[Nettime-bold] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "Give it a chance!"

[Terrence Kosick <kosick@sprint.ca>]

Terrence writes;

While Brad Brace riles against the system gets the attention what has been
championed by myself and a very few act-up artists on this list is how a
model of a lively ongoing plenipotent communication art might be rendered
dysfunctional by an intervening or mediating agency. Various actions here
seem to be outside the virietal of older models of delivery consumption of
art objects. I recall brad excitedly reposting a communication he got from
a club owner who projected brads images at his industrial dance club. He
seems less sociopathic then the silences that seem to some eerily out of
place on a list of a communication art world. The idea of modern art is
being handily scooped up by by a few of us whose active presence is a
fugitive immediacy, the ultra form the alt art of communication.  The
ultimate arbiter of the constitution of net art is not with Rhizome or any
institution critic or interviewer or some net art star's champion. This
manner is so incredibly culturally primitive as the shaking of a handful of
shinny pebbles.  Each just as inert as the other and only as noisy and as
recognizable as long as the hands that shakes them and holds them aloft.

artnatural +  try to snatch the pebble from my hand


furtherfield wrote:

> Hello Josephine,
>
> I noticed your email below published on Rhizome.org & thought to my-
> self, well Brad has a point that many contemporary artists are keen to
> actively deny.
>
> The other thing is, why? Like I am doing publicly, have you thought it
> important to declare Brad's response to your questions for everyone to
> see in a context which seems (forgive me if I am wrong) detrimental to
> the
> him. As an artist/creator surely that individual has a right in how they
> are
> represented in the media. Make no mistake, Rhizome is just as much part
> of the media world even though it is not necessarily openly saying it
> is.
> I'm sure that you are well aware of this fact.
>
> It seems to me that Brad's work speaks for itself, which in a way is
> what
> he was trying to say. Please look at my work for it speaks for itself!
>
> Because he does not (consciously) desire to use the accepted language
> process of the interview format is surely his decision thus making him
> seem
> wrong and paranoid in the eyes of others. Those of course who use that
> language will be accepted more readily because they are less likely to
> challenge
>
> the intentions of that individual/organization concerned.
>
> I respect of your opinion and feelings on the situation mentioning how
> uncomfortable you felt trying to interview him. Brad was wrong to
> presume
> that you alone are an institution. In a sense his beef is not with you,
> it’s the
>
> arena that you are presently moving into or are part of. Your choice of
> who you are interviewing I presume has come about through searching
> for interesting underground talent on the net, those who have not had
> plenty
> of coverage already. Enriching the already growing creative Internet
> environment
>
> and its varied contributions to the world.
>
> His work and ideas are on the line here, and I have not always agreed
> with
> Brad's sentiments and some of them I have. Personally he has always
> inspired
> me (he does not know me by the way) as some one who is prepared to go
> against the art arena's presumptions and question their intentions. This
> is very
>
> important, and sometimes more valid than some art itself. For it is to
> do with
> the
> fundamental state of creativity itself and who owns it. We are all
> creating
> history
> here whether we are aware of this consciously or not, and if he is left
> out of
> it due
> to dislike or mutual posturing it would be a shame.
>
> (He treats me,
> single mum and free lance writer without connection to any organization
> or even publisher, as an institution. I wish some artists would see how
> even being a rebel needs some kind of idea and insight in how to go
> about it.)
>
> His answers are valid and should be taken on in the spirit of creative
> questioning. He does not dare to say that he has all the right answers
> to all
> the issues that he is bravely putting himself on the line for, his
> reasoning is
> subjective, and perhaps not immediately acceptable.
>
> I recall when at a certain next '5 minutes' conference 'Hakim Bey' was
> openly
> criticizing the many delusory functions of the Internet. And he got
> almost
> booed by the mob gang of Internet reliant contingency. I looked around
> me
> and thought, mmm interesting a god has just been criticized here (the
> Internet)
> and all the invented hopes and dreams with it. One mistake that anyone,
> and
> many individuals do, is not to see the spirit of a gesture that is
> honest in its
>
> action, no matter how out of place it might seem.
>
> quote:-
>
> Virtually all organizations known to you work largely by means of your
> greed. They attract you because what they say or do appeals to your
> greed. This is concealed only by their appearance. If you stop listening
>
> to their words and look at the effect, you will soon see it.
> Idris Shah. ‘Learning how to Learn’.
>
> This is where Brad is coming from, he sees and dislikes what others see
> and
> accept.
>
> In respect to his open & public critizism of Heath Bunting, well...
> Heath can
> handle it. I'm a good friend of Heath's and we used to do alot agit-art
> in good
> ol' days together and are still in regular contact. As Heath nows, he is
> being
> attacked by someone who see's him as part of an institution, someone
> going
> through the historical process of trying to topple their throned father.
> A
> function
> that Heath & I used to talk about a lot 'killing your father'. A kind of
> right
> of
> passage that I myself do not adhere to.
>
> So I am thanking you both really for giving me something very
> interesting to
> think about. And I hope that Brad will do you another interview for you,
> if
> he asks for it that is. It looks like that you both got started on the
> wrong
> footing - respect to both.
>
> Marc Garrett
>
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
> some of the context is below ------
>
> Josephine Bosma wrote:
>
> > fyi: this is an example of an interview that is not ok, because it is
> > not finished. I asked Brad if we could do an interview, because the
> > nature of his work, his persistent presence in the networks and most
> of
> > all his endless attacks on any kind of art professional other then
> > artists somehow come together in a way that does not make much sense,
> > and I thought it might be good to see if there is actually more behind
>
> > it then meets the eye. In quite a tragic way Brad's premature
> publishing
> > of our correspondence (he obviously does not trust that I will publish
>
> > it or he thinks this way he has more control) now illustrates how one
> > can create one's own unwanted seperation and rejection. He treats me,
> > single mum and free lance writer without connection to any
> organisation
> > or even publisher, as an institution. I wish some artists would see
> how
> > even being a rebel needs some kind of idea and insight in how to go
> > about it. Brad, as opposed to someone like Heath Bunting for instance,
>
> > does not see that he actually creates the very barriers and
> obstructions
> > he says he fights against. He puts them in place instead of trying to
> > find a way to deal with the problems around them and the basis of
> them.
> > It is also my sincere wish that most artists will be wise enough not
> to
> > follow his pattern of thinking, simply because he is present in
> > mailinglists and feeds on basic instincts. For gods sake see how
> saying
> > someone is shutting you out and treating them like they are being bad
> to
> > you is making it impossible for yourself to be treated in a normal
> way.
> > It is like going up to a stranger and saying he is not acknowledging
> > your presence.
> >
> > Next to the usual ribbons against html mails we might want to install
> a
> > ribbon against paranoia on the net. A sort of warning sign that not
> all
> > is what it seems to you on a bad day. "Give it a chance!"
> >
> > best
> >
> > J
> > *
> >
> > { brad brace } wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Josephine Bosma wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi Brad
> > > >
> > > > Well, it is hard to say whether I know enough of your work, and
> that is
> > > > exactly the reason I want to as you a few things. I'll just ask
> some
> > > > things and lets see how it goes. As you might know I like to ask
> simple
> > > > questions, especially when the topic or subject is difficult   ;)
> Don't
> > > > take that as an insult please. These questions are a start, so I
> will
> > > > formulate others on your answers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. Whats your education and how does this and other things in your
>
> > > > background relate to/influence your work ?
> > >
> > > I've a ridiculous amount of often-disappointing (primarily)
> arts-education
> > > (even a MFA *shudder*)  -- I've studiously attempted to assist in
> > > reforming (antiquated/entrenched) art-teaching institutions. I still
> have
> > > hope.
> > >
> > > In addition to teaching, consulting, occasional/informal exhibitions
> and
> > > some financial art-support online
> > > <http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/buy-into.html>, I often find
> engaging
> > > employment and sustainable income with printing/publishing
> industries
> > > (electronic prepress) and new media.
> > >
> > > > 2. What is the most important aspect of the 12hr project for you,
> and is
> > > > this aspect supported by the, for want of a better term,
> 'monotony' or
> > > > 'slowness' of the work?
> > >
> > > Hmmm... I'd have to say it's the open, accessible sense of
> > > encompassing/shifting continuity... which is why I previously
> mentioned
> > > microtonal music as a possible corollary. But see
> > > <http://bbrace.laughingsquid.net/12hr-isbn-jpeg.html> for a fuller
> > > description/response.
> > >
> > > > 3. Do you feel your work is in any way related to mail art?
> > >
> > > ... Only in so far as correspondence art is about informal networks
> and
> > > independent production and dissemination of multiples.
> > >
> > > > 4. You agitate against the artworld and any branche or relation of
> it a
> > > > lot. I find this kind of odd, since you are quite present in on
> line
> > > > communities or mailinglists engaged in art. What is this love/hate
>
> > > > relationship with art for you?
> > >
> > > What positive things can any (non-institutionalized) artist have to
> say
> > > about the openly abusive, unrepentant, manipulative, swindling,
> > > self-serving, reprehensible old-Artworld... Where else but online
> would
> > > our objections be heard and 'alternatives' embraced? We love
> art/artists
> > > and will not lazily/silently see them abused/thwarted.
> > >
> > > > These are the first ones. let me know if you have any trouble at
> all
> > > > with them. hope we make something good.
> > >
> > > Tell me something about you Josephine.
> > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > > *
> > > >
>
> + Please reply to <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold