Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[ruth catlow]

Hello

We (Marc, I and the Furtherfield crew) are in a process of major 
organisational review at the moment. We are reworking out how to value 
what we all do by trying out new lenses, tools and strategies in 
response to inevitable changes to our environment (political, social 
physical, psychic etc).  Some of these changes are more bewildering and 
apparently twisted than others.


The thinking and feeling that you have all done here (on this occasion 
prompted by Annie - thanks Annie) is super-helpful.


I don't have anything much to add, other than an aim for greater 
precision in all things organisational, political and artistic. Always 
looking for the sweet spot of emancipatory AND sustaining approaches.


Warmly
Ruth



On 13/12/16 21:27, Alan Sondheim wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Patrick Lichty wrote:



However, I think that the world is entering a very tense, even dark 
time, and in an Adorno-esque way, perhaps it is good to consider what 
being committed as artists means again.




It means at the least, not being committed, which in Trump's Amerikkka 
is a very real possibility. -

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour



--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield

www.furtherfield.org

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i

Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, & 
debates

around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997

Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade, 
Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Alan Sondheim]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Patrick Lichty wrote:



However, I think that the world is entering a very tense, even dark 
time, and in an Adorno-esque way, perhaps it is good to consider what 
being committed as artists means again.




It means at the least, not being committed, which in Trump's Amerikkka is 
a very real possibility. -

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Patrick Lichty]

I think we are in a very difficult time for artists.  On one hand, we 
are in a point where work that at least derives from our culture is 
having some success in the Contemporary milieu, and I can't fault people 
wanting to look at conventional forms of success, although I am 
wondering whether being connected to elite strata suggests a complicity 
with authoritarian neoliberalism. (I am rattling that around a bit) And 
then there are the avant-gardeists, media tacticians and the like (where 
I have lived much of my life), who feel that art is a social force.  And 
then there is the "follow your bliss, who cares about anything 
resembling a living" school where some of us also go.  It's a very 
complex matrix of causes and effects, and I think that we can play 
hopscotch on this archipelago of modes, and many do.  but saying this, I 
feel like few of us who are professional at all are pure in this 
respect, and it's good to admit that.


However, I think that the world is entering a very tense, even dark 
time, and in an Adorno-esque way, perhaps it is good to consider what 
being committed as artists means again.



On 12/13/16 2:50 PM, Gretta Louw wrote:

Hi Alan,

I think you’re misunderstanding me and getting bogged down in semantics. I do 
think that there are lots of people making really excellent art that is 
relevant to the world as it is today, I never suggested that that wasn’t the 
case. It’s great that you’ve found some of those people in Atlanta.
I would say we can't characterisation the alt-right so easily. Many of them are 
not about vetting, definitions etc, but purely about self-interest and 
self-indulgence. It’s a form of instant gratification. There is no environment 
to be concerned about, there is no war outside of what it costs them, there is 
no humanity in other populations to fret over - there is just desire and 
self-interest.
How people/artists choose to tackle these issues is not and should not be 
controlled. Different strategies are needed and will best suit different 
people, that’s as it should be. But I think for art to be relevant, worthwhile, 
anything other than a play-thing for the rich in our times, it needs to engage 
in a meaningful way with reality outside of the art world(s). And, yes, I am 
prepared to dedicate a lot of resources (time, emotional energy, support, 
opportunities) to helping the many creatives who are doing this important work 
right now.

Anyway, that’s my two cents, got to run now, so I’ll bow out at this point.

In solidarity,
Gretta



On 13 Dec 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alan Sondheim  wrote:


Hi Gretta,

We're a bit in disagreement here, not too much. When you say "I am saying, we should urge ourselves to look outside of the art 
worlds, look at our context, our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make work that engages with that in the most 
meaningful ways we can." - that's precisely what seems to be going on in Atlanta for example and elsewhere that I see - there 
_is_ this engagement going on, but it's without the "should urge" - it's happening. The zines for example I saw were 
relevant, were coming out of community. But they don't fall into the categories, as far as I can see, that we discuss here. You say 
"we also can?t just remove all categorisation and say "art is art is art" and allow ourselves to just indulge in 
whatever creative pursuit is most fun (by that obviously I also mean, potentially, intellectually stimulating etc) at that particular 
time in our specific creative sandbox." - and that still worries me. I remember talking with Laurie Anderson precisely about 
this - the idea of "fun" - which see (and I) saw as subversive itself - the last thing a lot of artists want is that sense 
of play - but play also undermines ideology, brings one to think deeper & in other ways. I've taught at a lot of art schools, and 
the painters were usually the most conservative students / teachers - but they also were the ones who, by virture of the slow image 
production, different and sometimes anideological thinking etc., actually were the most radical, just not in the usual sense.

You say, "they?ve let themselves drift to far into self-reflexiveness.
Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect." - and perhaps we need to do that reassessment 
ourselves; the phrase "drift too far" is already prejorative, already an exclusion. Here's the problem - 
"Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect." - because that's also what the right in the usa 
wants, it's what corporate artschools like SCAD (Savannah College of Art and Design, notorious) also say. For me 
it's troubling. There should be room, I think, for everything, everyone; I'm arguing a bit here for eliminating 
categorization, yes, but that doesn't create saying "art is  art is" etc. - it means the opposite, 
seeing what lies behind the definition (who cares what art is - that can lead to connoisseurship etc etc) - seeing 
what the artist 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Gretta Louw]

Hi Alan,

I think you’re misunderstanding me and getting bogged down in semantics. I do 
think that there are lots of people making really excellent art that is 
relevant to the world as it is today, I never suggested that that wasn’t the 
case. It’s great that you’ve found some of those people in Atlanta. 
I would say we can't characterisation the alt-right so easily. Many of them are 
not about vetting, definitions etc, but purely about self-interest and 
self-indulgence. It’s a form of instant gratification. There is no environment 
to be concerned about, there is no war outside of what it costs them, there is 
no humanity in other populations to fret over - there is just desire and 
self-interest.
How people/artists choose to tackle these issues is not and should not be 
controlled. Different strategies are needed and will best suit different 
people, that’s as it should be. But I think for art to be relevant, worthwhile, 
anything other than a play-thing for the rich in our times, it needs to engage 
in a meaningful way with reality outside of the art world(s). And, yes, I am 
prepared to dedicate a lot of resources (time, emotional energy, support, 
opportunities) to helping the many creatives who are doing this important work 
right now.

Anyway, that’s my two cents, got to run now, so I’ll bow out at this point.

In solidarity,
Gretta


> On 13 Dec 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alan Sondheim  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Gretta,
> 
> We're a bit in disagreement here, not too much. When you say "I am saying, we 
> should urge ourselves to look outside of the art worlds, look at our context, 
> our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make work that 
> engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can." - that's precisely 
> what seems to be going on in Atlanta for example and elsewhere that I see - 
> there _is_ this engagement going on, but it's without the "should urge" - 
> it's happening. The zines for example I saw were relevant, were coming out of 
> community. But they don't fall into the categories, as far as I can see, that 
> we discuss here. You say "we also can?t just remove all categorisation and 
> say "art is art is art" and allow ourselves to just indulge in whatever 
> creative pursuit is most fun (by that obviously I also mean, potentially, 
> intellectually stimulating etc) at that particular time in our specific 
> creative sandbox." - and that still worries me. I remember talking with 
> Laurie Anderson precisely about this - the idea of "fun" - which see (and I) 
> saw as subversive itself - the last thing a lot of artists want is that sense 
> of play - but play also undermines ideology, brings one to think deeper & in 
> other ways. I've taught at a lot of art schools, and the painters were 
> usually the most conservative students / teachers - but they also were the 
> ones who, by virture of the slow image production, different and sometimes 
> anideological thinking etc., actually were the most radical, just not in the 
> usual sense.
> 
> You say, "they?ve let themselves drift to far into self-reflexiveness.
> Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect." - and perhaps we need 
> to do that reassessment ourselves; the phrase "drift too far" is already 
> prejorative, already an exclusion. Here's the problem - "Let this be a time 
> where they reassess and redirect." - because that's also what the right in 
> the usa wants, it's what corporate artschools like SCAD (Savannah College of 
> Art and Design, notorious) also say. For me it's troubling. There should be 
> room, I think, for everything, everyone; I'm arguing a bit here for 
> eliminating categorization, yes, but that doesn't create saying "art is  art 
> is" etc. - it means the opposite, seeing what lies behind the definition (who 
> cares what art is - that can lead to connoisseurship etc etc) - seeing what 
> the artist is saying, what motivates her etc.
> 
> So I'm torn, I agree with you below and it worries me at the same time. The 
> work that interests me is embedded, opens up vistas, creates and intensifies 
> wonder, opens up paths for contemplation as well as action, makes the world a 
> bit better and seem a bit deeper, encourages, acts, heals, enlarges our view 
> of things, creates a space for community and individual politics and 
> education. And what occurs on the right in Amerikka is just the opposite - 
> closure, boundary, definitions, vetting, etc. - what the Lakoff's, if I 
> remember correctly, talked about as a regime of the stern father. HE's the 
> one who knows right from wrong, right action from wrong action etc. (Just 
> occurred to me, we have here two literary figures in the 19th cent. - Whitman 
> and Dickinson - the former was engaged in community (see his war writings) 
> and worked with, dealt with, the larger community in a new way, opening up 
> vistas, empowering; - and the latter opened up internal territories that 
> educate, move, inspire, and are 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Alan Sondheim]

Hi Gretta,

We're a bit in disagreement here, not too much. When you say "I am saying, 
we should urge ourselves to look outside of the art worlds, look at our 
context, our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make 
work that engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can." - that's 
precisely what seems to be going on in Atlanta for example and elsewhere 
that I see - there _is_ this engagement going on, but it's without the 
"should urge" - it's happening. The zines for example I saw were relevant, 
were coming out of community. But they don't fall into the categories, as 
far as I can see, that we discuss here. You say "we also can?t just remove 
all categorisation and say "art is art is art" and allow ourselves to just 
indulge in whatever creative pursuit is most fun (by that obviously I also 
mean, potentially, intellectually stimulating etc) at that particular time 
in our specific creative sandbox." - and that still worries me. I remember 
talking with Laurie Anderson precisely about this - the idea of "fun" - 
which see (and I) saw as subversive itself - the last thing a lot of 
artists want is that sense of play - but play also undermines ideology, 
brings one to think deeper & in other ways. I've taught at a lot of art 
schools, and the painters were usually the most conservative students / 
teachers - but they also were the ones who, by virture of the slow image 
production, different and sometimes anideological thinking etc., actually 
were the most radical, just not in the usual sense.


You say, "they?ve let themselves drift to far into self-reflexiveness.
Let this be a time where they reassess and redirect." - and perhaps we 
need to do that reassessment ourselves; the phrase "drift too far" is 
already prejorative, already an exclusion. Here's the problem - "Let this 
be a time where they reassess and redirect." - because that's also what 
the right in the usa wants, it's what corporate artschools like SCAD 
(Savannah College of Art and Design, notorious) also say. For me it's 
troubling. There should be room, I think, for everything, everyone; I'm 
arguing a bit here for eliminating categorization, yes, but that doesn't 
create saying "art is  art is" etc. - it means the opposite, seeing what 
lies behind the definition (who cares what art is - that can lead to 
connoisseurship etc etc) - seeing what the artist is saying, what 
motivates her etc.


So I'm torn, I agree with you below and it worries me at the same time. 
The work that interests me is embedded, opens up vistas, creates and 
intensifies wonder, opens up paths for contemplation as well as action, 
makes the world a bit better and seem a bit deeper, encourages, acts, 
heals, enlarges our view of things, creates a space for community and 
individual politics and education. And what occurs on the right in 
Amerikka is just the opposite - closure, boundary, definitions, vetting, 
etc. - what the Lakoff's, if I remember correctly, talked about as a 
regime of the stern father. HE's the one who knows right from wrong, right 
action from wrong action etc. (Just occurred to me, we have here two 
literary figures in the 19th cent. - Whitman and Dickinson - the former 
was engaged in community (see his war writings) and worked with, dealt 
with, the larger community in a new way, opening up vistas, empowering; - 
and the latter opened up internal territories that educate, move, inspire, 
and are solitary and breathtaking. We need both here. Both refused 
boundary in different ways...


Sorry to go on here; you're inspiring and basically I think on one hand 
you're right, and on the other, cultural workers of all sorts have a hard 
enough time; we need to support each other deeply...


- Alan




On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Gretta Louw wrote:

Haha, Alan there is no imperative in what I said, there is a plea, a 
hope, a wish. The imperative comes from outside and above - the 
imperative to ?make a living?, the imperative to pay taxes, the 
imperative to write reports with quantitative analysis of why funding 
you received was well spent etc. What I said is the opposite of all 
that. And while I agree that categorising specific works or sometimes 
even specific genres is usually a waste of time, we also can?t just 
remove all categorisation and say "art is art is art" and allow 
ourselves to just indulge in whatever creative pursuit is most fun (by 
that obviously I also mean, potentially, intellectually stimulating etc) 
at that particular time in our specific creative sandbox. I am saying, 
we should urge ourselves to look outside of the art worlds, look at our 
context, our neighbours, our community, society, world, and try to make 
work that engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can. I am 
reading a lot of artists online at the moment lamenting that they don?t 
feel that their work is relevant in these 
Trumpland/Aleppo/Brexit/Refugee Crisis days, and I think some of them 
are right, they?ve let 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Gretta Louw]

Haha, Alan there is no imperative in what I said, there is a plea, a hope, a 
wish. The imperative comes from outside and above - the imperative to “make a 
living”, the imperative to pay taxes, the imperative to write reports with 
quantitative analysis of why funding you received was well spent etc. What I 
said is the opposite of all that. 
And while I agree that categorising specific works or sometimes even specific 
genres is usually a waste of time, we also can’t just remove all categorisation 
and say "art is art is art" and allow ourselves to just indulge in whatever 
creative pursuit is most fun (by that obviously I also mean, potentially, 
intellectually stimulating etc) at that particular time in our specific 
creative sandbox. I am saying, we should urge ourselves to look outside of the 
art worlds, look at our context, our neighbours, our community, society, world, 
and try to make work that engages with that in the most meaningful ways we can. 
I am reading a lot of artists online at the moment lamenting that they don’t 
feel that their work is relevant in these Trumpland/Aleppo/Brexit/Refugee 
Crisis days, and I think some of them are right, they’ve let themselves drift 
to far into self-reflexiveness. Let this be a time where they reassess and 
redirect.


> On 13 Dec 2016, at 5:15 AM, Alan Sondheim  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a mainstream art world? "The mainstream art world waited to utter 
> the term "Internet art" until they could safely add the prefix "post-" to it" 
> Jon Ippolito I think these reifications might be too simple, as are internet 
> art, net art, post digital, digital, and so forth. I'm not interested in art 
> about art in any sort of self-reflexive way, but I haven't anything against 
> artists who explore that; for me while I agree completely with " We need to 
> make work about things that matter more and are more grounded in the body, 
> the land, in depth and real experience." - I worry about the underlying 
> imperative here. There's depth in art about art, there's real experience 
> there as well. All of these categories limit and limit ourselves, I think - 
> for me, issues of communality, exploration, philosophy, the commons, diwo, 
> diy, all of these are interrelated. I keep thinking of how Amerikkka at this 
> point is all about drawing boundaries, and art history itself is one of those 
> boundaries - canons, genera, media, new media, etc., etc. Just expressing a 
> worry here, too many categories, maybe too many dismissals by virtue of the 
> categories - Also, again where Marc says "- as in, take full control of its 
> once grass roots identity, and own its history and future; and turn it all 
> into its own pliable set of products." - as it was pointed out to me last 
> night, a great deal of media-oriented art never was grass-roots for example. 
> I can use myself here - I began in a terak mini-computer in the 70s creating 
> drawing program w/ pascal etc. I had help - not course-wise, but academic 
> help on the side; I used equipment that at that time would have cost tens and 
> tens of thousands of USD - and a whole world opened up - in dialog with the 
> institution that gave me freedom to work with the equipment. And I think 
> there's a problem also with " but only so that all the typical top-down 
> defaults of the mainstream can take it apart and force it to reflect its own 
> intentions and belief systems" - I do understand what is meant by 
> "mainstream," but after looking again at Atlanta art for example - ranging 
> from the Printed Matter zinefest to an auction where artist exchange work 
> among themselves to the current highly charged Atlanta Biennale at the 
> Atlanta Contemporary, to Agnes Scott showing work dealing with southern 
> identity and narrative, including an intense piece by Bessie Harvey etc. - 
> I'm not sure where the "mainstream" actually is, or whether it serves any 
> purpose to personify it. I'd like to see all these categories exploded so 
> that we might proceed w/ looking and listening to everyone and anyone, 
> finding our own paths through the creative debris ranging from monetary 
> systems to zines to vr to the future of perception itself etc.
> 
> We just got in to Washington DC, discussing policy with one of the heads of a 
> critical ngo, my head is reeling more than realing here. I bring this up 
> because I feel more than ever the need for concrete politics and a breakdown 
> of any barriers, aesthetic and otherise, at this point. Too many walls...
> 
> Hope this makes some sense - Alan
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Patrick Lichty]

I'm sorry I have not been more active. Zayed University has had me 
running hard as I try to build a VR lab and work on a new gallery 
progresses.


From what I gather from the conversation, there seems to be a bit of 
despair over the role of networked art in the cultural noosphere.  In 
some ways, i feel like an actor with the coming of cinema.  This is 
perhaps a bad metaphor, but there are a number of things that 
interrelate; the cultural scene, socioeconomic ecologies, technology, 
politics, etc.


The 90's for me were a time of collectivism, at least until the 
recognition of forms around 2000, when some money arrived, and 
individuals went off to follow the Randian Dream.  I believe there is a 
wide spectrum of practitioners in our field, from the highly 
professional (i.e. Rozendaal) to the communal (Ruth/Marc), and the 
iconoclasts (Alan).  What is clear is that:

1: Times change, presenting new challenges.
2: Players change
3: Politics change
4: Some become more or less materially successful
5: People love artists below 35, because they're still cheap and easy to 
speculate on


To me, frustration of born of wanting others to adhere to your 
worldview, and of course, the necessity for action derives from the 
degree of oppression or suffering or injustice the other inflicts.  I 
sense a lot of resentment, especially here, for the stratum that, over 
the last ten years, has become more accepted in the Contemporary 
discourse, and I get that. Honestly I agree in the criticisms of 
ahistoricity, complicity with neoliberalism, etc.


But saying that one ideology has more attention at one time than another 
means little to me as I see more time in front of me. It's just where 
you are at the moment.  Trust me, I'd love to be running around with 
some of my younger friends that I see on NYC or London, or Whatnot.  But 
I have academic responsibilities at the moment.


What I do agree with is that with the rise of the current wave of 
artistt, fame/money seem to be the overriding goal. I get that. Warhol 
was big into business; Marinetti was big into ahistoricity. And in the 
States especially, art school has become outrageous, so you either have 
to be rich or find a way to monetize.  Art in the Neoliberal.


And Turbulence.org is an early player in the ephemerality of our 
culture. Archive.org, openculture.org, etc. will have this problem at 
one point or another.  This is why I support people like Henry Warwick's 
offline repositories of cultural material, which is becoming more 
widespread.


And in so doing, I also agree with plodding on with extra-corporate 
communities, listservs like this, and so on. While they might seem 
anachronistic to some, they serve a great purpose.  They lend continuity 
to a culture that fragments and bubbles so often.


And this is where I see net art, it's relational, emphemeral, like 
performance, and as long as "we" as a heterogenous community do not just 
hold onto old models, and experiment with new forms, we're fine.



On 12/12/16 12:55 PM, Gretta Louw wrote:
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how often the art, the 
revolutionary, meaningful kind, at the moment is truly in creating 
structures and platforms for ideas and people to engage. What comes 
out at the end - the video/prints etc that funders want to see or that 
gets posted to instagram - is not really the important part, at that 
point the art itself has already happened. And this making of 
structures and platforms is still greatly assisted by networked 
technologies.


g.


On 11 Dec 2016, at 12:26 PM, ruth catlow 
> 
wrote:









--
Co-founder Co-director
Furtherfield

www.furtherfield.org

+44 (0) 77370 02879

Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i

Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, & 
debates

around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997

Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand 
Arcade, Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour




___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Rob Myers]

On 12/12/16 01:24 AM, Annie Abrahams wrote:


let's continue the spirit


+ a Google. Err googol.

- Rob.
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Alan Sondheim]

Is there a mainstream art world? "The mainstream art world waited to utter 
the term "Internet art" until they could safely add the prefix "post-" to 
it" Jon Ippolito I think these reifications might be too simple, as are 
internet art, net art, post digital, digital, and so forth. I'm not 
interested in art about art in any sort of self-reflexive way, but I 
haven't anything against artists who explore that; for me while I agree 
completely with " We need to make work about things that matter more and 
are more grounded in the body, the land, in depth and real experience." - 
I worry about the underlying imperative here. There's depth in art about 
art, there's real experience there as well. All of these categories limit 
and limit ourselves, I think - for me, issues of communality, exploration, 
philosophy, the commons, diwo, diy, all of these are interrelated. I keep 
thinking of how Amerikkka at this point is all about drawing boundaries, 
and art history itself is one of those boundaries - canons, genera, media, 
new media, etc., etc. Just expressing a worry here, too many categories, 
maybe too many dismissals by virtue of the categories - Also, again where 
Marc says "- as in, take full control of its once grass roots identity, 
and own its history and future; and turn it all into its own pliable set 
of products." - as it was pointed out to me last night, a great deal of 
media-oriented art never was grass-roots for example. I can use myself 
here - I began in a terak mini-computer in the 70s creating drawing 
program w/ pascal etc. I had help - not course-wise, but academic help on 
the side; I used equipment that at that time would have cost tens and tens 
of thousands of USD - and a whole world opened up - in dialog with the 
institution that gave me freedom to work with the equipment. And I think 
there's a problem also with " but only so that all the typical top-down 
defaults of the mainstream can take it apart and force it to reflect its 
own intentions and belief systems" - I do understand what is meant by 
"mainstream," but after looking again at Atlanta art for example - ranging 
from the Printed Matter zinefest to an auction where artist exchange work 
among themselves to the current highly charged Atlanta Biennale at the 
Atlanta Contemporary, to Agnes Scott showing work dealing with southern 
identity and narrative, including an intense piece by Bessie Harvey etc. - 
I'm not sure where the "mainstream" actually is, or whether it serves any 
purpose to personify it. I'd like to see all these categories exploded so 
that we might proceed w/ looking and listening to everyone and anyone, 
finding our own paths through the creative debris ranging from monetary 
systems to zines to vr to the future of perception itself etc.


We just got in to Washington DC, discussing policy with one of the heads 
of a critical ngo, my head is reeling more than realing here. I bring this 
up because I feel more than ever the need for concrete politics and a 
breakdown of any barriers, aesthetic and otherise, at this point. Too many 
walls...


Hope this makes some sense - Alan
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[helen varley jamieson]

+1 :)


On 12/12/16 11:51 42AM, Gretta Louw wrote:
> I like that quote, Marc, and I think you’re right about a lot of those
> points. The only thing I would point out is that for me Net Art and
> Post-Internet Art have almost nothing to do with one another. They are
> as similar as Body Art/Performance Art and an oil painting of a nude. 
> But I do think that Net Art needs to consider not only exploring the
> technology itself but (as Annie’s work often does, but not so many
> others) get into the bodily, human, societal, and environmental
> aspects of the net. We are not in a period where we can afford to make
> formal, conceptual, self-reflexive artworks about the material and
> about art itself. We need to make work about things that matter more
> and are more grounded in the body, the land, in depth and real experience.
>
> In solidarity,
> Gretta
>
>
>> On 12 Dec 2016, at 11:17 AM, marc garrett > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Annie & Gretta,
>>
>> yes, you're both bringing up something that has been at the forefront
>> of mine & Ruth's, discussions, intentions, and actions -- for a while
>> now. Hence, why Furtherfield exists in the first place...
>>
>> I found this a really interestinig comment, recently, by Jon Ippolito.
>>
>> "The mainstream art world waited to utter the term "Internet art"
>> until they could safely add the prefix "post-" to it" Jon Ippolito
>>
>> What Ippolito said is rather poignant, because it demonstrates a
>> shift where ownership of an artistic practice has 'officially' been
>> acknowledged as part of the mainstream, but only so that all the
>> typical top-down defaults of the mainstream can take it apart and
>> force it to reflect its own intentions and belief systems -- as in,
>> take full control of its once grass roots identity, and own its
>> history and future; and turn it all into its own pliable set of products.
>>
>> Wishing you well.
>>
>> marc
>>
>> On 12 December 2016 at 09:24, Annie Abrahams > > wrote:
>>
>> yes Gretta, that's it
>>
>> when reading Ruth's reaction I immediately became aware that my
>> phrase wasn't ok. of course we can continue the spirit, there is
>> no impossibility. I wanted to point to
>> 
>> http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2016/12/06/role-play-your-way-to-budgetary-blockchain-bliss/
>> 
>> 
>> where you can read about Ruth's workshop for Moneylab, as an
>> example and of course I thought about my own work where learning
>> what it means to "be with" is more important than what is
>> actually happening, where the process is more important than the
>> result. I think the same is true for for instance Helen Varley
>> Jamieson's "we have a situation", and of course there is more.
>>
>> netart : we discussed possibilities and impossibilities - as
>> usual we complained, were nostalgic - net art is changing, the
>> internet is not what it was etc. but I also learned that
>> Ubermorgen (Hans and Liz) became professors in netart at a German
>> artschool
>> netart became a construct, starts to become historical
>> so what to complain?
>> let's continue the spirit
>>
>> xxx Annie
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gretta Louw
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how often the art, the
>> revolutionary, meaningful kind, at the moment is truly in
>> creating structures and platforms for ideas and people to
>> engage. What comes out at the end - the video/prints etc that
>> funders want to see or that gets posted to instagram - is not
>> really the important part, at that point the art itself has
>> already happened. And this making of structures and platforms
>> is still greatly assisted by networked technologies.
>>
>> g.
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Dec 2016, at 12:26 PM, ruth catlow
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Co-founder Co-director
>>> Furtherfield
>>>
>>> www.furtherfield.org 
>>>
>>> +44 (0) 77370 02879
>>>
>>> Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
>>>
>>> Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows,
>>> labs, & debates
>>> around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
>>>
>>> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
>>> registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
>>> Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House,
>>> Grand Arcade, Tally Ho Corner, London 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Gretta Louw]

I like that quote, Marc, and I think you’re right about a lot of those points. 
The only thing I would point out is that for me Net Art and Post-Internet Art 
have almost nothing to do with one another. They are as similar as Body 
Art/Performance Art and an oil painting of a nude. 
But I do think that Net Art needs to consider not only exploring the technology 
itself but (as Annie’s work often does, but not so many others) get into the 
bodily, human, societal, and environmental aspects of the net. We are not in a 
period where we can afford to make formal, conceptual, self-reflexive artworks 
about the material and about art itself. We need to make work about things that 
matter more and are more grounded in the body, the land, in depth and real 
experience.

In solidarity,
Gretta


> On 12 Dec 2016, at 11:17 AM, marc garrett  wrote:
> 
> Hi Annie & Gretta,
> 
> yes, you're both bringing up something that has been at the forefront of mine 
> & Ruth's, discussions, intentions, and actions -- for a while now. Hence, why 
> Furtherfield exists in the first place...
> 
> I found this a really interestinig comment, recently, by Jon Ippolito.
> 
> "The mainstream art world waited to utter the term "Internet art" until they 
> could safely add the prefix "post-" to it" Jon Ippolito
> 
> What Ippolito said is rather poignant, because it demonstrates a shift where 
> ownership of an artistic practice has 'officially' been acknowledged as part 
> of the mainstream, but only so that all the typical top-down defaults of the 
> mainstream can take it apart and force it to reflect its own intentions and 
> belief systems -- as in, take full control of its once grass roots identity, 
> and own its history and future; and turn it all into its own pliable set of 
> products.
> 
> Wishing you well.
> 
> marc
> 
> On 12 December 2016 at 09:24, Annie Abrahams  > wrote:
> yes Gretta, that's it
> 
> when reading Ruth's reaction I immediately became aware that my phrase wasn't 
> ok. of course we can continue the spirit, there is no impossibility. I wanted 
> to point to 
> http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2016/12/06/role-play-your-way-to-budgetary-blockchain-bliss/
>  
> 
>  where you can read about Ruth's workshop for Moneylab, as an example and of 
> course I thought about my own work where learning what it means to "be with" 
> is more important than what is actually happening, where the process is more 
> important than the result. I think the same is true for for instance Helen 
> Varley Jamieson's "we have a situation", and of course there is more.
> 
> netart : we discussed possibilities and impossibilities - as usual we 
> complained, were nostalgic - net art is changing, the internet is not what it 
> was etc. but I also learned that Ubermorgen (Hans and Liz) became professors 
> in netart at a German artschool
> netart became a construct, starts to become historical
> so what to complain?
> let's continue the spirit
> 
> xxx Annie
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gretta Louw  > wrote:
> I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how often the art, the revolutionary, 
> meaningful kind, at the moment is truly in creating structures and platforms 
> for ideas and people to engage. What comes out at the end - the video/prints 
> etc that funders want to see or that gets posted to instagram - is not really 
> the important part, at that point the art itself has already happened. And 
> this making of structures and platforms is still greatly assisted by 
> networked technologies.
> 
> g.
> 
> 
>> On 11 Dec 2016, at 12:26 PM, ruth catlow > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Co-founder Co-director
>> Furtherfield
>> 
>> www.furtherfield.org 
>> 
>> +44 (0) 77370 02879 
>> 
>> Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i 
>> 
>> Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, & debates 
>> around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
>> 
>> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee 
>> registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205. 
>> Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade, Tally 
>> Ho Corner, London N12 0EH. 
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour 
>> 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
> 

Re: [NetBehaviour] I saw this from Annie. It made me sad...and curious

[Annie Abrahams]

yes Gretta, that's it

when reading Ruth's reaction I immediately became aware that my phrase
wasn't ok. of course we can continue the spirit, there is no impossibility.
I wanted to point to
http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2016/12/06/role-play-your-way-to-budgetary-blockchain-bliss/
where you can read about Ruth's workshop for Moneylab, as an example and of
course I thought about my own work where learning what it means to "be
with" is more important than what is actually happening, where the process
is more important than the result. I think the same is true for for
instance Helen Varley Jamieson's "we have a situation", and of course there
is more.

netart : we discussed possibilities and impossibilities - as usual we
complained, were nostalgic - net art is changing, the internet is not what
it was etc. but I also learned that Ubermorgen (Hans and Liz) became
professors in netart at a German artschool
netart became a construct, starts to become historical
so what to complain?
let's continue the spirit

xxx Annie

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Gretta Louw 
wrote:

> I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how often the art, the
> revolutionary, meaningful kind, at the moment is truly in creating
> structures and platforms for ideas and people to engage. What comes out at
> the end - the video/prints etc that funders want to see or that gets posted
> to instagram - is not really the important part, at that point the art
> itself has already happened. And this making of structures and platforms is
> still greatly assisted by networked technologies.
>
> g.
>
>
> On 11 Dec 2016, at 12:26 PM, ruth catlow 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Co-founder Co-director
> Furtherfield
>
> www.furtherfield.org
>
> +44 (0) 77370 02879
>
> Bitcoin Address 197BBaXa6M9PtHhhNTQkuHh1pVJA8RrJ2i
>
> Furtherfield is the UK's leading organisation for art shows, labs, &
> debates
> around critical questions in art and technology, since 1997
>
> Furtherfield is a Not-for-Profit Company limited by Guarantee
> registered in England and Wales under the Company No.7005205.
> Registered business address: Ballard Newman, Apex House, Grand Arcade,
> Tally Ho Corner, London N12 0EH.
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>



-- 
Distant FeelingS #3  Thursday 24 Nov.
6.30pm, *VisionS
in the Nunnery*, 181 Bow Road, London E3 2SJ and *online*.
With *Lisa Parra*,* Daniel Pinheiro* and *Annie Abrahams*.

*How does it feel to share an interface with eyes closed and no talking?*
http://bram.org
https://aabrahams.wordpress.com
http://e-stranger.tumblr.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour