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

Re: why so little discussion?


TWI(RD)TTERING MACHINE
manik :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "twhid" <twhid@twhid.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: why so little discussion?

> I encourage everyone to keep talking about me & mriver ;-)
>
> Can't get enough of me & mriver? Go here:
> http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969
>
> I know, I know. I talk about about me & mriver a lot, but here's my
> response to tom moody's post:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/tom\_moody\_does\_1ypv.html
>
> I'll quote bits, then comment (read the entire post
> (http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969), I can't figure out
> if it's positive or negative, but it's thoughtful and honest so you
> can't ask for more than that).
>
> Tom Moody:
> > Pieces that refer so specifically to known, past artworks, satirically
> > or otherwise, are problematic

DISCUSSION

Re: why so little discussion?


TWITTERING MACHINE

I certainly enjoy
how much I'd liked
Like them very much
I do
I enjoy a lot.
a marvellous exhibition
& this is a quality
elegance and thoroughness
beautifully made
quite touching
I'm quite moved

Selected by MANIK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
Cc: "Mark River" <mriver102@yahoo.com>; "t whid" <twhid@mteww.com>; "Archive
Registrar" <registrar@deepyoung.org>; "Jason Van Anden"
<jason@smileproject.com>; "andrew michael baron" <baron@parsons.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?

> Hi Jim, all
> I'm replying to your original post although I read the
> others.
> I don't know what the answer is; I certainly enjoy it
> when a topic catches fire -in general that doesn't
> seem to happen with discussions of specific pieces,
> which is a shame because this requires a more subtle
> approach than some of the polarised *in-general*
> positions often argued here.
> So I'm going to post some stuff about a recent piece
> in the hope someone will respond.
> I meant to post awhile back to say how much I'd liked
> the MTAA "Five Small Videos About Interruption and
> Disappearing"
>
> http://mteww.com.twhid.com/five_small_videos/
>
> Like them very much I do; but they also intrigue me.
> The blurb says they are inspired by early performance
> videos - a genre and a period which I enjoy a lot.
> There was a marvellous exhibition at the ICA here
> about a year ago of single channel video works - lots
> of Acconci, Baldessari and also early Nauman
> -wonderful stuff.
>
> One thing that occurs to me about the MTAA response is
> firstly how *elegant* it is - & this is a quality of
> all their work - elegance and thoroughness, or perhaps
> elegance due to thoroughness - one could never accuse
> them of a lack of craft.
> This is in stark contrast to the sheer edginess and
> sense of ( often literal!) danger in much of that
> early video work. Doing my sums I can't put this down
> to the newness of video as a medium - actually I
> suspect that the technologies used by MTAA are newer
> relative to them.
>
> There's a temptation to see this piece ( and others
> such as the one year performance piece) as a sort of
> conceptual post modernist whimsy, beautifully made but
> essentially a clever formal exercise.
> I think this would be wrong - actually there seems to
> me to be a feel of "classicism" about this work - the
> elegance seems not a symptom or a bolt on but a very
> much integral part of the work.
> I see this happening quite a lot -its as if in the
> shadow of high modernism it wasn't quite respectable
> to use the methods and the language of the past
> without being *ironic* or having a high concept.
> Now all those barriers have long been broken we can
> simply move on to using a good move no matter when or
> where we saw it.
> SO specifically here it's as if the artists of the
> seventies having blazed a trail, created edgy stuff in
> a kind of white heat, MTAA are examining the language
> and the practice with the benefit of a couple of
> decades of hindsight and appropriating *what fits*,
> *what works* into their own practice.
> And the resultant work for me isn't simply clever or
> knowing but actually quite touching - I'm quite moved
> by these two characters in the videos ( and there are
> longer backward shadows cast here - Laurel and Hardy,
> Abbott and Costello, the *comic film duo* , spring to
> mind).
> Certainly the piece feels to me to have many
> resonances that go beyond the intellectual, the
> clever, the knowing and enter the world of the
> affective.
> I'd be interested to know what you or others think.
> best
> michael
>
>
>
> --- Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com> wrote:
>
> > why is it that there is so little discussion of
> > net.art posted to rhizome? a
> > lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable,
> > ie, announcements of
> > installation projects and whatnot, but there are
> > posts concerning net.work
> > that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> > open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> > out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> 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: Re: why so little discussion?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Van Anden" <jason@smileproject.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?

>We are a bunch of artists for goodness sake - if we spent all of our time
discussing stuff who would make all of the art?

We will.
MANIK
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> 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: Re: why so little discussion?


I'm just lurking around waiting for all the preaching-to-the-choir /
pissing-in-the-wind political venting to ebb.

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue@45

Who care about that shit anymore?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Archive Registrar" <registrar@deepyoung.org>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:13 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?

> I'm just lurking around waiting for all the preaching-to-the-choir /
pissing-in-the-wind political venting to ebb.
>
> http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue@45
>
> why don't more people make one of these?:
> http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/
>
> It seems that HTML posting capabilities are turned on there. You might
could hack your own exhibit via CSS a la http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261
>
> blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay.
>
> _
>
> jim asked:
>
> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to rhizome?
a
> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements of
> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning net.work
> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> 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: why so little discussion?


It's knocking on the open door.
Why don't we discuss about Rhizome_ Raw politic of
punishment,censure,inconsequence...
How do you imagine that;discussion about something unnamed,something "in
general",not specific case,no name...
After more than hundred Maniks IMAGES,suddenly Rhizome_Raw refuse to publish
them further.
Is that way to show us power?Or teaching us democracy?
It's not important what you talk,power which allows you to talk is
determinate by institution,economic,weapon...
Talk means to be able to talk,to have power to talk.And that's privilege of
"Main Subject"(U.S-J.Habermas)
That's opposite of rhizomatic way of communication,far from
Delleuse&Guattari(they are open for new interpretations).But Rhizome_Raw
became more and more conservative,
academic,boring,...Strange,it was few years ago interesting place.
So tell us(toMANIK)why don't you refuse our kind of discussion,our
images?Open and honest.

MANIK

----- Original Message -----
From: "andrew michael baron" <baron@parsons.edu>
To: "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com>
Cc: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?

> ps, sorry I felt like I didnt do very well in articulating the
> connection. . .I think the Rhizome list, EVEN WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION, is
> priceless for the artist. I find the discussion that IS here, to be very
> enjoyable. T.Whind, I dont know you at all beyond this list but you are
> a daily character in my life now. I love Rhizome Raw but I don't want to
> get an e-mail every 5 seconds.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> t.whid wrote:
>
> > This question has been asked over and over on this list.
> >
> > I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
> >> rhizome? a
> >> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements
of
> >> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
> >> net.work
> >> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
> >>
> >> ja
> >> http://vispo.com
> >>
> >
> > ===
> > <twhid>http://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
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>