ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
Marc Garrett is co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the Internet arts collectives and communities – Furtherfield.org, Furthernoise.org, Netbehaviour.org, also co-founder and co-curator/director of the gallery space formerly known as 'HTTP Gallery' now called the Furtherfield Gallery in London (Finsbury Park), UK. Co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, projects nationally and internationally. Co-editor of 'Artists Re:Thinking Games' with Ruth Catlow and Corrado Morgana 2010. Hosted Furtherfield's critically acclaimed weekly broadcast on UK's Resonance FM Radio, a series of hour long live interviews with people working at the edge of contemporary practices in art, technology & social change. Currently doing an Art history Phd at the University of London, Birkbeck College.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.
Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Re: Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
Hi Joseph,
I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite dudes on
rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better. That's
not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used the
identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an in-house
joke on the list users - kool eh!
That's why I was surprised...but I am beginning to get the gist that it was
not personal - I hope.
Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was one of the least snotty
and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome list users that we met
(other than you good self of course).
marc
> May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's
brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the words
>
> "crappy work"
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
> A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> joseph
>
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > > here.
> >
> > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> >
> >
> > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> >
> > no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> > my
> > original post.
> >
> >
> > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > > constitutes good or serious art.
> >
> > no, that could not be.
> >
> > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> >
> > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> > quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> > english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> > my
> > critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> > or deserved.
> >
> > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > > the dilettantes of your post?
> >
> > people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> > category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> > that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
> >
> > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > > of those who did?
> >
> > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
> >
> > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > > issues involved.
> >
> > that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> > critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
> >
> > take care,
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> + 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
>
I kind of feel that T.Whid has always been one of the more polite dudes on
rhizome, not actively attacking someone to make himself feel better. That's
not his buzz - not like some of the other rhizome dead-heads who used the
identity of 'Karei' to personally attack users on the list as an in-house
joke on the list users - kool eh!
That's why I was surprised...but I am beginning to get the gist that it was
not personal - I hope.
Also, when we visited New York recently, T.Whid was one of the least snotty
and more openly friendly out of most of the rhizome list users that we met
(other than you good self of course).
marc
> May I point out to one and all that the extent of a certain t.whid's
brilliant critique of our own work consisted almost entirely of the words
>
> "crappy work"
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> Q: What do you get when you cross a hippopotamus and a black hawk?
> A: A Hippocritic dressed in black.
>
> <applause><applause>
>
> joseph
>
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > > here.
> >
> > how? I've been honest the entire time.
> >
> >
> > > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > > argued stuff over the last few months.
> >
> > no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in
> > my
> > original post.
> >
> >
> > > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > > constitutes good or serious art.
> >
> > no, that could not be.
> >
> > > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > > constitutes the worthwhile.
> >
> > who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> > quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> > back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> > english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine,
> > my
> > critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> > or deserved.
> >
> > > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > > the dilettantes of your post?
> >
> > people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> > category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> > that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
> >
> > > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > > of those who did?
> >
> > this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> > do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> > piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
> >
> > > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > > issues involved.
> >
> > that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> > critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
> >
> > take care,
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> + 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
>
Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
OK T.Whid,
Let's get back to discussing & offering good solid critique. I'm all for it.
Always have been - one small slip up & I'm crucified, fried on the spit for
lunch. Used as an example, as the cause for all the shit. So many others
have put stuff that is much, much worse. And you suddnely out of nowhere
decide that I am the one. Kick me while I'm smiliing - thanx.
Why try & knock someone down to make a point?
What have I done to you that deserves such disrespect?
Sure, it was not an appropriate dialogue - but surely its got more to do
with the lack of list activity ever since the rhizome changes.
There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished. So
now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still beleive
that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places - not as
regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not necessarily
the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they don't. It's
all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely to
contribute with quality. It's a natural thing...
marc
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>
Let's get back to discussing & offering good solid critique. I'm all for it.
Always have been - one small slip up & I'm crucified, fried on the spit for
lunch. Used as an example, as the cause for all the shit. So many others
have put stuff that is much, much worse. And you suddnely out of nowhere
decide that I am the one. Kick me while I'm smiliing - thanx.
Why try & knock someone down to make a point?
What have I done to you that deserves such disrespect?
Sure, it was not an appropriate dialogue - but surely its got more to do
with the lack of list activity ever since the rhizome changes.
There are many who were linked here from europe - loads have vanished. So
now discussion is done by only a few on this list. Although, I still beleive
that some of it has been pretty interesting and dynamic in places - not as
regular as before, or as much. Its more to do with numbers not necessarily
the quality. Many people before felt part of something, now they don't. It's
all changed - when people feel part of something they are more likely to
contribute with quality. It's a natural thing...
marc
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>
>
>
> ---- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> > here.
>
> how? I've been honest the entire time.
>
>
> > All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> > yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> > argued stuff over the last few months.
>
> no argument, i was responding specifically to the posts i quoted in my
> original post.
>
>
> > Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> > to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> > either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> > this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> > constitutes good or serious art.
>
> no, that could not be.
>
> > In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> > accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> > possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> > you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> > constitutes the worthwhile.
>
> who's being disingenuous? I only posted that the specific remarks
> quoted in the post where not serious art discussion but rather mere
> back-slapping. I have no privilege other than being able to read the
> english language. I had no doubt that the back-slapping was genuine, my
> critique was with the depth of the praise, not that it wasn't genuine
> or deserved.
>
> > Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> > the dilettantes of your post?
>
> people who aren't on this list. most on this list don't fit into this
> category. that was my critique, we are collectively better than
> that and i was hoping to raise the level of discussion.
>
> > If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> > not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> > of those who did?
>
> this is ridiculous. my opinions regarding Jess' piece have nothing to
> do with my post. i didn't want to mix up whatever my reaction to the
> piece might be and my criticism of the remarks surrounding it.
>
> > I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> > and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> > issues involved.
>
> that's all fine and good, but my point was to address the level of
> critical discussion and i think i'm through with it.
>
> take care,
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + 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
>
>
Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
Personally, I'm all for back-slapping rather than back-stabbing...
marc
> See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> here.
> All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> argued stuff over the last few months.
> I for one posted a good deal about the Arcangel piece
> that I think was pretty closely argued and as you may
> recall, extremely critical and unclubby.
> I seem to remember that your reaction was incredulity
> that anyone could dislike the piece or, in a connected
> issue, dismiss the sainted Duchamp and Cage, for,
> after all, they have been canonized by "art history".
> Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> constitutes good or serious art.
> In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> constitutes the worthwhile.
> Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> the dilettantes of your post?
> If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> of those who did?
> I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> issues involved.
> michael
>
> --- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
> > At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> > >Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics',
> > i posted to
> > >Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists
> > being invited to
> > >submit work, with an assurance that their work
> > would not challenge
> > >the interests of the sponsors.
> > >
> > >'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis
> > and damning
> > >judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation
> > among artists and
> > >writers who have each shared work in progress and
> > contributed
> > >thoughtful and critical debate to this list over
> > the last year.
> >
> > ++
> > hiya ruth,
> >
> > i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning
> > judgement', simply
> > reminding people that i (and many others i imagine)
> > expect at least a
> > bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been
> > a trend on Rhiz
> > that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months
> > so I took
> > advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise
> > surrounding Jess's
> > latest as my chance to address it.
> >
> > It simply goes back to the long-running debate on
> > Rhiz as to whether
> > this space should function more as a cocktail party
> > or should it
> > function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate
> > doesn't need reviving?
> > I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as
> > guilty as anyone
> > in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time
> > to time (or even
> > more often).
> >
> > personally, i like cocktail parties much better when
> > there are actual
> > cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists
> > function better when
> > more thought is put into posts than is put into your
> > average cocktail
> > party chatter IMO.
> > ++
> >
> > >
> > >The first represents a money/power taboo and the
> > second a human
> > >emotion taboo.
> > >I wonder how useful or necessary are these
> > restrictions are?
> > >
> > >Artist's self censorship- who needs the first
> > amendment?
> > >
> > >regards
> > >ruth
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> > + 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
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
when emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> + 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
>
>
marc
> See, T. - I think you're being just a bit disingenuous
> here.
> All of the people involved in praising Jess's work
> yesterday have posted rigorous, critical and closely
> argued stuff over the last few months.
> I for one posted a good deal about the Arcangel piece
> that I think was pretty closely argued and as you may
> recall, extremely critical and unclubby.
> I seem to remember that your reaction was incredulity
> that anyone could dislike the piece or, in a connected
> issue, dismiss the sainted Duchamp and Cage, for,
> after all, they have been canonized by "art history".
> Could it be that your reaction to the posts has more
> to do with the fact that many of those posting have
> either explicitly or implicitly adopted positions on
> this list that are opposed to your idea of what
> constitutes good or serious art.
> In an offlist mail to me you denied that you had
> accused us of insincerity and yet the only other
> possible reading of your post is that you believe that
> you have some sort of privileged access as to what
> constitutes the worthwhile.
> Tell us please, just who *are* the Sunday painters,
> the dilettantes of your post?
> If you didn't think Jess's piece was any good then why
> not address *that* rather than impugning the motives
> of those who did?
> I'd be more than happy to take part in an extended
> and detailed discussion about the actual artistic
> issues involved.
> michael
>
> --- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
> > At 20:47 +0100 6/3/03, ruth catlow wrote:
> > >Just before the recent 'critiquing of the critics',
> > i posted to
> > >Rhizome with a very serious question; about artists
> > being invited to
> > >submit work, with an assurance that their work
> > would not challenge
> > >the interests of the sponsors.
> > >
> > >'critiquing of the critics' launched its analysis
> > and damning
> > >judgment, of a moment of friendly appreciation
> > among artists and
> > >writers who have each shared work in progress and
> > contributed
> > >thoughtful and critical debate to this list over
> > the last year.
> >
> > ++
> > hiya ruth,
> >
> > i wouldn't call my mild critique 'damning
> > judgement', simply
> > reminding people that i (and many others i imagine)
> > expect at least a
> > bit of rigor in our art talk on this list. It's been
> > a trend on Rhiz
> > that I've been noticing a bit in the past few months
> > so I took
> > advantage of the large amount of tossed-off praise
> > surrounding Jess's
> > latest as my chance to address it.
> >
> > It simply goes back to the long-running debate on
> > Rhiz as to whether
> > this space should function more as a cocktail party
> > or should it
> > function on a higher level. Perhaps the debate
> > doesn't need reviving?
> > I can see that side of the argument. i know i'm as
> > guilty as anyone
> > in making tossed-off, unthoughtful posts from time
> > to time (or even
> > more often).
> >
> > personally, i like cocktail parties much better when
> > there are actual
> > cocktails in everyone's hands ;-) email lists
> > function better when
> > more thought is put into posts than is put into your
> > average cocktail
> > party chatter IMO.
> > ++
> >
> > >
> > >The first represents a money/power taboo and the
> > second a human
> > >emotion taboo.
> > >I wonder how useful or necessary are these
> > restrictions are?
> > >
> > >Artist's self censorship- who needs the first
> > amendment?
> > >
> > >regards
> > >ruth
> >
> > --
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> > + 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
>
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
when emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> + 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
>
>
Re: Fwd: FW: Digital Artists: Call for Entries
What type of art work is likely to happen because of this?
>Artist's self censorship- who needs the first amendment?
marc
>Artist's self censorship- who needs the first amendment?
marc
Social = bad
Yes,
Are you prepared to give me and the list a more comlicated version?
marc
The snot flies as those who are caught up in their mythical
deliberations hide behind the abstract, pawns to a social divide.
Perpetrating what is told & denying the flux, possibilities...
Social = bad
Thats a pretty simplistic for something so complicated is'nt it?
Are you prepared to give me and the list a more comlicated version?
marc
The snot flies as those who are caught up in their mythical
deliberations hide behind the abstract, pawns to a social divide.
Perpetrating what is told & denying the flux, possibilities...
Social = bad
Thats a pretty simplistic for something so complicated is'nt it?