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: Re: Random thought on how to share net art (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
Hi Manik,
> There's so many
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> against any frames and bourgeois rules.
This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a list - not
specifically this list.
Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed after
> that book.Is that enough?
> MANIK
I agree,
Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes are
genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to or
agree with it.
marc
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
academic
> > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> >
> > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for
me,
> > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
thought
> > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
personal
> > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
> > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage
> in
> > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > insecurities.
> >
> > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
does
> > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a
'no
> > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one
> who
> > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which
is
> a
> > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
points,
> > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
each
> > others own habitual frameworks.
> >
> > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
> > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
Their
> > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to
a
> > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
> others
> > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
through
> > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
aware
> of
> > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out
of
> > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> wisdom
> > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
through
> > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
factors.
> > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others
> and
> > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> >
> > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art,
made
> > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in
the
> > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
that
> I
> > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what
> the
> > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> >
> >
> > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> prefixing
> > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
> that
> > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
> > correctly pointed out)
> > >
> > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and
> the
> > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
> > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> appeal
> > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
> > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> >
> > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
tried
> > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
Party,
> > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
> also
> > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone
> was
> > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down
> on
> > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
> > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be
a
> > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
them,
> > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
their
> > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the
aim
> > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> contacts
> > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> institutional
> > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It
> just
> > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> >
> > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
> that
> > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what
> is
> > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
> > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know
> that
> > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
isolationist,
> as
> > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
> > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change
> that
> > such a relational step demands.
> >
> > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
> > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already
> by
> > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it
> to
> > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
> > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> >
> > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
> > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire
> for
> > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of
the
> > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
> > art.
> >
> > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
> > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has
been
> > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
history.
> > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
becoming
> > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts;
> it
> > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of
> its
> > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> already
> > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> > podiums with different faces.
> >
> > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something
> is
> > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
> > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
unlearn
> > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> (supposedly
> > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that
we
> > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare,
> full
> > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented
to
> > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> >
> > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality
is
> an
> > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
> > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
varied
> > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do
> and
> > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
historians,
> > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
rather
> > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists
> and
> > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> expecting
> > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
psychologically
> > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for
net
> > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
> > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside
> them
> > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
moaning
> > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that
is
> > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
> play,
> > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
Create
> > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting
> for
> > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what
> you
> > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
> > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to
take
> > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
ones
> > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we
> all
> > have to endure.
> >
> > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
> > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
than
> by
> > administered hierarchical protocol.
> >
> > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely
> on
> > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
motivation
> > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> Net.Art
> > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community
and
> > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> >
> > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> blueprints,
> > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> containment
> > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough
to
> > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
strategies
> > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
ignore
> > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> >
> > marc
> >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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
>
> There's so many
>
nihilism,idealism,insecurities,utopian,conscious/unconscious,personal/impers
> onal in human activity called techne(art).Idea of rhizome is strictly
> against any frames and bourgeois rules.
This, I did not say. I was refering to the advantage of using a list - not
specifically this list.
Deleuse&Guattari "personal
> attack"against Freud's Oediph theory was wary
> emotional/intellectual/subjective/objective,but something's changed after
> that book.Is that enough?
> MANIK
I agree,
Each act is a refelction of personal will - context is where it is at.
Intentions are not always clear though & people's actions sometimes are
genuine even though they might not be in the format that we adhere to or
agree with it.
marc
>
> > Hi there,
> >
> > > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an
academic
> > masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
> > perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
> >
> > I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for
me,
> > gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I
thought
> > was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> > necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a
personal
> > attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
> > forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage
> in
> > ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
> > insecurities.
> >
> > I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
> > splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it
does
> > fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a
'no
> > get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one
> who
> > is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which
is
> a
> > shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting
points,
> > places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of
each
> > others own habitual frameworks.
> >
> > When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
> > list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being.
Their
> > own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to
a
> > degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
> > already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching
> others
> > and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going
through
> > the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not
aware
> of
> > taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
> > evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
> > context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out
of
> > the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That
> wisdom
> > may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or
through
> > email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such
factors.
> > Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others
> and
> > not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
> >
> > The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art,
made
> > me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in
the
> > UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects
that
> I
> > have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
> > situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what
> the
> > actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> >
> >
> > > However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by
> prefixing
> > art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question
> that
> > has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
> > correctly pointed out)
> > >
> > > Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
> > contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and
> the
> > Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
> > atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer
> appeal
> > to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
> > audience consupmtion becomes specific.
> >
> > Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously
tried
> > to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking
Party,
> > we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but
> also
> > had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone
> was
> > seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down
> on
> > the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
> > patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be
a
> > part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop
them,
> > it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
> > traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
> > people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in
their
> > creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the
aim
> > of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new
> contacts
> > with people outside of their own static circles, learned that
> institutional
> > types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It
> just
> > has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
> >
> > Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all
> that
> > took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what
> is
> > called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
> > ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know
> that
> > there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay
isolationist,
> as
> > there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
> > world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change
> that
> > such a relational step demands.
> >
> > Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
> > comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
> > those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already
> by
> > them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it
> to
> > the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
> > audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
> > elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> >
> > > The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
> > between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
> > Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire
> for
> > the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of
the
> > way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
> > consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
> > art.
> >
> > What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
> > possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has
been
> > handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes
history.
> > Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of
becoming
> > administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts;
> it
> > broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of
> its
> > own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the
> already
> > built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
> > podiums with different faces.
> >
> > There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something
> is
> > termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
> > down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to
unlearn
> > them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
> > others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own
> (supposedly
> > enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that
we
> > as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare,
> full
> > of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented
to
> > mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
> >
> > The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality
is
> an
> > insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
> > perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its
varied
> > consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do
> and
> > will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of
historians,
> > cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons
rather
> > than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists
> and
> > anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and
> expecting
> > to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is
psychologically
> > unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for
net
> > artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
> > because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
> > ourselves.
> >
> > Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
> > forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside
> them
> > as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types
moaning
> > about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that
is
> > waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we
> play,
> > so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then.
Create
> > our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting
> for
> > the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what
> you
> > want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
> > already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to
take
> > on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but
ones
> > that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we
> all
> > have to endure.
> >
> > Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
> > able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather
than
> by
> > administered hierarchical protocol.
> >
> > > In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely
> on
> > being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the
motivation
> > of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations.
> Net.Art
> > as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community
and
> > the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
> > facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
> > conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
> >
> > I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
> > simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business
> blueprints,
> > anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of
> containment
> > that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
> > experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough
to
> > hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
> > circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
> > situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
> > positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
> > sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing
strategies
> > that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that
ignore
> > (ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
> >
> > marc
> >
> > >
> > > + 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + 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
> >
>
> + 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: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
Hi Eduardo,
You've caught me at an unusually insync time.
I will use your <--snip--> so my own workings out after what you have said
can be seen...
> Hi there,
>
> > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
> masturbatory tool' although I appreciate a probing investigation or a
> perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
>
> I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
> gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
> was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> necessarily in its manner.
<--snip--><--your snip-->
I think Greg might be referring to Lisa Sabater's comment from the renamed
rhizome-rare post by Lewis Lacook:
"I am not talking here about 'statement of purpose'. That is an academic
masturbatory tool. I'm talking here about why do you make art? What is
art's purpose in YOUR LIFE?"
Which is the beginning of this thread:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread
You've caught me at an unusually insync time.
I will use your <--snip--> so my own workings out after what you have said
can be seen...
> Hi there,
>
> > Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
> masturbatory tool' although I appreciate a probing investigation or a
> perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
>
> I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
> gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
> was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
> necessarily in its manner.
<--snip--><--your snip-->
I think Greg might be referring to Lisa Sabater's comment from the renamed
rhizome-rare post by Lewis Lacook:
"I am not talking here about 'statement of purpose'. That is an academic
masturbatory tool. I'm talking here about why do you make art? What is
art's purpose in YOUR LIFE?"
Which is the beginning of this thread:
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread
Re: [Fwd: UpStage web site live]
UpStage web site liveHi there,
Just been reading all the blurb of this plus looking at the Python coding e=
tc. This looks like an excellent application. We saw the potential of this =
over the weekend when Karla demonstrated the real possibilities for all con=
cerned at her talk...
marc
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: UpStage web site live
From: "Helen Varley Jamieson" <helen@creative-catalyst.com>
Date: Tue, June 17, 2003 11:20 am
To: Recipient List Suppressed: ;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A web site documenting the UpStage project is now live at
http://www.upstage.org.nz
UpStage is a software development project that will create a
web-based venue for online peformance and cyberformance (live
performance that uses the internet to bring remote performers
together in real time).
Online audiences anywhere in the world will be able to participate in
live performance events by going to a web page - no downloads, no
additional applications needed, just one simple url:
http://www.upstage.org.nz
Currently, we are developing the software, which is Flash-based and open
source. UpStage will be launched in October 2003.
The UpStage team are Douglas Bagnall (programmer) and artists Helen
Varley Jamieson, Vicki Smith, Leena Saarinen and Karla Ptacek (Avatar
Body Collision, www.avatarbodycollision.org), with project management
support from MediaLab South Pacific (www.medialab.co.nz).
The project is funded by Creative New Zealand and the NZ Ministry of
Research, Science and Technology.
Please visit http://www.upstage.org.nz for further information and to see
how the project is progressing.
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen@creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
A web site documenting the UpStage project is now live at http://www.upst=
age.org.nz
UpStage is a software development project that will create a web-based ve=
nue for online peformance and cyberformance (live performance that uses the=
internet to bring remote performers together in real time).
Online audiences anywhere in the world will be able to participate in liv=
e performance events by going to a web page - no downloads, no additional a=
pplications needed, just one simple url: http://www.upstage.org.nz
Currently, we are developing the software, which is Flash-based and open =
source. UpStage will be launched in October 2003.
The UpStage team are Douglas Bagnall (programmer) and artists Helen Varle=
y Jamieson, Vicki Smith, Leena Saarinen and Karla Ptacek (Avatar Body Colli=
sion, www.avatarbodycollision.org), with project management support from Me=
diaLab South Pacific (www.medialab.co.nz).
The project is funded by Creative New Zealand and the NZ Ministry of Rese=
arch, Science and Technology.
Please visit http://www.upstage.org.nz for further information and to see=
how the project is progressing.
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst =
helen@creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
Just been reading all the blurb of this plus looking at the Python coding e=
tc. This looks like an excellent application. We saw the potential of this =
over the weekend when Karla demonstrated the real possibilities for all con=
cerned at her talk...
marc
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: UpStage web site live
From: "Helen Varley Jamieson" <helen@creative-catalyst.com>
Date: Tue, June 17, 2003 11:20 am
To: Recipient List Suppressed: ;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A web site documenting the UpStage project is now live at
http://www.upstage.org.nz
UpStage is a software development project that will create a
web-based venue for online peformance and cyberformance (live
performance that uses the internet to bring remote performers
together in real time).
Online audiences anywhere in the world will be able to participate in
live performance events by going to a web page - no downloads, no
additional applications needed, just one simple url:
http://www.upstage.org.nz
Currently, we are developing the software, which is Flash-based and open
source. UpStage will be launched in October 2003.
The UpStage team are Douglas Bagnall (programmer) and artists Helen
Varley Jamieson, Vicki Smith, Leena Saarinen and Karla Ptacek (Avatar
Body Collision, www.avatarbodycollision.org), with project management
support from MediaLab South Pacific (www.medialab.co.nz).
The project is funded by Creative New Zealand and the NZ Ministry of
Research, Science and Technology.
Please visit http://www.upstage.org.nz for further information and to see
how the project is progressing.
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen@creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
A web site documenting the UpStage project is now live at http://www.upst=
age.org.nz
UpStage is a software development project that will create a web-based ve=
nue for online peformance and cyberformance (live performance that uses the=
internet to bring remote performers together in real time).
Online audiences anywhere in the world will be able to participate in liv=
e performance events by going to a web page - no downloads, no additional a=
pplications needed, just one simple url: http://www.upstage.org.nz
Currently, we are developing the software, which is Flash-based and open =
source. UpStage will be launched in October 2003.
The UpStage team are Douglas Bagnall (programmer) and artists Helen Varle=
y Jamieson, Vicki Smith, Leena Saarinen and Karla Ptacek (Avatar Body Colli=
sion, www.avatarbodycollision.org), with project management support from Me=
diaLab South Pacific (www.medialab.co.nz).
The project is funded by Creative New Zealand and the NZ Ministry of Rese=
arch, Science and Technology.
Please visit http://www.upstage.org.nz for further information and to see=
how the project is progressing.
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst =
helen@creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.com
http://www.avatarbodycollision.org
http://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
Re: Re: Re: Random thought on how to share net art (Was: attempting to share net.art with friends & family)
Hi there,
> Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a personal
attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage in
ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
insecurities.
I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it does
fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a 'no
get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one who
is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which is a
shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting points,
places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of each
others own habitual frameworks.
When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being. Their
own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to a
degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching others
and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going through
the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not aware of
taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out of
the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That wisdom
may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or through
email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such factors.
Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others and
not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art, made
me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in the
UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects that I
have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what the
actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by prefixing
art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question that
has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
correctly pointed out)
>
> Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and the
Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer appeal
to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
audience consupmtion becomes specific.
Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously tried
to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking Party,
we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but also
had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone was
seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down on
the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be a
part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop them,
it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in their
creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the aim
of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new contacts
with people outside of their own static circles, learned that institutional
types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It just
has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all that
took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what is
called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know that
there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay isolationist, as
there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change that
such a relational step demands.
Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already by
them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it to
the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire for
the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of the
way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
art.
What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has been
handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes history.
Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of becoming
administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts; it
broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of its
own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the already
built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
podiums with different faces.
There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something is
termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to unlearn
them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own (supposedly
enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that we
as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare, full
of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented to
mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality is an
insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its varied
consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do and
will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of historians,
cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons rather
than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists and
anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and expecting
to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is psychologically
unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for net
artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
ourselves.
Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside them
as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types moaning
about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that is
waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we play,
so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then. Create
our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting for
the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what you
want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to take
on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but ones
that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we all
have to endure.
Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather than by
administered hierarchical protocol.
> In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely on
being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the motivation
of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations. Net.Art
as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community and
the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business blueprints,
anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of containment
that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough to
hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing strategies
that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that ignore
(ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
marc
>
> + 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
>
> Personally, I wasn't aware that a statement of purpose was 'an academic
masturbatory tool' although I apprectiate a probing investigation or a
perfectly formed proposal as much as the next man.
I thought that Eduardo's comments were genuine, the Marxist slant for me,
gave his words a sense of clarity. The clarity of Eduardo's text I thought
was a different kind of personal; in its intention even though not
necessarily in its manner. But this should not be a reason for a personal
attack. In this strange and violent dark world that we are all currently
forced to witness, via imposed neo-liberalist despots. We need to engage in
ways that are more built by upon our common needs rather than our
insecurities.
I feel that intellectual discourse is important as well as thoughtful
splurgings via subjective means, which can be emotional. But when it does
fall into a pit of slanderous nihilism, it suddenly all changes into a 'no
get out' clause. Which could be a conscious act by the perpetrator, one who
is not able to consciously deal with the real questions at hand. Which is a
shame, for on this list one would hope that there could be meeting points,
places where we could enjoy mutual & relational discourse outside of each
others own habitual frameworks.
When each of us explores the process of communicating to each other on a
list - we are faced with dealing with some one else's way of being. Their
own reasoning/learning/history and this can dictate what they/we say to a
degree. Yet we also do have the choice to venture further than our own
already constructed remits & collected comforts; potentially reaching others
and being reached ourselves. Otherwise what is the point of going through
the motion of communication (other than ego stroking) if one is not aware of
taking on an aspect of reevaluation via others? For reevaluation is an
evolutionary given that we all have the luxury to explore, in whatever
context. Personal pain can only justify regression for so long. For out of
the experience of personal dysfunction many may acquire wisdom. That wisdom
may not be appropriate, practical or explainable via text alone or through
email functions, so we can and do lose knowledge because of such factors.
Yet on the other hand we do learn from others when we are open to others and
not protecting our own self-conscious territories all the time.
The original thread in regard to families & friends enjoying net art, made
me smile. My mother enjoys my work from her run-down council estate in the
UK. And many of my friends look at the work created and the projects that I
have been up to regularly. It has much more to do with the context and
situation rather than a blanket effect of suppozed ignorance, plus what the
actual work is; therefore it is a very subjective question.
> However some thoughts can be too random, in this case simply by prefixing
art with net. does not fundamentally change the nature of the question that
has dogged both artistic pactice and consumption since Kant.(as Eduardo
correctly pointed out)
>
> Kants insistance on an apriori condition of disinterest is however,
contingent on the priviliged position of the author over the viewer and the
Marxian conditions of alienation and fetishisation to lend value to the
atrefact. It is in the current situation where net.art can no longer appeal
to these conditions that the investigation into artists motivations and
audience consupmtion becomes specific.
Yes, we have recently had an event this weekend that has consciously tried
to break down habitual gate-keeping. At the Furtherfield Networking Party,
we had speakers at the event presenting their own works & projects but also
had visitors taking part by bringing their own work in as well. Everyone was
seen, they were not dictated to from an authoritive podium, looking down on
the sea of faces. The visitors were not forced to be submissive vessels,
patronized by suppozed 'better people'. They were let in, allowed to be a
part of a larger sum, a larger experience. In fact we could not stop them,
it was a great occasion. Instead of the usual same faces that you
traditionally have at private views, talks & conferences. We asked for
people from all walks of life to take part in the event and bring in their
creative projects to share with others & actively meet others with the aim
of potential future collaborations. Out of this many have made new contacts
with people outside of their own static circles, learned that institutional
types are just as eager to get out more, as much as the outsider is. It just
has to be done more, examples have to be declared.
Just by having this one event, we have opened up possibilities for all that
took part to be seen. If net art is really to be taken seriously by what is
called 'the real world', we have to break down our secretive and selfish
ego-centered systems and beliefs first, then a change can occur. I know that
there are just as many net artists that wish for it to stay isolationist, as
there are those who wish for it to be more meaningful to the rest of the
world. That's fair enough, not everyone can afford the emotional change that
such a relational step demands.
Many institutions find it hard to support net art, for they are not
comfortable with not being able to make that much profit out of it. And
those who are chosen by those institutions are usually supported already by
them to some extent in the first place. So the alternative is to take it to
the people, not those who already know what it is, not an converted
audience. And 'soft groups' such as socially directed & potentially non
elitist net.org's can do this, if they can be bothered.
> The most notable work of art to deal directly with this relationship
between author and audience must be Duchamps, Bride Stripped Bare by her
Bachelors(even)which constructs an allagory around the bachelors desire for
the bride as the impellor for the whole machine and is expositional of the
way a variety of individual desires and motivations, production and
consumption can be contextualised to create an effect that can be called
art.
What you see as notable I feel is subjective to some degree for without
possessing the real facts one has to rely on the information that has been
handed down. Opinions become information, and information becomes history.
Postmodernism in a sense died when it started, due its context of becoming
administered via institutional directives rather than outsider contexts; it
broadened the church but it did not broaden its own language outside of its
own frameworks. Thus, letting in younger intellectuals to change the already
built structures but not venturing that far outside of them. The same
podiums with different faces.
There is a larger issue at hand and it is greater than whether something is
termed via duchampian contexts. We need to redirect out energies & break
down what we have learnt via our art 'processes' & we may have to unlearn
them, so we can become actually involved in a discourse in relation to
others, on their own terms rather than caught up within our own (supposedly
enlightened) framework(s) of academic knowing alone. The knowledge that we
as artists/academics have grown accustomed to, is now like Shakespeare, full
of meaning but useful only when rehumanized. Reevaluated and reinvented to
mean something to others and their actual contextual environments.
The fear that high art lovers continue to harbor in respect of quality is an
insecure myth and does seem to serve and reinforce the same old canons,
perpetrating structures alone rather than human development and its varied
consciousness; which hopefully art and its various qualities can and do and
will offer when let out of the bag. The revisionist tactics of historians,
cutting many out of the bigger picture for their own small reasons rather
than declaring the realities of the day has to be challenged by artists and
anyone who is brave enough constantly. Waiting in one's garret and expecting
to be seen by a gallerist one day is an entrapment that is psychologically
unhealthy for any emotionally sensitive being. And the same can go for net
artists, reclaiming what could be ours is not a threat to institutions
because they have not taken on net art successfully; so we can do it
ourselves.
Collectively disrobe the baggage that we have all grown accustomed to by
forming a net art context not just for institutions alone but alongside them
as alternative examples. We no longer need to be submissive types moaning
about not being allowed to do this and that. If we grab the power that is
waiting for us to exploit. We just have to change the nature of how we play,
so we do not play only their games, for we are not in control then. Create
our own games, invent new groups & spaces with each other, stop waiting for
the world to accept us. That is the way to gain respect (if that is what you
want) from peers and institutions because most of the groundwork is done
already then. Except by that time, of course many who have decided to take
on their own destiny will be part of their own mini institutions but ones
that are more flexible, able to adapt to survivalistic climates that we all
have to endure.
Decentralize the mainframe & form many soft groups that are functionally
able to grow and adapt accordingly to its own creative needs, rather than by
administered hierarchical protocol.
> In the same way, the motivation of the individual artist does not rely on
being understood or used in a way forseen by the artist and the motivation
of the user is a complex combination of self-image and aspirations. Net.Art
as an experience, becomes the consolidated activities of the community and
the exchange value of the work may not be financial but based on the
facilitation by the community of the expression of the artist and the
conformation of the community through the experience of the work.
I agree, for net art to survive various artists have to swallow their
simplistic ego ridden intentions and become adults. Use business blueprints,
anarchist blueprints, whatever it takes to open up the circle of containment
that currently bars others outside the field of art and net art from
experiencing it and becoming a part of it. It is no longer good enough to
hide behind a computer on one's own and also complain about net art
circumstances and issues that are affecting a net artist's life and
situation. For there are actual ways of changing the default set out -
positively, I know this can be done and is being done. It is not
sensational, more an intuitive way of collaborating and sharing strategies
that venture beyond unhealthy border controls in the art world that ignore
(ignorantly) the real adventures that await us all.
marc
>
> + 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
>