ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Rob Myers is an artist and hacker based in the UK.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On Sunday, May 02, 2004, at 10:38PM, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
>< if anybody
> can point out an artwork that functions without
> context, explanation or
> external reference>
>Three different things!
But IMHO related inasmuchas they are external factors in the reception/evalutation of a virgin artwork that *do* affect its reception/evaluation.
>(1)Context isn't decided or given by anyone -context
>exists -historical, political, social, psychological,
>artistic.
Yes, but it is very important in evaluating an artwork.
>Of course emphases may differ radically in
>the explication or interpretation of context.
This is true, but interpretations do tent to act on something to interpret if they are competent.
>(2)External reference - OK many artworks clearly have
>external reference -how it operates for a particular
>artwok is a much more complex question.
IMVVHO not really. I allege that *all* artworks have external reference and that this can be treated as resonance in every case.
>Even for
>artworks that have no obvious external reference it is
>often readable, surmisable by an appeal to the context
>discussed above -an example would be the work of the
>abstract expressionists.
Pollock's work is loveley for its encoding of its own creation into its physical and imagistic structure.
>(3)Explanation -now this is something else again and
>we can divide it into two kinds -explanation by the
>artist and explanation by others: critics, casual
>viewers, journalists, sociologists of art, whatever.
These explanations have many characters, as you show. I meant "iconographic analysis".
>Here explanation by the artist is at issue.
>Technical explanations I personally have no problem
>with -its a practical matter -sometimes you maybe need
>to give people a clue, especially in interactive work
>( but with generative type stuff personally I've
>gritted my teeth and thought 'well if they want to
>find it they will') but I guess if you do it you would
>want to try and do it elegantly and in an integrated
>way.
With avant-garde work, the culture does not teach viewers the iconography and technique from kindergarten, so it may need explaining. It takes an incredible amount of knowledge to "see" a post-renaissance oil painting, but people have been taught it before they come to one.
>My big bugbear is the artist statement, the artist's
>explanation of what their piece is about.
Ohhhh yes. :-)
>I've never
>read one that I've found anything but massively
>irritating
Conceptual artists tend to be better at this, try A&L...
> I think that artists are usually the last
>people who should explicate their work, unless it is
>so dully one dimensional and tedious ( and God knows
>there's enough of that about) that it is susceptible
>to a linear straightforward and unambiguous statement
>of its meaning and intentions.
>michael
I actually unsubscribed from Rhizome originally after being told off for criticising an artists statement with knowledge rather than simply accepting its horrifically underthought poetics.
- Rob.
>< if anybody
> can point out an artwork that functions without
> context, explanation or
> external reference>
>Three different things!
But IMHO related inasmuchas they are external factors in the reception/evalutation of a virgin artwork that *do* affect its reception/evaluation.
>(1)Context isn't decided or given by anyone -context
>exists -historical, political, social, psychological,
>artistic.
Yes, but it is very important in evaluating an artwork.
>Of course emphases may differ radically in
>the explication or interpretation of context.
This is true, but interpretations do tent to act on something to interpret if they are competent.
>(2)External reference - OK many artworks clearly have
>external reference -how it operates for a particular
>artwok is a much more complex question.
IMVVHO not really. I allege that *all* artworks have external reference and that this can be treated as resonance in every case.
>Even for
>artworks that have no obvious external reference it is
>often readable, surmisable by an appeal to the context
>discussed above -an example would be the work of the
>abstract expressionists.
Pollock's work is loveley for its encoding of its own creation into its physical and imagistic structure.
>(3)Explanation -now this is something else again and
>we can divide it into two kinds -explanation by the
>artist and explanation by others: critics, casual
>viewers, journalists, sociologists of art, whatever.
These explanations have many characters, as you show. I meant "iconographic analysis".
>Here explanation by the artist is at issue.
>Technical explanations I personally have no problem
>with -its a practical matter -sometimes you maybe need
>to give people a clue, especially in interactive work
>( but with generative type stuff personally I've
>gritted my teeth and thought 'well if they want to
>find it they will') but I guess if you do it you would
>want to try and do it elegantly and in an integrated
>way.
With avant-garde work, the culture does not teach viewers the iconography and technique from kindergarten, so it may need explaining. It takes an incredible amount of knowledge to "see" a post-renaissance oil painting, but people have been taught it before they come to one.
>My big bugbear is the artist statement, the artist's
>explanation of what their piece is about.
Ohhhh yes. :-)
>I've never
>read one that I've found anything but massively
>irritating
Conceptual artists tend to be better at this, try A&L...
> I think that artists are usually the last
>people who should explicate their work, unless it is
>so dully one dimensional and tedious ( and God knows
>there's enough of that about) that it is susceptible
>to a linear straightforward and unambiguous statement
>of its meaning and intentions.
>michael
I actually unsubscribed from Rhizome originally after being told off for criticising an artists statement with knowledge rather than simply accepting its horrifically underthought poetics.
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On Sunday, May 02, 2004, at 08:50PM, Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
>Actually, I think this is a difficult one, because Degas worked before
>the advent of modern art.
There's also Michaelangelo, who was into unfinished works. This was possibly a good way of alluding to physical & divine beauty.
>When questioned, he told the commissioner that
>he had spent the time away comtemplating the subject so that he may
>capture its essence in a single line. So I wouldn't say "sketchiness",
>"impermanence", "lack of finish" because they are negative
>qualifications. There is no "lack" -- the way the subject is rendered
>is the best way possible given the intentions of the artist.
The Whistler/Ruskin trial of 1878 was a good example of this:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm
'''the defense asked if two days of work was worth the 200-guinea price of the piece. Whistler replied, 'No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.
>Actually, I think this is a difficult one, because Degas worked before
>the advent of modern art.
There's also Michaelangelo, who was into unfinished works. This was possibly a good way of alluding to physical & divine beauty.
>When questioned, he told the commissioner that
>he had spent the time away comtemplating the subject so that he may
>capture its essence in a single line. So I wouldn't say "sketchiness",
>"impermanence", "lack of finish" because they are negative
>qualifications. There is no "lack" -- the way the subject is rendered
>is the best way possible given the intentions of the artist.
The Whistler/Ruskin trial of 1878 was a good example of this:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm
'''the defense asked if two days of work was worth the 200-guinea price of the piece. Whistler replied, 'No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.
Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On Sunday, May 02, 2004, at 08:50PM, Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
>Actually, I think this is a difficult one, because Degas worked before
>the advent of modern art.
There's also Michaelangelo, who was into unfinished works. This was possibly a good way of alluding to physical & divine beauty.
>When questioned, he told the commissioner that
>he had spent the time away comtemplating the subject so that he may
>capture its essence in a single line. So I wouldn't say "sketchiness",
>"impermanence", "lack of finish" because they are negative
>qualifications. There is no "lack" -- the way the subject is rendered
>is the best way possible given the intentions of the artist.
The Whistler/Ruskin trial of 1878 was a good example of this:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm
'''the defense asked if two days of work was worth the 200-guinea price of the piece. Whistler replied, 'No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.
>Actually, I think this is a difficult one, because Degas worked before
>the advent of modern art.
There's also Michaelangelo, who was into unfinished works. This was possibly a good way of alluding to physical & divine beauty.
>When questioned, he told the commissioner that
>he had spent the time away comtemplating the subject so that he may
>capture its essence in a single line. So I wouldn't say "sketchiness",
>"impermanence", "lack of finish" because they are negative
>qualifications. There is no "lack" -- the way the subject is rendered
>is the best way possible given the intentions of the artist.
The Whistler/Ruskin trial of 1878 was a good example of this:
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/Landry.htm
'''the defense asked if two days of work was worth the 200-guinea price of the piece. Whistler replied, 'No. I ask it for the knowledge I have gained in the work of a lifetime.
Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On 2 May 2004, at 12:30, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> To speculate as to why -the craftsperson is always
> embedded in some sort of economic relationship
> -producing for the market , or the feudal lord, or the
> church or whatever.
>cough< Saatchi >cough<
> The artist (although her products, once made, move
> into the world of commerce) not primarliy so.
> Milton wrote "Paradise Lost", said Marx, not for money
> but because it was *in his nature*. I think here we
> see the shamanistic roots of art very clearly - the
> fact that the finest work arises out of some very deep
> need in the depths of the human psyche.
"Art, for Jackson Pollock,
Was inner neccessity
But it was surplus value
Got his place in history."
- The Red Crayola with Art & Language (Kangaroo?)
A Portrait of V. I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock (Part I)
Also see "re:evolution", Terence McKenna, The Shamen (Boss Drum) :
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?
su5610e4914136c23af8a126e45e7d40&p4053&postcount=1
- Rob.
> To speculate as to why -the craftsperson is always
> embedded in some sort of economic relationship
> -producing for the market , or the feudal lord, or the
> church or whatever.
>cough< Saatchi >cough<
> The artist (although her products, once made, move
> into the world of commerce) not primarliy so.
> Milton wrote "Paradise Lost", said Marx, not for money
> but because it was *in his nature*. I think here we
> see the shamanistic roots of art very clearly - the
> fact that the finest work arises out of some very deep
> need in the depths of the human psyche.
"Art, for Jackson Pollock,
Was inner neccessity
But it was surplus value
Got his place in history."
- The Red Crayola with Art & Language (Kangaroo?)
A Portrait of V. I. Lenin in the Style of Jackson Pollock (Part I)
Also see "re:evolution", Terence McKenna, The Shamen (Boss Drum) :
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?
su5610e4914136c23af8a126e45e7d40&p4053&postcount=1
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On 2 May 2004, at 09:11, Geert Dekkers wrote:
> So -- is it cheating to give that didactic bit of para-art
> instruction? I'd say that silence is a sentence too.
Absolutely. Titling a work "Untitled" speaks volumes. And if anybody
can point out an artwork that functions without context, explanation or
external reference I'd be very interested to see it. Assuming anybody
could. :-)
- Rob.
> So -- is it cheating to give that didactic bit of para-art
> instruction? I'd say that silence is a sentence too.
Absolutely. Titling a work "Untitled" speaks volumes. And if anybody
can point out an artwork that functions without context, explanation or
external reference I'd be very interested to see it. Assuming anybody
could. :-)
- Rob.