PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
Artists M. River and T. Whid formed MTAA in 1996 and soon after began to explore the internet, video, software and sculpture as mediums for their conceptually-based art. The duo’s exhibition history includes group shows and screenings at The New Museum of Contemporary Art, Postmasters Gallery and Artists Space, all in New York City, and at The Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles. In "New Media Art" (Taschen, 2006), authors Mark Tribe and Reena Jana describe MTAA’s "One Year Performance Video (aka samHsiehUpdate)" as “a deftly transparent demonstration of new media’s ability to manipulate our perceptions of time.” The collaboration has earned grants and awards from Creative Capital, Rhizome.org, Eyebeam, New Radio & Performing Arts, Inc. and The Whitney Museum of American Art.
TRACEPLACESPACE
New audio by Cary Peppermint, check it out…
+++
TRACEPLACESPACE
seven audio works .mp3 - Cary Peppermint 2007
The audio works of TRACEPLACESPACE were formed loosely in response to ever-accelerating technological developments, passing time, urgent ecological issues, and remarkable events of our globally connected system in process long before but brought to the forefront since the latter part of the year 2001. The works of TRACEPLACESPACE are components of a digital, multi-media, network-infused performance of the same title.
I like to perform this work in small community venues, outdoor gatherings, art-spaces, and galleries where everyone is welcome and can sit on the floor, talk to one another, and drink green tea. However I will perform TRACEPLACESPACE approximately anywhere.
Filming Outside the Cinema
I have to admit that I'd not given much thought to film outside the cinema, web film or live video, or anything like that, but I've spent lots of time here hanging out with Peter Horvath and I'm impressed.
Peter makes very beautiful films for the web, and you can check them all out online. Today he showed us The Presence of Absence, which was comissioned for the Whitney Museum's Artport in 2003, and then Tenderly Yours from 2005, which "resituates the personal, casual and ambiguous approach of French new wave cinema in a net art narrative that explores love, loss and memory. The story is recited by a striking and illustrious persona, who moves through the city with her lover. Her willful independence is intoxicating, though her sense of self is ambiguous..." Gorgeous.
Cut Piece - Yoko Ono
Cut Piece (2006, 36.5MB, 9 min)
“Ono had first done the performance in 1964, in Japan,
and again at Carnegie Hall, in New York, in 1965.
Ono sat motionless on the stage after inviting the audience
to come up and cut away her clothing, covering her breasts
at the moment of unbosoming.”
from Bedazzled .
Conglomco Media Network announces http://meta-cc.net live
Conglomco Media Network is pleased to announce the official beta release of the META[CC] video engine at http://meta-cc.net.
META[CC] seeks to create an open forum for real time discussion, commentary, and cross-refrencing of electronic news and televised media. By combining strategies employed in web-based discussion forums, blogs , tele-text subtitling, on-demand video streaming, and search engines, the open captioning format employed by META[CC] will allow users to gain multiple perspectives and resources engaging current events. The system is adaptable for use with any cable or broadcast television network.
We hope that you will take a moment from your viewing time to add the RSS feed of a blog you find noteworthy. As more information sources are supplied to META[CC], the more intelligent the system becomes. As such, the META[CC] search engine is apolitical and influenced only by the news and information sources supplied by its viewers/users. We apologize, but at this time podcasts and vlogs are not supported.
Many thanks for your interest and participation,
The META[CC] team
http://meta-cc.net
Open Call for Sound Works : WILD INFORMATION NETWORK
Cary Peppermint:
WILD INFORMATION NETWORK
The Department of Ecology, Art, and Technology
Open Call for Sound Works In Mp3 Format - Deadline April 1, 2006
http://www.restlessculture.net/deepwoods
If we encountered a pod-cast, or a streaming radio server in the woods, in the “natural
ART, Inc. necessary evil
>At 4:10 AM -0800 11/18/02, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>I am trying to figure out who said what but I do want to clarify a
>point. I definitely was not using the word Art to describe a
>personal search. I was using Art to mean "ART, Inc".
+++
first, ART, Inc is a great way to discuss this subject as the
definition of art has so many meanings to so many people. it's good
to define professional pursuit of an art career as ART, Inc.
secondly, we've had this discussion SO many times and everyone seems
to stay in their camps (except liza). side A, "professionalism sucks
the life out of art; it should be done with passion"; side B,
"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally meaningless."
personally i don't see the two as exclusive. one has 2 jobs as an
artist imo, making the work and selling the work. artists hate
selling the work so they farm that part out, that's why galleries and
agents exist.
(of course one could argue that, with this new-fangled Internet and
all, one doesn't need the art world to have an audience and that
person would be right--sort of. because if one is making work that
has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art world' (aka
ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated audience to appreciate the
work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) isn't going to have
experiences necessary to understand or appreciate some work; even
something as old hat as abstract expressionism! go to a museum--no
cut that--go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome "Autumn
Rhythm (Number 30)"
(http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep!&full=0&mark=1&itemW%2E92)
and count how many assholes say, "I could do that." fuck that
audience, i don't need 'em.)
thirdly, um.. there is no third :-)
+++
>
>I do not only personally think but, given that I help write the
>grants, that the "ART, Inc." is not conducive to creating Art. Let
>me put it another way: I have seen the dark side and I don't like it.
+++
funny, here you're defining ART, Inc. as the non-profit institutional
art world. i was thinking more the gallery world.
i was at a panel a while back re: public funding of art (the panel
was 'FOR' it) ie funding outside of the market. everyone on the panel
assumed that BETTER work was made when it was publicly funded. the
notion being that the market produces crap art. i thought that that
was bullshit. if you are lucky enough to have a gallery you don't
ever fill out a f*cking grant application. it's simple, "when's the
show?", "ok pick my stuff up on this date" and back to the studio you
go. (of course you get pressure from the gallerist to make saleable
work but life ain't easy and i'd rather argue with a dealer over a
nice dinner and wine then be stuck at home shoving slides in an
envelope.)
+++
>
>When Curt or Mark asked, "If art falls in the forest, does it make a
>sound?" I answered, YES for the forest and NO for the world or ART,
>Inc. Artists have always had to make a decision between making a
>sound in the forest versus making a sound in the art world. That's
>the way things have always been. But nowadays it is even more
>pressing because there are curators, foundation directors and
>gallery owners who are weighing this decision as well.
>
>What is exciting and yet overwhelming is that there is a real shift
>happening out there. More and more people are pondering the forest
>because what they see in the art "world" is way passed saving. This
>mean that more and more people have not a clue as to where things
>are heading to but they know they are going somewhere.
+++
i don't agree that ART, Inc. is past saving. it doesn't need to be
saved, it is what it is and some really good stuff gets shown. for
example, my friend Inka Essenhigh makes great work and she's having a
big show right this very minute at 303 (high-end chelsea gallery).
see her work: http://www.303gallery.com/artists/essenhigh/exh2002.html
(don't get me wrong, the art world is fucked in fifty different ways,
no arguing that. but every line of work i've been is fucked fifty
ways (fucked=politics, lying, cheating, etc). unless i want to move
back to ohio and live the quiet life (which for me would be something
akin to soul suicide and i couldn't get my native nyc gal to go with
me no how) then i'm going to be dealing with some sort of industry,
organization, or 'world' that has some seriously funky aspects to it.
personally, i'd rather deal with one than two so my only choice is to
make a career out of ART, Inc.)
+++
why is it that i keep using painting as examples in my little rant
here? i suppose that i feel more of an affinity for painting and it's
old economy ART, Inc-ness than i do for new media institutionalized,
grant-subsidized work. hmmm, funny.
+++
>
>I guess the forest has always been the place for art but many are
>just starting to reckon with this.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
>
>I am trying to figure out who said what but I do want to clarify a
>point. I definitely was not using the word Art to describe a
>personal search. I was using Art to mean "ART, Inc".
+++
first, ART, Inc is a great way to discuss this subject as the
definition of art has so many meanings to so many people. it's good
to define professional pursuit of an art career as ART, Inc.
secondly, we've had this discussion SO many times and everyone seems
to stay in their camps (except liza). side A, "professionalism sucks
the life out of art; it should be done with passion"; side B,
"without an audience (aka art world) art is functionally meaningless."
personally i don't see the two as exclusive. one has 2 jobs as an
artist imo, making the work and selling the work. artists hate
selling the work so they farm that part out, that's why galleries and
agents exist.
(of course one could argue that, with this new-fangled Internet and
all, one doesn't need the art world to have an audience and that
person would be right--sort of. because if one is making work that
has it's roots in the history and tradition of the 'art world' (aka
ART, Inc.) then one needs an educated audience to appreciate the
work. the average web surfer (esp an USAian one) isn't going to have
experiences necessary to understand or appreciate some work; even
something as old hat as abstract expressionism! go to a museum--no
cut that--go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome "Autumn
Rhythm (Number 30)"
(http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep!&full=0&mark=1&itemW%2E92)
and count how many assholes say, "I could do that." fuck that
audience, i don't need 'em.)
thirdly, um.. there is no third :-)
+++
>
>I do not only personally think but, given that I help write the
>grants, that the "ART, Inc." is not conducive to creating Art. Let
>me put it another way: I have seen the dark side and I don't like it.
+++
funny, here you're defining ART, Inc. as the non-profit institutional
art world. i was thinking more the gallery world.
i was at a panel a while back re: public funding of art (the panel
was 'FOR' it) ie funding outside of the market. everyone on the panel
assumed that BETTER work was made when it was publicly funded. the
notion being that the market produces crap art. i thought that that
was bullshit. if you are lucky enough to have a gallery you don't
ever fill out a f*cking grant application. it's simple, "when's the
show?", "ok pick my stuff up on this date" and back to the studio you
go. (of course you get pressure from the gallerist to make saleable
work but life ain't easy and i'd rather argue with a dealer over a
nice dinner and wine then be stuck at home shoving slides in an
envelope.)
+++
>
>When Curt or Mark asked, "If art falls in the forest, does it make a
>sound?" I answered, YES for the forest and NO for the world or ART,
>Inc. Artists have always had to make a decision between making a
>sound in the forest versus making a sound in the art world. That's
>the way things have always been. But nowadays it is even more
>pressing because there are curators, foundation directors and
>gallery owners who are weighing this decision as well.
>
>What is exciting and yet overwhelming is that there is a real shift
>happening out there. More and more people are pondering the forest
>because what they see in the art "world" is way passed saving. This
>mean that more and more people have not a clue as to where things
>are heading to but they know they are going somewhere.
+++
i don't agree that ART, Inc. is past saving. it doesn't need to be
saved, it is what it is and some really good stuff gets shown. for
example, my friend Inka Essenhigh makes great work and she's having a
big show right this very minute at 303 (high-end chelsea gallery).
see her work: http://www.303gallery.com/artists/essenhigh/exh2002.html
(don't get me wrong, the art world is fucked in fifty different ways,
no arguing that. but every line of work i've been is fucked fifty
ways (fucked=politics, lying, cheating, etc). unless i want to move
back to ohio and live the quiet life (which for me would be something
akin to soul suicide and i couldn't get my native nyc gal to go with
me no how) then i'm going to be dealing with some sort of industry,
organization, or 'world' that has some seriously funky aspects to it.
personally, i'd rather deal with one than two so my only choice is to
make a career out of ART, Inc.)
+++
why is it that i keep using painting as examples in my little rant
here? i suppose that i feel more of an affinity for painting and it's
old economy ART, Inc-ness than i do for new media institutionalized,
grant-subsidized work. hmmm, funny.
+++
>
>I guess the forest has always been the place for art but many are
>just starting to reckon with this.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: Re: ART, Inc. necessary evil
>c:
>Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the
>relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe
>of contemporary art education?
>
>t:
>that question is answered individually by each artist. should one
>dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one
>believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are
>being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and
>techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary
>america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears
>videos'.
>
>c:
>that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular =
>dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t: it's also simple to think that 'speaks to humanity' has any REAL
relevance to a working artist. do you think it's possible that an
artist could create something that truly 'speaks to humanity' and it
isn't recognized by the bulk of that humanity? I'm sure of it. imo
Pollack 'speaks to humanity' in a visceral way which needs no
intellectualism whatsoever, yet one finds dolts everyday, "i could do
that." they don't need to learn anything to see it but imo they need
to unlearn quite a bit (illusionism, perspective, cinema, etc)
i wouldn't dissuade an artist from attempting to create universal
work which attempts to 'speak to humanity', but i would tell her not
to be surprised when most of humanity doesn't give a shit and is deaf
to the message.
+++
>
>+++
>
>t:
>>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn
>>>Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could
>>>do that." >>fuck that
>>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
>
>c:
>>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed
>>redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it
>>but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work
>>defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
>
>t:
>if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
>yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a
>painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's
>uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
>Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american
>culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack
>painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i
>don't give a damn
>what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
>
>c:
>again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring]
>we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like
>him?
+++
t: i think someone could understand Pollack and not like his work.
But they wouldn't make the mistake of thinking they could make the
work. (and btw, there is nothing to understand about Pollack, one
needs no special information, it's the opposite of intellectual).
their critique wouldn't be "i could do that", so i guess i've been
vague. my point was that people dismiss much art without
understanding it or even attempting to give it a reasonable amount of
consideration.
+++
c: Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they
haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because
contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it
simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential,
academic, overly cerebral, and boring?
+++
t: imo most people don't like contemporary art because they don't
allow themselves to be open to it. they don't trust it (a learned
reaction imo). it's not easy and it's not entertainment and much of
it does suck (but there are lots of movies and popular music that
also suck). the general (american) public doesn't want to try to
figure out what it is, doesn't look at enough of it to tell what
sucks, and isn't entertained by it so they dismiss it.
most people don't understand philosophy either, it's mind-numbingly
boring and thick to most people. should philosophers make their texts
easy to read so that the general public can understand it? should
they write pop songs to appeal?
+++
c: Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a
bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary
art, or is that just the job of the educator?
+++
t: artists should make their own decisions about what they would like
to do with their work. personally, i don't feel like giving any
remedial courses with my work.
take care
+++
c:
>
>Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only
>recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have
>only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if
>your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not
>everyone is brave."
>_
>_
>_
>+ i saw a lion he was standing alone with a tadpole in a jar
>-> 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>
>Is the goal of art to speak to humanity, or to speak only to the
>relatively few people who have been filtered through the thin pipe
>of contemporary art education?
>
>t:
>that question is answered individually by each artist. should one
>dumb-down one's work to appeal to the masses if that's not what one
>believes to be the proper course for their work? PLUS, americans are
>being schooled everyday in how to respond to the aesthetics and
>techniques of pop culture. in the cultural context of contemporary
>america, when you say 'speak to humanity' i hear 'britney spears
>videos'.
>
>c:
>that response comes across as elitist and disdainful. popular =
>dumb = britney spears. it's too simple, like a prejudice.
+++
t: it's also simple to think that 'speaks to humanity' has any REAL
relevance to a working artist. do you think it's possible that an
artist could create something that truly 'speaks to humanity' and it
isn't recognized by the bulk of that humanity? I'm sure of it. imo
Pollack 'speaks to humanity' in a visceral way which needs no
intellectualism whatsoever, yet one finds dolts everyday, "i could do
that." they don't need to learn anything to see it but imo they need
to unlearn quite a bit (illusionism, perspective, cinema, etc)
i wouldn't dissuade an artist from attempting to create universal
work which attempts to 'speak to humanity', but i would tell her not
to be surprised when most of humanity doesn't give a shit and is deaf
to the message.
+++
>
>+++
>
>t:
>>>go to the Met and stand next to the huge, awesome >"Autumn
>>>Rhythm >>(Number 30)" and count how many >assholes say, "I could
>>>do that." >>fuck that
>>>audience, i don't need 'em.)
>
>c:
>>so people either like what you like or they are uninformed
>>redneck >idiots. Might there be a third class of people who get it
>>but still >don't like it. Or does one's dislike of a piece of work
>>defacto >prove that they just don't get it?
>
>t:
>if someone isn't intensely moved by the example i site above then,
>yes, imo they just don't know how to look at and openly experience a
>painting (you may fill in your own derogatory term for one who's
>uncultured; redneck is good, philistine, cretin). perhaps if ART,
>Inc. wasn't so derided and dismissed in contemporary american
>culture the general public would know how to look at a Pollack
>painting. they don't. I'm not an educator so until they learn i
>don't give a damn
>what they think about Pollack's work or mine own.
>
>c:
>again, it sounds like you've got the secret knowledge [decoder ring]
>we all lack. Might someone understand Pollock and still not like
>him?
+++
t: i think someone could understand Pollack and not like his work.
But they wouldn't make the mistake of thinking they could make the
work. (and btw, there is nothing to understand about Pollack, one
needs no special information, it's the opposite of intellectual).
their critique wouldn't be "i could do that", so i guess i've been
vague. my point was that people dismiss much art without
understanding it or even attempting to give it a reasonable amount of
consideration.
+++
c: Is the reason most people dislike contemporary art because they
haven't been properly educated [programmed], is it because
contemporary art is dismissed and derided by the media, or is it
simply because a lot of contemporary art is self-referential,
academic, overly cerebral, and boring?
+++
t: imo most people don't like contemporary art because they don't
allow themselves to be open to it. they don't trust it (a learned
reaction imo). it's not easy and it's not entertainment and much of
it does suck (but there are lots of movies and popular music that
also suck). the general (american) public doesn't want to try to
figure out what it is, doesn't look at enough of it to tell what
sucks, and isn't entertained by it so they dismiss it.
most people don't understand philosophy either, it's mind-numbingly
boring and thick to most people. should philosophers make their texts
easy to read so that the general public can understand it? should
they write pop songs to appeal?
+++
c: Might the artist be responsible to create work that acts as a
bridge to bring people into a deeper appreciation of contemporary
art, or is that just the job of the educator?
+++
t: artists should make their own decisions about what they would like
to do with their work. personally, i don't feel like giving any
remedial courses with my work.
take care
+++
c:
>
>Mind art. Smat art. Educated art. Art (even Art Inc.) has only
>recently been about such things. And I think those emphases have
>only made art worse, less resonant, thinner, more parochial [even if
>your parish happens to be New York City]. "Everyone is smart; not
>everyone is brave."
>_
>_
>_
>+ i saw a lion he was standing alone with a tadpole in a jar
>-> 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>
Re: story from Italy
hi stefania,
yes, please write a review. in italian would be best.
thank you
At 0:41 -0800 11/13/02, stefania garassini wrote:
>I wonder if you might be interested in a story about
>Techne 02, an interactive art exhibition which is
>shown in Milan until next february. I would like to
>write a brief review for rhizome
>
>hear you soon
>
>stefania garassini
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
yes, please write a review. in italian would be best.
thank you
At 0:41 -0800 11/13/02, stefania garassini wrote:
>I wonder if you might be interested in a story about
>Techne 02, an interactive art exhibition which is
>shown in Milan until next february. I would like to
>write a brief review for rhizome
>
>hear you soon
>
>stefania garassini
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: Re: Charity CD Project
the two aren't mutually exclusive. rhizome could be both a non-profit
org and a mark tribe art piece. that's what's said in the statement
below:
though it would be a disservice to abstract
>Rhizome.org to the level of a conceptual art prank when, in fact, it has had
>a very real effect on the social lives of many new media artists and offers
>many practical services. This close-knit integration of a conceptual social
>work combined, inextricably, with practical real-world services is exemplary
>of how new media artists are sometimes able to play and work in the same
>media.
rhizome exists in both conceptual spaces. this feature, coexistence
in two different conceptual realms, is prevalent in some of the more
advanced contemporary art imo.
what's with the this-or-that demand?
>as a contribitor last 2 years I would like to clarify one point to make my
>decision this year :
>
>Rhizome campaign : is it a campaign for a non profit organization? or for
>mark Tribe artpiece ?
>Could you mind to make it clear ?
>I'm asking this regarding your statement on "day jobs" exhbition website at
>new langton art center in San Francisco .... I'm really surprised by it...
>(hereafter)
>
>I already sent a message to you and I didn't get any answer ... am i right ?
>could you mind to clarify this point ?
>
>hereafter on day jobs exhibitions statement !
>
>Mark Tribe
>Projects
>
>Day: Rhizome.org http://www.rhizome.org
>Night: Rhizome.org http://www.rhizome.org
>Mark Tribe's art work featured in this exhibition can be seen as performance
>as much as media art. Rhizome.org is an online community that Mark describes
>as "social sculpture" in the tradition of Bueys. Here, product is not as
>important as process, though it would be a disservice to abstract
>Rhizome.org to the level of a conceptual art prank when, in fact, it has had
>a very real effect on the social lives of many new media artists and offers
>many practical services. This close-knit integration of a conceptual social
>work combined, inextricably, with practical real-world services is exemplary
>of how new media artists are sometimes able to play and work in the same
>media. Since media is the built environment that we now live in full-time
>(as opposed to a weekend leisure destination), artists find it possible to
>move into the "main house" -- sometimes without anyone noticing them sneak
>in.
>
>-- Richard Rinehart"
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
>To: <list@rhizome.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:02 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Charity CD Project
>
>
>> At 03:40 PM 11/6/2002 -0500, t.whid wrote:
>> >i think that mark was saying that rhizome couldn't give any resources to
>> >the project or sell it directly.
>>
>> exactly. i really do appreciate the generosity behind this and want to
>> thank everyone who is interested in volunteering for the project and
>> helping to raise funds for rhizome. i'm just saying that the best way to
>do
>> it is independently.
>>
>> >to mark:
>> >could the project use rhizome's logo and state that all proceeds will go
>> >to rhizome?
>>
>> you can certainly say that all or some of the proceeds will go to support
>> rhizome.org, but using the rhizome logo may lead people to believe that
>> it's a rhizome project. so maybe better not to.
>>
>> i'm sorry if my reaction has seemed dismissive. if you want to do
>something
>> to support rhizome, great! go for it!
>>
>> + be me
>> -> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>+ be me
>-> 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>
org and a mark tribe art piece. that's what's said in the statement
below:
though it would be a disservice to abstract
>Rhizome.org to the level of a conceptual art prank when, in fact, it has had
>a very real effect on the social lives of many new media artists and offers
>many practical services. This close-knit integration of a conceptual social
>work combined, inextricably, with practical real-world services is exemplary
>of how new media artists are sometimes able to play and work in the same
>media.
rhizome exists in both conceptual spaces. this feature, coexistence
in two different conceptual realms, is prevalent in some of the more
advanced contemporary art imo.
what's with the this-or-that demand?
>as a contribitor last 2 years I would like to clarify one point to make my
>decision this year :
>
>Rhizome campaign : is it a campaign for a non profit organization? or for
>mark Tribe artpiece ?
>Could you mind to make it clear ?
>I'm asking this regarding your statement on "day jobs" exhbition website at
>new langton art center in San Francisco .... I'm really surprised by it...
>(hereafter)
>
>I already sent a message to you and I didn't get any answer ... am i right ?
>could you mind to clarify this point ?
>
>hereafter on day jobs exhibitions statement !
>
>Mark Tribe
>Projects
>
>Day: Rhizome.org http://www.rhizome.org
>Night: Rhizome.org http://www.rhizome.org
>Mark Tribe's art work featured in this exhibition can be seen as performance
>as much as media art. Rhizome.org is an online community that Mark describes
>as "social sculpture" in the tradition of Bueys. Here, product is not as
>important as process, though it would be a disservice to abstract
>Rhizome.org to the level of a conceptual art prank when, in fact, it has had
>a very real effect on the social lives of many new media artists and offers
>many practical services. This close-knit integration of a conceptual social
>work combined, inextricably, with practical real-world services is exemplary
>of how new media artists are sometimes able to play and work in the same
>media. Since media is the built environment that we now live in full-time
>(as opposed to a weekend leisure destination), artists find it possible to
>move into the "main house" -- sometimes without anyone noticing them sneak
>in.
>
>-- Richard Rinehart"
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Tribe" <mt@rhizome.org>
>To: <list@rhizome.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:02 PM
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Charity CD Project
>
>
>> At 03:40 PM 11/6/2002 -0500, t.whid wrote:
>> >i think that mark was saying that rhizome couldn't give any resources to
>> >the project or sell it directly.
>>
>> exactly. i really do appreciate the generosity behind this and want to
>> thank everyone who is interested in volunteering for the project and
>> helping to raise funds for rhizome. i'm just saying that the best way to
>do
>> it is independently.
>>
>> >to mark:
>> >could the project use rhizome's logo and state that all proceeds will go
>> >to rhizome?
>>
>> you can certainly say that all or some of the proceeds will go to support
>> rhizome.org, but using the rhizome logo may lead people to believe that
>> it's a rhizome project. so maybe better not to.
>>
>> i'm sorry if my reaction has seemed dismissive. if you want to do
>something
>> to support rhizome, great! go for it!
>>
>> + be me
>> -> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>+ be me
>-> 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>
Re: PPOW Open Call: anti-war video
a quibble with this announcement.
>
>...
>>IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST WHOSE WORK REFLECTS YOUR OPPOSITION
>>TO THE WAR ...
>>
>>According to the American media the citizens of the
>>United States stand united in waging war in Iraq.
this is blatantly misleading. poll data shows a SPLIT in opinion and
the american media has been reporting that.
watching MSNBC last night, my stomach churning as i imagined total
right-wing rule in the fed gov't, i noticed some polls which stated
very clearly that americans are totally split on this war. only 25\%
said they favored war if the US goes about it unilaterally.
other polls show a bigger split with over 50\% being against it no
matter if the UN is behind it or not. a month old article from
usatoday (can one get more mainstream?)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-07-iraq-usat\_x.htm
shows a fairly even split in the american populace. and if you do a
google search for 'iraq war poll results' you find headlines from ABC
and CBS which support this same conclusion.
my point? it's not wise to use lies to support one's position. it's
especially unwise when one's position is morally superior to the
alternative (as in this case). and it becomes maddeningly stupid when
most people know it's an untruth and will therefor know you are
lying. you end up harming your position instead of supporting it.
in this case the american media has been reporting for months that
there is an almost 50/50 split in american opinion. the populace is
far from 'united' in waging war in iraq.
>>Inspired by the need of the arts community to reflect
>>voices that are opposed to military involvement and to
>>the dedication of peace; PPOW gallery is curating a show.
>>New work by Carolee Schneemann, Brett Cook-Dizney, Leon
>>Golub, Sue Coe, Bo Bartlett and others will be on view.
>>The exhibition will include an event featuring readings,
>>screenings, video projection and music.
>>
>>Call for Work- Please forward widely. PPOW is currently
>>reviewing new work by film/video makers to be considered
>>for inclusion in a screening segment to be part of the
>>exhibition. If you have work that is current, and is
>>reflective of the theme of this exhibit,
>>please send tapes for consideration to:
>>
>>Jennifer Nedbalsky at PPOW Gallery '476 Broome Street,
>>3rd Floor New York,
>>NY 10013.
>>
>>Please send your VHS tape with a self addressed stamped
>>envelope including a brief description of the work, and
>>any information on screenings to date. Please submit all
>>materials before November 15, 2002. Email for further
>>information : info@ppowgallery.com.
>>
>>=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=
>>
>+ be me
>-> 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>
>
>...
>>IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST WHOSE WORK REFLECTS YOUR OPPOSITION
>>TO THE WAR ...
>>
>>According to the American media the citizens of the
>>United States stand united in waging war in Iraq.
this is blatantly misleading. poll data shows a SPLIT in opinion and
the american media has been reporting that.
watching MSNBC last night, my stomach churning as i imagined total
right-wing rule in the fed gov't, i noticed some polls which stated
very clearly that americans are totally split on this war. only 25\%
said they favored war if the US goes about it unilaterally.
other polls show a bigger split with over 50\% being against it no
matter if the UN is behind it or not. a month old article from
usatoday (can one get more mainstream?)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-10-07-iraq-usat\_x.htm
shows a fairly even split in the american populace. and if you do a
google search for 'iraq war poll results' you find headlines from ABC
and CBS which support this same conclusion.
my point? it's not wise to use lies to support one's position. it's
especially unwise when one's position is morally superior to the
alternative (as in this case). and it becomes maddeningly stupid when
most people know it's an untruth and will therefor know you are
lying. you end up harming your position instead of supporting it.
in this case the american media has been reporting for months that
there is an almost 50/50 split in american opinion. the populace is
far from 'united' in waging war in iraq.
>>Inspired by the need of the arts community to reflect
>>voices that are opposed to military involvement and to
>>the dedication of peace; PPOW gallery is curating a show.
>>New work by Carolee Schneemann, Brett Cook-Dizney, Leon
>>Golub, Sue Coe, Bo Bartlett and others will be on view.
>>The exhibition will include an event featuring readings,
>>screenings, video projection and music.
>>
>>Call for Work- Please forward widely. PPOW is currently
>>reviewing new work by film/video makers to be considered
>>for inclusion in a screening segment to be part of the
>>exhibition. If you have work that is current, and is
>>reflective of the theme of this exhibit,
>>please send tapes for consideration to:
>>
>>Jennifer Nedbalsky at PPOW Gallery '476 Broome Street,
>>3rd Floor New York,
>>NY 10013.
>>
>>Please send your VHS tape with a self addressed stamped
>>envelope including a brief description of the work, and
>>any information on screenings to date. Please submit all
>>materials before November 15, 2002. Email for further
>>information : info@ppowgallery.com.
>>
>>=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=
>>
>+ be me
>-> 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>
