[syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist

[info at furtherfield.org]

Hello John,

Good answers

>
> I appreciate your honest reply. It was well thought out and made a lot
> of good points. I agree with you that ascii art can be a legitimate form
> of self-expression. I too recall the days of BBSs, before the internet
> came along, and I truly enjoy ascii art. I was in no way trying to say
> that ascii art is not "legitimate" or to narrowly define the realm of
> art. I myself have used ascii to express points.

Kool - I might not of  fully realised the thread with this one (context).

It's just another color
> in the palette, says me. Honestly, mine was more a criticism of the news
> group as it pertains to disseminating news, information, discussion,
> etc...

So do you means newsgroups generally, or do you mean syndicate? The list,
again I might of missed earlier discussions on this point.

While I would never say that for one to add illustrative elements
> to a piece of written work is wrong, I do wonder if it isn't often being
> used as a means of distracting someone from the fact that in the actual
> payload of the text, there is often very little expressed. I may be
> misleading myself, perhaps when those people create these little web
> messages they are not trying to inform or create discussion but are
> rather making some other sort of statement.

I think the diversions themselves are coming from various intentions, some
well informed, some playful with a touch of quirkness, others just automatic
noise on the airwaves. I do not see that there are many deep and artistic
adventures happening in the ascii world, but one could same the same in art
generally, mainly due to many artists eager to explode their load rather
than learn  about life first.

This stuff is what it says - exactly what it says on the tin...

hold(POOP)my(POOP)bunion(POOP)ac0rn<>without<bweep>scorn)

nothing less nothing more. And when one compares it a serious art work, a
creative individual exploring larger issues, I can see that it shrivels into
pale insignificance, may be that's what it wants...so it tells me that just
like our text it is just here, our discussion of course is actively founded
on trying to relate and it itself is about defying communication for whoever
did this did not fancy it at the time and put in those terms. It's just fun
which of course I can presede you in saying that I know that you knew this
already...


I haven't got that
> completely sorted out. Most of what I'm seeing looks to be of the "It's
> confusing, it must be deep and artistic" variety, like this:
>
> ????<<<.o 0 0spiral.ling=double!helix mother//
>
> hold(POOP)my(POOP)bunion(POOP)ac0rn<>without<bweep>scorn)
>
> Which to me is just goofy. But, to those who are soft minded, this sort
> of thing is just intimidating enough to SEEM artsy. Enough.

To the ignorant, less aware it could seem artsy but the one's created it
know it isn't & we know, it's just a text based gesture..

>
> Also, when I said that I struggle to define art daily, I was speaking
> about defining what it is to me, in my art, what it means, etc. I am
> happy that art itself is so hard to define, but for me the act of
> defining is an end in itself in my own work... I tend to like to boil
> things down, to limit the amount of uneccessary or extraneous elements
> that would otherwise confuse whatever it is I'm trying to get at.

Yep - I agree...

I'm
> aware that that is a far cry from the prevalent scattershot approach.
> And of course, if art were truly untouchable, why bother? I contend that
> it is touchable, but that it cannot be held.

Art is untoachable - it us who are touchable, that's the whole point. That
it touches us, not us touch it - it abstract, fluid, an energy beyond
containment.


>
> On the subject of looking for "something new", I suppose my own view is
> defined somewhat by the expressionists, in that for something to be
> real, it must be experiential, conscious, deliberate, and that doing
> something automatic is the opposite.

This is obviously a few ways - and some among many. For me I come from a
place of viewing myself as the medium rather than the medium as a medium, I
am the communicator not the medium. This gives me the choice to explore my
work in different mediums which suit the idea on a lateral level. This
process is in no way from an intellectual stand point, it is more intuitive.
This offers a freedom for me, opening up different ways of seeing beyond the
idea itself, which does get exciting. So if I can explore an idea via a poem
i'll try that way, then i'll try it on music, then as a drawing, then as web
site, then as film, whatever works. In regard to your
philosophical/psychological directives which seem to be the foundation of
where your work comes from, I agree on this, yet I am very much a
Post-Jungian type. With the likes of James Hillman and Thomas Moore - who I
believe have moved psychology into the realm of real life, more social -
than doctorial. Therefore the work's heart is about liberation all the way,
that is its reason for existence, that's why I am here, to liberate myself
from social construction, as well others on the way, in whatever way. I am
keen to let people shine on their own terms for what they really are...

That which is automatic does not
> exist within "lived time". So I personally argue to continually reinvent
> ones views, methods, etc. because in that way, they can exist in real
> "lived time". That probably sounded pretentious, I hope you get where I
> was coming from. I have no problem revisiting old methods, or even doing
> things the way they have traditionally been done. It is when one does
> something by wrote that I start raising my eyebrows.

I think I get the gist here, you are saying that automation does not leave
space for learned re-evaluation. So when it is time to change, or to move on
them/it/he/her won't because they cannot by default. So subconsciously or
deliberately they rely on such methods as a place to hide away from external
questioning within their own field, or art...if this is true. Then they are
very human, scared like the next person about death, life and all that stuff
even though they do not agree to declare it because the scheme or theme of
their invented identities do not make room for such things.....mmm

Although I found mez to be very emotional about various things at times,
probably the most human of these artists/people/persona and very
communicative at times as well..I have also enjoyed some of the text that
mez has put out into the net as well. There is defiantely a conscious mind
working away there that is
informed/intellegent/political/compassionate...many are not any of these.

>

>
> I'm also of the school of thought that art is a justification in it's
> own right, and to make it subject to market forces is counter-intuitive
> to that end.

I have always been keen to exploit the strategies of market forces but I am
never keen for it to exploit me.

This is what I meant about "the work". I mean the physical,
> mental, psychological process of creation. The "work". Look at Lucian
> Freud, that man _works_.

Lucian Freud may work a lot but his work lacks compassion for humanity. Work
is no basis to justify quality, he works alright - but he's got loads of
money. He has a family that has earned billions via dissecting people's
minds, he has reaped the benefit of this and decided to pursue his career as
an artist without interuption. We, have to work to get money do art/buy
materials and all that stuff which as you know takes away a lot energy from
the creative thinking process. He has total institutional support becuase
his family background has geiven him an open gate to be accepted
immediately. To me - he's like the Queen. An institution..

I think in this culture of ease, people would
> like to "do art" but find that it is difficult. People want short-cuts.
> There are none, fortunately. Nature does not give anything away.

I dispute that I live in a culture of ease, which culture are your talking
about? The Neoliberalist culture, art culture, or country culture,
democratic culture? Would you prefer of culture dis-ease?
>
> Also, by "deliberation" I mean that we look for a sign that a decision
> was made; "Oh, I wonder why she used that color? Do you think he
> intended THAT?"... We look for evidence of human deliberation in art. As
> we do in nature. We look for the WHY just as surely as we acknowledge
> the IS. Form follows function.

I do understand what you mean, but it does seem to me that a less formal
approach is called for in judging what one experiences as creativity now,
intention is very much one way of viewing...plus appreciating what it is in
its own right first without one's own needs put on it. Art has been hijacked
by the culturalizing elite, saying that people should go to college before
one can call one's self an artist, within that arena a language imposed that
does not give the individual the chance to re-evaluate their own intentions
for creating art - so they could think that they making meaningful art, but
they going through the process of making meaningful perception - what they
think is art, what they have been informed is art.

thanx - marc




> This letter probably seems overly defensive, but if you note the number
> of points you made to which I did not respond, you will be looking at
> the number of things that you said that I either agree to, or have
> stored away to revisit later, for further consideration. I only made
> metion of those things which I may not have made clear in my first post.








>      Thanks for listening,
>
>      J. Kuykendall
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: info [mailto:info at furtherfield.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:03 PM
> To: john.m.kuykendall; syndicate
> Cc: info
> Subject: Re: [syndicate] bweep bweep I'm an artist
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://anart.no/~syndicate
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Shake the KKnut: http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut
> no commercial use of the texts without permission