Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-eyebeam - [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos

cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: cz AT zanni.org
  • To: cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:01 -0500 (EST)


>>>Carlo, if you read this, please relate what happened with you and
some other artist's contribution to Rhizome's Artbase


here I am...

on June 28th Rhizome accepted in its Artbase a work which is very similar
(it's quite the same thing)
to a work I did in 2001 as response to the 9-11 tragedy.
I remember I shared that instant piece with the list, inviting people for a 3
minutes blank page. (at that time my home page was hosting the piece itself)
In brief: the work was a blank page with two rectangular not-loaded-images in
it.
If some of you know a little bit of my practice, know that not-loaded-images
are an important part of my process. I also painted a lot of them...
It's not a "logo" but it's like a signature for me since 2000 ... anyway

I've never thought about they had copied me. The only thing I didn't like was
that the Rhizome Artbase accepted that piece... giving it a "status" ...you
know..
such as an historical classification.
We shared a lot of emails, with Rachel, Alena and Rhizome users.
They explained me that to be included in the Artbase you have to send a
submission and above all the artbase hasn't an historical function.
So it means that if Mark Napier, John Klima or others don't send a submission
to the Artbase, their work will not be included (Mark has only a piece:
Pulse).
And also this means that if someone else "copies and pastes" their works,
submitting them to the artbase, the Artbase will probably indicise them,
because it seems it has neither an historicization function nor a curatorial
one.

Sincerely I don't find the Artbase very interesting with such premises... but
I understand that it could be very helpful for the biggest part of the
community.
So I don't submit my works to it; whereas I like very much the fresh texts
area.

Answering Liza:

>>>>we both agree that if net art has not in any way become
ubiquitous on the web itself, how it will ever be in the analog world?

But it seems netart is everywhere on the web... even if it isn't netart but
an animated gif (I love animated gifs)
And I see the "one-way attitude" (net presence, net community, net fame) as a
limitation... with no challenge anymore.
Personally, what I'm doing now, (but also Napier seems following this way..
see bitforms) is to bring netart to the analog side..
where (and I answer to your following paragraph) there is money (or more
money... still speaking about artworld..).
And it's hard because you at least encounter tech problems (I mean you are
living 2003 while artfairs, galleries and dealers are living in 1960)


>>>> And even if you did have everything in hand, what good is it
if you have no money --because copyright or copyleft, if you have no money to
defend yourself, you have no leverage.

Absolutely true... but I think artists have some aspects you don't have in
other fields..and they should use them to defend their work.
I mean: poetics and artistic path... which in netart world usually aren't
considered.
In facts it is sufficient to do a piece to become a netartist and so on...
(nobody in the analog artworld will tell you that you are an artist if you
paint one canvas)
I think "body of work", poetics, and aesthetics are really important also in
netart.


very best,
cz




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page