Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog on the Rhiz front page
Hi Christina, Rob.......
Sorry for the delay in responding, been away from my collaborative workstation for a bit.
In terms of my garbled and wandering post, the distinction I was attempting to draw was between work (art) produced within a broadly art like orbit (oh dear) AND work (colllaborations with evil mad scientists) which reduces the artlike ness of the work (the sort of stuff which fills stands at trade fairs) to spectacle.
I am conscious that this may seem dismissive or pompous or elitist (in sense that Bourdieu relates the concept of "taste") but the difficulty with trying to discuss the edge of art and say interactive design when looking at technology, artists and programmers and so on, seems to me to be increasingly about the nature and form that the collaboration between them takes.
An example to illustrate my vague badly focussed point might be something like when French Cubists were enlisted by the military to paint cubist patterning on camouflage netting during the Great War, to disguise tank and gun positions on the front line. The artists were employed (commissioned) and asked to do what they do, paint distended and fragmented forms onto the canvas (netting). They were left to produce forms and patterns of their own design and the only restriction placed on them was the colour pallette of camouflage paints.
Is this an example of a healthy collaboration between art and not art or is it a commission with guide lines, AND an underlying intention for the work, being that it successfully FUNCTIONS in not art terms.
Patrick
best wishes
Patrick
glorious ninth
Christina McPhee wrote:
> Patrick
>
> hi,
>
> interesting, not sure how you mean this:
>
> >> maybe its to do with something around intention and if
> >> collaboration with "not art" inevitably means the work is
> >> completed or is successful in terms which art cannot reach...
>
>
> , that the projects resulting from the UK sci-art funding , tend
> towards a semiotics e. g.
>
> 'in terms of'
>
> >> in terms which art cannot reach...
>
>
> ?
>
> would enjoy further elaboration
>
>
> c
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Patrick Simons wrote:
>
> > Pall et al
> >
> > Isn't there another thread, which is the collaboration with
> > science/ soft engineering for funding reasons?
> > Sci-art funding has been one of the main commisioning sources ion
> > the U.K. for years and has resulted in a lot of technology as
> > spectacle work here, kind of "end of the pier" work, which is IMO
> > the very stuff Pall is referring to.
> >
> > The collaboration with other fields of cultural production nearly
> > always seems to produce work which is lacking in some way for me,
> > maybe thats my taste buds talking or maybe its to do with something
>
> > around intention and if collaboration with "not art" inevitably
> > means the work is completed or is successful in terms which art
> > cannot reach...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Calm down - just a joke
> >>
> >>
> >> Charlie Gere
> >> Reader in New Media Research
> >> Director of Research
> >> Institute for Cultural Research
> >> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> >> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> >> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> >> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On
> >> Behalf
> >> Of Pall Thayer
> >> Sent: 13 September 2006 14:18
> >> To: list@rhizome.org
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog
> on
> >> the Rhiz front page
> >>
> >> I don't recall anyone saying that you are "just" a theorist and
> >> see no
> >> reason to continue misinterpreting something for the sake of
> >> maintaining
> >> some imagined animosity from my end.
> >>
> >> Pall
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They should. ;-) I studied programming in C and Java intensively
> on
> >>> the
> >>> Compiting In Art & Design course at MDX in the mid-nineties, and
> >> have
> >>> continued learning since.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For those following the so-called 'Charlie' thread, it might be of
> >>> interest that so did I, though a little earlier, before Java, and
> >>> using greenscreen command line dumb terminals connected to a Vax
> >> VMS
> >>> and then a Silicon Graphics Iris
> >>>
> >>> Mind you unlike Rob I don't still use or learn such things 'cos I
> >> am
> >>> now just a theorist
> >>>
> >>> Charlie Gere
> >>> Reader in New Media Research
> >>> Director of Research
> >>> Institute for Cultural Research
> >>> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> >>> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> >>> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> >>> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >>>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> > +
> > -> 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
>
Sorry for the delay in responding, been away from my collaborative workstation for a bit.
In terms of my garbled and wandering post, the distinction I was attempting to draw was between work (art) produced within a broadly art like orbit (oh dear) AND work (colllaborations with evil mad scientists) which reduces the artlike ness of the work (the sort of stuff which fills stands at trade fairs) to spectacle.
I am conscious that this may seem dismissive or pompous or elitist (in sense that Bourdieu relates the concept of "taste") but the difficulty with trying to discuss the edge of art and say interactive design when looking at technology, artists and programmers and so on, seems to me to be increasingly about the nature and form that the collaboration between them takes.
An example to illustrate my vague badly focussed point might be something like when French Cubists were enlisted by the military to paint cubist patterning on camouflage netting during the Great War, to disguise tank and gun positions on the front line. The artists were employed (commissioned) and asked to do what they do, paint distended and fragmented forms onto the canvas (netting). They were left to produce forms and patterns of their own design and the only restriction placed on them was the colour pallette of camouflage paints.
Is this an example of a healthy collaboration between art and not art or is it a commission with guide lines, AND an underlying intention for the work, being that it successfully FUNCTIONS in not art terms.
Patrick
best wishes
Patrick
glorious ninth
Christina McPhee wrote:
> Patrick
>
> hi,
>
> interesting, not sure how you mean this:
>
> >> maybe its to do with something around intention and if
> >> collaboration with "not art" inevitably means the work is
> >> completed or is successful in terms which art cannot reach...
>
>
> , that the projects resulting from the UK sci-art funding , tend
> towards a semiotics e. g.
>
> 'in terms of'
>
> >> in terms which art cannot reach...
>
>
> ?
>
> would enjoy further elaboration
>
>
> c
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 6:33 AM, Patrick Simons wrote:
>
> > Pall et al
> >
> > Isn't there another thread, which is the collaboration with
> > science/ soft engineering for funding reasons?
> > Sci-art funding has been one of the main commisioning sources ion
> > the U.K. for years and has resulted in a lot of technology as
> > spectacle work here, kind of "end of the pier" work, which is IMO
> > the very stuff Pall is referring to.
> >
> > The collaboration with other fields of cultural production nearly
> > always seems to produce work which is lacking in some way for me,
> > maybe thats my taste buds talking or maybe its to do with something
>
> > around intention and if collaboration with "not art" inevitably
> > means the work is completed or is successful in terms which art
> > cannot reach...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Calm down - just a joke
> >>
> >>
> >> Charlie Gere
> >> Reader in New Media Research
> >> Director of Research
> >> Institute for Cultural Research
> >> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> >> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> >> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> >> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On
> >> Behalf
> >> Of Pall Thayer
> >> Sent: 13 September 2006 14:18
> >> To: list@rhizome.org
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog
> on
> >> the Rhiz front page
> >>
> >> I don't recall anyone saying that you are "just" a theorist and
> >> see no
> >> reason to continue misinterpreting something for the sake of
> >> maintaining
> >> some imagined animosity from my end.
> >>
> >> Pall
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They should. ;-) I studied programming in C and Java intensively
> on
> >>> the
> >>> Compiting In Art & Design course at MDX in the mid-nineties, and
> >> have
> >>> continued learning since.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For those following the so-called 'Charlie' thread, it might be of
> >>> interest that so did I, though a little earlier, before Java, and
> >>> using greenscreen command line dumb terminals connected to a Vax
> >> VMS
> >>> and then a Silicon Graphics Iris
> >>>
> >>> Mind you unlike Rob I don't still use or learn such things 'cos I
> >> am
> >>> now just a theorist
> >>>
> >>> Charlie Gere
> >>> Reader in New Media Research
> >>> Director of Research
> >>> Institute for Cultural Research
> >>> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> >>> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> >>> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> >>> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >>>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >>
> > +
> > -> 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
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog on the Rhiz front page
Pall et al
Isn't there another thread, which is the collaboration with science/ soft engineering for funding reasons?
Sci-art funding has been one of the main commisioning sources ion the U.K. for years and has resulted in a lot of technology as spectacle work here, kind of "end of the pier" work, which is IMO the very stuff Pall is referring to.
The collaboration with other fields of cultural production nearly always seems to produce work which is lacking in some way for me, maybe thats my taste buds talking or maybe its to do with something around intention and if collaboration with "not art" inevitably means the work is completed or is successful in terms which art cannot reach...
wrote:
> Calm down - just a joke
>
>
> Charlie Gere
> Reader in New Media Research
> Director of Research
> Institute for Cultural Research
> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Pall Thayer
> Sent: 13 September 2006 14:18
> To: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog on
> the Rhiz front page
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that you are "just" a theorist and see no
> reason to continue misinterpreting something for the sake of
> maintaining
> some imagined animosity from my end.
>
> Pall
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >They should. ;-) I studied programming in C and Java intensively on
> > the
> > Compiting In Art & Design course at MDX in the mid-nineties, and
> have
> > continued learning since.
> >
> >
> > For those following the so-called 'Charlie' thread, it might be of
> > interest that so did I, though a little earlier, before Java, and
> > using greenscreen command line dumb terminals connected to a Vax
> VMS
> > and then a Silicon Graphics Iris
> >
> > Mind you unlike Rob I don't still use or learn such things 'cos I
> am
> > now just a theorist
> >
> > Charlie Gere
> > Reader in New Media Research
> > Director of Research
> > Institute for Cultural Research
> > Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> > Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> > E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >
> +
> -> 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
>
Isn't there another thread, which is the collaboration with science/ soft engineering for funding reasons?
Sci-art funding has been one of the main commisioning sources ion the U.K. for years and has resulted in a lot of technology as spectacle work here, kind of "end of the pier" work, which is IMO the very stuff Pall is referring to.
The collaboration with other fields of cultural production nearly always seems to produce work which is lacking in some way for me, maybe thats my taste buds talking or maybe its to do with something around intention and if collaboration with "not art" inevitably means the work is completed or is successful in terms which art cannot reach...
wrote:
> Calm down - just a joke
>
>
> Charlie Gere
> Reader in New Media Research
> Director of Research
> Institute for Cultural Research
> Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Pall Thayer
> Sent: 13 September 2006 14:18
> To: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: regarding the On Colaboration reblog on
> the Rhiz front page
>
> I don't recall anyone saying that you are "just" a theorist and see no
> reason to continue misinterpreting something for the sake of
> maintaining
> some imagined animosity from my end.
>
> Pall
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >They should. ;-) I studied programming in C and Java intensively on
> > the
> > Compiting In Art & Design course at MDX in the mid-nineties, and
> have
> > continued learning since.
> >
> >
> > For those following the so-called 'Charlie' thread, it might be of
> > interest that so did I, though a little earlier, before Java, and
> > using greenscreen command line dumb terminals connected to a Vax
> VMS
> > and then a Silicon Graphics Iris
> >
> > Mind you unlike Rob I don't still use or learn such things 'cos I
> am
> > now just a theorist
> >
> > Charlie Gere
> > Reader in New Media Research
> > Director of Research
> > Institute for Cultural Research
> > Lancaster University Lancaster LA1 4YL UK
> > Tel: +44 (0) 1524 594446
> > E-mail: c.gere@lancaster.ac.uk
> > http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/cultres/staff/gere.php
> >
> +
> -> 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
>
Re: Re:_RHIZOME_RAW:_Viva_arboles_felices
Isn't Rolf Harris doing a portrait of the queen (of england, near
Europe) Im sure I read that somewhere.
Is this what Stallabrass meant by "high art lite" or just the result of
aristocratic inbreeding?
Patrick
Rob Myers wrote:
>
> I'm more a Rolf Harris guy:
>
> "Can you tell what it is yet?"
>
> - Rob.
Europe) Im sure I read that somewhere.
Is this what Stallabrass meant by "high art lite" or just the result of
aristocratic inbreeding?
Patrick
Rob Myers wrote:
>
> I'm more a Rolf Harris guy:
>
> "Can you tell what it is yet?"
>
> - Rob.
Re: Re: eh?
Hi Geert
More like nothing since the enlightenment!
This is kind of pre modernism, but I think it might also be (US) dominant culture. Now that is serious.
Patrick
G9
Geert Dekkers wrote:
> An afterthought -- nothing published since 1970 seems to bother them
> --
> also tells you something about their reading habits...
>
> Geert
>
> On 1-jun-05, at 10:57, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
> > http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?idu91
> >
> > Are these people for real?!?
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________
> > Pall Thayer
> > artist/teacher
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
> >
> > Lorna
> > http://www.this.is/lorna
> > _______________________________
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
More like nothing since the enlightenment!
This is kind of pre modernism, but I think it might also be (US) dominant culture. Now that is serious.
Patrick
G9
Geert Dekkers wrote:
> An afterthought -- nothing published since 1970 seems to bother them
> --
> also tells you something about their reading habits...
>
> Geert
>
> On 1-jun-05, at 10:57, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
> > http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?idu91
> >
> > Are these people for real?!?
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________
> > Pall Thayer
> > artist/teacher
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
> >
> > Lorna
> > http://www.this.is/lorna
> > _______________________________
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Net Art Market
Hi Matthew
Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
and what would the "action" be?
and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe" humming ecstatically.
And Andy Warhol... didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind taming the bastard art market
AND
"media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production"
Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
Patrick
Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>
> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
> has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
> already established a "market" for certain types of production
> and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
>
> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
> sell-outs...
> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
> this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>
> respects,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
> <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
> >hear, hear!
> >
> >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
> is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
> resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
> capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> >> > the roots of art.
> >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
> >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
> >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> >> > Labour, loud and clear.
> >> >
> >> > best
> >> > michael
> >> >
> >> > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> >> > > getting
> >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> >> > > of shoes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> >> > > materialistic,
> >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> >> > > something a marxist
> >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> >> > > art is a
> >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> >> > > worship out of a heart
> >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> >> > > It's pretty cold
> >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> >> > > celebration and worship
> >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> >> > >
> >> > > curt,
> >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
> >> > > which i object to as
> >> > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
> >> > > the discussion on
> >> > > selling net art, etc.
> >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> >> > > marxist position
> >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> >> > > anti-play. and the notion
> >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
> >> > > artist, then spend
> >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> >> > > to create something
> >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> >> > > about something is
> >> > > entirely a marxist one.
> >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> >> > > to "classical
> >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> >> > > possibly a "free market
> >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> >> > > shoes (unless you're
> >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> >> > > not marxism.
> >> > > ryan
> >> > >
> >> > > +
> >> > > -> 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
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Pall Thayer
> >artist/teacher
> >http://www.this.is/pallit
> >http://130.208.220.190/
> >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
> >http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> >
> >+
> >-> 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
> >
> >
Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"?
and what would the "action" be?
and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it
AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe" humming ecstatically.
And Andy Warhol... didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind taming the bastard art market
AND
"media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production"
Just sounds like something the Borg would say..
Im off to look at some brilliant free work.
Patrick
Matthew Mascotte wrote:
>
> once the market catches up to electronic art production,
> when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting
> you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and
> no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work
> has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting
> grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has
> already established a "market" for certain types of production
> and influences things considerably. so we're already there...
>
> i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of
> being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow
> sell-outs...
> or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're
> some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of
> this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial
> production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to
> create and witness these works is an example of this.
>
> respects,
>
> matthew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 04:34PM, Pall Thayer
> <palli@pallit.lhi.is> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Patrick Simons wrote:
> >hear, hear!
> >
> >> To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which
> is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some
> resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to
> capital just magnificent and life re-affirming?
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem
> >> > accepting your characterisation of at least some of
> >> > the roots of art.
> >> > Marx wouldn't have either.
> >> > Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like
> >> > that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also
> >> > those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of
> >> > academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao
> >> > -although given the political evolution of many of
> >> > those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to
> >> > tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New
> >> > Labour, loud and clear.
> >> >
> >> > best
> >> > michael
> >> >
> >> > --- ryan griffis <grifray@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for
> >> > > getting
> >> > > >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair
> >> > > of shoes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so
> >> > > materialistic,
> >> > > > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like
> >> > > something a marxist
> >> > > > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making
> >> > > art is a
> >> > > > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's
> >> > > worship out of a heart
> >> > > > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist?
> >> > > It's pretty cold
> >> > > > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and
> >> > > celebration and worship
> >> > > > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object.
> >> > >
> >> > > curt,
> >> > > i understand your response to the above statement,
> >> > > which i object to as
> >> > > well... i agree with many of your contributions to
> >> > > the discussion on
> >> > > selling net art, etc.
> >> > > but to label that above statement as similar to a
> >> > > marxist position
> >> > > might as well be red baiting. marx was not
> >> > > anti-play. and the notion
> >> > > that someone would work as something other than an
> >> > > artist, then spend
> >> > > leisure time engaging in creative activity in order
> >> > > to create something
> >> > > aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more
> >> > > about something is
> >> > > entirely a marxist one.
> >> > > i would replace "marxist economist" in your response
> >> > > to "classical
> >> > > economist" or if you want to be more specific,
> >> > > possibly a "free market
> >> > > economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining
> >> > > shoes (unless you're
> >> > > making your own shoes) is the position of capital,
> >> > > not marxism.
> >> > > ryan
> >> > >
> >> > > +
> >> > > -> 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
> >>
> >
> >--
> >Pall Thayer
> >artist/teacher
> >http://www.this.is/pallit
> >http://130.208.220.190/
> >http://130.208.220.190/nuharm
> >http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >
> >
> >+
> >-> 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
> >
> >
