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/
Bollocks to James Elkins
Hi
If you make still images of any sort with the intention of making art and post them to Flickr, please join the new Flickr group:
Bollocks to James Elkins
and add a single image...
I'm pasting the rationale ( which is also on the group page) below.
If you don't use Flickr but see what I'm on about consider joining and posting an image....
cheers
michael
PS if it takes off I'd like to think about organising a physical show of the same name, no promises of course, lets see what happens...
*************************************************************************************************
In his new book on photography (‘What Photography Is’, London and New York 2011 ISBN 978-0-415-99569-6) James Elkins, a writer always worth reading and to some extent an art world iconoclast ( though at every critical instant perhaps a little less so that he imagines himself to be) gives vent to a magisterial rant about those who post on Flickr, which is characterised by both a sad lack of imagination and an unpleasant vein of snobbery.
It climaxes:
“If you are active on Flickr, if you read popular photography magazines, if you enjoy National Geographic, if you use Photoshop to create effects, then this is a critique of your work. It may not seem pertinent, buried as it is in the middle of a book on many other things, but this is what a critique of your work looks like.”
I particularly relish the idea that anyone who chooses to use Flickr or Photoshop, merely by that choice, is not only cast out from the photographic/art world elect but is implicitly also rendered incapable of recognising the majestic subtleties of Elkin’s thought without some nose rubbing... Remember, just so you know, “this is what a critique of your work looks like.”
The banality of a criterion that is solely based upon the use or otherwise of a technique or channel (a bureaucrat’s delight: “Photoshop!? Tick the box here: not art!”) won’t be lost on anyone with a little bit of wit, academic or no, even we plebeians, above whom Elkins floats , Zeppelin-like, in such majestic and Olympian disdain.
The criteria for rejecting a putative work of art cannot be solely how it is made and whether any technique employed has at any time been clichéd or abused. Such shortcuts are no substitutes for extended and fearless looking, thinking and argument. The mark of artistic innovation is often precisely that it elevates the previously unnoticed or despised technique, format or subject.
In the Goldberg Variations, after some of the most sublime and intellectually demanding contrapuntal writing ever, Bach finishes with what? - A drinking song.
But there’s more to it. Elkins doesn’t really believe that the ignorant Photoshoppers &c will really be reading his book and hence being directly addressed by him. The diatribe and its climactic paragraph are a nod and a wink to those on the inside, an invitation to join in a sneer at the intellectually unwashed.
What is also manifested is a fear of pollution by rubbing shoulders too closely with those non-insider masses. Despite Elkin’s brave words about the breadth of his address to photography (and of course, implicitly, the signal failure of anyone else to see why this matters or to do likewise effectively) there are places he fears to tread. In the book he coldly contemplates, at length, the foulest images of execution by torture but runs away from the snapshot and the network.
Those of sterner stuff, who consider themselves to be making art and who use Flickr as a conduit for that work are invited to join this group and post one single example of their work. (You may replace/rotate but only one at any one time). Photoshoppers and fans of National Geographic alike are welcome as is anyone who photographs with the intention of making art and who feels that the networked environment of Flickr is a useful place to post and share their work.
The only criterion is, I repeat, ‘Do you consider yourself, in any fashion, to be attempting works of photographic art?’ If so, post one here and join us in saying, collectively, ‘Bollocks to James Elkins!’.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bollocks_to_james_elkins/
If you make still images of any sort with the intention of making art and post them to Flickr, please join the new Flickr group:
Bollocks to James Elkins
and add a single image...
I'm pasting the rationale ( which is also on the group page) below.
If you don't use Flickr but see what I'm on about consider joining and posting an image....
cheers
michael
PS if it takes off I'd like to think about organising a physical show of the same name, no promises of course, lets see what happens...
*************************************************************************************************
In his new book on photography (‘What Photography Is’, London and New York 2011 ISBN 978-0-415-99569-6) James Elkins, a writer always worth reading and to some extent an art world iconoclast ( though at every critical instant perhaps a little less so that he imagines himself to be) gives vent to a magisterial rant about those who post on Flickr, which is characterised by both a sad lack of imagination and an unpleasant vein of snobbery.
It climaxes:
“If you are active on Flickr, if you read popular photography magazines, if you enjoy National Geographic, if you use Photoshop to create effects, then this is a critique of your work. It may not seem pertinent, buried as it is in the middle of a book on many other things, but this is what a critique of your work looks like.”
I particularly relish the idea that anyone who chooses to use Flickr or Photoshop, merely by that choice, is not only cast out from the photographic/art world elect but is implicitly also rendered incapable of recognising the majestic subtleties of Elkin’s thought without some nose rubbing... Remember, just so you know, “this is what a critique of your work looks like.”
The banality of a criterion that is solely based upon the use or otherwise of a technique or channel (a bureaucrat’s delight: “Photoshop!? Tick the box here: not art!”) won’t be lost on anyone with a little bit of wit, academic or no, even we plebeians, above whom Elkins floats , Zeppelin-like, in such majestic and Olympian disdain.
The criteria for rejecting a putative work of art cannot be solely how it is made and whether any technique employed has at any time been clichéd or abused. Such shortcuts are no substitutes for extended and fearless looking, thinking and argument. The mark of artistic innovation is often precisely that it elevates the previously unnoticed or despised technique, format or subject.
In the Goldberg Variations, after some of the most sublime and intellectually demanding contrapuntal writing ever, Bach finishes with what? - A drinking song.
But there’s more to it. Elkins doesn’t really believe that the ignorant Photoshoppers &c will really be reading his book and hence being directly addressed by him. The diatribe and its climactic paragraph are a nod and a wink to those on the inside, an invitation to join in a sneer at the intellectually unwashed.
What is also manifested is a fear of pollution by rubbing shoulders too closely with those non-insider masses. Despite Elkin’s brave words about the breadth of his address to photography (and of course, implicitly, the signal failure of anyone else to see why this matters or to do likewise effectively) there are places he fears to tread. In the book he coldly contemplates, at length, the foulest images of execution by torture but runs away from the snapshot and the network.
Those of sterner stuff, who consider themselves to be making art and who use Flickr as a conduit for that work are invited to join this group and post one single example of their work. (You may replace/rotate but only one at any one time). Photoshoppers and fans of National Geographic alike are welcome as is anyone who photographs with the intention of making art and who feels that the networked environment of Flickr is a useful place to post and share their work.
The only criterion is, I repeat, ‘Do you consider yourself, in any fashion, to be attempting works of photographic art?’ If so, post one here and join us in saying, collectively, ‘Bollocks to James Elkins!’.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/bollocks_to_james_elkins/
Darcus Howe on the UK Riots
Writer & activist Darcus Howe gets some of
the truth out despite the "impartial" BBC:
http://youtu.be/biJgILxGK0o
the truth out despite the "impartial" BBC:
http://youtu.be/biJgILxGK0o
Remixed by Mickiewicz
I’m going to enter a remix competition every month, from Aug 2011 to Aug 2012.
I’m 54 years old and although I’m musically reasonably deft I know little about the culture in which I’m attempting to intervene.
I know none of the specialised vocabulary, can’t distinguish genres and although I understand what is being said, just about, I don’t speak the language in which posts or comments on this kind of work are framed.
Each of my remixes will be posted here, with a link back to the original track.
My nom de remix is mickiewicz."
The first one is here:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
cheers
michael
I’m 54 years old and although I’m musically reasonably deft I know little about the culture in which I’m attempting to intervene.
I know none of the specialised vocabulary, can’t distinguish genres and although I understand what is being said, just about, I don’t speak the language in which posts or comments on this kind of work are framed.
Each of my remixes will be posted here, with a link back to the original track.
My nom de remix is mickiewicz."
The first one is here:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
cheers
michael
London Calling
I think it's an interesting article and I learned something from it. As people have pointed out the question of the political is probably a great deal more nuanced than is suggested, but it is -isn't it? -a piece of journalism rather than an academic article and I quite like a little sting in the tail to consider.
What does disappoint me slightly is the lack of mention of Furtherfield, a long standing and distinguished player (and arguably now, after the cuts massacre, the most important one) in the capital and no stranger to Rhizome. Doubly so since if the writer was in Manor House they were all of five minutes walk away from a chat with Ruth (white, admittedly, but female the last time I saw her) or Marc, both of whose address books are voluminous and who could have pointed her to lots of interesting stuff, including a more diverse (in the ethnic, gender &c sense) group of artists...
What does disappoint me slightly is the lack of mention of Furtherfield, a long standing and distinguished player (and arguably now, after the cuts massacre, the most important one) in the capital and no stranger to Rhizome. Doubly so since if the writer was in Manor House they were all of five minutes walk away from a chat with Ruth (white, admittedly, but female the last time I saw her) or Marc, both of whose address books are voluminous and who could have pointed her to lots of interesting stuff, including a more diverse (in the ethnic, gender &c sense) group of artists...