net art news coverage doesn't really constitute a review from rhizome's
point of view... it's a descriptive, subjective blurb service -- we call it
news -- not just because there is a new one each day but because we like to
think we cover a wide range of topics, events, projects. and because it
reaches people who are art enthusiasts, interested in the field but not
interested in lengthy, or maybe even critical, discourse. a wider net than
would be on raw, which seems for people very interested in new media art on
a more micro level.
of course, there are implied endoresements in the coverage in something with
such an upbeat, editorial tenor. especially in the context of a list with
artists in attendance who are actively seeking press and critical engagemnt
for their work. however, until i read your post, the idiom of 'review' never
occured to me. interesting... -- rachel
> Too bad we never heard from Joy Garnett. It would have been
> interesting to read her viewpoint on "moralizing judgements" within
> the context of a favorable "review" about her.
>
>> i was replying to seth thompson's pointing out perceived inconstancy
>> on joy's part. my apologies, i didn't read the NAN item as
>> aggressive towards joy.
>>
>> in the meantime, seth's made clearer the point of this original post.
>>
>> and where is the mysterious joy today? hiding out somewhere? let's
>> hear from her ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:55 -0400 9/6/02, Rachel Greene wrote:
>>> i am involved here. i didn't see joy's declaration of intent about her
>>> work... but i edited helen's NAN and rewrote the closing sentence.
>>>
>>> please feel free to disagree with what i wrote -- i did write that last
>>> sentence -- helen was much more struck by aspects of the project she found
>>> "beautiful" -- she had a different register of interpretaion, a more
>>> aesthetic one. but my reaction differed -- i didn't see how one can avoid
>>> the extremity of the project, of its contents and despite its casual format
>>> -- that is why i talked about it as a 'reality check.' which to me isn't
>>> super moralizing... tell me why you think i took an aggressive stance?
>>>
>>> or am i confused... is all this directed at another post? or at rhizome NAN?
>>> between web and list, i am not sure what/who all these subjects refer to...
>>> thanks, rachel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> not following the logic here..
>>>>
>>>> JOY writes the first quote, JAMIESON writes the blurb on the "Bomb
>>>> Project" which is moralizing in tone. i don't remember joy
>>>> specifically endorsing this review as correct therefor she's not
>>>> being inconstant. *unless* one reads her silence on the review as
>>>> endorsement; an unreasonable conclusion imo. *or* there is moralizing
>>>> happening on the bomb project site (which i didn't notice after a
>>>> quick look-see). *or* one concludes that the bomb project ITSELF is
>>>> somehow placing "moralizing" judgements on non-politically engaged
>>>> artists (tho it makes no explicit judgements) which is also an
>>>> unreasonable conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> since joy has said nothing regarding the review, it's unreasonable
>>>> for you to assume she thinks it's "moralizing judgements" are OK. if
>>>> you simply wanted to ask joy her response to the blurb you could have
>>>> done so without the accusatory and (imo) aggressive stance.
>>>> (aggressive in that you presuppose she is in agreement with the blurb
>>>> and *foist* that upon her for no good reason)
>>>>
>>>> On July 12, 2002 Joy Garnett wrote on a Rhizome Post:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's important to deal with the full spectrum of responses here, and to
>>>> refrain from moralizing judgements-- they only serve to inhibit, and to
>>>> produce more shame.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A review on Joy Garnett's "Bomb Project" on September 6, 2002:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The data, debris and aesthetics of the nuclear arms race considered
>>>> in an art context points at issues of information decentralization,
>>>> and certainly serves as a reality check to any overly idyllic or
>>>> politically disengaged artists. - Helen Varley Jamieson
>>>>
>>>> <
http://www.thebombproject.org>http://www.thebombproject.org>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The review seems contrary to an earlier statement made by Joy Garnett
>>>> on the Rhizome list. Please explain why its OK to make a "moralizing
>>>> judgement" in one case and not another. Thanks.
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> <twhid>
>>
http://www.mteww.com>> </twhid>
>> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>> -> 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>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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>