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: The Myth of Meritocracy in Fine Arts - addendum
On 26 Feb 2004, at 19:57, ryan griffis wrote:
> hi Rob et al,
>
>> Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one.
>> Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one
>> from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position
>> relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action
>> if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to
>> remain realistic.
>
> This sounds like a real politik take over of culture to me.
Possibly. I don't know what realpolitik is, though. :-)
> How does one determine honesty and realism without looking at how any
> particular version of reality benefits (or not) certain people.
Absolutely. I'd argue that doing so *is* honesty (in this context), and
that this evaluation determines its realism.
> This is neither relativism, nor deconstruction (proper) necessarily.
> If economics (the Market) can be accepted as a myth (what isn't
> according to Joseph Campbell), then why not aesthetics?
As I say, any myth can be useful. Since no-one has ever actually come
up with a satisfactory definition or test for aesthetics, I think it's
more of a myth than most. :-)
Eventually we get to the point where nothing is real, but since nothing
is real, there is no loss of reality to be mourned and everything is as
real as it can be and we can all go home.
> and aren't myths/worldviews merely tools for ordering experience to
> serve whatever interests are creating them?
Absolutely. Everything's an aesthetic.
> What makes some 'givens' suspect and not others?
I regard any *unexamined* given as suspect. There's the problem of
what's doing the examining, but we have to try, at least. Which I
regard as bootstrapping, not circular... :-)
- Rob.
> hi Rob et al,
>
>> Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one.
>> Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one
>> from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position
>> relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action
>> if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to
>> remain realistic.
>
> This sounds like a real politik take over of culture to me.
Possibly. I don't know what realpolitik is, though. :-)
> How does one determine honesty and realism without looking at how any
> particular version of reality benefits (or not) certain people.
Absolutely. I'd argue that doing so *is* honesty (in this context), and
that this evaluation determines its realism.
> This is neither relativism, nor deconstruction (proper) necessarily.
> If economics (the Market) can be accepted as a myth (what isn't
> according to Joseph Campbell), then why not aesthetics?
As I say, any myth can be useful. Since no-one has ever actually come
up with a satisfactory definition or test for aesthetics, I think it's
more of a myth than most. :-)
Eventually we get to the point where nothing is real, but since nothing
is real, there is no loss of reality to be mourned and everything is as
real as it can be and we can all go home.
> and aren't myths/worldviews merely tools for ordering experience to
> serve whatever interests are creating them?
Absolutely. Everything's an aesthetic.
> What makes some 'givens' suspect and not others?
I regard any *unexamined* given as suspect. There's the problem of
what's doing the examining, but we have to try, at least. Which I
regard as bootstrapping, not circular... :-)
- Rob.
Re: Re: The Myth of Meritocracy in Fine Arts
On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 10:59PM, Dyske Suematsu <dyske@dyske.com> wrote:
>Now, this is an interesting point. It forces me to refine my argument. The
>point of my essay can be framed like this: Why do we need to ask why it
>sells well? What drives us to find a justification for an artwork to sell
>well, or for an artist to be famous? My answer is: because, deep down, we
>believe in meritocracy. We have a natural urge to find a justification for
>someone receiving rewards such as money and fame, because we want life to be
>fair. This urge is what I am criticizing to be misguided, because there is
>no fairness in fine arts; you do if you want, you don't if you don't.
We don't need to ask why it sells well.That is a red herring for a genuinely critical project. Much art that is ephemeral, permanently installed or otherwise not directly related to "The Market" is nonetheless widely propagated by exhibition, the media and criticism. And calling such work "loss leaders" doesn't work, many artists who produce such work won't make a living from art for decades yet if at all. "The Market" is an unthreatening nostalgic fiction compared to the condition of art today. Art reflects the ego of its comissioners ("he who pays the piper calls the tune"). A lassez-faire relativism does not realistically reflect the current conditions of the production of art.
>Both you and Curt seem to misunderstand me on one critical point. I am not
>proposing an alternative standard of measurement, or "framework". In
>meritocracy, there are two separate components: a standard by which
>achievements can be measured (e.g. winning a competition) and rewards
>appropriate for the level of achievement (money and fame). I am arguing that
>the former does not exist in fine arts. That is, the art world operates on
>the assumption that X and Y exist. What I am saying that X does not exist
>and only Y does. I am not trying to replace X with Z.
X does exist. It cannot, however, be reconciled with Y . There is no & for X&Y
X = Artistic Achievement
Y = Commercial Success
& some causal relation between the two
is like
X = It is snowing
Y = My iPod is full
& some causal relationship between the two
- Rob.
>Now, this is an interesting point. It forces me to refine my argument. The
>point of my essay can be framed like this: Why do we need to ask why it
>sells well? What drives us to find a justification for an artwork to sell
>well, or for an artist to be famous? My answer is: because, deep down, we
>believe in meritocracy. We have a natural urge to find a justification for
>someone receiving rewards such as money and fame, because we want life to be
>fair. This urge is what I am criticizing to be misguided, because there is
>no fairness in fine arts; you do if you want, you don't if you don't.
We don't need to ask why it sells well.That is a red herring for a genuinely critical project. Much art that is ephemeral, permanently installed or otherwise not directly related to "The Market" is nonetheless widely propagated by exhibition, the media and criticism. And calling such work "loss leaders" doesn't work, many artists who produce such work won't make a living from art for decades yet if at all. "The Market" is an unthreatening nostalgic fiction compared to the condition of art today. Art reflects the ego of its comissioners ("he who pays the piper calls the tune"). A lassez-faire relativism does not realistically reflect the current conditions of the production of art.
>Both you and Curt seem to misunderstand me on one critical point. I am not
>proposing an alternative standard of measurement, or "framework". In
>meritocracy, there are two separate components: a standard by which
>achievements can be measured (e.g. winning a competition) and rewards
>appropriate for the level of achievement (money and fame). I am arguing that
>the former does not exist in fine arts. That is, the art world operates on
>the assumption that X and Y exist. What I am saying that X does not exist
>and only Y does. I am not trying to replace X with Z.
X does exist. It cannot, however, be reconciled with Y . There is no & for X&Y
X = Artistic Achievement
Y = Commercial Success
& some causal relation between the two
is like
X = It is snowing
Y = My iPod is full
& some causal relationship between the two
- Rob.
Re: Re: The Myth of Meritocracy in Fine Arts - addendum
On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 11:53PM, Dyske Suematsu <dyske@dyske.com> wrote:
>Both Curt and Ryan seem to believe that relativism leads to a circular
>logic, therefore it is inferior. What I am saying is that both would lead to
>a circular logic. Since I have no problem with accepting circular logic, I
>can write from both perspectives. You two seem to believe that one side is
>flawed and the other side isn't. That is what I call "myth".
Relativism is not circular logic. Circular logic is self-proving. Relativism is self-disproving since it cannot prove itself without becoming an absolute.
Relativism as practiced by Cultural Studies (etc.) is just a post-colonial rehabilitation of orientalism. Or crypto-slumming-it. There's nothing wrong with using or being inspired by the discourses of other cultures, societies or classes. There is something wrong with claiming that all discourses are created equal, save the one that declares this.
Relativism allows pre-existent discourse to be turned on any object. This priveleges deconstruction, turning the generation of text into an absolute. It is a political position. What kind of politics? Well, deconstruction is a paternalistic, appropriating activity.
Relativism is a discourse. Any discourse can be deconstructed. This applies to the discourse of deconstruction as well. When you deconstruct you tend to find politics and vested interests and disappointed lives. Relativism serves The Market and Cultural Studies. Neither have much to do with art.
Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one. Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to remain realistic.
- Rob.
>Both Curt and Ryan seem to believe that relativism leads to a circular
>logic, therefore it is inferior. What I am saying is that both would lead to
>a circular logic. Since I have no problem with accepting circular logic, I
>can write from both perspectives. You two seem to believe that one side is
>flawed and the other side isn't. That is what I call "myth".
Relativism is not circular logic. Circular logic is self-proving. Relativism is self-disproving since it cannot prove itself without becoming an absolute.
Relativism as practiced by Cultural Studies (etc.) is just a post-colonial rehabilitation of orientalism. Or crypto-slumming-it. There's nothing wrong with using or being inspired by the discourses of other cultures, societies or classes. There is something wrong with claiming that all discourses are created equal, save the one that declares this.
Relativism allows pre-existent discourse to be turned on any object. This priveleges deconstruction, turning the generation of text into an absolute. It is a political position. What kind of politics? Well, deconstruction is a paternalistic, appropriating activity.
Relativism is a discourse. Any discourse can be deconstructed. This applies to the discourse of deconstruction as well. When you deconstruct you tend to find politics and vested interests and disappointed lives. Relativism serves The Market and Cultural Studies. Neither have much to do with art.
Relativism is a "myth", but like any myth it can be a useful one. Recognising that one's position is contingent does not prevent one from maintaining that position. But recognising that one's position relies on suspect socio-economic-political "givens" may require action if one is to remain honest and the conditions of one's practice are to remain realistic.
- Rob.
Grey Tuesday
Show your support for the RIAA: host or download The Grey Album! Then,
when the next round of anti-Internet legislation proposals come out
from the record industry, they'll be able to say:
"Well, we banned The Grey Album, but all those unregulated web sites
just put it out for free. We need sweeping new powers to prevent this
sort of thing."
Alternatively, anyone who *really* wants to be a revolutionary should
record and release a work of their own under a Creative Commons
license. Sure, it takes more effort and gets you less publicity than
stealing someone else's work, but if people believe that revolution is
something you consume rather than something you produce, things have
got very bad indeed...
- Rob.
when the next round of anti-Internet legislation proposals come out
from the record industry, they'll be able to say:
"Well, we banned The Grey Album, but all those unregulated web sites
just put it out for free. We need sweeping new powers to prevent this
sort of thing."
Alternatively, anyone who *really* wants to be a revolutionary should
record and release a work of their own under a Creative Commons
license. Sure, it takes more effort and gets you less publicity than
stealing someone else's work, but if people believe that revolution is
something you consume rather than something you produce, things have
got very bad indeed...
- Rob.
Re: Grey Tuesday
But that's what the Internet's about: giving away other people's stuff
for free!"
- Fry, Futurama.
- Rob.
On 21 Feb 2004, at 19:28, liza sabater wrote:
> Tuesday, February 24 will be a day of coordinated civil disobedience:
> websites will post Danger Mouse's Grey Album on their site for 24
> hours in protest of EMI's attempts to censor this work.
for free!"
- Fry, Futurama.
- Rob.
On 21 Feb 2004, at 19:28, liza sabater wrote:
> Tuesday, February 24 will be a day of coordinated civil disobedience:
> websites will post Danger Mouse's Grey Album on their site for 24
> hours in protest of EMI's attempts to censor this work.