from an American perspective, the simple fact that you Brits have a
war artist at all is simply amazing. is there such a thing in the US?
I doubt it, and if there were I'm sure we wouldn't consider anyone as
interesting as or as potentially controversial as the chapmans.

we'd have some boring nobody who works good in bronze so as to get
the full amount of *glory* out of Bush's bullshit war.

At 13:40 +0100 7/8/03, ruth catlow wrote:
>The Chapman Brothers have been dropped as Britain's official artists in
>Iraq over questions of bad taste. They raise some very pertinent issues
>in this article.
>
>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?storyB2111
>
>ruth
>http://www.furtherfield.org
>

--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

hi guys,

my last thoughts on this, snipped horribly eryk.

and i take full responsibility for derailing the conversation into
the meta discussion on critique.

At 2:35 -0400 7/8/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I'm not sure if this is at all relevant, but there is something about what
>Curt is saying that resonates with some of my own thoughts on the subject of
>criticism.
>
>Firstly, I am an autodidact when it comes to critique. Most of what I come
>up with is simply through reason, and frankly, I have had so many arguments
>shot down with "oh, thats a modernist idea"

when i called Curt's view a modernist view I wasn't disparaging it,
simply labeling it, not discounting it. I wasn't aware if he knew
that his definitions, his mode of thought or critique, had a similar
presence in 20th century art which might be useful to him.

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>>I look at a piece without training and contextualizing histories; it's
>>usually responded to with the dismissal that I simply don't know what I am
>>talking about. So, what I get from Curt- and correct me if I am wrong- is
>>that art can be evaluated based on zero; art can be looked at purely in
>>contemporary contexts and if one does not appreciate it based on thier own
>>internal reasoning, then sure- I am uneducated, but I still don't like the
>>piece, and the piece still failed in that regard. It is still a criticism
>>worth looking at.

My point is that you're always interrupting work through your own
history and experience. So, even if you think you're measuring from
0, you're not. The problem is with this idea of 0. what is it?
classic greek statuary. A sunset? Your way your cat feels on your
tummy? The Sims?

I would like to think that I measure work based solely on my own
innate senses that are attuned to the infinite truth and humanity of
the universe.

but i don't.

If one's experience with contemporary art is limited than their
opinions might seem limited to other's whose experience is more rich
and varied. call it snobbery, call it elitism, call it taste; call it
whatever you want, but (allow me one of my analogies) when i need
wine recommendations I don't ask the 18-year-old clerk at the local
Piggly Wiggly*.

++++
*what the hell is Piggly Wiggly? Piggly Wiggly

yo,

see my reactionary response below:

At 13:01 -0400 7/7/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t.whid wrote:
>
>> in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main
>> properties
>> of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
>> properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
>> subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
>> modernist view of art.
>
>
>Eduardo Navas wrote:
>
>> "I am all out for challenging definitions and labels, but one needs to
>> know
>> them in order to question them."
>
>
>
>curt responds:
>
>Both statements above implicitly assume that contemporary models of
>art criticism are the default standard for net art discussions. Why
>should this necessarily be so?

++
twhid:
good question. i don't think it needs to be so, but if you put your
creative endeavors into an art context you shouldn't be surprised if
people discuss it within that context. there is a large contingent of
net artists, curators, writers and thinkers who operate within these
modes of thought and rhizome has been a place where they've met to
discuss. (these modes are far from concrete however, they are
constantly changing, shifting, being added to and being edited.)

my question would be, if not here, where? there are plenty of places
to discuss 'design-y' web work. why force it in here? why are you
intent on driving one of the only places with lively 'art' discussion
into discussing something else? is it because you think contemporary
art discussions are simply wrong and immoral? as is the art that they
surround? simply because you think it 'sucks' and should be something
else? simply because there a few more conceptually-oriented artists
who discuss work here and you just don't like it? (we've already
established that net art isn't being held hostage by 'conceptual art'
as you seem to imagine.)

(bbs.thing.net is the only other place (in english) that i know of
that's dedicated to discussing nma and it's on some shaky legs these
days. nettime doesn't count, their focus isn't art)

>
>My reading is in media theory, literary criticism, Biblical studies,
>interface design, Appalachian culture, and audio production. I've
>been approaching net art on this particular thread from a
>McLuhan-esque perspective.
>
>The question is not which of these models of understanding is
>"right." The question is not even which of these models of
>understanding leads to interesting discussion. The question (for
>me) is which of these models of understanding leads to the
>production of interesting art in this particular medium.

++
twhid:
it's only fair to judge work within the context the creator meant for
it. you wouldn't judge a 10-year-old on his math abilities by giving
him a calculus test. i wouldn't really care to have my work judged in
the context of biblical studies (whatever that is but where i'm sure
it wouldn't rate) and than have it publicly condemned within an art
context without any clue given as to what standards are being applied.

personally, I wouldn't tell an artist what or how they should
approach their work. but if they put it into an art context i'll
apply those standards. if they put it into a non-context (which is
impossible really), i'll apply all sorts of standards. if they put it
into a design context, i'll apply those standards. i don't dis k10k
for uncritically pushing commercial themes and forms which promote a
capitalist agenda. I don't go to T3 expecting Citizen Kane and i
don't play ps2 expecting Mark Twain. but when i look at net art i
expect it to rise to the level of the greatest artists and i judge it
as such. Duchamp is the touch-stone of the 20th century imo. perhaps
we'll find one for the 21st, perhaps it's Will Wright, or perhaps
art, as such, will simply go away.

it's very fluid, things slip back and forth btw contexts all the time
(some of my art is in my design portfolio, not the other way around
however) one way to judge something is how easily and thoroughly it
can slip btw contexts. that happens to be my favorite sort of work.

cya

curt's post continues below for your easy reference:

>
>So why is contemporary art history the default context in which to
>discuss the future of creative net art processes? Why must it pro
>forma be addressed before dialogue can proceed? Because it is the
>majority standard? I don't believe that. Because rhizome raw has
>been earmarked for formalistic/academic contemporary art criticism?
>I don't believe that. Because smart people read in the field of
>contemporary art history? Because important / fancy / well-funded
>people read in that field? Because art-history-writin' people read
>in that field?
>
>If the latter explanations are even implicitly argued, then the
>Marxists have failed to eradicate a priviledged position of
>critique. They have merely replaced a good-looking priviledged
>position with a barren-looking and more historically-dependent
>priviledged position.
>
>What's the big deal about being remembered anyway? Remembered by
>whom? In what circles? For how long? With the art history "canon"
>increasingly slouching toward the scatalogical, why do I want to be
>archived on that compilation CD anyway? File me under "seventh son"
>in your personal experiential database, and I will have left my
>desired dent. "No page in history, baby / that I don't need / I
>just wanna make some eardrums bleed" - Spinal Tap
>
>And so we return full circle to my initial barb that sparked this diversion:
>"There is an entire culture of Flash-prodigy experimental web
>designers that visit Rhizome and say, 'all that net art crap looks
>the same.' But our ideas of 'legitimate' net art are more 'right'
>than their ideas because...? Because Duchamp [mis-]signed a urinal
>80 years ago, our predecessors agreed that his doing so mattered,
>and we assented?"

--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

it looks like the whitney biennial is accepting submissions this year.

this is unusual. it's my understanding that the whitney tracks you
down and hasn't accepted submissions in the past.

anyway, more info here:

http://www.whitney.org/exhibition/biennial.shtml

for those unfamiliar, it's only open to american artists.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

hi curt,

hope you had a good 4th.

thoughtful reply, thanks.

just one thing from me tonight, below:

On Sunday, July 6, 2003, at 11:10 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been offline in Kentucky. I'll try address what I perceive to
> be cruxy issues:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 1.
> There is no patent on the English adjective "conceptual." It existed
> before the 60s. One can use the word "conceptual" to mean
> "conceptual," even in a discussion about art, even in a discussion
> about contemporary art.
>
> Duchamp's fountain is conceptual and anti-object. Magritte's "this is
> not a pipe" paintings address similar issues. There was talk about
> the tyranny of the object prior to the 60s.
>

of course. but when we start talking about 'conceptualists' and
'conceptualism' and 'conceptualist' when referring to art we run into
the confusion as it's also the name of a certain strategy and movement.
in other fields, like design and illustration for example, you can use
the term without confusion. for example, my gfriend is an illustrator
and illustrators and art directors will talk about illustrations being
'conceptual' and i'm never confused that they're talking about a work
that looks like a vito acconci video or something.

in art criticism, there is a model which defines the 3 main properties
of an artwork: form, content, subject and crits art on how these 3
properties interact. your definitions fit this model but you collapse
subject and content into one property called 'concept'. it's a
modernist view of art.

cya