hi all,

i think it is a major error in viewing Cory's work in trying to call it
'not art' or any of the other terms Curt has listed.

Cory is definitely an artist and his work is simply borrowing from
sub-cultures which haven't been mined by the traditional art world as
of yet ie the very specific 'demo' culture. taking from culture's
outside of the dominant is an art strategy that goes back, oh, let's
see, to the impressionists.

not dissing Cory's work, I think it's fly. But his strategies are very
much in the tradition of the main art world.

here's a freebie for anyone else who wants to follow this strategy:
overclockers.

On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:54 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> dyske,
>
> evidently "punk" is too open a term. so let's abandon it and move on
> to the idea of "not art" or "outsider art" or "art brut." Alex
> Galloway claims in the piece's artist statement that the piece is not
> art (odd then that it should have an artist statement). Yet when I
> try to recontextualize the piece outside of its given contemporary art
> environment, i get slapped. this irony is noteworthy.
>
> curt
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> dyske said:
> I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
> Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though
> I'm
> not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock
> to the
> core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing
> Cory's
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

i can't remember an artwork creating so much discussion and now this
linking controversy! my-oh-my.

hey curt,

feel free to deep link to anything on mteww.com ;-)

++

but this is a serious issue. I would very much like to hear Cory's
opinion (tho he is probably wise enough to keep his mouth shut).

MTAA has just completed a small commission for an institution that we
haven't released yet (or they haven't released yet, or someone hasn't
released yet... but that's another story...)

There was no discussion on attribution, copyrights or any of that
stuff. I slapped a creative commons license on it and if the
institution asks me to remove it I believe I'll refuse. But maybe I
won't. The fact of the matter is in the extremely small world of
non-profits commissioning this sort of work it's easy to be pegged as
'hard to work with' and never get another penny. 'Ya gots to go along
to get along'.

Working with Creative Time in the past, we've had to sign contracts
that stipulate credits, copyrights, usages and so on. In that case,
to be ethical (and technically legal), I couldn't encourage deep
linking. I prefer everything to be explained up front in a contract,
that way everyone knows where they stand.

Turbulence seems to be professionally run imo, they probably had a
contract with Cory and he knew what he was doing when he signed it
and what (if any) limitations he was putting on his work by signing
it.

At 14:25 +0000 2/24/03, marc.garrett wrote:
>Hello Jo-Anne,
>
>I was wondering if you were referring to the lists recent and quite
>informative discussions around Cory's work.
>
>best - marc
>
>
>> >Turbulence exists primarily to support artists. We commission works such
>as Data Diaries with funds from various foundations. Foundations require
>that they are credited for the work they support. The artists' success
>allows Turbulence to raise more money to commission more work. I'm sorry
>that you are denying Cory a wonderful opportunity.
>>

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

http://www.mteww.com/barney_opening/barney_opening-Images/12.jpg

In the above photo you see Barney on the left in the grey.

He's talking to Richard Serra with his back to the camera.(I walked
right by 'em, mriver had to point 'em out to me.)

Whatever you think about Barney's work, it's hard not to like a guy
who wears dickeys work pants to his own swanky opening at the
Guggenheim.

more pics to come later.

and of course:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/arts/design/21KIMM.html?8iwea

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

At 12:42 -0500 2/19/03, curt cloninger wrote:
>t.,
>
>you're missing McCloud's argument and the point of the book.
>"understanding comics" isn't an art history chronicle. it's a
>series of ruminations on the language of a particular medium. he's
>not suggesting that 20th century comic artists were directly
>influenced by egyptian art. he's suggesting that there's something
>intrinsic to the human condition that makes us want to tell stories
>sequentially with pictures, and he's analyzing the ways we have done
>so throughout history in order to arrive at some fundamental
>conclusions about images, icons, words, and communication itself.

+++
yo,

It's been a long time since I've read it but I'll concede that he
doesn't attempt to draw direct connections btw contemporary comix and
egyptian art.

If memory serves correctly he calls Egyptian art comics however
(along with cave paintings). If he does do this it is a good
illustration of his intellectual paucity. There is no defensible
reason to tack on contemporary names to historical movements or
thinking. I'v made that point before on this list so I won't go
through it again. (Rembrandt != expressionist)

There's nothing illuminating in describing people using images to
tell stories throughout history. A fairly obvious observation imo. To
tack on the sequential thing because it happens to be his own medium
is simply self-serving.

It's not a serious book (it's analogous to a pop psych book) and to
quote it when making args about art doesn't serve you well curt. I
think you have much better ideas and args than McCloud.

take care,

>
>He brings up the Egyptians to point out that this form of iconic
>storytelling is not so tangential to human culture as we might
>suppose. He later uses these Egyptian narratives to exemplify a
>time when images and words were not so segregated and specialized as
>they were at the end of the 19th century.
>
>Likewise, with the 6 creative phases, he's not talking about
>historical art movements, he's talking about the intrinsic human
>creative process. Maybe there's no such thing as an intrinsic human
>creative process, and maybe art means nothing outside of its given
>socio-historical contexts -- but those assertions were still open to
>some debate last time I checked.
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>++++
>t. wrote:
>
>yo curt,
>
>it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
>america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from
>Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
>being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both
>America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro was
>a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he
>changed his name to Jacques Villon ).
>
>to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
>draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
>also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators weren't
>directly influenced by any art historical form of sequential art.
>the only connection is a general art historical connection but then
>you
>can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to Egyptian art.
>
>it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
>comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they don't
>need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't an
>absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> 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

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

one point to add:

i only bring up the egyptian/sequential art thing because it brings
into question the rigor of the rest of his thinking. obviously people
can make what they will of the list.

take care,

At 11:50 -0500 2/19/03, t.whid wrote:
>At 11:29 -0500 2/19/03, curt cloninger wrote:
>>Hi t.,
>>
>>We disagree about McCloud. He defines comics (not just american
>>underground comics, but all comics) as sequential art, so how is
>>his discussing sequential pictorial Egyptian narrative totally
>>absurd and irrelevant given his definition? As I continue to
>>explore web art from a narrative angle (as something between film
>>and literature) McCloud's several insights on comics are
>>particularly relevant.
>
>++++
>yo curt,
>
>it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
>america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from
>Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
>being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both
>America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro
>was a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he
>changed his name to Jacques Villon ).
>
>to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
>draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
>also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators weren't
>directly influenced by any art historical form of sequential art.
>the only connection is a general art historical connection but then
>you can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to
>Egyptian art.
>
>it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
>comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they don't
>need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't an
>absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.
>
>
>>
>>Anyway, to prima facie dismiss an argument as unincisive is not
>>really dialogue. your critique is unincisive.
>>
>
>+++
>that's true, it's not very incisive. people can look at the list and
>make their own opinion. perhaps later i'll back up my comment, no
>time now.
>
>take care,
>
>>i remain,
>>curt
>>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>t. wrote:
>>
>>you're talking about Scott McCloud the comix guy?
>>
>>he's an idiot. well, let me back up. he's not an idiot, but i
>>wouldn't take any art lessons from him. in 'understanding comix' he
>>attempts to make a connection from american underground comix to
>>egyptian art (they are both sequential static images creating a
>>narrative is his reasoning) which is totally absurd and irrelevant.
>>
>>his artistic process above doesn't seem any more incisive. he
>>reminds me of pop psychology (the dr. phil brand) but he's making
>>poor arguments in art criticism and art history.
>>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>-> 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
>
>--
><twhid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></twhid>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> 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

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