Hi Marc, Johannes and all,

Since we all come from many cultural backgrounds - one of the great things
about lists - often some clarification is needed. So here goes...

When i say "I guess it is ok" that a list transcribes a posting from another
list/forum, I mean: I used to *really* think it was ok. That "I guess" is a
result of Johannes' posting, after which I realized I may have intellectual,
ethical (and even rhetorical) issues with such cross-postings, unless some
conditions are observed. These are my own thoughts that will lead my own
practice and that I'm sharing with you, for what it's worth:

When a posting is quoted on a different list, the original author most
probably won't get the quote.That is what the whole "reader-author blurred
boundaries" is all about and I see it as a good thing. Now... If rather than
the desired conversation any mailing list should promote, that quote is
followed by a "let's make a joke out of it" posting, then it's sort of a
strike with no opportunity for response. In some intellectual milieus that
may be ok... rhetorically, however, it's weak, and ethically it's
unacceptable. The solution? CC the author. That is your guarantee of
"transparency". I don't see why a new medium should make us regress in what
we've learned about ethics of communication. In fact I think the new media
should heighten our observance of that ethics... which is what I am writing
this.

And Marc: no, I have no agenda with Johannes whom i had never heard of. I
genuinely believe his email was scornful - colleagues/friends in this list
agree. If some of you are schocked that this is my response to Johannes 2nd
posting, then there may be another cultural issue here: where I am coming
from, if A says to B "it was not my intention", it doesn't necessarily
follow that it is so. B should reassess the whole situation and draws
conclusions. And these may be that there was indeed such an intention.

Johanne's Merriam Webster definition starts with "producer" (the "exhibiton"
was dropped somewhere along the way) as "1. the one who grows agricultural
products" (Why was #2 left out as [...], is what i wonder... "2. a furnace
or apparatus that produces combustible gas"). I don't know of any culture
where this is not read as scornful...

Finally, Johannes: by "incestuous relationship" between discussion
lists/forums I don't "really mean" anything: it's a metaphor as I am sure
that the German background you mention makes you comfortable with, as does
my Portuguese one. We are both fortunate that way.

Regards to all. Fear not - i'll spam you no more.:) I just thought this
might be relevant for others as it informed my way of doing cross-postings
in the future.
Ana Boa-Ventura







----- Original Message -----
From: "marc" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] exhibition producer


Hi ana,

ana: That a mailing list includes a literal transcription of what is
posted in a
forum (in this case, net art review), I guess it is ok.

I happen to believe that it is ok. I see that Josephine's decision to
copy/redistribute and place your text into this forum as a generous
action - I percieve her manouver as a social, lateral act. And your name
was mentioned as the person who had brought about its context orginally
via Net Art Review, reflecting your own ideas around the subject.

So, the function of her posting has served to open up the debate,
widened the seemingly ever cloudy idea(s) of what a curator/exhibition
organizer actually is, and your writing has contributed to this, which I
believe is a good thing, for all concerned.

I found your text to be informative - and I thank you for writing it,
and I also thank J.Bosma in being generous to post it here...because
before now, I was not aware of it.

In regard to Harald Szeemann, he can call himself what he wants, like
you say. People can (and do) reinteprete as they wish, but people should
be able to define and redefine their own creative activity on their own
terms first of all - then others can do what they wish in a cultural
sense afterwards.

And yes - Johannes posted a post that did not actually deal with the
context of what your writing was trying to get across successfully, but
I believe him when he says that he did not wish to offend - I did not
see him as deliberately wishing to hurt you, unless there are agendas at
work between the both of you which I might not be aware of, which is
always a possibility.

This is one the things that happens on lists - yet many would of read
your text at the same time and thought mmm - there are some good points
there...

I would love other people to be posting my own writings/thoughts on my
behalf (whatever reason) on a forum such as this, in a place where
changes are instigated culturally - it happens more on other, less
self-conscious lists. On here - people are perhaps more (self censoring)
and aware of their careers, whcih of course can make things a little dry
and less fluid. I prefer a bit more battling going on around ideas in
respect of exploring concepts/creativity/politics - it can get a bit
tense but the energy itself can help produce some very progressive
discoveries for all concerend - which is great...

much respect

marc






 >Hello,
 >
 >That a mailing list includes a literal transcription of what is posted
in a
 >forum (in this case, net art review), I guess it is ok. But then... when
 >those literal transcriptions are ridicularized like here with some
abridged
 >online dictionary definitions, with the purpose of serving some
undefinable
 >agendas... then this incestuous relationship across forums/mailing
lists on
 >the same topic of interest is jeopardized.
 >
 >So I'll reserve my comments on a personal email to Johannes. Bottom line
 >being - i'm afraid Harald Szeemann calls himself whatever he wants
 >regardless of what Johannes thinks (or should i say - the Merriam
 >Webster)...
 >
 >Ana Boa-Ventura
 > ----- Original Message -----
 >From: "Goebel, Johannes" <[log in to unmask]>
 >To: <[log in to unmask]>
 >Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 12:03 AM
 >Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] exhibition producer
 >
 >
 >"Exhibition producer" - - - "Curator"
 >
 >Merriam-Webster online:
 >
 >Producer:
 >1: one that produces; especially: one that grows agricultural products or
 >manufactures crude materials into articles of use
 >...
 >3: a person who supervises or finances the production of a stage or screen
 >production or radio or television program
 >4: any of various organisms (as a green plant) which produce their own
 >organic compounds from simple precursors ... and many of which are food
 >sources for other organisms -- compare CONSUMER
 >
 >Curator:
 >Etymology: Latin, from curatus, past participle of curare to care,
from cura
 >care
 >: one that has the care and superintendence of something;
 >
 >
 >
 >                Johannes Goebel
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >-----Original Message-----
 >From: Josephine Bosma [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
 >Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:24 AM
 >To: [log in to unmask]
 >Subject: exhibition producer
 >
 >>From netartreview.net
 >
 >
 >Now... that is a designation I like: Harald Szeemann, art
 >critic and historian, and curator for the exhibitions of
 >the Forum Barcelona 2004 calls himself an "exhibition
 >producer". With a curricuum that includes the direction of
 >Documenta 5 in Kassel, and of the 48th and 49th editions
 >of the Venice Biennale, Szeemann became known in the art
 >world as a symbol of the independent exhibition curator.
 >
 >There are four thematic exhibitions that present narratives
 >of cultural diversity, sustainable development and the
 >conditions for peace. The four themese/spaces are "Voices"
 >and "Cities - Corners" both at the Barcelona International
 >Convention Center, "Inhabiting the World" at the Viewpoint
 >Port and "Warriors of Xi'an" at the Sant Adrià (Moll del Parc).
 >
 >(...)
 >
 >by Ana Boa-Ventura
 >
 >