[syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist

[info at furtherfield.org]

Hi there john,

I read your e-mail & thought there were definately some good points but I do
not agree with all of what you have said and I do believe that your
intentions are honourable, I believe that the function of generative ascii
is, at its best playful, insightful, communicative, explorative, challenging
and hopefully radical wihtout being too self-conscious about it. At its
worst, it is self-conscious, denies creative ideas of other people's, and
can kill progressive communication via one massive spam.

I used to use it a lot in the early nineties on bulletin boards before the
Internet had happened. On Fastbreeder & Cybercafe with Heath Bunting (of
which I was co-sysop). I tend to view ascii as a different way of
communicating, a type of function, some of it has no purpose other than
filling up virtual space. Imagine a landscape image - the different tones,
colours make up that landscape, they are essential to make up the whole but
are not immediately recognised as the main subject matter. Ascii art I feel
is a wonderful freedom at the same time from content, I find the most
interesting ascii, declares something that cannot be seen in any other way
than its own medium. The Internet is the perfect arena for such things -
ascii art does not need to belong to anyone and comes from a place of
mischief, sometimes anoying but it offers a chance for people to stop taking
themselves and art, life to seriously generally. It is a clause, a
loop-hole, and usually egoless.


> I did not assert that I could define art. But I do know the difference
> between a hawk and a handsaw. I struggle every day trying to define art
> for myself, and I cannot say that I have gotten any better at it.

I question why you are trying to define art, why bother, its too big and
changes everyday. It has no centre, why try to pin down a spirit if it is
untouchable?

I believe the best thing is to define your own creative and informed journey
and express it as free and honestly as one can, don't expect what you are in
others it wil not happen. It's our differences that create an amazing world,
that I believe should be valued, as long as it is not killing anyone, or
bombing like so many of the backward idiots are around the world, there's
progress.

> however, tell when I am being sold a bill of goods.  I suppose what I
> was getting at there is that what I have noticed going on with the ascii
> characters and the little cyber scrawls has become uninspired, co-opted
> nonsense. It was a stylistic choice, ONCE. After that, it was
> immitation. It is like those who would like to be percieved as artists
> dressing in the black clothes and behaving broodingly. It is a show.

I can understand your thoughts here - what you are saying is that a lot of
these people have succumbed to a a pseudo style stance. Offering nothing but
repeated nonsense moving no further than their own masks, of which they are
hiding behind. Yep this true, but not in all cases, some of these people are
doong some good stuff. If anything, like all of us, its all bout exploration
not about the end product so some things work and some things don't. One
sight I reaaly like but do not trust it, yet enjoy its presence at the same
time, which is more to do with me probably. have a look at this site
below... a lot it is like theatre, performance, via technology.

I've had a couple of run-in's with net.wurker][mez][ but really she/he/it -
is alright, explore the sight, let it be what it wants to be...


http://netwurkerz.de/mez/dielation/dilation1.htm


> When you actually look at the SUBSTANCE of what is being communicated
> there is nothing new.

I question this desire for something new, I do not believe that there is
anything new if one actually looks at the function of what it is - for
instance - insitutions function for money yet there directives/mission are
its tools to collect that money. Yes Cyber art is no longer new, yet as
medium it has not been accepted whole-heartedly by art insitutions, amainly
because it does not collect money, as a product it is not seen as a
potential returnable asset of worth - which is a good and a bad thing.
Although many educative institutions latch on to cyber art to make
themselves feel younger and it attracts funding and students who think that
they are jumping on a kool bandwagon, which of course damages the soul it
all anyway...

The addition of ascii characters, intentional
> mis-spellings, "boop boop" whatever, is just pop pablum,
> self-promotional drivel. Whatever happened to simplicity, transparency,
> simply saying what you mean?

Now this is hot potato, mainly because amny ascii artists are from outside
the so called western world catchment of what is considered art worth
looking at. Which is of course very shameful and too typical of western art
default situations. Many ascii artists were actively creating art which
promoted a clear message in the past with other mediums for creativity but
it was ignored because they were not in the right country. So many have
moved out of being ignored by creating their own arena - a type autononous
zone, where they create their own rules, diverting, instigating confusion
via the shifting principle of agit-art. Art is no longer their goal, for the
art arena institutionally has ignored too many creative individuals who were
(brilliant), forward thinking, yet did not fit the criteria which is too
singular, too narrow with its definition.

There is a way to be both an artist, and
> comprehensible, particularly when one means to be undertood. If what you
> mean is "Ok, Mr. Smarty-pants, you define art!", why not just say that?
> Speak plainly if you mean to be understood. And then there are those who
> somehow feel that by joining this little club they are somehow promoting
> themselves, by association. While it is unfortunate that these days it
> has become increasingly harder and harder for one to succeed as an
> artist simply by virtue of doing good work, it is still a fact that it
> is still  the work that defines ones art.

It is not the art work that defines art, for art is no longer definable.
What has always defined art is the market, critics, and the powers that want
it to be seen, so there is a culturalization taking place that usually
ignoresd the artists needs or their intentions/context of what they are
really up to in any meanimgful way. So many artist have created their own
world like myself, on our terms.
http://www.furtherfield.org

This gives the artist more power to be who they want to be beyond the remits
of institutional limitations. Creating alternative projects that have
meaning rather than just another child being led into the cynical realm of
curatorial dictatorship, via competitive scenarios imposed on the
artist/creative thinker.

Although I cannot define the
> totality of what art is, I can say that we tend to look for deliberation
> within it. Art is an act of deliberation, right?

I tend to think that traditionally deliberation means that there is a
discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue - yet a lot of art
very much driven by action these days rather debate around a work or ideas
of art, especially in relation to ascii art. The other thing is, I
personally see art as a liberation from whatever one chooses it to be...that
could be deliberation. Not my choice but I can understand why..

So, an artist who
> deliberates daily with his craft, his subject matter, his materials, to
> me that's where the integrity is... Not in the promotion of a perception
> of potential artisticness. I'd love to believe that there are others
> like me who see where I'm coming from here and who  lend clarity to what
> I feel is a valid point, but I admit is a real bitch to break down
> properly. Now, one who criticizes invites criticism. I epect you will
> find grammatical errors and spelling mistakes in this little thing.
> Fine. But please, consider the substance of what I've said. I invite
> debate, so long as the goal is to refine communication and
> understanding, and not sophomoric one-upsmanship.

I am tired like you with the posturing that many backward small minded
little men seem to get distracted with - this again relates to men being
emotionally autistic and unable to develop further than fighting, whether it
be with a gun or with their art, or with power. In fact I did not see your
post as a criticism, I feel that it was geuine and came from a place of
inquisitiveness..this I appreciate.

much respect

marc garret