flash does come standard with many browser distros.

you only see an ad when you install it for the first time after that
there is only macromedia's name in the contextual (right click) menu
otherwise it's perfectly clean of any marketing messages.

Director on the other hand.. does it still give you the logo during
the loading bar?

At 22:41 -0400 7/2/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>I would love flash if artists simply asked macromedia to take the
>advertisements away or were at least cognizant of the co-optation of thier
>work that occurs as a result of it. And if it came standard with a browser.
>Until then, it's fine for most pieces, but I am usually grumpy about its
>implementation because of the distraction that comes when everything in the
>planet is branded with a logo. I wish it hadn't happened to net.art.
>
>-e.

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

hi marisa,

below:

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 04:27 PM, Marisa S. Olson 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... i like t.whid's "conceptualists" better,
> but i'd still mailbomb that term, if i could...
>
> and i know this conversation started with talking about flash, but
> after reading t's notes, especially this one...
>
>> who are these entrenched conceptualists keeping out the visual
>> aesthetic in net art?
>
> i can't help but remember the debate we all had about cory arcangel
> when data diaries came out. i think cory's work is amazing, visually,
> but many people seemed to feel that his "dirt aesthetics"
> deprioritized the visual (i disagree, but even if so, what's wrong
> with that?) and favored the conceptual.
>
> both in the case of that work (which was based on QT films), and in
> much discussion about flash art, the work frequently gets criticized
> for having a "pointless" existence on the web--see, for instance, the
> rhizome-archived debates of the 2000 Net Art Webby jury, regarding
> heavy industries's project. the argument made by some was that it was
> not net art, but simply a film, which could have shown anywhere. of
> copurse, this was situated within a weby context, which is initself a
> self-proclaimed "best practices" context and the sense was that chang
> was less experienced in net work... but the second/implied argument
> was that net art needed to be self-reflexive of its
> status/site-specificity as net art. or should i say net.art? :)

oops. you brought it up again. YH Chang and Cory is def. new media art
(nma) but i don't think there's anything wrong with being specific in
our definitions. net art should use the net in some way other than a
delivery system imo.

--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

below:

On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> 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.

i think our main problem in this discussion is our definitions are
totally different. Not to sound pedantic, but it wasn't 'somewhere' in
the 20th century, it was exactly in 60s/70s conceptualism that the rift
occurred (you could argue it occurred much earlier but this is when it
was definitely torn asunder without a doubt). and it wasn't an accident
it had very concrete roots in anti-capitalist, pro-marxist philosophies
and embodies (from lippard) minimal art, idea art, systems art, earth
art, process art, and site-specific art (i threw site-specific in :-).
Some of the artists are Kosuth, Carl Andre, Vito Acconci, Smithson and
etc.

When I talk about conceptualism I'm thinking of this historic work
along with neo-conceptual strategies in art.

Is curt simply talking about anything whose goal isn't simply
aesthetic? the dreaded pomo? what? I find it extremely weird that you
would include Hirst under a conceptualist definition but let Beuys off
the hook.

take care,

> 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.

--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

At 16:59 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t:
>who are these entrenched
>> conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?
>
>curt:
>part of the canon is also bunting, rtmark, easylife, yes men, (yea,
>even mouchette), and even something like theyrule (flash though it
>is). Then the performance camera players stuff, fluxus
>influenced-stuff, "spam art," multiple identity or pseudonymous
>stuff (nn, alan/jennifer sondheim), the esteemed g.h., sr.
>peppermint and sr. grancher, half of the stuff that gets linked from
>net art news, most stuff anybody would care to call "tactical
>media." Etc. I'm not accusing anyone of a conspiracy to keep out a
>visual aesthetic, I'm just answering your question regarding
>entrenched conceptualists.

++
twhid:
i think you've made my point for me. the state of net art is fairly balanced.

>
>t:
>> the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
>> when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
>> photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
>> lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
>> may be).
>
>curt:
>I don't care what a traditional image maker considers the computer
>screen, any more than daguerre cared what a traditional painter
>considered the photograph. I disagree with you. A computer screen
>is not "practically no-res." True, it does force a return to
>microfilm narrative and minimalist imagery and a heightened emphasis
>on iconic symbolism. These are interesting and exciting
>limitations. But it's not like a stick in the sand or anything.
>

++
twhid:
my point wasn't that you or I or anyone should care what an oil
painter thinks of the web, 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.

>
>t:
>The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
>> essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
>> it's essential nature is networked communication.
>
>curt:
>
>As a medium, I identify 6 defining characteristics of the net:
>http://www.lab404.com/media/
>Note that one is "multimedia." Even if I grant you that the
>"essential nature" of the net is "networked communication," that
>doesn't by any means preclude the sensory. Why do "network,"
>"communication," and "information" imply "text" to you? Because it
>started out that way? Computers started out as calculators.
>

++
twhid:
right, binary digital info. i don't think of 'text', 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. it hasn't changed
much in the past 6 years in terms of a visual experience. my argument
will become invalid in the future i hope.

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

At 15:38 -0400 7/2/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>t:
>
>> But one of the most talked about and
>> exhibited pieces of net art is Galloway's Carnivore and among the
>> Carnivore clients there are many Flash and Director-based pieces.
>
>curt:
>
>alex's genius was to take care of the backend and concept himself,
>and to farm the front-end visuals out to those with the wherewithal
>and interest to do them justice. Without the front-end modules,
>Carnivore would have been just another ugly-to-look-at "vaporware"
>conceptual netwerked project about surveilance. bruno & jimpunk's
>gogolchat ( http://www.iterature.com/gogolchat/ ) involves a similar
>backend/frontend collaboration. I dig both pieces.

++
twhid:
right. exactly. There is a dialogue in the piece which bridges this
artificial divide btw the conceptual and the visual. I was simply
using it to disabuse us of the notion that somehow Rhizome is a more
conceptually oriented community. Or that the most celebrated net art
is more conceptually oriented than the main stream. who are the
biggest names? e8z, extremely visually oriented. yael, also very
handsome work. napier, ditto. JODI, also visual.. etc. not to say
there is no 'concept' involved in these artists work, of course there
is or all the work would be is spin art. who are these entrenched
conceptualists keeping out the visual aesthetic in net art?

>
>
>t:
>> the visual has been in the
>> mainstream of art since at least the 80s. but you'll find more
>> conceptual art in net art, i agree. why is this? it's because it
>> suits the medium. the original conceptual artists thought of their
>> work as *information art*. they reduced their practice down to simply
>> passing information from artist to viewer and it was a very radical
>> notion for the time. Passing information between computers is the
>> essence of the 'Net. no wonder artists use conceptual strategies via
>> the net.
>>
>> Artists who are interested primarily in visual aesthetics will find
>> the constraints of the web unbearable. A computer screen's resolution
>> is minuscule compared to the infinite resolution of oil paint, or
>> bronze, or paper, or pencils, or watercolor, etc. If visual
>> aesthetics are your primary concern, you would be best served by a
>> medium other than the computer screen. If your primary concern is
>> passing information to individuals, then the web makes perfect sense.
>
>curt:
>Net art had to start out text-centric and conceptual, because in
>1996, about all you could pass along a 1200kbps modem was a concept
>and some text. But now, things are different. The net will never
>be hi-res, but that doesn't mean it has to be no-res. The fact that
>there are specific bandwidth constraints on the net is precisely
>what makes it particularly sexy to me as a minimalistic sensory
>medium. Lo-res does not mean inferior art. Hi-res does not mean
>superior art. Britney Spears is hi-res. Guided By Voices, Flying
>Saucer Attack, even Bruce Springsteen's deft "Nebraska" are all
>gloriously 4-track reel-to-reel lo-res.

++
twhid:
c'mon dude, you know what I mean, the diff isn't hi-res and lo-res
when you go from a computer screen to a traditional oil or even a
photo or film. to a traditional image maker the computer screen isn't
lo-res, it's practically no-res (no matter how phat that flash piece
may be). The essential nature of a painting is a visual one. the
essential nature of the 'Net is simply not a primarily visual one,
it's essential nature is networked communication. Whatever conceptual
bias you're imagining is simply artists working with what they see as
the essential nature of their medium. granted, the Web added the
visual to the 'Net, and that is why *web art* as opposed to the more
generic *net art* is a more visual medium.

take care,

>
>I'm not saying that one's lo-res multimedia can't contain a bit of
>concept (or text for that matter). But I am saying that conceptual
>artists can no longer use the excuse: "sure it looks like crap, but
>what can you do? it's the web."

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