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: Of Course
Go on.
On 8 Oct 2004, at 20:06, manik wrote:
> I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
> To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course
>
>
>> Yes way!
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
--
"If record companies sold bottled water they'd demand that poison be
added to your taps.
On 8 Oct 2004, at 20:06, manik wrote:
> I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
> To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course
>
>
>> Yes way!
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
--
"If record companies sold bottled water they'd demand that poison be
added to your taps.
Re: aGalloway, FlashFormalism and Complexification
On Friday, October 08, 2004, at 10:50AM, bensyverson <rhizome@bensyverson.com> wrote:
>It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex
>Galloway.
Now we're getting somewhere. :-) Replace "conceptual" with "aesthetic" and "surveillance" with "brown". We'll have to change Alex's name as well I suppose, but you get the idea.
>At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and
>shameless his carreeristNarcissism is.
Koons' work is the most socially literate American art I've seen since I don't know when. The guy Gets It, can Explain It, and has done so through and in his work. Popples, the basketballs, the balloon dog, the pr0n, all are conceptually steeped aesthetic nightmares to beat class culture over the head with. All of which goes through and with the fact that he's a shameless careerist.
>Do you believe everything Warhol told you about
>his work?
Yes. Particlarly the bit about other people making most of it. ;-)
>> Brian Eno:
>> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.
>
>Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust,
Is FF?
>yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique
>of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical
>discussion.
If criticism is beyond criticism then it is surely worthless: for criticism the mark of value is being an object of criticism.
>> And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning
>> job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to
>> look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and
>> immediately dialogue-able.
>
>Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a
>problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool
>brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead...
I'm afraid this has been part of my argument as well. The virtue you seek does not have the virtue you seek. That is, an art that is obviously critical of something else that we can all agree with the criticism of and feel the virtue of criticising without ourselves being touched by that criticism is not particularly critical. It is an aesthetic of criticism rather than an ethic of criticism.
>All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)
If this list had a .sig that'd get my vote for it. :-)
- Rob.
>It is conceptual, but it isn't about surveillance; it's about Alex
>Galloway.
Now we're getting somewhere. :-) Replace "conceptual" with "aesthetic" and "surveillance" with "brown". We'll have to change Alex's name as well I suppose, but you get the idea.
>At least Jeff Koons' work is about how ridiculousness and
>shameless his carreeristNarcissism is.
Koons' work is the most socially literate American art I've seen since I don't know when. The guy Gets It, can Explain It, and has done so through and in his work. Popples, the basketballs, the balloon dog, the pr0n, all are conceptually steeped aesthetic nightmares to beat class culture over the head with. All of which goes through and with the fact that he's a shameless careerist.
>Do you believe everything Warhol told you about
>his work?
Yes. Particlarly the bit about other people making most of it. ;-)
>> Brian Eno:
>> Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.
>
>Breaking news: subscribing to Rhizome is NOT withdrawal in disgust,
Is FF?
>yesYes, although I do find it rather curious to craft such a critique
>of criticism, when the piece is obviously part of that same critical
>discussion.
If criticism is beyond criticism then it is surely worthless: for criticism the mark of value is being an object of criticism.
>> And you're not grocking those things (or you're doing an award-winning
>> job at playing devil's advocate) because you've been conditioned to
>> look for something heavy, political, important, groundbreaking, and
>> immediately dialogue-able.
>
>Oh, I see you *can* point the finger at me. Okay. This must be a
>problem on my end. How did cCloninger find out about my artSchool
>brainwashing, anyway? That fox is always one step ahead...
I'm afraid this has been part of my argument as well. The virtue you seek does not have the virtue you seek. That is, an art that is obviously critical of something else that we can all agree with the criticism of and feel the virtue of criticising without ourselves being touched by that criticism is not particularly critical. It is an aesthetic of criticism rather than an ethic of criticism.
>All art is masturbation. Although not necessarily vice versa. ;)
If this list had a .sig that'd get my vote for it. :-)
- Rob.
Re: Thinking of art, transparency and social technology
On 8 Oct 2004, at 00:56, bensyverson wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is
>> descriptive of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic
>> and systemic, yet chaotic for the individual.
>
> Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese
> proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary
> experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling
> or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month
> [live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to
> understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of
> it.
I've never been anywhere near Manhattan. Politically, socially,
artefactually, this is an age where aesthetics have trumped ethics and
how.
>> An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative
>> would not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement
>> and import, a mere illustration or placebo.
>
> What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything,
> because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything?
No. Say it in a way that will have an effect, not in a way that the
in-crowd can stroke their chins to.
> I'd say with the net, the possibilities for critical engagement and
> import are multiplied -- look at how much of an impact bloggers are
> having in this election. Sure, that's a political example, but it
> shows you the power of your chosen medium, no matter how willing you
> are to make excuses for not engaging it.
Blogs are a good example.
>> Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work.
>
> Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something?
> Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion
> that involves me.
Try holding it upside down. :-)
> And how can we even begin to understand the work if some of us are
> unwilling to look at it critically?
How can we even begin to understand the work if some of us won't look
at our critical ideas critically?
>> It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged
>> formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.
>
> The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever,
> artists had access to the tools of television production.
This sounds an awful lot like playing with technology. ;-)
> In an already radical time, video became a weaponLike tool for
> shortCircuiting expectations. The very idea of seeing alternative
> media on a television screen was challenging, and spawned a vigorous
> intellectual debate. Most of the work was not formalist, although some
> of it indeed was. The formalist work of the time tended to be steeped
> in the ideas of consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood
> in Expanded Cinema and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in
> various texts and lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist
> work of that hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's
> also important to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf
> tools for abstractVisual creation -- there was no equivalent to Flash.
> So artists (like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown,
> paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build
> their own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic
> tool was totally different.
They didn't build their own video cameras or recorders though. The
blurry and|or pixellated limitations of the available base technology
became associated with the work made using it. Kinda like with Flash.
> This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable
> transparent cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash
> plug-ins. If you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the
> hyperthread of cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply
> show me satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd
> love to see that.
I'm going to write a longer piece, but I'm certainly not claiming it's
committed art or anything.
>> Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial
>> artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing
>> gaps in the language of that discussion.
>
> The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep
> the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and
> disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!)
Or to erect a roadblock. :-)
>> I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting
>> that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the
>> unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously
>> anathema to.
>
> What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not
> critical discourse, which is unreflective.
The messenger is now mostly lead. ;-)
- Rob.
> On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is
>> descriptive of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic
>> and systemic, yet chaotic for the individual.
>
> Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese
> proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary
> experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling
> or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month
> [live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to
> understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of
> it.
I've never been anywhere near Manhattan. Politically, socially,
artefactually, this is an age where aesthetics have trumped ethics and
how.
>> An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative
>> would not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement
>> and import, a mere illustration or placebo.
>
> What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything,
> because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything?
No. Say it in a way that will have an effect, not in a way that the
in-crowd can stroke their chins to.
> I'd say with the net, the possibilities for critical engagement and
> import are multiplied -- look at how much of an impact bloggers are
> having in this election. Sure, that's a political example, but it
> shows you the power of your chosen medium, no matter how willing you
> are to make excuses for not engaging it.
Blogs are a good example.
>> Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work.
>
> Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something?
> Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion
> that involves me.
Try holding it upside down. :-)
> And how can we even begin to understand the work if some of us are
> unwilling to look at it critically?
How can we even begin to understand the work if some of us won't look
at our critical ideas critically?
>> It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged
>> formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.
>
> The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever,
> artists had access to the tools of television production.
This sounds an awful lot like playing with technology. ;-)
> In an already radical time, video became a weaponLike tool for
> shortCircuiting expectations. The very idea of seeing alternative
> media on a television screen was challenging, and spawned a vigorous
> intellectual debate. Most of the work was not formalist, although some
> of it indeed was. The formalist work of the time tended to be steeped
> in the ideas of consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood
> in Expanded Cinema and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in
> various texts and lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist
> work of that hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's
> also important to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf
> tools for abstractVisual creation -- there was no equivalent to Flash.
> So artists (like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown,
> paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build
> their own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic
> tool was totally different.
They didn't build their own video cameras or recorders though. The
blurry and|or pixellated limitations of the available base technology
became associated with the work made using it. Kinda like with Flash.
> This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable
> transparent cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash
> plug-ins. If you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the
> hyperthread of cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply
> show me satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd
> love to see that.
I'm going to write a longer piece, but I'm certainly not claiming it's
committed art or anything.
>> Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial
>> artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing
>> gaps in the language of that discussion.
>
> The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep
> the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and
> disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!)
Or to erect a roadblock. :-)
>> I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting
>> that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the
>> unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously
>> anathema to.
>
> What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not
> critical discourse, which is unreflective.
The messenger is now mostly lead. ;-)
- Rob.