Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

ARTBASE (1)
Discussions (1004) Opportunities (5) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: 15.-17.Mai 2006: MEDIENKUNSTKONFERENZ DOWNSYNDROME #1


Maybe the expression has a different import in
German..but this conference title must take some kind
of a prize for the most tasteless/insensitive & also
somehow up-itself ( ie. not even *recognising* at a
*basic human level* that there might be an issue, that
it might be, lets not say offensive, but just
*hurtful*) one of all time...
michael

--- beate zurwehme <beate@zurwehme.org> wrote:

>
> Hiermit laden wir herzlich zur Media Art Conference
>
> DOWNSYNDROME # 1.
> Kunst- und Bildungswissenschaft
> im Spannungsfeld zwischen Performance und
> Medienkunst
> vom 15. bis 17. Mai 2006
> an der Universitat Osnabruck ein.
>
> Im Mittelpunkt von DOWNSYNDROME # 1 steht die
> Alteritat zwischen den
> medialen Kunstformen und intensiv diskutierten
> Bildungskonzepten. Die
> aktuelle Bildungsdiskussion soll vor allem durch die
> Betrachtung der
> zeit- und handlungsbasierten Kunstformen
> Performance- und Medienkunst
> erweitert werden.
>
> Wir freuen uns, die international renommierte
> ReferentenInnen und
> NachwuchswissenschaftlerInnen -
>
> Prof. Dr. Marie-Luise Angerer,
> Lena Bader M.A.,
> Dr. Anne Hamker,
> Katja Hoffmann M.A.,
> Prof. Dr. Ryszard W. Kluszczynski,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. hc. mult. des. Verena Kuni
> M.A., Dr. Marga van Mechelen,
> Dr. des. Petra Mussolini,
> Dr. Maciej Ozog,
> Prof. Dr. Hans Ulrich Beck,
> Dr. Ingeborg Tappe-Hornbostel,
> Dr. Gabriele Schmid,
> Dr. Jens Schroter,
> Prof. Dr. Yvonne Spielmann und
> Prof. Dr. Petra Weibel
>
> prasentieren zu konnen.
>
> Veranstalter:
> Jun. Prof. Dr. Habil. Slavko Kacunko
> Universitat Osnabruck
> Fachbereich Kultur- und Geowissenschaften
> Kunstgeschichte
>
> Moderation:
> Bjorn Bruggemann,
> Kerstin Fischer,
> Dawn Leach,
> Tabea Lurk,
> Tobias Nehren
> Slavko Kacunko
>
> Detaillierte Informationen finden Sie unter:
> http://www.medienkunst-konferenz.de/
> http://www.media-art-conference.com
>
> Veranstaltungsort:
> Kolpingstr. 7
> Raum 01/B01
> 49074 Osnabruck
>
>
> Bitte beachten Sie:
> Die Konferenz findet im direkten Anschluss an das
> 19. EMAF | European Media Art Festival in Osnabruck
> statt, die vom 10.
> bis zum 14. Mai / /KAFE ART ausstellt und
> diskutiert.
>
> Wir freuen uns uber Ihr zahlreiches Erscheinen.
> Geniessen Sie den Fruhsommer mit Medienkunst in
> Osnabruck.
>
> Bis dahin
> Tabea Lurk M.A., Karlsruhe
> PD. Dr. Leach Walesa, Dusseldorf
> Jun. Prof. Dr. Habil. Slavko Kacunko, Osnabruck
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> +
> -> 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: Commissions


Oh! -my posts weren't a dig at anyone, neither
proposing artists (of which I'm not one, just for the
record) nor Rhizome staff but a straightforward
suggestion as to how the commission process could be
made

*fairer*

*more art centred*

& *more fun* for both artist & assessors

My personal starting point wasn't a specific
assessment of anyone's project or proposal but some
little frustration at the *difficulty* of arriving at
a conscientious set of choices without devoting an
unviable amount of time to it.
My point being that many of the proposals could well
have involved communicating <rather strange concept>s
& involve <brevity in (the) statement> & this would be
*no bad thing* but it might not help the proposers to
get funding as people pick their way wearily through
the acres of text...
In fact one of the actual submissions from someone
whose work I know to be wonderful is brief & modest in
the extreme & I can't help feeling this will work
against them.
Whilst it might be *desirable* & *practical* that
artists acquire the gift of the gab & learn to write
that killer first para it seems a bit of a shame for
an organisation that is essentially artist focussed to
collude in the pressure to do this.
I'm on the mailing list of most of the London arts
venues & the rotten, foul, dishonesty of market speak
is a terrible thing to behold... a corruption of
meaning. Every show is *the most remarkable thing
ever*...*pathbreaking*...*unmissable*..& this deeply
dishonest discourse in turn infects us, by necessity,
because every else is infected , when we put fingers
to keyboard to write our proposals..
I'll go further -I think the pressure to say what one
is going to do in advance, and to say it as slickly &
eye catchingly as poss, is, if not a guarantee, at
least an encouragement to digital art by numbers, or
precedent and thus to banality...
Gosh -we're *artists* - we're supposed to have at
least a little touch of iconoclasm about us. Let's
think outside the box, let's think what would be
*good* for us & our work...
best wishes
michael

--- patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> wrote:

> As a matter of note;
> Anyone wishing to give a crit on my proposal is
> greatly welcomed. While
> I did try to communicate a rather strange concept in
> as concise a
> fashion as possible, I am always interested in
> seeing how the idea gets
> across. There are circumstances behind any brevity
> in my statement, but
> there you are.
>
> Beyond this, I can't say much except that I readily
> admit my plusses and
> minuses, and welcome constructive criticism -
> always.
>
>
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 1556 Clough Street, #28
> Bowling Green, OH 43402
> 225 288 5813
> voyd@voyd.com
>
> "It is better to die on your feet
> than to live on your knees."
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org
> [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Lee Wells
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: dv@vilt.net; Michael Szpakowski; rhizome
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Commissions
> Importance: Low
>
> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals
> that were submitted
> had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a sign
> of
> laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It didn't
> seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their
> ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the
> submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not
> lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm not in
> the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a way
> to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that
> wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete for
> the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would have
> been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on all
> these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money for
> what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i see
> things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but anyway i
> thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael
> here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as
> mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking
> commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about
> the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but
> I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell
> out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I
> don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining
> the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their
> way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant
> to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases.
> Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious &
> follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think
> that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any
> sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so
> (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are
> the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap
> in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no'
> to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual
> work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next
> year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation
> of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in
> the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably
> but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom
> line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua
> non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists
> they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms
> with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without
> bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the
> artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by
> its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's
> range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a
> commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in
> submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, &
> be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere &
> how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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: Commissions


HI Lee
I don't differ with anything you say here.
My case would be that my suggestion *does* raise the
bar on the thing that matters - quality of work,
rather than ability to write a proposal.
( & I think this might have been what Dirk was just
saying,albeit rather cryptically)
It's lot harder to bluff when you have to show *actual
work*.
At the same time I think it would also make the whole
thing more transparent & dare I say it, more enjoyable
for all.
I'm for virtue but all the more so if it's fun :)
best wishes
michael

--- Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:

> Hi Michael:
>
> I agree with you in part but some of the proposals
> that were submitted had
> almost no care put into them at all. To me, it
> looked more like a sign of
> laziness and not following instructions than
> anything else. It didn't seem
> like many put much time into flushing out their
> ideas before submitting.
>
> All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the
> level of the submissions
> are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to
> go through.
>
> In the long run the bar should be raised not
> lowered.
>
>
>
> On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
> > i don't know how to put it but i think i second
> this i mean i'm not in the
> > business of making art objects so i couldn't
> possibly ever find a way to use
> > the form to send anything (words, promises,
> projections) that wouldn't be
> > cheating either to the voters or to myself so that
> i could compete for the
> > commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda
> sth of a pity cause
> > asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still
> think it would have been more
> > fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending
> so much time on all these
> > things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try
> to get some money for what
> > i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse
> that's me and how i see things
> > so it's my problem & i hope the best may win
> untsoweiter but anyway i thought
> > it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to
> show that Michael here's no
> > way unique although of course his point is not
> exactly the same as mine only
> > somewhat similar thank you dv
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's
> hot, but talking commissions
> > again..
> >
> >> HI Lauren, all
> >> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about
> the
> >> commissions process for next year.
> >> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but
> I
> >> find one of the great irritations in life is
> >> constantly having to write proposals which spell
> out
> >> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> >> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I
> don't
> >> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> >> unconscious play such a large part in determining
> the
> >> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> >>
> >> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> >> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their
> way
> >> through so much (with all due respect, not meant
> to be
> >> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> >> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases.
> Of
> >> course one could be *super* conscientious &
> follow up
> >> *every* proposal back to its site but I think
> that is
> >> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any
> sort of
> >> a life anyway :)
> >>
> >> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so
> (that
> >> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are
> the
> >> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap
> in
> >> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no'
> to,
> >> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> >> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> >> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> >> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual
> work
> >> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> >> significant connection between the two things.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose that submissions for next
> year's
> >> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> >> links to two contrasting works (or documentation
> of
> >> such if there is an offline component) made in
> the
> >> previous year.
> >> This would level the playing field considerably
> but
> >> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom
> line
> >> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> >> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua
> non of
> >> being serious as an artist.
> >> It also means that for young &/or new artists
> they
> >> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms
> with
> >> "names" -is the work any good?
> >> For those unable to make a judgement without
> bios,
> >> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the
> artists
> >> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> >>
> >> The two contrasting works requirement would by
> its
> >> nature give both an indication of an artist's
> range &
> >> ambition & also how we might expect a
> commissioned
> >> piece to develop.
> >>
> >> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> >> enhance community participation both in
> submissions &
> >> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, &
> be
> >> much more artist friendly.
> >> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere &
> how
> >> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> >> best
> >> michael
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
>

DISCUSSION

I know metadata is what's hot, but talking commissions again..


HI Lauren, all
I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
commissions process for next year.
I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
find one of the great irritations in life is
constantly having to write proposals which spell out
in very specific terms what one intends do for
projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
unconscious play such a large part in determining the
*actual* course of the way work develops.

I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
*every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
a life anyway :)

Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
some would make wonderful work, but that their
proposers can't write an interesting or readable
proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
& that there is probably not even a statistically
significant connection between the two things.

I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
such if there is an offline component) made in the
previous year.
This would level the playing field considerably but
also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
being serious as an artist.
It also means that for young &/or new artists they
would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
"names" -is the work any good?
For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
name so these can always be Googled up ...

The two contrasting works requirement would by its
nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
piece to develop.

I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
enhance community participation both in submissions &
voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
much more artist friendly.
Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
much all our lives would be improved thereby!
best
michael