize
> potential
> > of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium
> in
> > new role,actually new context-art. [...]Informatics
> > time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
> > information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
> > seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with
ecstatic
> > form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome
> org.and
> > similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something
we
> > can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
> > AESTETHICS AND
> > REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome
org.could
> > show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we
> talking
> > about
> > when we talking about new concept of new media art.
>
> I like the analogy of video and informatics. As to the essay, I looked it
> up and could not find it on rhizome. I also did a search on google and
all
> I came up with was this:
>
> http://www.skylined.org/melon/wrkdb/
>
> So maybe you can send me the proper link so that I may read your
suggestion.
>
>
> >You don't seal your
> > collection of
> > images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
> > ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of
> pragmatic
> > destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
> > understand this ultra retro idea about small community.
>
> My comments were not dealing with disillusionment of a narrative, but
rather
> with the possibilities as to why net art is not seen with a purpose among
> friends and relatives. I pointed out the idea of purpose in relation to
> labor as most people feel the need to find some sort of use for everything
> in life. A movie is good for entertaining, a car is good for getting
> around, but art -- net art especially because is not as popular as other
art
> forms, gets slippery for people who see the world in terms of obvious use
> value, mainly because there is no obvious role for it in life. Here is an
> interesting quote from Matt Perry:
>
> "Adult life for most people on the planet has always consisted of a daily
> routine of toil. The French slang rhyme'metro, boulot, dodo' (metro work,
> sleep) captures this in contemporary form. Who we are and how we are
> perceived are wrapped up to a considerable extent with the labour we
> perform. For instance, the question 'What do you do?' invites an answer
> that explains what you do at work ('I'm a teacher'), or why you do not
work
> ('I'm a student' or 'I'm a pensioner'). Although the forms of work vary
> enormously both today and in the past, labour is like the DNA of human
> history: ever-present, imperceptibly shaping and reshaping society."
> -- Matt Perry, Maxism and History: Theory and History, New York: Palgrave,
> 2000. pp. 3
>
> So now let's take the answer "I'm an artist" to the above question. As
you
> may agree that, because of the many fields in art, such an answer is not
> specific enough for most people -- net art is even more complicated due to
> its obscurity from pop-culture. And this is the problem I have been
> addressing. The above platform seemed the most obvious too me in order to
> present my argument. This is different from an ultra retro idea of a
small
> community -- that is another can of worms.
>
> >All I want is to pay
> > your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
> > MANIK
>
> I am not sure how Nietzsche fits here, it would be great for you to
clarify
> this last comment.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends & family
medium is message",is that so?In late sixties video take mission to talk
about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
Hispanic,Chinese etc...).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize potential
of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium in
new role,actually new context-art.TV as medium for mass
manipulation,entertainment also(I steel talking about sixties/early
seventies)using some discovery which video bring into the world of
images.Video is fast,equipment is not so heavy,one man can do the work.In
few years video became one of most important medium for every kind of social
fight,and in same time deadly ideological weapon.Noem of photography is"That
really happened!"(R.Barhes:Camera Lucida),noem of video is"That's happened
in real time!"Paradox?Of course,butt...is there something regular in
manipulation with mediums,especially visual mediums?"Informatics
time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with ecstatic
form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome org.and
similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something we
can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
AESTETHICS AND
REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome org.could
show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we talking
about
when we talking about new concept of new media art.You don't seal your
collection of
images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of pragmatic
destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
understand this ultra retro idea about small community.All I want is to pay
your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
To: "Pall Thayer" <palli@pallit.lhi.is>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family
>
>
> > Well, I didn't say that the fact that net art can't be sold can be
easily
> > dismissed. I said that as an argument against the artistic validity of
net
> > art, whether or not it can be sold has very little meaning.
>
> I see. Well, as I stated earlier in this thread, most people do bring
> "selling" as a purpose to most things in life -- including art. This is
one
> of the reasons why artists who consider art a meaningful endeavor often
have
> a hard time with the commercial aspect of their work. And yes, the
argument
> could be easily dismissed if one is interested in "meaning," or let's call
> it research to include cultural producers who are creative but do not
> consider themselves part of the art world. However, the average consumer
is
> not necessarily interested in meaning, but rather in naturalized
> entertainment which, as I stated in a previous thread, functions on a
> demand/supply platform of "good for something." So, while artists could
> easily dismiss, as you say, the buying/selling argument based on a
> speculative narrative, this does not quite work for most people. This is
the
> point when artists can be considered "intellectuals" or "bohemians" by
those
> who walk away from a conversation after their assumptions on artmaking
have
> been questioned as you described in an earlier e-mail; and here lies the
> problem that I pointed to earlier -- that the purpose of art is hard to
> understand because its purpose is not clear. In the same way that artists
> can dismiss the selling/buying as not necessary for artistic validity, so
> can pop-culture not see the purpose of net art, as this one is not
currently
> validated in their eyes, like say painting. And even the more established
> art forms, I think it is safe to state, are seen as a bit decadent for the
> working classes. For those who care about education this is a problem
that
> should not be dismissed.
>
> 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. But I will also add that what you are implying in
your
> statement is what Greenberg proposed when he wrote about modernism, that
one
> should dismiss the political and consider the work for its role as an
> aesthetic device. This is a position that only few can claim to exercise,
> and can also be used as a smoke screen to suspend the cultural and
political
> aspects that are always part of art. The commodity aspect of artmaking
> along with aesthetics are a big part of how its purpose is understood in
> everyday life. Net art will be understood very differently when it enter
> the mainstream, and its commodity status is affected by the general art
> market. But I think I will stop here, as I already explained how I see
the
> idea of "what is good for" in a previous message.
>
> Thanks for clarifying your point.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
> + 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
>
about small society problems(neighborhood,slam,minority like
Hispanic,Chinese etc...).Artist,for example Vito Aconci,recognize potential
of new medium,and thru ironic,sometimes cynic engagement put this medium in
new role,actually new context-art.TV as medium for mass
manipulation,entertainment also(I steel talking about sixties/early
seventies)using some discovery which video bring into the world of
images.Video is fast,equipment is not so heavy,one man can do the work.In
few years video became one of most important medium for every kind of social
fight,and in same time deadly ideological weapon.Noem of photography is"That
really happened!"(R.Barhes:Camera Lucida),noem of video is"That's happened
in real time!"Paradox?Of course,butt...is there something regular in
manipulation with mediums,especially visual mediums?"Informatics
time",computers,bring us new concept;now we haw opportunity to share
information,to see what we want,and also,in same time to be
seen.Meanwhile,postinformatic concept,including net.art deal with ecstatic
form of mass illusion.In cyber space,in cyber ghettoes like Rhizome org.and
similar organization we discus about role of net.art,is that something we
can sold,is painting more lucrative? Dunja Kukovec::NEW MEDIA: ITS
AESTETHICS AND
REPRESENTATION!Extremely important article,published on Rhizome org.could
show us where we are now considered our whish to know about what we talking
about
when we talking about new concept of new media art.You don't seal your
collection of
images,you seal ideas.After terrible disillusion,after death of
ideals,Utopia,great dreams about truth&justice we are in world of pragmatic
destruction of all (naive?)human values.In that constellation I can
understand this ultra retro idea about small community.All I want is to pay
your attention on"Eternal return"(F.Nietzsche).
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
To: "Pall Thayer" <palli@pallit.lhi.is>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: attempting to share net.art with friends &
family
>
>
> > Well, I didn't say that the fact that net art can't be sold can be
easily
> > dismissed. I said that as an argument against the artistic validity of
net
> > art, whether or not it can be sold has very little meaning.
>
> I see. Well, as I stated earlier in this thread, most people do bring
> "selling" as a purpose to most things in life -- including art. This is
one
> of the reasons why artists who consider art a meaningful endeavor often
have
> a hard time with the commercial aspect of their work. And yes, the
argument
> could be easily dismissed if one is interested in "meaning," or let's call
> it research to include cultural producers who are creative but do not
> consider themselves part of the art world. However, the average consumer
is
> not necessarily interested in meaning, but rather in naturalized
> entertainment which, as I stated in a previous thread, functions on a
> demand/supply platform of "good for something." So, while artists could
> easily dismiss, as you say, the buying/selling argument based on a
> speculative narrative, this does not quite work for most people. This is
the
> point when artists can be considered "intellectuals" or "bohemians" by
those
> who walk away from a conversation after their assumptions on artmaking
have
> been questioned as you described in an earlier e-mail; and here lies the
> problem that I pointed to earlier -- that the purpose of art is hard to
> understand because its purpose is not clear. In the same way that artists
> can dismiss the selling/buying as not necessary for artistic validity, so
> can pop-culture not see the purpose of net art, as this one is not
currently
> validated in their eyes, like say painting. And even the more established
> art forms, I think it is safe to state, are seen as a bit decadent for the
> working classes. For those who care about education this is a problem
that
> should not be dismissed.
>
> 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. But I will also add that what you are implying in
your
> statement is what Greenberg proposed when he wrote about modernism, that
one
> should dismiss the political and consider the work for its role as an
> aesthetic device. This is a position that only few can claim to exercise,
> and can also be used as a smoke screen to suspend the cultural and
political
> aspects that are always part of art. The commodity aspect of artmaking
> along with aesthetics are a big part of how its purpose is understood in
> everyday life. Net art will be understood very differently when it enter
> the mainstream, and its commodity status is affected by the general art
> market. But I think I will stop here, as I already explained how I see
the
> idea of "what is good for" in a previous message.
>
> Thanks for clarifying your point.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
> + 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
>
artpresident clone for beginners
MANIK'S LIFE by MANIK has recently been added to the ARTPRESIDNT COM as a c=
loned object.
http://www.artpresident
Created date:june 12 2003
Type:visual,nonvisual
Genre:archeconceptual,hippervisual
Technology:JAVA,BUW
Keywords:repressive,sadistic,scaprophagic,technocratic,illusive
Statement:Eat shit stupid mother lower.
loned object.
http://www.artpresident
Created date:june 12 2003
Type:visual,nonvisual
Genre:archeconceptual,hippervisual
Technology:JAVA,BUW
Keywords:repressive,sadistic,scaprophagic,technocratic,illusive
Statement:Eat shit stupid mother lower.