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.
Furthernoise issue August 2006.
Furthernoise issue August 2006
====================
Welcome to the August issue of Furthernoise.org. As always we're
flagging up some great new music & noise as well as the opportunity to
contribute to our next net release 'Appropriate Re-appropriations'
utilizing audio from the amazing Freesound library. See Fn net label for
more details. I hope you enjoy this issue and as usual look forward to
any feedback or comments.
Furthernoise issue August 2006
http://www.furthernoise.org/index.php?issW
"Month Of Sundays A/V Performances" (feature)
Month Of Sundays A/V Performances
Furthernoise.org hosted a month of Sunday afternoon live audio visual
internet performances throughout June 06 in the online file mixing
platform Visitors Studio, created by Furtherfield.org. Featuring some of
the most innovative international A/V artists mixing remotely in various
geographic locations and time zones, these mixes were also broadcast to
audiences at E:vent, (London) Watershed,
(Bristol) & The Point CDC Theatre, (New York).
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID4
feature by Roger Mills
"Christoph De Boeck - Sound Incorporations" (review)
The Sound Incorporations DVD-ROM documents a research event that took
place in Antwerp, Belgium on May 8th, 2004. The DVD contains a set of
video presentations given by various artists. The symposium was hosted
by the Performance Studies department at the University of Antwerp,
MUHKA (Museum of Contemporary Arts) and APT (Arts Performance
Theatricality postgraduate programme).
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID5
review by Alex Young
"Cichaczem" (review)
Robert Curgenven is a sonic nomad who takes much of his inspiration from
the 'Subtleties underlying living in challenging landscapes and
climates'. He should know too as he has spent the best part of the last
6 years living in a small outback town in Australia's Northern Territory
working in community cultural development with remote indigenous
communities.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID3
review by Roger Mills
"Clark - Boris Hauf" (review)
Clark, a 7 track CD released on Sijis by Boris Hauf, is aesthetically
well-placed in Sijis territory. Fragments of techno juxtaposed with
modernist contemporary experimentation make it liable to pique the
interest of many an electronic music connoisseur.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID2
review by Alex Young
"Double Exposure - Winduptoys" (review)
After catching a Wind Up Toys live set a few years ago I remember being
impressed by Robert & Jeremy's DIY ethic when it came to making all
sorts of bleeps & glitches. Everything from flexed, amplified rulers to
bird whistles & vocalisations sent through analogue processors, their
palette of sound limited only to their imaginations.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID0
review by Roger Mills
"Erg" (review)
It came packaged in a DVD case, some material placed under the clear
outer casing with a sun-like shape printed on it. Just the thing for a
bright summer morning. Inside, the CD design echoes the sun symbol, hand
printed and accompanied by a sole sheet of paper outlining the artist
name and track titles.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID8
review by DJC de la Haye
"Every Vein Leads To My Heart" (review)
Press play on Mathieu Ruhlmann's ‘Every Vein Leads to My Heart' and in a
moment's time you'll feel like you're stepping tenuously into a
dramatic, cavernous monastery. Dreamily bowed cymbals and metals ring
out through encompassing reverbs, their inharmonic frequencies drifting
towards each other in vain attempts to find their equal, but instead
reconciling their differences to form beating-oscillations.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID7
review by DJC de la Haye
"Lacunae Collapse" (review)
With one of those slightly irritating goth-esque names that you can
never quite remember, Lacunae consist of Kasten Searles, Arson Bright
and one A. Peluso, and, intriguingly, they have never actually met!
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID9
review by Mark Francombe
"Odd Numbers - The Blessing" (review)
>From the opening bars of the syncopated 4 bar riff on Equal and
Opposite, I'm locked into the beat of the opening track of Odd Numbers,
The Blessing 'Live at the Bell, Bath. I'd seen them a couple of times
before in Bristol and was curious to hear how their live be-bopped
groove would translate onto the home stereo.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID6
review by Mike Willox
Roger Mills
Editor, Furthernoise
====================
Welcome to the August issue of Furthernoise.org. As always we're
flagging up some great new music & noise as well as the opportunity to
contribute to our next net release 'Appropriate Re-appropriations'
utilizing audio from the amazing Freesound library. See Fn net label for
more details. I hope you enjoy this issue and as usual look forward to
any feedback or comments.
Furthernoise issue August 2006
http://www.furthernoise.org/index.php?issW
"Month Of Sundays A/V Performances" (feature)
Month Of Sundays A/V Performances
Furthernoise.org hosted a month of Sunday afternoon live audio visual
internet performances throughout June 06 in the online file mixing
platform Visitors Studio, created by Furtherfield.org. Featuring some of
the most innovative international A/V artists mixing remotely in various
geographic locations and time zones, these mixes were also broadcast to
audiences at E:vent, (London) Watershed,
(Bristol) & The Point CDC Theatre, (New York).
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID4
feature by Roger Mills
"Christoph De Boeck - Sound Incorporations" (review)
The Sound Incorporations DVD-ROM documents a research event that took
place in Antwerp, Belgium on May 8th, 2004. The DVD contains a set of
video presentations given by various artists. The symposium was hosted
by the Performance Studies department at the University of Antwerp,
MUHKA (Museum of Contemporary Arts) and APT (Arts Performance
Theatricality postgraduate programme).
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID5
review by Alex Young
"Cichaczem" (review)
Robert Curgenven is a sonic nomad who takes much of his inspiration from
the 'Subtleties underlying living in challenging landscapes and
climates'. He should know too as he has spent the best part of the last
6 years living in a small outback town in Australia's Northern Territory
working in community cultural development with remote indigenous
communities.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID3
review by Roger Mills
"Clark - Boris Hauf" (review)
Clark, a 7 track CD released on Sijis by Boris Hauf, is aesthetically
well-placed in Sijis territory. Fragments of techno juxtaposed with
modernist contemporary experimentation make it liable to pique the
interest of many an electronic music connoisseur.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID2
review by Alex Young
"Double Exposure - Winduptoys" (review)
After catching a Wind Up Toys live set a few years ago I remember being
impressed by Robert & Jeremy's DIY ethic when it came to making all
sorts of bleeps & glitches. Everything from flexed, amplified rulers to
bird whistles & vocalisations sent through analogue processors, their
palette of sound limited only to their imaginations.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID0
review by Roger Mills
"Erg" (review)
It came packaged in a DVD case, some material placed under the clear
outer casing with a sun-like shape printed on it. Just the thing for a
bright summer morning. Inside, the CD design echoes the sun symbol, hand
printed and accompanied by a sole sheet of paper outlining the artist
name and track titles.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID8
review by DJC de la Haye
"Every Vein Leads To My Heart" (review)
Press play on Mathieu Ruhlmann's ‘Every Vein Leads to My Heart' and in a
moment's time you'll feel like you're stepping tenuously into a
dramatic, cavernous monastery. Dreamily bowed cymbals and metals ring
out through encompassing reverbs, their inharmonic frequencies drifting
towards each other in vain attempts to find their equal, but instead
reconciling their differences to form beating-oscillations.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID7
review by DJC de la Haye
"Lacunae Collapse" (review)
With one of those slightly irritating goth-esque names that you can
never quite remember, Lacunae consist of Kasten Searles, Arson Bright
and one A. Peluso, and, intriguingly, they have never actually met!
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID9
review by Mark Francombe
"Odd Numbers - The Blessing" (review)
>From the opening bars of the syncopated 4 bar riff on Equal and
Opposite, I'm locked into the beat of the opening track of Odd Numbers,
The Blessing 'Live at the Bell, Bath. I'd seen them a couple of times
before in Bristol and was curious to hear how their live be-bopped
groove would translate onto the home stereo.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID6
review by Mike Willox
Roger Mills
Editor, Furthernoise
Re: conversations on 'New Media Art' pubication.
Hi Rhizomers,
I would like to thank all those, who have given their time in generously
discussing and sharing their views and thoughts regarding Mark Tribe's
book on 'New Media Art'. It has been genuinely debated, offering much
thoughtful qualities and excellent insights about other people's ideas,
conceptions on the subject.
Not only has there been some really interesting and varied
explorations/convictions expounded on this list by those who are
curious. I have received many emails (off-list) from people who have
declared their own personal experiences regarding representation and
top-down, cultural gate-keeping and its nuances. Much of the emails
received, refer to different situations that are not all directly
relating to the publication of the book in question but, are linked or
inspired contextually, and have come about through the recent
discussion, that has taken place on this list. There have also been
emails sent suggesting constructive alternatives and 'potentially'
imaginative projects and examples on how to move forward productively,
which I intend to pursue in due time, with some of these individuals,
collaboratively.
The questions I proposed to the Rhizome list were aware of the
resposnibility of having to be respectful and sincere, and were
thankfully by many, seen as legitimate and worth while issues for
consideration. It is also important to mention that the questions were
not meant to offend or impose personal malice to Mark Tribe himself. I
also wish to re-emphasise that my questions do not come from spite,
jealousy or even from a psychological stance of, a 'submissive' whinge.
Although, some might wish that was the case ;-)
One psychological effect or power-relation that I have noticed when
asking such questions, especially when not framed within an academic
'canon-like' language or context is, that the speaker in question, can
easily be placed in the unfortunate position of being stigmatised as a
whiner. This all too often, dumbs down the original and urgent energy of
the dialogue itself taking place, and can work to silence the dissenter
as well act to dis-empower those who wish explore further in sharing
their ideas authentically with others. We are dealing with a much more
complex form of circumstances here than just putting it down to
emotional insecurities. Perhaps, those who wish to entrap those under
such terms should take time to question their own motives in proposing
such misappropriations.
I am a strong believer in studying what is working out there, it is a
type of conceptual or cultural hacking with a social context but, I am
also interested viewing what seems to be working out there as well. And
building something more closer to a shared vision, with other peers
(from different back grounds), as part of a wider and inclusive, media
art practise. This also means making things become and work by offering
real, solid examples. Many of the projects that I have been part of are
critical engagements that, in their functions, content and context and
are in a way, answers to many of the questions that myself and other
people who I work with, have asked. We have taken it upon ourselves to
try and create real-life alternatives.
For me, it is not enough to sit at the sidelines (or centre) and
passionately argue about certain situations that seem wrong, in contrast
to one's own (or group's) contemporary perspectives, and then - do
nothing about it. We have been doing something about it for years now,
and by 'example' and we intend to carry on doing so, through our
critical practise as artists, writers, activists, curators and so on...
in consciously creating, co-building new initiatives and platforms that
challenge 'self imposed' hierarchies that seem 'unconscious' or
non-responsive by default, yet continue to try and shape our own
histories on their terms, not ours.
Furtherfield, and its connected projects that either use the Internet or
in physical space, were not born out of the need of power, status,
profile, money or any institutional concepts but, out of a grass roots
sense of urgency to create a cultural shift in, allowing ourselves and
others like us who felt dissatisfied with the way that other 'so called
peers' out there - seemed to be radical in their conceptual reasonings
yet actually didn't really want to change anything other than their own
status as 'specialised' individuals, and creating a currency out of
'being' radical but, not actually changing culture itself through their
proposed creative endeavours. Culture is a palette :-)
We have actively been part of Node.London (www.nodel.org) that was a
decentralised media arts festival, that showed media art in various
regions and venues, projects as nodes around London. It also used a
consensus model for meetings, which was not easy. "During March 2006
people across London found new and creative ways to produce, display and
distribute art and media, employing electronic or digital technologies,
whether audiovisual, computerised, or telematic. Inviting practitioners
to put themselves on the map and to describe their connections to other
individuals, projects and venues. Raising the visibility of media arts
practice in and around the capital, to fortify existing media arts
networks and to encourage production and experimentation, whilst
assisting in the articulation of such innovative artistry to a wider
audience."
I think that Mark has missed an amazing opportunity to open things up
and reflect upon 'New Media Art's', wider context(s). Perhaps he feels
that he has done his bit for our ever changing culture, and that it is
now up to the likes of groups like furtherfield - to take it to the next
step (we always have) but, if such groups are ignored and not given the
well deserved support and respect, by those who are communicating to
other audiences about our culture in a more inclusive manner, it will be
presumed as a political act by not doing so. Then, of course, it is
simply much more about defining a historical territory that is not real.
This is not an imaginative way of representing and in this day and age
we all deserve to be part of a more decentralised process that opens
things up in regard to voices claiming their own spaces, in a less
singular manner, after all, it is (new) media art that we are talking
about here.
This of course, is not a responsibility that specifically rests on Mark
Tribe's shoulders alone, and one cannot and should not place emphasis on
him. It is up to everyone, which includes us - we, ourselves have a job
to do in making sure that this inspiring and varied art form, does not
fall into the 'all too easy' trap of divide and rule.
It is up to all of us to reclaim the spirit of what we are, and make
sure that we are represented decently by those who claim to know about
our practise. We also need to be more conscious and aware of such
things, and represent each other more readily whenever we can, so that
when those who put themselves in such positions who suddenly or
conveniently, either by not being aware or deliberately ignoring other
creative adventures out there, are (thoughtfully) questioned about their
decisions and actions.
It definitely, is not about insulting people personally because if one
does that, then why would they include you? It is not about motives as
puerile, modernist and empty as toppling kings and queens and then just
standing on their thrones - such gestures would be even sadder. It is
more about our voices and practises being acknowledged equally, and that
we are all given a chance to be seen for the hours and time that we have
all put in. We have all given each other the opportunities that are
shared here to some extent, some of it is obvious and some in more
subtle ways. It is time to hand in our slips and claim our credits but,
do it right.
Indeed, Many users on this list are accurate in their observations that,
history is not made by books alone. The unofficial versions of history
in respect of media art will be an even more fascinating experience for
all those who are interested in moving beyond the surface, in
deciphering the ad-hoc allegiances and power relations that have been
built by such a fluid culture. A 'critical practise', is urgently
needed, so to engage with our contemporary manoeuvres and cultural
needs. Aligned with our creative communities which need not be born out
of a 'singular' hollow aim, of 'high profile' but, out of the need that
'we can make a difference' if we can be bothered that is. It is not
about what we inherit, it is about what we have built together. Whether
this is through projects, groups, art, curation, writing, platforms - it
does not matter - we need to just get on with it now before our
histories are stolen from under own feet or not distributed appropriately.
I noticed in Rhizome's recent Digest that none of this conversation was
covered regarding the book of the recent publication of 'New Media Art'.
Which I personally respect and understand why not, for I really do not
wish for the discussion that has taken place to get in the way of
Rhizome's celebrating its 10th anniversary.
So, Many happy returns to Rhizome and keep up the good work in
re-evaluating yourself and continiously moving on - and thanks for being
there :-)
marc garrett.
I would like to thank all those, who have given their time in generously
discussing and sharing their views and thoughts regarding Mark Tribe's
book on 'New Media Art'. It has been genuinely debated, offering much
thoughtful qualities and excellent insights about other people's ideas,
conceptions on the subject.
Not only has there been some really interesting and varied
explorations/convictions expounded on this list by those who are
curious. I have received many emails (off-list) from people who have
declared their own personal experiences regarding representation and
top-down, cultural gate-keeping and its nuances. Much of the emails
received, refer to different situations that are not all directly
relating to the publication of the book in question but, are linked or
inspired contextually, and have come about through the recent
discussion, that has taken place on this list. There have also been
emails sent suggesting constructive alternatives and 'potentially'
imaginative projects and examples on how to move forward productively,
which I intend to pursue in due time, with some of these individuals,
collaboratively.
The questions I proposed to the Rhizome list were aware of the
resposnibility of having to be respectful and sincere, and were
thankfully by many, seen as legitimate and worth while issues for
consideration. It is also important to mention that the questions were
not meant to offend or impose personal malice to Mark Tribe himself. I
also wish to re-emphasise that my questions do not come from spite,
jealousy or even from a psychological stance of, a 'submissive' whinge.
Although, some might wish that was the case ;-)
One psychological effect or power-relation that I have noticed when
asking such questions, especially when not framed within an academic
'canon-like' language or context is, that the speaker in question, can
easily be placed in the unfortunate position of being stigmatised as a
whiner. This all too often, dumbs down the original and urgent energy of
the dialogue itself taking place, and can work to silence the dissenter
as well act to dis-empower those who wish explore further in sharing
their ideas authentically with others. We are dealing with a much more
complex form of circumstances here than just putting it down to
emotional insecurities. Perhaps, those who wish to entrap those under
such terms should take time to question their own motives in proposing
such misappropriations.
I am a strong believer in studying what is working out there, it is a
type of conceptual or cultural hacking with a social context but, I am
also interested viewing what seems to be working out there as well. And
building something more closer to a shared vision, with other peers
(from different back grounds), as part of a wider and inclusive, media
art practise. This also means making things become and work by offering
real, solid examples. Many of the projects that I have been part of are
critical engagements that, in their functions, content and context and
are in a way, answers to many of the questions that myself and other
people who I work with, have asked. We have taken it upon ourselves to
try and create real-life alternatives.
For me, it is not enough to sit at the sidelines (or centre) and
passionately argue about certain situations that seem wrong, in contrast
to one's own (or group's) contemporary perspectives, and then - do
nothing about it. We have been doing something about it for years now,
and by 'example' and we intend to carry on doing so, through our
critical practise as artists, writers, activists, curators and so on...
in consciously creating, co-building new initiatives and platforms that
challenge 'self imposed' hierarchies that seem 'unconscious' or
non-responsive by default, yet continue to try and shape our own
histories on their terms, not ours.
Furtherfield, and its connected projects that either use the Internet or
in physical space, were not born out of the need of power, status,
profile, money or any institutional concepts but, out of a grass roots
sense of urgency to create a cultural shift in, allowing ourselves and
others like us who felt dissatisfied with the way that other 'so called
peers' out there - seemed to be radical in their conceptual reasonings
yet actually didn't really want to change anything other than their own
status as 'specialised' individuals, and creating a currency out of
'being' radical but, not actually changing culture itself through their
proposed creative endeavours. Culture is a palette :-)
We have actively been part of Node.London (www.nodel.org) that was a
decentralised media arts festival, that showed media art in various
regions and venues, projects as nodes around London. It also used a
consensus model for meetings, which was not easy. "During March 2006
people across London found new and creative ways to produce, display and
distribute art and media, employing electronic or digital technologies,
whether audiovisual, computerised, or telematic. Inviting practitioners
to put themselves on the map and to describe their connections to other
individuals, projects and venues. Raising the visibility of media arts
practice in and around the capital, to fortify existing media arts
networks and to encourage production and experimentation, whilst
assisting in the articulation of such innovative artistry to a wider
audience."
I think that Mark has missed an amazing opportunity to open things up
and reflect upon 'New Media Art's', wider context(s). Perhaps he feels
that he has done his bit for our ever changing culture, and that it is
now up to the likes of groups like furtherfield - to take it to the next
step (we always have) but, if such groups are ignored and not given the
well deserved support and respect, by those who are communicating to
other audiences about our culture in a more inclusive manner, it will be
presumed as a political act by not doing so. Then, of course, it is
simply much more about defining a historical territory that is not real.
This is not an imaginative way of representing and in this day and age
we all deserve to be part of a more decentralised process that opens
things up in regard to voices claiming their own spaces, in a less
singular manner, after all, it is (new) media art that we are talking
about here.
This of course, is not a responsibility that specifically rests on Mark
Tribe's shoulders alone, and one cannot and should not place emphasis on
him. It is up to everyone, which includes us - we, ourselves have a job
to do in making sure that this inspiring and varied art form, does not
fall into the 'all too easy' trap of divide and rule.
It is up to all of us to reclaim the spirit of what we are, and make
sure that we are represented decently by those who claim to know about
our practise. We also need to be more conscious and aware of such
things, and represent each other more readily whenever we can, so that
when those who put themselves in such positions who suddenly or
conveniently, either by not being aware or deliberately ignoring other
creative adventures out there, are (thoughtfully) questioned about their
decisions and actions.
It definitely, is not about insulting people personally because if one
does that, then why would they include you? It is not about motives as
puerile, modernist and empty as toppling kings and queens and then just
standing on their thrones - such gestures would be even sadder. It is
more about our voices and practises being acknowledged equally, and that
we are all given a chance to be seen for the hours and time that we have
all put in. We have all given each other the opportunities that are
shared here to some extent, some of it is obvious and some in more
subtle ways. It is time to hand in our slips and claim our credits but,
do it right.
Indeed, Many users on this list are accurate in their observations that,
history is not made by books alone. The unofficial versions of history
in respect of media art will be an even more fascinating experience for
all those who are interested in moving beyond the surface, in
deciphering the ad-hoc allegiances and power relations that have been
built by such a fluid culture. A 'critical practise', is urgently
needed, so to engage with our contemporary manoeuvres and cultural
needs. Aligned with our creative communities which need not be born out
of a 'singular' hollow aim, of 'high profile' but, out of the need that
'we can make a difference' if we can be bothered that is. It is not
about what we inherit, it is about what we have built together. Whether
this is through projects, groups, art, curation, writing, platforms - it
does not matter - we need to just get on with it now before our
histories are stolen from under own feet or not distributed appropriately.
I noticed in Rhizome's recent Digest that none of this conversation was
covered regarding the book of the recent publication of 'New Media Art'.
Which I personally respect and understand why not, for I really do not
wish for the discussion that has taken place to get in the way of
Rhizome's celebrating its 10th anniversary.
So, Many happy returns to Rhizome and keep up the good work in
re-evaluating yourself and continiously moving on - and thanks for being
there :-)
marc garrett.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Hi Jim & all,
I think that you have answered for me some of the questions that I was
going to say to Alexis - well explained :-)
marc
>Rob's post is very well-considered.
>
>I remember talking with a musician digital artist--he wasn't knowlegeable
>about net art, but he had Rachel Greene's book and one other, I can't
>remember which--and he said, basically, "you're not in these books. you
>don't rate as a net artist."
>
>How about your work, I asked him. Are you in the publications you think you
>should be in? You should know better than to take those sorts of books as
>definitive.
>
>Of course he reconsidered. But books that survey art, whether they want to
>or not, give the reader the impression that only the best work is considered
>therein. It isn't in the publisher's interest to give a different
>impression. That would diminish the value of the book. But, also, they *are*
>meant as arguments for the value of the work they consider. They *are*
>competitive by their nature for attention for the book itself and of course
>slightly less for the work they consider.
>
>
>
>>If I don't know who Barbara Kruger is and I write a book on 1980s
>>American art
>>that omits her I am incompetent. If I do know who Barbara Kruger is and
>>I write
>>a book on 1980s American art that omits her I have some explaining to do.
>>
>>
>
>That may well be. But concerning net art, isn't it really only Jodi about
>whom you could say the same? Only Jodi is sufficiently famous. And, even
>then, were the book about net art since 2000, well, wasn't it around then or
>perhaps even before when Jodi pretty much stopped making net art?
>
>In the early nineties I wrote a little essay called "On the impossibility of
>the mere existence of the great works of the late twentieth century". Not
>that great work is not being produced. But only through humbug can there be
>even the pretence of concensus on just which ones are most worthy. Because
>there is so much art being produced and it is so relatively heterogeneous.
>The Internet exposes us to net art around the globe. And fails to expose us
>to much other net art from around the globe. Also, there are many
>conflicting ideas of what makes 'good net art' and also conflicting ideas
>whether there even can be any 'good net art'. New York is well situated as a
>center of international net art, but we see less real development of the
>notion of international net art, these days, as "a mass of exclusions,
>score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves". The theory
>of the 'rhizome' does not seem to cover this.
>
>I saw an interesting little interview with David Cronenberg on rocketboom
>about the influence of the Web on film. He said he felt the big influence
>was on further splintering of the audience. He said that might end up
>meaning that $200 million dollar movies stop being made because it's only
>when you can summon a mass audience that those sorts of projects are
>possible. He also talked of the conception of audience historically,
>mentioning that painters before the twentieth century certainly didn't paint
>for a mass audience, mentioned that our conception of the size and scope of
>audience is changing in the light of splintering shards of media.
>
>
>
>>I do agree that any "comprehensive" survey is going to be a mass of
>>exclusions,
>>score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves.
>>
>>This doesn't mean that we are forbidden from asking what those are.
>>
>>
>
>Well said.
>
>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
>+
>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
I think that you have answered for me some of the questions that I was
going to say to Alexis - well explained :-)
marc
>Rob's post is very well-considered.
>
>I remember talking with a musician digital artist--he wasn't knowlegeable
>about net art, but he had Rachel Greene's book and one other, I can't
>remember which--and he said, basically, "you're not in these books. you
>don't rate as a net artist."
>
>How about your work, I asked him. Are you in the publications you think you
>should be in? You should know better than to take those sorts of books as
>definitive.
>
>Of course he reconsidered. But books that survey art, whether they want to
>or not, give the reader the impression that only the best work is considered
>therein. It isn't in the publisher's interest to give a different
>impression. That would diminish the value of the book. But, also, they *are*
>meant as arguments for the value of the work they consider. They *are*
>competitive by their nature for attention for the book itself and of course
>slightly less for the work they consider.
>
>
>
>>If I don't know who Barbara Kruger is and I write a book on 1980s
>>American art
>>that omits her I am incompetent. If I do know who Barbara Kruger is and
>>I write
>>a book on 1980s American art that omits her I have some explaining to do.
>>
>>
>
>That may well be. But concerning net art, isn't it really only Jodi about
>whom you could say the same? Only Jodi is sufficiently famous. And, even
>then, were the book about net art since 2000, well, wasn't it around then or
>perhaps even before when Jodi pretty much stopped making net art?
>
>In the early nineties I wrote a little essay called "On the impossibility of
>the mere existence of the great works of the late twentieth century". Not
>that great work is not being produced. But only through humbug can there be
>even the pretence of concensus on just which ones are most worthy. Because
>there is so much art being produced and it is so relatively heterogeneous.
>The Internet exposes us to net art around the globe. And fails to expose us
>to much other net art from around the globe. Also, there are many
>conflicting ideas of what makes 'good net art' and also conflicting ideas
>whether there even can be any 'good net art'. New York is well situated as a
>center of international net art, but we see less real development of the
>notion of international net art, these days, as "a mass of exclusions,
>score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves". The theory
>of the 'rhizome' does not seem to cover this.
>
>I saw an interesting little interview with David Cronenberg on rocketboom
>about the influence of the Web on film. He said he felt the big influence
>was on further splintering of the audience. He said that might end up
>meaning that $200 million dollar movies stop being made because it's only
>when you can summon a mass audience that those sorts of projects are
>possible. He also talked of the conception of audience historically,
>mentioning that painters before the twentieth century certainly didn't paint
>for a mass audience, mentioned that our conception of the size and scope of
>audience is changing in the light of splintering shards of media.
>
>
>
>>I do agree that any "comprehensive" survey is going to be a mass of
>>exclusions,
>>score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves.
>>
>>This doesn't mean that we are forbidden from asking what those are.
>>
>>
>
>Well said.
>
>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
>+
>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: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Hi Alexis,
2 points...
- I am not complaining...
- did you actually read the text?
marc
>The Internet is comprised of billions of pages and millions of sites. There is
>no such thing as a book that can be comprehensive or definitive about something
>as broad as net art, or even something as specific as mallard hunting sites
>from the American South. You need encyclopedias for something like that, and
>no book will ever include or exclude the "right" projects.
>
>SO I gues my question is, Are you suggesting that books not be written on the
>subject? (If you are, that is fine, but say that,don't complain about one
>specific book that fails for all the same reasons that they will ALL fail.) If
>you aren't suggesting that, then what are you suggesting?
>-Alexis
>
>+
>-> 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
2 points...
- I am not complaining...
- did you actually read the text?
marc
>The Internet is comprised of billions of pages and millions of sites. There is
>no such thing as a book that can be comprehensive or definitive about something
>as broad as net art, or even something as specific as mallard hunting sites
>from the American South. You need encyclopedias for something like that, and
>no book will ever include or exclude the "right" projects.
>
>SO I gues my question is, Are you suggesting that books not be written on the
>subject? (If you are, that is fine, but say that,don't complain about one
>specific book that fails for all the same reasons that they will ALL fail.) If
>you aren't suggesting that, then what are you suggesting?
>-Alexis
>
>+
>-> 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: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
Hi Eric & all,
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
innovative work but they never are.
I would have to disagree here, I think that there are some innovative
works by some interesting groups/artists in this book. I actually admire
some of the works by some of these people presented in the publication
but also admire many who are not included.
In my humble opinion, there are a few profound and 'blinkered' items
that are questionable, in how the book assumes its branding as an
absolute, think of the title - 'New Media Art'. By naming it in such a
way, it proposes that, anything outside of the edited, vicinity of the
book is, not 'new media art'. This migt not even be conscious but, this
is what it does. Creating an 'all too regular' binary situation of
'them and us' - 'winners and losers' of history, which is a
patriarchical and modernist syndrome supported by institutional (and
capitlaist) default. This is a very common mistake and I find it
disturbing that such singular 'whole' representations are re-introduced
far too regularly by, 'supposed' intellegent and critically engaged,
learned individuals.
The premis of the book puts across the notion that it is seriously
engaged in declaring to the world, a wholesome set of (supposed) truths,
beginning from the position of cultural status in respect of the writer
being a co-founder of Rhizome etc (for example), and of course the use
of academic cache. Which initself, is not a negative mannerism; yet -
out of this lazy or prhaps even cynical nuances can prevail, with the
incorporating, and acceptance of misinterpretions, ignoring the possible
relational nature of what such a book could be.
*IMPORTANT FACT TO REMEMBER*
-just because a writer is involved in such an interesting and
increasingly diverse and contemporary culture, does not mean that they
are going to be more critical in tbe imaginative sens, and democratic
their representation of that culture...
If one considers who the writer feels that they are actually writing for
- one would have to say that it is for themselves first of all (no
problem), to peers, associates, institutional rhetoric and of course, 'a
certain history', not artists and related groups, in the larger scheme
of things. For if it was really about critical exploration of a
contemporary practise and its various interconnectness, and
crossing-overs between other cultures and those interesting people
coming out of that, it would be more open and generous to include less,
already supported individuals, and focusing more on groups that infuence
culture on their own terms (such as grass root groups and individuals),
not just via already regurgitated, historicized protocol. Not just
because they have successfully managed to conform to a controlling set
of mechanistic and masculine orientated, regimes and processes - who
have adapted their behaviour and potentialiaties to the lowest form and
level of function, 'pissing up the post of insitutionlized territorialism'.
"It is no longer enough to experiment, ponder serendipitously, discover.
There is a crushing competitive pressure to be first with a formula, a
method, a product. The first to publish may get a Nobel award; the first
in the market makes the most gain. We are in the age of the short-cut,
corporate espionage and falsified results — because of competition. As
in a foot race, only the one coming in first qualifies; the others are
losers. A culture that promotes winners gets more and more losers."
James Hillman - The Virtues of Caution.
So, one is left to (casually) assume that the writer is not aware of
other groups who have and are currently inputing equally relevant
creative works out there, which is worrying.
The introductory title to the 'New Media Art' book, is - 'Art in the age
of digital communication' - perhaps it would be honest to call it 'Some
Art in the age of digital communication', or 'My personal choice of Art
in the age of digital communication'...etc.
How and why was the content chosen? Does the writer see that that they
have a responsibility to declare an already well provided canon of
history to their readers of such information, or are they interested in
enlarging the ever expanding circle of media arts?
I have received quite a few off-list emails regarding this, which is
interesting in its own right.
I would like to add here that I have no personal dislike of Mark Tribe
in any way at all, it is not an attack on him personally but, more to do
with the processes and poltical nature of his action in writing such a
book. I have met Mark one, and he seemed charming and fine to me. I am
thankful that he has been a part of introducing a platform such as
Rhizime to the world, in which we are currently sharing ideas and
communicating on at present. but, please - let's change the record. I
can help him in this...
marc garrett
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
innovative work but they never are. Whether it be Marks book or Rachels
earlier book on Internet Art, in the end these *histories* end up being
reflections of the authors interests and accordingly satiating their ids.
>This is such a common academic issue, however I doubt that there is
any real attempt at the molding of public perception. The reality of net
art is that I never reference a book for it. I always go online for
comments and opinions.
>Will Mark's book have any impact on a field that seems to ignore
linear history? I doubt it. He will pick up a few dollars for a few
months, and then it will sit on the shelf, then the discount bin.
>So far, not a single book on Net Art can be considered an academic
success, but then again, how would I know, I don't read them.
>It's just not the same as writing a history of painting, things
dissolve too quickly.
>
>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
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of innovative work but they never are. Whether it be Marks book or Rachels earlier book on Internet Art, in the end these *histories* end up being reflections of the authors interests and accordingly satiating their ids.
>This is such a common academic issue, however I doubt that there is any real attempt at the molding of public perception. The reality of net art is that I never reference a book for it. I always go online for comments and opinions.
>Will Mark's book have any impact on a field that seems to ignore linear history? I doubt it. He will pick up a few dollars for a few months, and then it will sit on the shelf, then the discount bin.
>So far, not a single book on Net Art can be considered an academic success, but then again, how would I know, I don't read them.
>It's just not the same as writing a history of painting, things dissolve too quickly.
>
>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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
innovative work but they never are.
I would have to disagree here, I think that there are some innovative
works by some interesting groups/artists in this book. I actually admire
some of the works by some of these people presented in the publication
but also admire many who are not included.
In my humble opinion, there are a few profound and 'blinkered' items
that are questionable, in how the book assumes its branding as an
absolute, think of the title - 'New Media Art'. By naming it in such a
way, it proposes that, anything outside of the edited, vicinity of the
book is, not 'new media art'. This migt not even be conscious but, this
is what it does. Creating an 'all too regular' binary situation of
'them and us' - 'winners and losers' of history, which is a
patriarchical and modernist syndrome supported by institutional (and
capitlaist) default. This is a very common mistake and I find it
disturbing that such singular 'whole' representations are re-introduced
far too regularly by, 'supposed' intellegent and critically engaged,
learned individuals.
The premis of the book puts across the notion that it is seriously
engaged in declaring to the world, a wholesome set of (supposed) truths,
beginning from the position of cultural status in respect of the writer
being a co-founder of Rhizome etc (for example), and of course the use
of academic cache. Which initself, is not a negative mannerism; yet -
out of this lazy or prhaps even cynical nuances can prevail, with the
incorporating, and acceptance of misinterpretions, ignoring the possible
relational nature of what such a book could be.
*IMPORTANT FACT TO REMEMBER*
-just because a writer is involved in such an interesting and
increasingly diverse and contemporary culture, does not mean that they
are going to be more critical in tbe imaginative sens, and democratic
their representation of that culture...
If one considers who the writer feels that they are actually writing for
- one would have to say that it is for themselves first of all (no
problem), to peers, associates, institutional rhetoric and of course, 'a
certain history', not artists and related groups, in the larger scheme
of things. For if it was really about critical exploration of a
contemporary practise and its various interconnectness, and
crossing-overs between other cultures and those interesting people
coming out of that, it would be more open and generous to include less,
already supported individuals, and focusing more on groups that infuence
culture on their own terms (such as grass root groups and individuals),
not just via already regurgitated, historicized protocol. Not just
because they have successfully managed to conform to a controlling set
of mechanistic and masculine orientated, regimes and processes - who
have adapted their behaviour and potentialiaties to the lowest form and
level of function, 'pissing up the post of insitutionlized territorialism'.
"It is no longer enough to experiment, ponder serendipitously, discover.
There is a crushing competitive pressure to be first with a formula, a
method, a product. The first to publish may get a Nobel award; the first
in the market makes the most gain. We are in the age of the short-cut,
corporate espionage and falsified results — because of competition. As
in a foot race, only the one coming in first qualifies; the others are
losers. A culture that promotes winners gets more and more losers."
James Hillman - The Virtues of Caution.
So, one is left to (casually) assume that the writer is not aware of
other groups who have and are currently inputing equally relevant
creative works out there, which is worrying.
The introductory title to the 'New Media Art' book, is - 'Art in the age
of digital communication' - perhaps it would be honest to call it 'Some
Art in the age of digital communication', or 'My personal choice of Art
in the age of digital communication'...etc.
How and why was the content chosen? Does the writer see that that they
have a responsibility to declare an already well provided canon of
history to their readers of such information, or are they interested in
enlarging the ever expanding circle of media arts?
I have received quite a few off-list emails regarding this, which is
interesting in its own right.
I would like to add here that I have no personal dislike of Mark Tribe
in any way at all, it is not an attack on him personally but, more to do
with the processes and poltical nature of his action in writing such a
book. I have met Mark one, and he seemed charming and fine to me. I am
thankful that he has been a part of introducing a platform such as
Rhizime to the world, in which we are currently sharing ideas and
communicating on at present. but, please - let's change the record. I
can help him in this...
marc garrett
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of
innovative work but they never are. Whether it be Marks book or Rachels
earlier book on Internet Art, in the end these *histories* end up being
reflections of the authors interests and accordingly satiating their ids.
>This is such a common academic issue, however I doubt that there is
any real attempt at the molding of public perception. The reality of net
art is that I never reference a book for it. I always go online for
comments and opinions.
>Will Mark's book have any impact on a field that seems to ignore
linear history? I doubt it. He will pick up a few dollars for a few
months, and then it will sit on the shelf, then the discount bin.
>So far, not a single book on Net Art can be considered an academic
success, but then again, how would I know, I don't read them.
>It's just not the same as writing a history of painting, things
dissolve too quickly.
>
>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
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>marc garrett wrote:
>
>
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well it would be nice if these books/documents were compendiums of innovative work but they never are. Whether it be Marks book or Rachels earlier book on Internet Art, in the end these *histories* end up being reflections of the authors interests and accordingly satiating their ids.
>This is such a common academic issue, however I doubt that there is any real attempt at the molding of public perception. The reality of net art is that I never reference a book for it. I always go online for comments and opinions.
>Will Mark's book have any impact on a field that seems to ignore linear history? I doubt it. He will pick up a few dollars for a few months, and then it will sit on the shelf, then the discount bin.
>So far, not a single book on Net Art can be considered an academic success, but then again, how would I know, I don't read them.
>It's just not the same as writing a history of painting, things dissolve too quickly.
>
>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
>
>
>
>
--
Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
Node.London - http://www.nodel.org