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

CON-DESTRUCT...


Concise detective
Oracular decypher
Nuance splitter
Dangling on the gropesome
Emphasis on the lang(wedge)
Systematic function
Tease slicer
Reference the known
Unhinge the unknown
Construct the form
Taste the information

DISCUSSION

Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.


emoticon as Art criticism: the state of the art it's emotional.

respect -marc

> This net.art work makes me feel happy.
> Or rather "happy."
> That is to say :-)
>
> This net.art work makes me feel sad.
> Or rather "sad."
> That is to say :-(
>
> Art criticism as emoticon: it's the emotional state of the art.
>
> -af
> + 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
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.


Ok - Dyske,

Fair enough,

Sorry for getting moody - I bet your cute really..

marc

> > Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...
>
> Marc,
>
> I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting.
So,
> it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.
>
> Regards,
> Dyske
>
>

DISCUSSION

Statement on Iraq


A letter returned to me by a Labour Councillor in Bristol (UK) regarding War
on Iraq...

Statement on Iraq * Bristol Labour group

Bristol Labour Group Leader Diane Bunyan today issues the following
statement on behalf of the Labour Group, Bristol City Council.

"We decided to make a public statement of the Labour group position on Iraq
because Labour councillors have spoken with many, many people in Bristol who
want to know where we stand on this important issue.

"For a democracy to go to war, its' leaders must present an overwhelming
case for military action as the option of last resort. While people in
Bristol are anxious to see Saddam Hussein answer for his human rights abuses
against the Kurds, Shi'ites and even his own people, they find it difficult
to understand how military action in Iraq will benefit international
security. And while I support Tony Blair in his considerable achievement in
bringing the US to consult with the UN, I feel that it would be unwise to
take military action against Iraq at this time.

If the UN inspectors report that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and
insists on retaining them then it should be for the UN Security council to
determine what action should be taken and not the US. There can be no
justification for unilateral military action by anyone.

This is a complicated international situation and the British peace
movement, with active support from Bristol, has become usefully engaged with
clarifying the issues, and making their views known. While I
support intervention, I do not support war. I consider that disarming Saddam
Hussein without military action remains an option and should be supported
with further weapons inspections and more time. Crucially any future action
in dealing with Iraq must be carried out by the UN."

>>> "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> 27/01/03 16:08:43 >>>
Dear Helga Benson and Dudley Saward,

I am aware that you are caught in an awkward place between complying to the
demands of your work-code and the needs of the people during this ever, war
ridden world. But there comes a time when honour is asked for, by the
citizens who voted you in.

I plead to you to rattle your conscience to find it in your heart to be
brave enough to challenge the imposed protocol (default) of pulling ranks.
And declare to the world that you do not wish to be a part of this (obvious)
extermination of even more civilians, via an Iraq invasion. If you, as a
human being can feel genuine empathy towards others around the world who
have been exploited for oil and profit, now is the time to stand proud among
the many who do not want to see yet more blameless souls demolished for
greed. You know this is of great importance and you also know that there are
more people against Bush's and the UK's governments stance, than for it. It
is wrong and this sort of act of killing people should be outlawed as soon
as possible.

Please do not fall in file and rank for the sake of your job. There is much
more at stake. No more shifting aside and complicit denial for pure sadism.
As a clear and real (honest) gesture for all concerned I am asking you to
try in all your power to stop this killing, by resigning and telling your
labour comrades and the media, your friends, the world what wonderful act
you are performing by liberating yourself as a new ambassador for
humanitarian causes.

If you do not wish to be part of a world that questions the killing of many
innocent people, please let me know what is more important?

Marc Garrett
X Labour Voter
marc.garrett@furtherfield.org

DISCUSSION

Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.


Hi Dyske,

You are so missing the point - I just do not know how to deconstruct your
deconstructive attitude, which sadly, is the only way to get into your
cranium. Go ahead - play games with my txt...

I am talking from real experience, furtherfield, insitutions, net art, art
etc but you are just playing about with language which is fine, but when you
feel able to let people be who they are - I would be interested in having a
real discussion with you.

Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...

best - marc

> Hi Marc,
>
> <quote>
> What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
> hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and
intuitiveness.
> A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate
when
> dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate
this,
> even the realm of science...
> I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I
listen
> to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
> missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...
> </quote>
>
> I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much
credit.
> Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
> reverse what you said, this is what you get:
>
> "This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
> problems."
>
> Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
> respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
> mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."
>
> The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
> human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?
>
> You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
> image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
> that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
> appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
> much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
> problems.
>
> You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
> academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
> control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with
your
> logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
> trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why
do
> you think that it could do much to control the world?
>
> The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
> it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own
logical
> prowess.
>
> Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
> argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
> naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
> "willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
> anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive
or
> academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy
of
> your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read
it
> (fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
> attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
> almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
> might even say it after reading just the title "Established
> culturalization."
>
> If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
> forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
> "Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
> world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
> these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
> penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
> various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
> involved philosophers around.
>
> I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't
feel
> that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
> being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
> you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
> what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction
is
> in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
> Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
> way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It
is
> not your enemy.
>
> On a more personal note:
>
> I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I
understand
> your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
> for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
> is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is
not
> an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what
I
> try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
> as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
> the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things
in
> appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
> know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of
me
> being like Spock.
>
> Best Regards,
> Dyske
>
>
>
>
>
>
>