marc garrett
Since the beginning
Works in London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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.
Discussions (1712) Opportunities (15) Events (175) Jobs (2)
DISCUSSION

trust


What
is
this
bastion
of
which
we
call
trust?
A
mere
five
letters
that
give
credence
echoing
sounds
of
purity
and
hope.
What
is
trust?
Can
it
be
signed
and
sealed,
put
away
for
safe
keeping
and
stored
in
a
box
named
sincerity?
Or
be
watered
like
a
plant
free
and
pure.
Is
it
a
state
of
wanting,
a
wanting
to
keep
some
quality
between
persons?
Individuals asking
for equal premises of
each other's love. A measure
of truth that amour's ones self
from those external battles which
rage out there screwing essence and
ultimate desire, maybe not. Could trust
be an act of mutual faithfulness to protect loves
vulnerable space - the pains and pangs of biting simulation
that invades. A commitment which shows respect of an other,
giving a sign of security, sense of belonging. Declaring verity and=

factual familiarity. Reliance, confidence and justice offered as a gi=
ft,
fresh and unspoiled by outsiders motives - could all this be trust? H=
ow long
can this consolation last and does one really trust another to fulfil=
such dreamlike
qualities? Integrity has a low price. It can whither and fade as fast=
as the day ends, once
assimilated and dissected by lost id's, un-centered and easily convin=
ced by lust. And what is
the real price as time moves on, and who pays for hurt that one leave=
s behind? At what cost has
a sincere smile been lost?Do tears matter when obliterated through ci=
rcumstance? Challenged by fates
untiring interference, we Succumb kicked and bruised. How lost we are=
without trust, yet it quakes and crumbles
under the pressure
of whimsical
trivialities.........................................................=
...................................
Exposed

it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
~~decomposes.

<<<<index


DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Cremaster web site


Hi Jim,

>i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
example.

Yes, I kind of have the same feeling as the above...this for is very much
the crux of the matter.

marc

>
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there is a greater
> > artist of his generation please point that person out to me. (I
> > didn't want to like Barney, but remembering the '93 Whitney Biennial,
> > his work is the only work in the entire show that I can vividly
> > recall.)
>
> i recall reading, some years ago, in the intro to a south african
anthology
> of poetry (edited by uli bier if i recall correctly) something like
'without
> making any pathetic generalizations, it must be acknowledged that there is
> now a world poetry.'
>
> yet for the most part, art is a local phenomenon. eternally local. yet
there
> is on the net a kind of internationalist approach in net.art. not to
suggest
> that we know the same net.artists. we don't. but one is bound to know of
> more foreign net.artist from a wider range of countries than in arts where
> communications are not as easily international. four degrees of freedom,
> say, rather than eight in print.
>
> some years ago i wrote a thing i titled 'the impossibility of the mere
> existence of the great works of the late twentieth century'. not that
there
> isn't exciting, 'great' work being done, but what makes sense and is
'great'
> in one place may not be so great elsewhere.
>
> dispersion. proliferation. synthesis. fracture. connection.
>
> i have a stronger sense of manik's belgrade than barney's new york, for
> example.
>
> 'greatest artist of his generation' just reads like new york art spam to
me,
> t.whid.
>
> ja
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Cremaster web site


Hi Eryk,

When I visited the exhibition itself I thought that the multi-narrative was
amazing, yet a niggling doubt was forging its way in my cranium regarding a
rather over-blown fluffed up bunny...still it's beautiful and that is the
main thing.

marc

> Concerning this:
>
> > >> He must have really creative accountant...
> > >>
> > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
pay
> for
> > > it?
> >
> > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
>
>
> I think it probably pays to actually create very strong and beautiful
> imagery worked into a carefully constructive narrative and then to
actually
> go out and relentlessly seek funding to support it. But independent of any
> opinions on Barney, It's funny what happens when you put your mind towards
> raising money to create something, you guys should try it. If you're
> complaining about how much money you're getting, then you clearl either
> aren't working hard enough or in the right sphere to get the money you
would
> like. Groveling for institutional funding and whining about how corrupt
the
> system is doesn't count.
>
> Are people really this snobby about aesthetics? No wonder net.art sucks.
> It's absurd how vehemently people defend thier right to a deliberately
ugly
> aesthetic and then moan about how artists who create something beautiful
and
> challenging get "all the money". Some people have the talent and skill to
> become professional artists, some don't. The fact that those who have the
> talent and skill are not always neccesarily making the best work isn't
> something to whine about, if that's how you feel, it's a success to study
in
> order to emulate. It's reality, for better or for worse, and the longer
you
> deny it the longer you are going to wait for your own reality to change.
>
> Has anyone seen that awful fucking train wreck of a film "American
> Splendor"? There's a celebration of the "pure to be poor and corrupt to
try"
> train of thought if I ever saw it, and it's just something I'm reminded of
> watching this conversation.
>
> Lastly, if Barney didn't get the funding to create these films, I'd be
slow
> to assume that the same money would magically get into my pocket or any of
> yours.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lee Wells" <lee@leewells.org>
> To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Cremaster web site
>
>
> > on 10/19/03 22:28, Jim Andrews at jim@vispo.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> He must have really creative accountant...
> > >>
> > >> marc
> > >
> > > I was wondering about that too. Maybe all the blood at the end is to
pay
> for
> > > it?
> > >
> > > ja
> > >
> >
> > It pays to have Barbara Gladstone as your dealer.
> >
> > Lee
> >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Cremaster web site


Hi T.Whid,

I also think part of the issue here is that a meidated culture is much more
vulnerable to more 'spectacled' sensations, not as a totality more in terms
of information. Thus not actually going to be interested in subtext, context
and things that demand a little more time to view or explore; not an option
when one does not know how to. For mediation is a dictatory format therefor
what is given is what is supposed to be.

> My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
> dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
> irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
> disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
> think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.

Like yourself, I am very pro art. Which is one of the reasons why I like to
see a redistirbution of the power of art facility and practise, potentially
funding as well. Which is kind of happening for some groups in the UK
gadually (perhaps in the US as well) for those who have formed outside of
institutional environments. Yet one (or group) has to be stubborn like
ourselves to get to that point. Which brings about change for others as well
in a 'soft group' capacity. Widening the field for all who wish to get
involved in a more flexible level rather than structuralist based or
centralized way.

Of course many have just got fed up with trying to wait for that funding
cheque and have decidied to stay totally independent of applying which can
work also. We ended up funding ourselves independently just by designing and
programming web sites and other bits, since 97 and survived without any cash
quite chirpily for a while just so the site would run its own course without
having to ask for anything - this means that if you apply for projects for
cash and you don't get anyhting the site stays up and still active. We
still work by this principle. So who ever is involved kind of has to believe
in what they are up to in a collective sense because they, us will not earn
anything out of it - but this also means that the site remains free for art
to be seen without the confusion of cash crossing the wrong palms.

In respect of artists getting cash for projects in the UK - I believe that
we are a little more lucky here, for it is possible. You just have to get
pass the usual suspects who are well connected institutionally who get all
the art grants, which takes time if you do not wish to lick smelly brown
holes - which we do not. So it has taken us longer because we have not
compromised our bleliefs or art thiking or pratise to get stuff going.
Truely a D.I.Y group. The other thing is, if you are around long enough
sooner or later you are bound to be seen, which is not necessarily a
positive reflection on the state of affairs regarding such issues but it
does seem to happen over here.

And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.

I applaud crossover also - but I would prefer a more grass roots crossover
also - it effects more artists and empowers others more, rather than
sungular cultural anomoly. I should add here that I do not mean just artists
I also mean creative types who do not always fit into various canon based
trajectories...

> It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
> funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
> millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
> point yet.

I think it can be done and it is happening, the net art experience is very
much part of that wave...as in organizational set ups, and every now and
then cash comes their way as well. But yes, money is not everything - but it
can go a long way, and it needs to be spread out more thinly than in just a
few clumpy, sweaty hands.

marc

> Hi Mark,
>
> good point. I don't think it's 'suspect' however. I'm not an expert
> on exactly how Barney puts his funding together. I know his gallerist
> put together most of the dough for the films which she then makes up
> by selling his sculptures, photos, books, and videos. The Gug show
> prolly had corporate sponsorships simply to mount the exhibition..
> you know how this stuff works..
>
> If cultural funding in the US was controlled by a central agency, it
> might be suspect, but funding isn't controlled that way. I think, a
> bit like Christo, getting the funding is part of the art in capital
> intensive projects.
>
> My position is this: In our contemporary culture, art has been
> dangerously marginalized. It's in serious danger of not simply being
> irrelevant to the vast majority of the public (it is already) but of
> disappearing entirely. So, I'm very 'pro-art' in a general way. I
> think we're in a very desperate situation. And I'll applaud as much
> legitimate cross-over (art world to general public consciousness) as
> I see.
>
> It would be great if many, many artists could get lots and lots of
> funding. I would be ecstatic if 1000s of artists could put together
> millions of dollars each to fund their projects but we're not at that
> point yet.
>
>
> At 3:20 PM +0100 10/20/03, marc.garrett wrote:
> >Hi T.Whid,
> >
> >When visiting New York last we went to the show at the Guggenheim and
> >enjoyed the exhibition there. But what I found interesting was that
during
> >that time there I also was meeting various great net groups and artists
> >needing the cash, yet institutional support was not there at all. So one
> >dude gets the cash & many do not - isn't that a bit suspect?
> >
> >And it does not always have to go down to how one presents their ideas it
> >could come from a place of democratic responsibility - so money gets more
> >evenly spread.
> >
> >(no dis on the work tho...)
> >
> >marc
> >
> >> These potshots at the financing behind Barney's work are rather
pathetic.
> >>
> >> Personally I'm excited that an individual coming from the world of
> >> art has been given the resources to create a (for art film)
> >> high-budget work. I see Barney as bringing the values, philosophy,
> >> and traditions of contemporary art to 'the big screen'. I'm excited
> >> that an artist is given the opportunity to compete against main
> >> stream film by getting a budget which, tho paltry compared to Hwood,
> >> is a decent independent film budget.
>
> --
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>