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.
Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
I would like to ask Mark Tribe why www.furtherfield.org is not included
in his recent book 'New Media Art'?
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/art/all/facts/03684.htm
I would also like to open this question up for others on this list to
explore, it would be interesting to know why groups such as ourselves
have been and are ignored by such individuals, when we have also
contributed much to the culture and history of media art for quite while
now.
One could suddenly start thinking that there is a 'gate-keeping'
scenario going on, put in place by certain academics, who are
consciously creating a deliberate historical divide for an elite - by
repeatedly representing and proposing the same names, over and over and
over and over and over.........................again.
confused/disturbed but sadly, not actually that surprised.
marc garrett.
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
I would like to ask Mark Tribe why www.furtherfield.org is not included
in his recent book 'New Media Art'?
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/art/all/facts/03684.htm
I would also like to open this question up for others on this list to
explore, it would be interesting to know why groups such as ourselves
have been and are ignored by such individuals, when we have also
contributed much to the culture and history of media art for quite while
now.
One could suddenly start thinking that there is a 'gate-keeping'
scenario going on, put in place by certain academics, who are
consciously creating a deliberate historical divide for an elite - by
repeatedly representing and proposing the same names, over and over and
over and over and over.........................again.
confused/disturbed but sadly, not actually that surprised.
marc garrett.
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
I would like to ask Mark Tribe why www.furtherfield.org is not included
in his recent book 'New Media Art'?
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/art/all/facts/03684.htm
I would also like to open this question up for others on this list to
explore, it would be interesting to know why groups such as ourselves
have been and are ignored by such individuals, when we have also
contributed much to the culture and history of media art for quite while
now.
One could suddenly start thinking that there is a 'gate-keeping'
scenario going on, put in place by certain academics, who are
consciously creating a deliberate historical divide for an elite - by
repeatedly representing and proposing the same names, over and over and
over and over and over.........................again.
confused/disturbed but sadly, not actually that surprised.
marc garrett.
I would like to ask Mark Tribe why www.furtherfield.org is not included
in his recent book 'New Media Art'?
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/art/all/facts/03684.htm
I would also like to open this question up for others on this list to
explore, it would be interesting to know why groups such as ourselves
have been and are ignored by such individuals, when we have also
contributed much to the culture and history of media art for quite while
now.
One could suddenly start thinking that there is a 'gate-keeping'
scenario going on, put in place by certain academics, who are
consciously creating a deliberate historical divide for an elite - by
repeatedly representing and proposing the same names, over and over and
over and over and over.........................again.
confused/disturbed but sadly, not actually that surprised.
marc garrett.
Re: Re: Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?
ART
>DVD
>
>
>On 7/31/06 11:29 AM, "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>but what killed video art?
>>Eric
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>DVD
>
>
>On 7/31/06 11:29 AM, "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>but what killed video art?
>>Eric
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Re: RHIZOME_RAW:
Hi manik,
Yes - I understand the frustration of being caught in a bonsai trap. I
suppose that we all have our own blind spots and bonsai's, to deal with
in some way.
what was your student frustated by, in regard to them hating the state
of being a Bonsai?
marc
>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
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Yes - I understand the frustration of being caught in a bonsai trap. I
suppose that we all have our own blind spots and bonsai's, to deal with
in some way.
what was your student frustated by, in regard to them hating the state
of being a Bonsai?
marc
>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
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?
Hi T.Whid,
>the important question
> is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
> relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
> curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
> when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
> is 'dead?'
Regarding collections and commissions - I know that the Tate Gallery in
the UK collect various net art works. Which is a positive step in
respect of on-line archiving and getting it seen to a wider audience out
there. Also, groups like V2, have been supporting media art and net art
in various ways.
I am not so worried about net art as some, and think that net art is
alive and kicking and that it is moving into different areas, networked
and through different activities that may not immediately look like net
art but, has its spirit and is influenced by what it still is and was,
possessing contexts that work to inform this contemporary creativity.
A good example is Node.London http://www.nodel.org/, which was a
decentralized, networked, consensus based (most of the time) and used
regions (areas, places) as nodes around the whole of London -
representing net art and media arts for a month. To be honest - we were
not prepared for the amount of people who would get involved to show
their work - in the end we had too many venues and far too many events,
artists through the month. On one hand, certain 'sack-heads' would go
for the obvious and unimaginative retort and say 'hey - there was too
much and you were not able to deal with the overload', my retort would
be 'calm down and breath the creative air - you have just experienced a
change in culture, and the doors were opened and now we are seeing more
media art and net art than what we all thought was actually there.'
By exploring open source, using its methodology and practise, which is
strongly connected to D.I.Y culture and social contexts - London
experienced something special and different for a change, and it was a
change. There are some who would rather that it did not happen, they are
the people who would prefer such creativity to stay contained, and not
be seen. So that they could provide their own limited canon, regarding
what it is that we are all involved in - by taking control of our own
culture, we create more outlets for others to be let in and get more
involved, which can't be bad thing...
And of course, net art in its pure form is still being made.
Such as:
Slippage - http://slippage.net/
OneSmallStep - http://flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace
Oil Standard - http://turbulence.org/Works/oilstandard/
The Danube Panorama Project -
http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/About?from=Main.Index
Glitchbrowser - http://glitchbrowser.com/
There's loads more I could mention and probably should do but do not
possess time to do so, but in other projects...
I am not worried about history, only that in the recent past that the
wrong people have been writing about it - if we make sure that we are
doing our best to change things by either creating it, showing it,
writing about it, talking about it, using it and getting on with it -
then we can let history look after itself, for we are making history
right now.
I feel that sometimes (including myself here) that, we are actually more
in control of our own histories than we originally may have thought. I
mean, we are the 1st generation to have such networks at hand to help us
contact others outside of our nations, to promote, explore dialogue and
present and share our creative endeavours.
If net art does die, it will die not because it is dead or killed by
anyone (they are not worth listening too) but more because it lives via
mutation, beyond its original forms/medium and reliving its essence
through our own influencing agency.
> Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)
Shucks - watch out or i'll come over there and give you a big hug...
Seriously, we work our socks off here and it's nice to get respect - it
helps.
marc
>
>> Hi T.Whid & all,
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
>> network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
>> called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.
>
>
> Well sure that's inarguable. People will always find ways to express
> themselves in whatever media they like. IMHO, the important question
> is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
> relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
> curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
> when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
> is 'dead?'
>
> IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
> to net art.
>
> As far as the dot.com boom went. The art establishment got as caught
> up with the hype as everyone else so you saw more interest in net art
> during and right after the boom. I think that's pretty obvious. I
> guess I could do some research to prove my point, but I'm too lazy :-)
> I have anecdotal evidence however. Two of the biggest names in net art
> were earning a living at it during and after the boom but since have
> had to take on day gigs.
>
> Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)
>
> Best
>
>>
>> The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
>> this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
>> did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
>> want it to...
>>
>> marc
>>
>> > 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_bubble_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.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
>> HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
>> Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>the important question
> is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
> relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
> curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
> when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
> is 'dead?'
Regarding collections and commissions - I know that the Tate Gallery in
the UK collect various net art works. Which is a positive step in
respect of on-line archiving and getting it seen to a wider audience out
there. Also, groups like V2, have been supporting media art and net art
in various ways.
I am not so worried about net art as some, and think that net art is
alive and kicking and that it is moving into different areas, networked
and through different activities that may not immediately look like net
art but, has its spirit and is influenced by what it still is and was,
possessing contexts that work to inform this contemporary creativity.
A good example is Node.London http://www.nodel.org/, which was a
decentralized, networked, consensus based (most of the time) and used
regions (areas, places) as nodes around the whole of London -
representing net art and media arts for a month. To be honest - we were
not prepared for the amount of people who would get involved to show
their work - in the end we had too many venues and far too many events,
artists through the month. On one hand, certain 'sack-heads' would go
for the obvious and unimaginative retort and say 'hey - there was too
much and you were not able to deal with the overload', my retort would
be 'calm down and breath the creative air - you have just experienced a
change in culture, and the doors were opened and now we are seeing more
media art and net art than what we all thought was actually there.'
By exploring open source, using its methodology and practise, which is
strongly connected to D.I.Y culture and social contexts - London
experienced something special and different for a change, and it was a
change. There are some who would rather that it did not happen, they are
the people who would prefer such creativity to stay contained, and not
be seen. So that they could provide their own limited canon, regarding
what it is that we are all involved in - by taking control of our own
culture, we create more outlets for others to be let in and get more
involved, which can't be bad thing...
And of course, net art in its pure form is still being made.
Such as:
Slippage - http://slippage.net/
OneSmallStep - http://flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace
Oil Standard - http://turbulence.org/Works/oilstandard/
The Danube Panorama Project -
http://www.danubepanorama.net/en/Main/About?from=Main.Index
Glitchbrowser - http://glitchbrowser.com/
There's loads more I could mention and probably should do but do not
possess time to do so, but in other projects...
I am not worried about history, only that in the recent past that the
wrong people have been writing about it - if we make sure that we are
doing our best to change things by either creating it, showing it,
writing about it, talking about it, using it and getting on with it -
then we can let history look after itself, for we are making history
right now.
I feel that sometimes (including myself here) that, we are actually more
in control of our own histories than we originally may have thought. I
mean, we are the 1st generation to have such networks at hand to help us
contact others outside of our nations, to promote, explore dialogue and
present and share our creative endeavours.
If net art does die, it will die not because it is dead or killed by
anyone (they are not worth listening too) but more because it lives via
mutation, beyond its original forms/medium and reliving its essence
through our own influencing agency.
> Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)
Shucks - watch out or i'll come over there and give you a big hug...
Seriously, we work our socks off here and it's nice to get respect - it
helps.
marc
>
>> Hi T.Whid & all,
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> As long as one has a computer that is connected to another computer, or
>> network, or Internet - net art will go on, no matter what other so
>> called 'knowing' individuals would prefer us to think.
>
>
> Well sure that's inarguable. People will always find ways to express
> themselves in whatever media they like. IMHO, the important question
> is whether or not net art will be *relevant* in the future. By
> relevant I mean, relevant to collectors, art-thinkers, other artists,
> curators, gallerists, etc etc. After all, isn't that what people mean
> when they speculate whether or not a certain art form/medium/technique
> is 'dead?'
>
> IMHO, mail art is more-or-less irrelevant. I don't want that to happen
> to net art.
>
> As far as the dot.com boom went. The art establishment got as caught
> up with the hype as everyone else so you saw more interest in net art
> during and right after the boom. I think that's pretty obvious. I
> guess I could do some research to prove my point, but I'm too lazy :-)
> I have anecdotal evidence however. Two of the biggest names in net art
> were earning a living at it during and after the boom but since have
> had to take on day gigs.
>
> Hope all is well Marc! You guys do good work :-)
>
> Best
>
>>
>> The idea of net art and the death of it has come up so many times on
>> this list, one would have to think - how many times can it die if it
>> did, which of course, it is not dead - it's mythology and political to
>> want it to...
>>
>> marc
>>
>> > 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_bubble_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.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
>> HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
>> Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org