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: NYT art critic reviews Pixar exhibition at MoMA
On 16 Dec 2005, at 19:39, patrick lichty wrote:
> I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
> sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
> that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?
> But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
> challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
> broccoli
> for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.
- Rob.
> I do believe that museums are repositories of a society's culture, and
> sure, maybe PIXAR is part of that mission. But I get peeved with work
> that has no discursive component lodges in these museums.
In what way does Pixar's work have no discursive component?
> But then, maybe this is an apt reflection of our society's desire for
> challenging work - they'd rather have PIXAR, and I'd rather eat
> broccoli
> for dinner. Maybe I'm just out of step.
Ignore the accompanying essay, or lack of it, and look at the work.
- Rob.
Re: Macromedia is no more
Quoting Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>:
> Macromedia has very quietly ceased to be
Cut to:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/dingdong.htm
- Rob.
> Macromedia has very quietly ceased to be
Cut to:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/6396/dingdong.htm
- Rob.
Re: manifest
On 4 Dec 2005, at 03:54, <springlike@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why bother making web art, mov. files, video, etc., when you can
> explain your ideas on a listserv?
Why bother asking this on a list when you could just have thought
about it in your head?
> whats the point?
The actual experience of something is different from a verbal
expression of the concept. For example, if you just think about doing
the washing up you will not have clean plates to eat off of.
> please tell me.
> couldn't we all just explain the work and then move on?
A verbal explanation of a work will only be a sufficiently substitute
for the work if the work is utterly impoverished.
> why do we need the online manifestation?
Ceci n'est pas un pipe.
- Rob.
> why bother making web art, mov. files, video, etc., when you can
> explain your ideas on a listserv?
Why bother asking this on a list when you could just have thought
about it in your head?
> whats the point?
The actual experience of something is different from a verbal
expression of the concept. For example, if you just think about doing
the washing up you will not have clean plates to eat off of.
> please tell me.
> couldn't we all just explain the work and then move on?
A verbal explanation of a work will only be a sufficiently substitute
for the work if the work is utterly impoverished.
> why do we need the online manifestation?
Ceci n'est pas un pipe.
- Rob.
A Sequel To Grey Tuesday
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/29/warners_censors_mash.html
"We hope to mobilize the online Mash-Up community by organizing a
simple one-day organized event. Participants would be asked to post
the American Edit album online for 24 hours only starting on Tuesday,
December 13, at 12:00AM. Doing so is not intended to be a mass
organization of music piracy but, rather, one single display of the
consumptive power of the mash-up and home remix community in the
hopes of encouraging the labels, publishers and artists who are
curious about the mash-up community to consider giving the high
quality productions of "illegitimate" music a legitimate
consideration as a promotional avenue for all music."
- Rob.
"We hope to mobilize the online Mash-Up community by organizing a
simple one-day organized event. Participants would be asked to post
the American Edit album online for 24 hours only starting on Tuesday,
December 13, at 12:00AM. Doing so is not intended to be a mass
organization of music piracy but, rather, one single display of the
consumptive power of the mash-up and home remix community in the
hopes of encouraging the labels, publishers and artists who are
curious about the mash-up community to consider giving the high
quality productions of "illegitimate" music a legitimate
consideration as a promotional avenue for all music."
- Rob.
Re: [Fwd: Debby and Larry Kline Art Issues]
Quoting joy.garnett@gmail.com:
> Indeed -- their attitude is reactionary: envy/disappointment + artists' ego
> transfigured (all too typically) into the expression of an overreaching
> desire to control... copyright? You can't copyright an idea, only the
> expression of an idea. (That's Copyright 101). Plus, the nature of artistic
> production has always made for repetition and redundancy. And that's a good
> thing.
And not only can you not copyright an idea, you can only copyright a *fixed*
expression of an idea. So performances, for example, cannot be copyrighted:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/11/performance_as__1.html
Too many artists are trying to pretend they have "rights" to deny other
artists
the freedoms that they themselves have built their careers on. Faking "rights"
over performances or art in the form of a box will not help future artists.
> (Write letters? They've got to be kidding.)
"Help us protect a right we don't have and that we may try to use
against you in
the future" isn't the best call to arms I've ever heard.
- Rob.
> Indeed -- their attitude is reactionary: envy/disappointment + artists' ego
> transfigured (all too typically) into the expression of an overreaching
> desire to control... copyright? You can't copyright an idea, only the
> expression of an idea. (That's Copyright 101). Plus, the nature of artistic
> production has always made for repetition and redundancy. And that's a good
> thing.
And not only can you not copyright an idea, you can only copyright a *fixed*
expression of an idea. So performances, for example, cannot be copyrighted:
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/11/performance_as__1.html
Too many artists are trying to pretend they have "rights" to deny other
artists
the freedoms that they themselves have built their careers on. Faking "rights"
over performances or art in the form of a box will not help future artists.
> (Write letters? They've got to be kidding.)
"Help us protect a right we don't have and that we may try to use
against you in
the future" isn't the best call to arms I've ever heard.
- Rob.