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: Re: Re: Setting Up the Punch Line And Blogspace
On 7 May 2004, at 17:35, curt cloninger wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or
>> designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on
>> at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...).
>
> still, walking through a Hadid building is a lot cooler than looking
> at a 3D flythrough of a model of a Hadid building.
I take your point.
>> You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a
>> building of a painting.
>
> But you can always hang a painting on the wall of a building called a
> gallery.
And you can paint that, and so it recurses. Art & Language's 'Incidents
in The Museum' spring to mind.
>> The desire to control space and behaviour that
>> architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as
>> well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
>
> Per this thread, it's less architecture's control of space and
> behavior that's being admired as it is architecture's ability to
> achieve a kind of most-meta-ness. I agree that "art" can also achieve
> this (without necessarily being big or even physical). But (by
> definition) it can't achieve most-meta-ness while hanging on a gallery
> wall with a label under it.
But what is architecture most-meta to? It's real-space (unless it's a
mall...). In terms of abstraction, generality, referentiality (etc.),
art wins hands-down.
I've nothing *against* architecture, it's just different to art.
--
"If record companies sold bottled water they'd demand that poison be
added to your taps.
> Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or
>> designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on
>> at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...).
>
> still, walking through a Hadid building is a lot cooler than looking
> at a 3D flythrough of a model of a Hadid building.
I take your point.
>> You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a
>> building of a painting.
>
> But you can always hang a painting on the wall of a building called a
> gallery.
And you can paint that, and so it recurses. Art & Language's 'Incidents
in The Museum' spring to mind.
>> The desire to control space and behaviour that
>> architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as
>> well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
>
> Per this thread, it's less architecture's control of space and
> behavior that's being admired as it is architecture's ability to
> achieve a kind of most-meta-ness. I agree that "art" can also achieve
> this (without necessarily being big or even physical). But (by
> definition) it can't achieve most-meta-ness while hanging on a gallery
> wall with a label under it.
But what is architecture most-meta to? It's real-space (unless it's a
mall...). In terms of abstraction, generality, referentiality (etc.),
art wins hands-down.
I've nothing *against* architecture, it's just different to art.
--
"If record companies sold bottled water they'd demand that poison be
added to your taps.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Setting Up the Punch Line And Blogspace
On Friday, May 07, 2004, at 02:49PM, Myron Turner <myron_turner@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Right--heady--the kind of thing that can send chills up your spine!
>
>Myron
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems like you're saying architecture is cool becauese
>> you can't out-meta it. You're not going to put somebody's
>> architecture into a gallery. Architecture defines its own context (or
>> its context is simply worldspace). And the network can be that way
>> too. It's not just a "place" to show your art; it is itself an
>> artistic medium, with its own kind of implicit unboundedness (Eric
>> Raymond likens it to the noosphere -- realtime mindspace). Heady
>> stuff, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.
What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...). Art on the scale of architecture is also common.
You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a building of a painting. The desire to control space and behaviour that architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
- Rob.
- Rob.
>Right--heady--the kind of thing that can send chills up your spine!
>
>Myron
>
>curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems like you're saying architecture is cool becauese
>> you can't out-meta it. You're not going to put somebody's
>> architecture into a gallery. Architecture defines its own context (or
>> its context is simply worldspace). And the network can be that way
>> too. It's not just a "place" to show your art; it is itself an
>> artistic medium, with its own kind of implicit unboundedness (Eric
>> Raymond likens it to the noosphere -- realtime mindspace). Heady
>> stuff, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.
What about architectural-scale art? Or architectural models? Or designs. Exhibitions of architecture are very common (Archigram are on at the moment: Conceptual Architecture from the 1960s...). Art on the scale of architecture is also common.
You can always paint a picture of architecture. It's harder to make a building of a painting. The desire to control space and behaviour that architecture seems to offer to satiate can be achieved through art as well, although it's hard to get a new kitchen fitted in a Picasso.
- Rob.
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Setting Up the Punch Line And Blogspace
On Friday, May 07, 2004, at 00:35AM, atomic elroy <atomic@pcisys.net> wrote:
>Take my art... please!
http://www.creativecommons.org/
- Rob.
>Take my art... please!
http://www.creativecommons.org/
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
So writing about writing about writing about art to criticise this is like dancing about dancing about dancing about architecture to build it.
Homer Simpson would have something to say on the matter.
What would be wrong with dancing about architecture anyway? You can't dance through it... :-) It would take a fairly major lack of imagination to think that dancing about *anything* could be of itself uninteresting, or uninformative regarding the dance's subject.
- Rob.
On Tuesday, May 04, 2004, at 01:33AM, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20021112214711/http://www.altsense.net/library/factual/i_have_a_life.html
>
>atomic elroy wrote:
>
>> ha, ha ha!
>> Wow how meta.. a long boring text, about how... explaining art... is
>> not art!
>>
>> ( I can almost hear the Steven Wright monotone drone on and on... )
>>
>> reminds me of the morph quote:
>>
>> "writing about art is like dancing about architecture
Homer Simpson would have something to say on the matter.
What would be wrong with dancing about architecture anyway? You can't dance through it... :-) It would take a fairly major lack of imagination to think that dancing about *anything* could be of itself uninteresting, or uninformative regarding the dance's subject.
- Rob.
On Tuesday, May 04, 2004, at 01:33AM, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
>http://web.archive.org/web/20021112214711/http://www.altsense.net/library/factual/i_have_a_life.html
>
>atomic elroy wrote:
>
>> ha, ha ha!
>> Wow how meta.. a long boring text, about how... explaining art... is
>> not art!
>>
>> ( I can almost hear the Steven Wright monotone drone on and on... )
>>
>> reminds me of the morph quote:
>>
>> "writing about art is like dancing about architecture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: setting up the punch line
On 3 May 2004, at 14:51, Matthew Mascotte wrote:
> Bill Viola shows his work without title cards or
> curatorial statements so that you come into his work
> and make sense of it on your own...the only guiding hand
> can be had after in the museum book store.
>
> Is that a good example of what you're talking about?
Viola's work requires a gallery context (I wouldn't let my kids play
with it, and you couldn't put it in an office).
It also requires an extraordinary acceptance of video as art, relative
to current high and low cultural norms. An idiot I knew in the early
1990s complained that Viola's work wasn't really video because it
didn't have "binary" or other film/video compositional devices...
Someone who's idea of video is that DVD is clearer would need education
to see a Viola work. And someone used to oil painting would turn their
nose up at blurry video.
- Rob.
> Bill Viola shows his work without title cards or
> curatorial statements so that you come into his work
> and make sense of it on your own...the only guiding hand
> can be had after in the museum book store.
>
> Is that a good example of what you're talking about?
Viola's work requires a gallery context (I wouldn't let my kids play
with it, and you couldn't put it in an office).
It also requires an extraordinary acceptance of video as art, relative
to current high and low cultural norms. An idiot I knew in the early
1990s complained that Viola's work wasn't really video because it
didn't have "binary" or other film/video compositional devices...
Someone who's idea of video is that DVD is clearer would need education
to see a Viola work. And someone used to oil painting would turn their
nose up at blurry video.
- Rob.