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
Re: Re: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita
On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Cinque Hicks wrote:
> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.
I'm no lawyer but..
and I've done no research but...
I'm sure it is very probable that Wichita STATE U gets STATE money and
also probably FEDERAL money. Your reading of the 1st amendment is
extremely narrow. Whatever the institution is, I'm sure it's not
completely private.
>
> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and
> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
> issue.
The decision is also extremely unethical.
I'm unsure if this is a constitutional issue as well, but the artist
has every reasonable expectation that her work be viewed in the gallery
in a neutral context. This is a very dangerous precedent for many
reasons we've gone into already and that you didn't address like,
Should neo-nazis be allowed to post their opinions in the foyers of
holocaust museums? Would you support that action?
Whatever the Kansas jewish org espouses, I'm sure it's not as
disgusting as neo-nazi propaganda so I'm not trying to create an
equivalence btw the two groups. I bring it up to show where this sort
of precedent can lead logically.
>
> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
> the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been
> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would
> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art
> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
> coming into contact with the messy real world.
You don't need to have pious or quasi-religious views of art to clearly
see the dangerous precedent being set in this case.
>
> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
> actual dialog with the public for once.
I would seize the opportunity to protest this ridiculous and outrageous
action by canceling my show.
> Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some
> artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think
> the way you do anyway.
That is a very large leap. I don't see the Palestinian or Arab POV
being expressed in galleries very often. And seriously, don't we get
the other side 24/7 in the major media?
> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to talk over
everyone else. This is an attempt to frame and contextualize a person's
speech in a half-assed attempt to neutralize or quell it. It may not be
a constitutional free speech issue but it's hard to see how this
bullying tactic is a celebration of free speech.
>
> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly
> on all the speech.
>
>>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
> Has anyone actually READ the First Amendment lately? It says, in whole:
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
>
> This means that the US Congress can't pass any law telling you what to
> say or what not to say. It says nothing about what Wichita State U
> chooses to do with regard to its own internal policies.
I'm no lawyer but..
and I've done no research but...
I'm sure it is very probable that Wichita STATE U gets STATE money and
also probably FEDERAL money. Your reading of the 1st amendment is
extremely narrow. Whatever the institution is, I'm sure it's not
completely private.
>
> This decision on the university’s part is annoying, inconvenient and
> a little bit tacky, but it comes nowhere near being a first amendment
> issue.
The decision is also extremely unethical.
I'm unsure if this is a constitutional issue as well, but the artist
has every reasonable expectation that her work be viewed in the gallery
in a neutral context. This is a very dangerous precedent for many
reasons we've gone into already and that you didn't address like,
Should neo-nazis be allowed to post their opinions in the foyers of
holocaust museums? Would you support that action?
Whatever the Kansas jewish org espouses, I'm sure it's not as
disgusting as neo-nazi propaganda so I'm not trying to create an
equivalence btw the two groups. I bring it up to show where this sort
of precedent can lead logically.
>
> Furthermore, did I read correctly that the University wishes to put
> the offending material just outside the gallery? I’ve never been
> there, but I’m imaging some sort of foyer or entry hall that would
> house the material? Does anybody know if this is the case? If it is,
> then I especially have no problem with this. Again, it’s sort of
> tacky, but I also don’t have such a sanctimonious, pious view of art
> as some quasi-religious object that I don’t think it should risk
> coming into contact with the messy real world.
You don't need to have pious or quasi-religious views of art to clearly
see the dangerous precedent being set in this case.
>
> If I were the artist, I would seize on this opportunity to have an
> actual dialog with the public for once.
I would seize the opportunity to protest this ridiculous and outrageous
action by canceling my show.
> Imagine: an actual dialog instead of being sequestered off in some
> artsy-fartsy gallery preaching to people who basically already think
> the way you do anyway.
That is a very large leap. I don't see the Palestinian or Arab POV
being expressed in galleries very often. And seriously, don't we get
the other side 24/7 in the major media?
> I say go for it, let the recriminations begin! Finally! This is free
> speech in action, not an abridging of speech.
Free speech doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to talk over
everyone else. This is an attempt to frame and contextualize a person's
speech in a half-assed attempt to neutralize or quell it. It may not be
a constitutional free speech issue but it's hard to see how this
bullying tactic is a celebration of free speech.
>
> There is a solution to this problem short of canceling the show: let
> the show go forward and trust that people can actually make up their
> own minds about what they think, even when you don’t have a monopoly
> on all the speech.
>
>>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita (fwd)
my letter
++++++++
Mr. David Butler,
I'm writing to express my outrage that you are allowing the The Jewish
Federation of Kansas to post brochures and a sign in the gallery to
express their views on Middle Eastern politics in conjunction with Ms.
Jacir's exhibition "Where We Come From."
I agree with Ms. Jacir:
"This is a complete infringement on my right to free speech, not to
mention an insult to me as an artist. It is intolerable that I have to
go through this just because of my background. I am sure no other
artist would accept to work under such conditions. They are placing a
huge unnecessary burden on my exhibit with the presence of the
brochures which are intended to silence or censor my work. I am shocked
that they would place such conditions in a the space of a museum."
You are treading on a very slippery slope. If you were to exhibit work
of a gay artist would you allow right-wing christians to display
brochures and posters beside the exhibition explaining how gays are
abominations? If it was an exhibition of Jewish artists would you allow
neo-nazis or the KKK to express their views? These may sound like
ridiculous speculations, but that is where this twisted logic leads.
I urge you to resist this pressure and allow artists' voices to be
heard in a neutral context. Do not allow special interest groups to
take over your museum in their wrong-headed pursuit of "balance."
++++++++
On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> the crazy thing is that Emily's show is not polemical (did anyone here
> see it when it was at Debs in 2003?); otoh I just checked out the
> website for the Jewish Federation of Kansas which is wildly
> right-wing, pro-Bush. so it is perhaps more of a political pressure on
> the museum than a "religious" one, if that distinction can still be
> made...
>
>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
++++++++
Mr. David Butler,
I'm writing to express my outrage that you are allowing the The Jewish
Federation of Kansas to post brochures and a sign in the gallery to
express their views on Middle Eastern politics in conjunction with Ms.
Jacir's exhibition "Where We Come From."
I agree with Ms. Jacir:
"This is a complete infringement on my right to free speech, not to
mention an insult to me as an artist. It is intolerable that I have to
go through this just because of my background. I am sure no other
artist would accept to work under such conditions. They are placing a
huge unnecessary burden on my exhibit with the presence of the
brochures which are intended to silence or censor my work. I am shocked
that they would place such conditions in a the space of a museum."
You are treading on a very slippery slope. If you were to exhibit work
of a gay artist would you allow right-wing christians to display
brochures and posters beside the exhibition explaining how gays are
abominations? If it was an exhibition of Jewish artists would you allow
neo-nazis or the KKK to express their views? These may sound like
ridiculous speculations, but that is where this twisted logic leads.
I urge you to resist this pressure and allow artists' voices to be
heard in a neutral context. Do not allow special interest groups to
take over your museum in their wrong-headed pursuit of "balance."
++++++++
On Dec 14, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> the crazy thing is that Emily's show is not polemical (did anyone here
> see it when it was at Debs in 2003?); otoh I just checked out the
> website for the Jewish Federation of Kansas which is wildly
> right-wing, pro-Bush. so it is perhaps more of a political pressure on
> the museum than a "religious" one, if that distinction can still be
> made...
>
>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita (fwd)
Rob,
Agree completely.
Does balance extend to neo-nazis, the KKK, and holocaust-deniers
getting fair time at Holocaust museums worldwide?
The answer is no of course, but logically this is where this precedent
would lead!
again, TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE!
On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2004, at 20:27, t.whid wrote:
>
>> If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
>> seems to be at odds with the themes of this show... why wouldn't that
>> work?
>
> Indeed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean talking over someone, it means
> finding another podium.
>
> "Balance", however, is a *tactic*. It's how creationism got into
> science classes. Notice that religion classes aren't enough to provide
> balance, the stickers have to be on science books.
>
> Embrace this.
>
> Demand that balance be respected in all walks of life.
>
> Let challenging art be shown alongside landscapes, in the name of
> balance. Let Scientology and Aum Shrinko be taught alongside the
> gospels at school, to provide balance. And let freedom be given a
> place alongside repression. Just in the name of balance, of course.
>
> - Rob.
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Agree completely.
Does balance extend to neo-nazis, the KKK, and holocaust-deniers
getting fair time at Holocaust museums worldwide?
The answer is no of course, but logically this is where this precedent
would lead!
again, TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE!
On Dec 14, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2004, at 20:27, t.whid wrote:
>
>> If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
>> seems to be at odds with the themes of this show... why wouldn't that
>> work?
>
> Indeed. Freedom of speech doesn't mean talking over someone, it means
> finding another podium.
>
> "Balance", however, is a *tactic*. It's how creationism got into
> science classes. Notice that religion classes aren't enough to provide
> balance, the stickers have to be on science books.
>
> Embrace this.
>
> Demand that balance be respected in all walks of life.
>
> Let challenging art be shown alongside landscapes, in the name of
> balance. Let Scientology and Aum Shrinko be taught alongside the
> gospels at school, to provide balance. And let freedom be given a
> place alongside repression. Just in the name of balance, of course.
>
> - Rob.
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita (fwd)
This is just so far beyond bizarre it's not even funny.
If they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
seems to be at odds with the themes of this show... why wouldn't that
work?
fight art with art - that's what I always say!
beyond that, if the admins refuse to remove this BS the artist has no
choice but to cancel the show.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> My *first* reaction was actually: *There are JEWS in Wichita?!* Okay,
> wow.
>
> So I guess being Palestinian is even worse than being a jew in Wichita.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:
>
>> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>>
>> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be
>> equally balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a
>> gallery or museum.
>>
>> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
>> heard!
>>
>> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
>> institution should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>>
>>> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita.
>>> ever been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly
>>> conservative, and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about
>>> like nj. not as glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near
>>> there.
>>> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
>>> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
>>> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see
>>> as a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue
>>> is probably somewhere in between.
>>> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
>>> work and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often.
>>> it's seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors
>>> come first, and artists are way down the list of concerns.
>>> "artistic integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt,
>>> this museum was afraid of pissing off investors.
>>> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
>>> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
>>> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance.
>>> you don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there,
>>> people tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises.
>>> something for everyone.
>>> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
>>> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
>>> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members
>>> of a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for
>>> art, that just isn't universal.
>>> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
>>> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and
>>> accept their reactions or just not send any there. we could also
>>> complain that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>>> judsoN
>>> --
>>
>> ===
>>> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> 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
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> 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 they want to keep balance they should schedule a show of art that
seems to be at odds with the themes of this show... why wouldn't that
work?
fight art with art - that's what I always say!
beyond that, if the admins refuse to remove this BS the artist has no
choice but to cancel the show.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 2:54 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> My *first* reaction was actually: *There are JEWS in Wichita?!* Okay,
> wow.
>
> So I guess being Palestinian is even worse than being a jew in Wichita.
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, t.whid wrote:
>
>> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
>>
>> I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be
>> equally balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a
>> gallery or museum.
>>
>> BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
>> heard!
>>
>> It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
>> institution should be ashamed of themselves.
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>>
>>> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita.
>>> ever been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly
>>> conservative, and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about
>>> like nj. not as glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near
>>> there.
>>> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
>>> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
>>> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see
>>> as a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue
>>> is probably somewhere in between.
>>> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their
>>> work and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often.
>>> it's seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors
>>> come first, and artists are way down the list of concerns.
>>> "artistic integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt,
>>> this museum was afraid of pissing off investors.
>>> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
>>> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
>>> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance.
>>> you don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there,
>>> people tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises.
>>> something for everyone.
>>> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
>>> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
>>> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members
>>> of a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for
>>> art, that just isn't universal.
>>> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
>>> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and
>>> accept their reactions or just not send any there. we could also
>>> complain that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>>> judsoN
>>> --
>>
>> ===
>>> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> ===
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> 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
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> 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: Fwd: [undercurrents] Fwd: Arts Intolerance: Emily Jacir/Ulrich Museum Wichita (fwd)
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!
I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be equally
balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or
museum.
BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
heard!
It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
institution should be ashamed of themselves.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever
> been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
> and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
> glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>
>
> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see as
> a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
> probably somewhere in between.
>
> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work
> and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's
> seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come
> first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
> integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum
> was afraid of pissing off investors.
>
>
> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
> don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people
> tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
> everyone.
>
> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of
> a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
> that just isn't universal.
>
>
> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept
> their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
> that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>
> judsoN
> --
>
===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
I'm going to force a museum to allow my aesthetic opinion to be equally
balanced the next time I see something I don't like in a gallery or
museum.
BLUE! I HATE BLUE! I demand space in the gallery for my opinion to be
heard!
It's absolutely ridiculous. The admins of this so-called art
institution should be ashamed of themselves.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 1:00 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
> while this would be outrageous in new york, this is in wichita. ever
> been there? it's actually not totally freaky proudly conservative,
> and anti-everybody else like much of texas, but about like nj. not as
> glamorous, but not despondent. i grew up near there.
>
>
> anyway, seems like nobody HAS to send their work to the mid-west, we
> choose to (or we choose agents who choose to, etc) but the view of
> what is decent policy for art will be different there. what we see as
> a shocking breach, they wouldn't think twice about. this issue is
> probably somewhere in between.
>
> here, art museums can give more "rights" to the artists and their work
> and say "sorry" to investors. not on all occasions, but often. it's
> seen as integrity. there, they just don't do that. investors come
> first, and artists are way down the list of concerns. "artistic
> integrity" (as we define it) might get a laugh. no doubt, this museum
> was afraid of pissing off investors.
>
>
> but more importantly, it's a cultural difference. here (and i don't
> mean just ny, but metropolises where art is gets taken more
> seriously), there isn't nearly as much compromise as acceptance. you
> don't see hamburgers on a menu in an indian restaurant. there, people
> tend to try to accommodate everyone with compromises. something for
> everyone.
>
> and that's exactly what this sounds like. folks angry about only
> seeing one side of an issue are appeased by seeing 2. i don't agree
> and probably no one on this list does either. but we'd be members of
> a minority mind-set there. we have an unspoken "respect" for art,
> that just isn't universal.
>
>
> we can choose to send works into that disrespectful zone, the
> mid-west, where they don't follow our rules. we can shrug and accept
> their reactions or just not send any there. we could also complain
> that they don't speak english enough in bangladesh.
>
> judsoN
> --
>
===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
