on 2/17/03 10:21 AM, - G a r r e t t - at [log in to unmask]
wrote:

> me too but what i don't understand is that i never see discussion on
> the themes coming through the list, just the messages from beryll at
> the start of the month announcing the theme and i'm thinking this is
> due to that 'reply' quirk that this list is using (ie not responding
> to the list but someone in the list) that was picked up on last week.
> at first glance that seems to be fixed now so hopefully....

The mailinglist program is set to "reply goes to sender" rather than "reply
goes to list" or something like that. I've adjusted. Why there is no
discussion on the themes is another matter. Lists with specific themes need
moderators who are anal compulsive and have lots of time to screen posts and
write summaries (I know, I've done it). I suspect neither Beryl nor Sarah
fit this discription.

So it's up to us to make interesting posts on topic. Since there is no topic
this month we have a bit of leeway.

> i was a bit nervious about posting through the list initially as
> well, but nobody has said anything, if required and there is interest
> we could always start a temporary list on something like yahoo to
> take this further, let me know what you think because it might be
> seen that we're trying to ciphen off members to a different list!

Oh, god, not another list. There was already a month with a net art theme
with the contributors to Cream (of which I'm a backslider). jodi.org scared
a lot of people away. So, maybe we can smuggle net art into the "curatorial
models" theme next month. I have no problem with seeing net art as a
curatorial model.

> i see your point, but at present due to my age i don't have the
> experience of passing through a few art 'forms' or tools as you
> prefer, to be able to take the stance that the end defines the means,
> ie i want to create art and will use whatever necessary to do it
> regardless of how that will classify the work once its finished, if
> i've used video it must be video art, if i've used html it must be
> net.art etc.

I see from your links you're in an MFA program (or whatever it's called
there). I take it you're in Dublin but you write about applying for English
funds so I assume your home is in England (or is it the other way around?) I
now live in exile on an island in the Gulf of Mexico but I spent the first
half of my life in Idaho and the second half in New York City with a stop in
Indiana for Graduate School in painting, which I never finished.

I give some of my background so people will have a better idea of why I see
certain things the way I do and why I'm using certain references. I don't
expect you to have had the same experiences or to follow in my footsteps.

I certainly don't take the stance that "the end defines the means". More the
other way around, that the end may be one manifestation of the means. But we
can get into this at another time.

> genuinely this is'nt trying to be sarcastic, but i guess with a few
> more years behind me i will take the same point of view.  i certainly
> was'nt around at the start of net.art and am the first to admit that
> but feel i have plenty to bring it.  for the moment i guess i have
> been pigeon-holed as a net.artist and in a way thats bad but feel the
> sacrifice is necessary if i want to excel at any one tool, a trade up
> if you will for the present.

You seem to be making of net.art what you need to. Don't worry about Vuk's
retirement.

> its the curating that needs to change more than the arts, thats very
> obvious here, so i don't think it will ever be squeezing net.art into
> an institution as such.  whats needed though for curators to
> understand how to start to form structures that can cope with art in
> all its new 'forms' (art does'nt have a form as such so this takes in
> everything from my 'net.art form' to your 'tool' without any
> problems) is that artists, and increasingly technical people, are
> working with them.

Don't be too hard on curators. The role has changed dramatically for a
variety of reasons over the past twenty years. Institutionally they've had
to take on more and more work they probably shouldn't have to do and that
has made the role seem more important. In the 'seventies it was critics and
art historians artists attacked. Curators, except for a few, mostly European
superstars connected with Documenta, the Venice Bienale etc, then were
rather kindred spirits of artists. How and why this has changed is a topic
for next month.

Best,

Rob

offshore|online