[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

<eyebeam><blast> art, work

8 messages, from Sarah Pierce, Jouke Kleerebezem, melvin strawn, M@,
mez, Pericles, francesca da rimini, and Brad Brace

> Margaret Isabel Sundell <mis15@columbia.edu> wrote:
> This is my first e-mail list service and I have to say that before I
> felt the rhetoric about the information superhighway was overstated.
> was struck by the almost anachronistic aspect of e-mail (in 19th
> Paris local mail was delivered something like three or four times a
> and people carried on extensive communications in writing).  Now I
> finally get the idea of information overload and frankly I don't quite

> understand how the people participating in this service have the time
> *read* all these missives, let alone repond to them.

Sarah Pierce <pierce@artswire.org> responds:

I'll make it short so anyone reading this can get back to work. Frankly,
I am a laborer who uses work time to read for pleasure. This is the
intersection of revolution--and I, like many, use email at work, and of
the 187 messages and 84 sites I have visited in 1998, 7 were work
related excursions. I choose to participate and I make time to read it
all during the week between 9 and 5. I suggest unsubscribing to anyone
interested in maintaining the steady flow of capital production. I
realize that in many ways I undervalue and underuse my labor as an
artist, and that I am priviledged. By the way, I also use work for
faxes, stamps, balancing my check book, and thinking about myself. All
in all I am a very productive.


Jouke Kleerebezem <jouke@xs4all.nl> writes:

Jouke Kleerebezem Amsterdam NL

<local>poietics</local> <witness>reports</witness> are <temper>heating
up</temper> / are we not connected to share <witness>poietics</witness>
/ we are the media and step out the door to return loaded with prime

this list <moderator>lags</moderator>

get these mail <pronto>out there</pronto>


<date and time>970212, 00:26hrs GMT</date and time>


melvin strawn <mels@chaffee.net> writes:

I've been reading these  postings for a week or so, trying to figure out
what critical issues and dialogue  might develop.  As an artist, I find
myself self-conscious and a bit suspicious of words only (no reference
to actual art and/or artists). The  level of critical thinking &
dialogue gets wonderfully high on the abstraction ladder easily and
quickly. Is it the delimited agenda that only the social-political
efficacy of art online be at issue? Some discussion of the relevance (to
that abstraction, society,) of art in our times, on or off line, has
been initiated. Is art we display/observe on computer monitors any
different from that in the local gallery or MOMA. I do "digital" art,
using a computer and wide format printer - to turn out things that
parallel the art I did before using a computer and having net access.
I'm not sure if it is OK,  even, to tell you where to see it  or that
I've written a book about the experience , hoping, somehow, to make
contact with others on the planet. In other words, is this a place for
working artists who happen to either do digital image stuff or display
what they do in conventional media in cyberspace?

To take a position - I believe that art is not so much irrelevant to
society as society has divested itself of art - and the central (once)
need for image makers, at least those not devoted to moving merchandise
via ads, etc.. And the "ART World", the big slick mags, Museum-critical
fame, etc, has created its own small but high-profile universe which
mayble is confused with the Big Bang. For the internet to function as
alternative space for communication between artist and viewers/users,
people, as just pointed out, need access they can afford. And they need
to get in touch with those who proffer their images, words and sounds.
I've found, in over a year on line with a web page of my work, that this
rarely happens, never mind a productive contact (sale, commission or
offer to exhibit). I have received one early email response from a
Japanese photographer, one from an Indonesian student and one artist
from Tawain (I think), plus one from a New York highschool student who
wanted to do a term report on my work, in spite of the fact that I
wasn't yet dead and therefore acceptable (teacher's instruction!) We
float in cyberspace, disembodied, hopeful, enchanted, confused (at least
about art & internet). - Well, back to work.  -
Mel Strawn


On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 andyman@mail.slc.edu wrote:

> To the extent that net art emerges through
> the browsers and software packages that impose
> basic similarities on their contents, and
> insofar as net art enters into unexceptional,
> mundane screen contexts, it is difficult
> to imagine widespread acclaim.

"M@" <mhoessli@cadre.sjsu.edu> responds:

To the extent that painting emerges through the canvases and painting
materials that impose basic similarities on their contents, and insofar
as painting enters into unexceptional, mundane gallery contexts, it is
difficult to imagine widespread acclaim.

> Perhaps the
> reason Olu Oguibe finds online hypertext fiction
> more impressive than other net art is that
> the software languages for graphic and auditory
> work are more constraining.

constraints can be a strength. absolute freedom of choice/will in the
construction of a work of art can be the kiss of death.
one often becomes "paralyzed by options"
this is never a problem when working with html.

> Ted Nelson has asserted that designing
>     for the little screen on the desktop
>     has the most in common with designing for
>     the Big Screen (directing theatrical films).
>     Interactive software needs the talents of a
>     Disney, a Griffith, a Welles, a Hitchcock, a
>     Capra, a Bob Abel.  The integration of software
>     cannot be achieved by committee, where everyone
>     has to put in their own addition.... It must be
>     controlled by dictatorial artists with full say on
>     the final cut.    (from The Art of Human Computer
>     Interface Design)

        I think my above comment applies to this as well.
        It's not like these directors had dictatorial control, however.
did they determine the design of the film camera? the frame rate? Screen
ratio? acceptable length of a feature film? how the film would
ultimately be promoted?
        these directors were working within similar constaints to those
making art for the web. I would say that they had even greater
restrictions placed on their work than your average net.artist on the

> and semantic complexity.  Put otherwise, net art
> that has a software-like behavior has two components:
> the code and the executed (running) program.  Mastering
> both program and code are virtually impossible when
> the industry underlying the delivery of the work is
> constantly changing.

        this is similar to saying that it is impossible to buy a
computer because they are constatnly made obsolete every year or so. you
pick a point and jump in. you stay flexible. you make decisions on what
innovations to keep up with and which ones to pass on. It is a very good
point that the industry (or better: technology) underlying the delivery
of the work is constantly changing. I've had a lot of my code rendered
unviewable by the 4.0 browsers.

        at the same time, the 4.0 browsers have opened up a whole new
territory for me to work in that I am quite happy with.

- - - ---- -- - - M@


mez <mezandwalt@wollongong.starway.net.au> writes:

l.i.ke any trans[a].ggressive artform[um], this can be morph.h[e]a[d]
m.any bound.are.ied [de]funct.shions......

   grat.you.i.to.us is such a n.ice word.......

    so is idio[syncra]tic..........

    speed freak.ing a.long the inform.[n]ation hi.way perpetuates
prog.ress[t] and accele.[under]rated cat.a.logged

        *m.u.nch m.u.nch*

        -Mz liquidnitratemez


Pericles <Pericles@insat.com> writes:

I'm very happy of the way this forum's evolving. Brian and Andreas
presented themselves and it's a good beginning before exchanging ideas.
Very few people care about art. Art is supposed to be something that can
be hung above the chimney or on museums' walls or something old and new
at the same time called "contemporary". Somehow, we're all 14th century
painters trying to make something self-referential that can be labelled
as "art", to fit old criteria. It's not much fun.

Yet, there's much excitement today in those artistic attempts to create
something different. It's chaotic, sometimes clumsy but often refreshing
and tasty and i agree with Andreas when he writes that "these and other
projects provide us with a rich and I would say substantial basis for
discussion." Let's start with the works not with the questions. Those
questions artists deal with on the Net today have already been asked in
the past, so what would be Net.specific ?  Bandwith,
browsers'interfaces, shockwave, real-audio ? "Net.specific" an end in
itself ? Not sure such a term will mean anything in a year or two.
"Net.art" might just be about strategies of deceptions if we consider
everything on this Network is related to languages, signals and source
codes. Gestures. The Web is just another format to cope with. Sharing
signs and meanings with people whose gender, culture, language, values
and desires we ignore may be the nodal point of all artistic practice on
the Network. It's not much ambitious but it has something to do with the
"reality" of the "address" : before browsing the web, the only thing you
have is not the name of a person but an url with a domain name. This is
where everything begins or not. It's so obvious that very few people
seem to notice it.   Marketing a worldwide audience ? Graphic designers
and filmmakers used to make tv commercials or videoclips might be then
the most accurate persons to make "art".

with my regards from Bordeaux

jean-philippe halgand, home-made, techno-sceptical and co-founder of


francesca da rimini <gashgirl@sysx.apana.org.au> writes:

ghost manifesto

today = new Date();

Once again, it's the future that's being sacrificed . . .

I live in a strange house I have dreamed,
Where, perhaps, I have died.

Did something happen, and did I, because I didn't know how to experience

it, end up experiencing something else instead?

Howls for a ruined universe. Wild architecture. Waves of seething code
washing away the final traces of Big Browser.

Or perhaps I witnessed extravagant gifts being exchanged in the street
little girls?

There is no way of knowing which way to look any more, which way to move

your body in order to hear properly.

Your secret has also become my secret. It's part of me, and I'll treat
as I do all my secrets - I'll get rid of it when the time comes. Then it

will become someone else's secret.

It's better to change friends than ideas.

Art begins, grows and disappears because frustrated cunts bypass the
of official expression and the festivals of its poverty.

The imaginary is that which tends to become real.

If I start from any meaning, I exhaust it . . . or eventually I fall

Continuity is also a delusion.

Why bother?

We are not normal.

 The future fills you
in with a question.

A real underground is invisible, it's impossible to define it, because
it's feeding back all the time, it's constantly changing.

Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it.

We all left when we couldn't steal anything anymore.

All women are ghosts and should rightly be feared.

The revolution has already taken place in me. I am outside your world
no longer governed by your laws.

Laws are made by men who fuck their daughters.

All history is pornography.

I approach poetry: but only to miss it.

I drift. Principally I drift. One day we'll build cities for drifting.

Now comes the Time for Contempt. Now is the time for filth.

Quick! Question everything.

[words stolen from anna akhmatova, george bataille, michele bernstein,
dennis cooper, guy debord, linda dement, simon derrick, matthew fuller,
gashgirl, graham harwood, laure, comte de lautrmont, alec empire, herv
guibert, clarice lispector, alexander trocchi, chong troon, doll yoko]


{ brad brace }  <bbrace@netcom.com> writes:

I reside in both cities of Portand, Oregon and San Francisco, CA (USA);
arrange the printed dots in pictures that are everywhere.

{ brad brace }  <<<< bbrace@netcom.com >>>>  ~finger for pgp

                                  ftp.wco.com/users/bbrace <
 >    eccentric               ftp.netcom.com/pub/bb/bbrace <
 >    sequacious             ftp.teleport.com/users/bbrace <
 >    hypermodern           ftp.rdrop.com/pub/users/bbrace <
 >    imagery online     ftp.pacifier.com/pub/users/bbrace <

Usenet-news: alt.binaries.pictures.12hr/ a.b.p.fine-art.misc
Mailing-list: listserv@netcom.com / subscribe 12hr-isbn-jpeg
Reverse Solidus: http://www.teleport.com/~bbrace/bbrace.html


a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at <a href="http://www.eyebeam.org" target="_top">http://www.eyebeam.org</a>
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation <a href="http://www.blast.org" target="_top">http://www.blast.org</a>