ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Michael Szpakowski is an artist, composer, writer and educator.
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
Wikipedia Art
<I think what was most interesting were the dramatis personae on the Wikipedia side, and the arcane bylaws that we saw while going through the event,, like the "Snowball" and "Don't Feed the Trolls" rules. Crazy stuff. Not to mention the 18 year old, the Deletionists versus the Inclusionists, and so on. It's nearly Steampunk. It reinforced my belief in disallowing WP as no more than a tertiary source, for sure.>
Yes - this was the revelation for me. I actually think most commentators have been far too kind to Wikipedia and the Wikipedians, as if they're just blameless folk trying to do a job rather than enmeshed in a *profoundly* ideological enterprise. I found the discussion, with its cult like terminology and arcane procedures and precedents, chilling. Irrespective of what position one adopts on epistemology in general & the merits or otherwise of the encyclopedia form in particular the fact that the discussion showed *no* aliveness on the part of the would be deletors to the fact that there might *be* a deeper discussion to be had and substituted a kind of religious obscurantism for *thought*, together with the sheer haste with which they rushed to stamp out this evidently brain-hurting anomaly, certainly terminally ruined Wikipedia for me.
There's a huge degree of disingenuousness too about sophisticated media types all of a sudden demanding that a project be judged entirely on face value.
Critic: They're playing a role! They planned things in advance! They (almost shakes with rage)... colluded!
The World: You don't say!
I must admit when Nathaniel proposed it for a Rhizome commission last year I didn't - despte my predisposition in favour of pretty much anything he's involoved in - really *get* it.
But both the splendid confusion and bad temper and the equally real enlightenment it has engendered amply vindicate it in my view - much more interesting & fun than the rather dull & worthy schematism of the -mysteriously to me- lauded 'google will eat itself' &c.
Yes - this was the revelation for me. I actually think most commentators have been far too kind to Wikipedia and the Wikipedians, as if they're just blameless folk trying to do a job rather than enmeshed in a *profoundly* ideological enterprise. I found the discussion, with its cult like terminology and arcane procedures and precedents, chilling. Irrespective of what position one adopts on epistemology in general & the merits or otherwise of the encyclopedia form in particular the fact that the discussion showed *no* aliveness on the part of the would be deletors to the fact that there might *be* a deeper discussion to be had and substituted a kind of religious obscurantism for *thought*, together with the sheer haste with which they rushed to stamp out this evidently brain-hurting anomaly, certainly terminally ruined Wikipedia for me.
There's a huge degree of disingenuousness too about sophisticated media types all of a sudden demanding that a project be judged entirely on face value.
Critic: They're playing a role! They planned things in advance! They (almost shakes with rage)... colluded!
The World: You don't say!
I must admit when Nathaniel proposed it for a Rhizome commission last year I didn't - despte my predisposition in favour of pretty much anything he's involoved in - really *get* it.
But both the splendid confusion and bad temper and the equally real enlightenment it has engendered amply vindicate it in my view - much more interesting & fun than the rather dull & worthy schematism of the -mysteriously to me- lauded 'google will eat itself' &c.
My Favorite Things (1959/2009) - Oscar Hammerstein + Google
That's an elegant notion, Curt, and the results here are particularly fetching.
There's a touch of alchemy about the transformation of something relatively banal into something quite beautiful ( bit like what Coltrane did with the tune) and the map or maybe "painting" of the collective psyche it generates is not the least of its attractions. Plus the sense of "playing" Google like an instrument - it has that combination of control and uncertainty I recognise from my best moments as a musician, especially when improvising.
And that combination of beauty and a kind of utility, of an uncovering of pattern, of -dare I say- knowledge ( I'd always previously fought shy of works that claim to "investigate" anything) is something I'm beginning to buy into more. I actually think a careful examination of the Wikipedia events of last week will show that something a little richer than has yet been acknowledged was happening...
I think MTAA have this quality too.
It's a sort of gracefulness, a lightness, too.
It's funny how the simplest ideas often generate the richest results..I'm just so glad it isn't preceded by a statement of what it's going to do.
Michael
There's a touch of alchemy about the transformation of something relatively banal into something quite beautiful ( bit like what Coltrane did with the tune) and the map or maybe "painting" of the collective psyche it generates is not the least of its attractions. Plus the sense of "playing" Google like an instrument - it has that combination of control and uncertainty I recognise from my best moments as a musician, especially when improvising.
And that combination of beauty and a kind of utility, of an uncovering of pattern, of -dare I say- knowledge ( I'd always previously fought shy of works that claim to "investigate" anything) is something I'm beginning to buy into more. I actually think a careful examination of the Wikipedia events of last week will show that something a little richer than has yet been acknowledged was happening...
I think MTAA have this quality too.
It's a sort of gracefulness, a lightness, too.
It's funny how the simplest ideas often generate the richest results..I'm just so glad it isn't preceded by a statement of what it's going to do.
Michael
ok charlie
These are beautiful. You can't help thinking that if Brian - and Doron too - both of whom have been quietly and industriously amassing bodies of extraordinary, beautifully made, finely judged ( & often deeply moving) work, were more glib, more self promoting, more cynical, less careful, more inclined to make work that can be verbally paraphrased and easily pigeonholed they might get a little more acknowledgment.
As it is, for those who know and care, there're these two goldmines:
http://baiowulf.com/
http://the9th.com/
As it is, for those who know and care, there're these two goldmines:
http://baiowulf.com/
http://the9th.com/