Rob Myers
Since 2003
Works in United States of America

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.
Discussions (509) Opportunities (1) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay onrelocating the aura


On 31 May 2006, at 18:57, curt cloninger wrote:

> Is the circus managerial?

I would say that it is a spectacle. And the circus has its own aura.
A clown walking up to you in a street would imply a circus. Someone
making a shed does not imply art.

> Is http://mjt.org managerial?

That's more 'pataphysical. (And very good.)

> What kind of art is not managerial?

Art that does not manage human relations (or their indexes) to add
value. Or that is not addressed to or situated in a managerial culture.

> Are you one who believes that to enter into dialogue is always an
> attempt to control another?

No, sir. ;-)

> If so, it seems any form of output or social engagement is
> inherently managerial. Even generatiive/reactive art that uses
> chance agency as a formal instrument still traffics in human
> relationships once a user begins to interact with it.

This is not however the primary medium or end point of the work. You
do have a relationship to a generative work, even if it is not Eliza.
But that is not the purpose or intended experience of the work.

> Regardless of what the generative artist says about his own work
> and intentions, it can be easily argued that a modicum of "art" (or
> "aura") exists between the user and the artwork (simply because the
> artwork is purposefully reactive rather than static).

I think that Eliza is at the heart of the generative experience. I
would resist calling the impression of intentionality in generative
work an aura, though.

> I see an analogy between the generative art I make ( http://
> computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/) and the
> networked/collaborative art I "make" ( http://www.playdamage.org/
> quilt ). Both invite chance. The former invites chance to play
> amongst formal elements and artifacts of personal memory. The
> latter invites chance to play amongst human releationships on the
> network. I don't ever know how either are going to turn out. My
> hope is that both turn out to the benefit of all involved, but this
> is not always the case. For example, some of the iterations of my
> Bubble Gum Cards are not always as well composed as I would like.
> And sometimes there are unscripted negative side-effects to my
> networked projects (cf: http://lab404.com/getty/ and http://
> lab404.com/misc/obits/ ).

I think that generative and relational art are usefully different in
terms of their intentions and the social experience they give.

> If the artist whose art is primarily embedded in social
> relationships stopped calling what she does art, would it be any
> less managerial?

I would say not, because it is the activity that makes it managerial
in spite of the claim of art, not because of it.

> Is it the art-whoring and institutional sanctioning of human
> relationships that you are critiquing?

Certainly that is part of the problem. Badiou actually discusses how
capital makes all human relationships client/server relationships in
"Relational Aesthetics" but he misses the managerialism inherent in
the art he identifies as standing against this (and indeed argues
against it being managerial).

> Playing in punk bands, we always hoped that our music would affect
> somebody, but we nevertheless continued to play even after everyone
> had stopped their ears and left the room. If the "art" of your art
> is dependent upon social engagement, and everyone leaves the room,
> then I guess you stop playing. Which does seem kind of contrived
> to me. Also, the idea of putting some random passerby in an
> awkward, "artistically constructed" situation and then filming him
> to prove that your art put him in an awkward situation, thus
> extracting "your art" from the situation -- I see how that is
> exploitatively managerial. But what if you just put a random
> passerby in an awkward situation and then don't film it or call it
> art?

Then it is a nuisance, not art. The institutional context of
relational art helps make it art, but the need for the institution or
institutional intent is part of its managerialism.

> Malcolm McLaren filmed it and called it art.

<cough>Wannabe manager!</cough>

> But John Lydon would not be so easily commodified.

Hey he's cool.

> Debord, the San Francisco Suicide Club -- there must be ways to do
> it right.

I hope there are. But they will not look like the ways of the past.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: SKYSCRAPER


http://www.khaaan.com/

Quoting www@trashconnection.com:
> ___ ___
> | | \_______________________________________/ | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> __/| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |\__
> __ __/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> \__ __
> |_ \______/| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | |\______/ _|
> \_ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | _/
> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | |/
> |// | \|// | \|// | \|
> |/______|______|/______|______|/______|______|
> |/// | \|/// | \|/// | \|
> |// | \|// | \|// | \|
> |/~x~x~x~x~x~x~|/~x~x~x~x~x~x~|/~x~x~x~x~x~x~|
> | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | |
> | |Connectrash| | |05.06.2006 | | |10:10:21 | |
> | |___________| | |___________| | |___________| |
> | ~x~x~x~x~x~x~ | ~x~x~x~x~x~x~ | ~x~x~x~x~x~x~ |
> |---------------|---------------|---------------|
> |_ http://skyscraper.trashconnection.com _______|
>
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura


Quoting curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com>:

> I assume this is referring to proposed aura relocation locus #4: "In
> human relationships." Yes?

It's in relation to one of the current major descriptions of art (Relational
Aesthetics) and #4 is a good description of that so yes. :-)

> What if the aura is not embedded didactically and managerially by the
> artist into these relationships?

The aura is not at the level of the precise variation of content. I am not
talking about a blue or red aura, I am talking about the presence of a
coloured
aura, and what the preence of a coloured aura means. The managerial aura is at
the level of the class of work (Relational Art) and how such works are
structured. The artist doesn't have to be didactic and the managerial element
is immanent to the nature of the work, not a chosen stance of the artist.

> What if situations are constructed by the artist and then observed to
> see what aura might arise from these relationships?

They will have the aura of managed situations and evaluative observation
motivated by the creation or extraction of value, which is managerial.

> I liken it to generative art. The artist/author has a modicum of
> control, but if he's in total control, it's not generative art. The
> paradigm is one of research rather than auteur artmaking. Do you
> deny that such art is possible?

Given my generative background, not really. ;-)

This is an interesting comparison. Certainly in both instances we have an
artistic system of constraints and (claimed) non-artist agency. But in
the case
of generative art these are instrumental, whereas in relational art
they are the
art. Relational art is more like push polling that scientific research
(or soft
reseearch like market research).

Relational Art gives (claims) results (aesthetic phenomena) at the level of
human relations. The nature of these relations may vary (and it doesn't matter
whether they are positive or negative, emergent or imposed). But they
are still
relations. What gives these relations value is not their precise nature but
their general existence as part of a class of phenomena, and their existence
has been encouraged and identified as valuable by the artist. This creation of
value by directing human relations for institutions in this way is managerial.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura


[Relational Art] is auratic. Because without the aura of management -
uh- art, what differentiates the social and aesthetic incompetence of
RA from just actual social and aesthetic incompetence?"

http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/04/21/relational-aesthetics-the-
institutional-theory-suspension-of-judgement-radical-commitment-via-
rhizome-raw/

This is the aura of value, of the addition of value through
management of human relations, which is a managerial aspiration.

- Rob.

DISCUSSION

Vote on Evolved Art Online


Nice Web 2.0 Karl Sims-style 2D evolution:

http://artdent.homelinux.net/evolve/vote/

Like "hot or not" for image chromosones. :-)

- Rob.