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: best work with Flash? [ following curt ]
You must hate my work Curt...
marc
> t wrote:
> the point was that one who's main
> > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > paintings etc.
>
> ...i think of
> > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
>
> &
>
> marisa wrote:
> > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > "other" artists are conceptless...
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> curt writes:
> we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
>
> Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
>
> Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
> environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
>
> It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
>
> _
> _
> + 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
>
marc
> t wrote:
> the point was that one who's main
> > objective is a visual aesthetic wouldn't pick the Web because it
> > delivers visuals which are poor in comparison to film, photos,
> > paintings etc.
>
> ...i think of
> > exchange of information, or, better yet, data. this information could
> > be in any format it just so happens that at this time the visual
> > information you can exchange is extremely limited as opposed to other
> > visual formats (like photos, paintings, film, etc). the visual is
> > extremely reduced when it's exchanged over the net but ideas are not
> > reduced in any way and that is why the conceptual hits closer to the
> > essential nature of the net in it's present state.
>
> &
>
> marisa wrote:
> > ok. this is why i dislike the phrase "conceptual artist." the logic
> > of its established use sets the phrase up as an oxymoron, as if
> > "other" artists are conceptless...
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> curt writes:
> we are honing in on a sort of crux. Somewhere along the way in the
> high art of the 20th century, conveying a concept got severed from
> technical craft and sensory aesthetics. Let's just take Beuys and
> compare him to Hirst. Beuys was definitely conceptual, but many of
> his installations/sculptures/objects still embody craft and sensory
> aesthetics which (surprise, surprise) substantiate and embody his
> concepts. Fast forward to Hirst, and he's not even building his own
> objects. The crafting of his objects has become much more
> incidental. His objects themselves have become much more incidental.
> They are more like "carriers/conductors" and less like
> "representatives/embodiers." Comparing Beuys to Hirst is not quite
> fair, because I think Beuys' concepts are more interesting and less
> self-reflexive to begin with. But it serves to highlight a gradual
> separation of sensory aesthetics from concept.
>
> Now fast forward to the net in 2003. You have all these media
> converging, and all these different artists from all these different
> perspectives and backgrounds converging. But it's all happening at
> low res. So the visual artist (read "realistic landscape painter")
> must now necessarily be more conceptual (or at least more iconic and
> symbolic). On the other end of the spectrum, now that sensory
> aesthetic impact is possible via the web (thanks to advancements in
> bandwidth, tools, and developmental practices since 1996), the
> concept-centric artist at least has the option (if not exactly the
> onus) to ramp his work up visually. Which is not to say that
> Mouchette now becomes praystation. It's just a chance/challenge for
> the "object-incidental conceptual artist" to begin to re-integrate
> sensory aesthetics into the vocabulary of his work.
>
> Why would a "visual artist" select the web as his medium of choice in
> the first place? A million reasons. He doesn't live in a big city
> with a bunch of galleries, but the net gives him a worldwide
> audience. He wants to hybridize his visuals with other media
> strengths that the web offers -- non-linearity, multi-user
> environments, "unfinished-ness," randomness, auto-generativeness,
> many-to-many network-ness. The list goes on and on.
>
> It is always interesting and instructive TO ME when we get into
> discussions on raw about how specifically the design and visuals and
> pacing of a particular net art piece advance its impact and meaning.
> David Crawford's "Stop Motion Studies" is ripe for just such a
> discussion. Boring to me is merely talking denotatively about "what
> a piece of art means" (like the artist is some kind of riddler and
> it's our job to guess the right answer). Boring to me is allusive,
> decoder-ring art that leads to such "guess-the-righ-answer" dialogue.
>
> _
> _
> + 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: Does the artbase have an historicization function?
>what is the reason for submitting an artwork to the artbase?
so an 'in-house' converted, paying audience can see it of course ;-)
marc
> >>Did you send copies to the artbase people
>
> I sent an email to Mark and Rachel
>
> >>I think you are mistaken, it is more of an automatic process than a
> curational one
> >>I don't think they are interested in quality or originality all that
much.
>
> I was thinking the opposite... if so: bad political choice..
> what is the reason for submitting an artwork to the artbase?
>
> cz
>
>
>
> + 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
>
>
so an 'in-house' converted, paying audience can see it of course ;-)
marc
> >>Did you send copies to the artbase people
>
> I sent an email to Mark and Rachel
>
> >>I think you are mistaken, it is more of an automatic process than a
> curational one
> >>I don't think they are interested in quality or originality all that
much.
>
> I was thinking the opposite... if so: bad political choice..
> what is the reason for submitting an artwork to the artbase?
>
> cz
>
>
>
> + 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
>
>