Frank Stella, Sunset Beach, Sketch, 1967, flourescent and plain alkyd painting
69 1/2 x 69 1/2 inches. Via Canada-US embassy
- Yesterday I spoke briefly about the Internet being plagued with people who are wrong, and less than a day later Newgrist posts a perfect example of such lunacy. Joy Garnett adeptly parses Frank Stella’s thoughts on orphan works (a term used to describe copyrighted works— books, music, records, films, etc — whose owner cannot be located) starting with his erroneous definition of the term itself. He goes on to offer a number of romantic stereotypes about artists. It’s maddening.
- Tom Moody has two posts up discussing Net Art 2.0. The first reflects on the debate over the Net Art 2.0, which some object to due to its implication of progress and the second draws some distinctions between net art of the 90’s and today. There’s bound to be some disagreement with some of the sentiments expressed, but both are important reads.
- In non art lunacy, it would seem it’s a slow news week in other circles since the question, Is Porn the Same As Cheating is suddenly open for debate. Originating from the foxnews “sexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright, who seems to work with the assumption that most know it is, Fleshbot has a hand summary of the responses which includes the atlantic.com and Julian Sanchez.com. The best response so far comes from Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, who uses a great Simpson’s quote to debunk Ross Douthat’s questionable reductions.
- Also at the New Republic Jed Perl writes Postcards from Nowhere, a piece discussing the poorly defined character of museums. It’s a large piece so set a bit of time aside to read it. We’ll have further thoughts on the subject Monday.
- It’s still possible to watch plenty of Shakespeare theatre in Ontario this summer! LINK
- Not that the PR people at Sneak Attack Media should know this, but there are few bands who make music I dislike more than The Counting Crows. The firm contacted me the other day because they thought a few of my readers might want to compete for the privilege of designing a poster for the band at no cost. I think it’s exploitive to ask fans to do the work of paid designers for free, but if artists want their name attached to a shitty band, all the power to them. Details below.
Deadline submission: July 1st, 2008.
The rules:
1) The poster must be 18″x24″ portrait or landscape.
2) Your artwork must be at least 300 DPI and be transmitted through the internet (Files must be jpeg or gif and must be less than 10MB in size)
3) Any graphic elements you use cannot be copyrighted.
Please send your entries to winner@countingcrows.com along with your name and, of course, your email address.
{ 30 comments }
thanks paddy — I’m all riled up!
j
thanks paddy — I’m all riled up!
j
Hi, Joy,
Good point about Stella being a concern troll on the issue of copyright (i.e., weighing in on it even though that’s not where he made or makes his pile).
and
Thanks, Paddy,
Not a big deal but your links to the 2.0 posts are reversed–the first should be Net Art 2.0, What an Honor and the second should be Net Art 2.0, More Introspection.
Hi, Joy,
Good point about Stella being a concern troll on the issue of copyright (i.e., weighing in on it even though that’s not where he made or makes his pile).
and
Thanks, Paddy,
Not a big deal but your links to the 2.0 posts are reversed–the first should be Net Art 2.0, What an Honor and the second should be Net Art 2.0, More Introspection.
Opps. Fixed the links.
Opps. Fixed the links.
but, oh: paddy, you quoted stella’s bad definition of orphan works — the uninitiated might misunderstand and think that’s what the term actually means. here’s a more accurate definition:
“‘Orphan Works’ are copyrighted works– books, music, records, films, etc — whose owner cannot be located. Works can become ‘orphaned’ for a number of reasons: the owner did not register the work, the owner sold rights in the work and did not register the transfer, the owner died and his heirs cannot be found …the list goes on. Very often, orphan works become obscure no matter how valuable the material contained in them may be. No future creator is willing to use the orphan work for fear that he/she will have to pay a huge amount of money in damages if the owner emerges.”
but, oh: paddy, you quoted stella’s bad definition of orphan works — the uninitiated might misunderstand and think that’s what the term actually means. here’s a more accurate definition:
“‘Orphan Works’ are copyrighted works– books, music, records, films, etc — whose owner cannot be located. Works can become ‘orphaned’ for a number of reasons: the owner did not register the work, the owner sold rights in the work and did not register the transfer, the owner died and his heirs cannot be found …the list goes on. Very often, orphan works become obscure no matter how valuable the material contained in them may be. No future creator is willing to use the orphan work for fear that he/she will have to pay a huge amount of money in damages if the owner emerges.”
awesome post paddy.
awesome post paddy.
Thanks Joy! That’s a truly embarrassing cut and paste mistake.
Thanks Joy! That’s a truly embarrassing cut and paste mistake.
thanks for the re-paste paddy! Also, fyi: I’ve tried to post a comment at The Art Newspaper that questions the article, but they apparently won’t post it — I’ve tried twice in two days. They’ve allowed two other comments to go through, both of which support the article’s spin.
jg
thanks for the re-paste paddy! Also, fyi: I’ve tried to post a comment at The Art Newspaper that questions the article, but they apparently won’t post it — I’ve tried twice in two days. They’ve allowed two other comments to go through, both of which support the article’s spin.
jg
What I’ve been wondering about “Net Art 2.0” (I’m one of the folks characterized as “wailing” about it in Tom’s post) is what exactly is it supposed to be?
On the Rhizome thread I asked Tom to explain what he sees as the boundaries of the term, but he wasn’t very forthcoming (I suppose he was pretty exasperated with the discussion on Rhizome) and has seemed to have withdrawn from the conversation.
As far as I can gather is that what Tom means by “Net Art 2.0” is art that is transmitted, digested, & sometimes reworked on message boards and the like. (I’m always a bit bemused when message boards are considered “Web 2.0” since they very closely resemble pre-web BBSs).
Tom seems to be drawing a line (or at least allowing a line to be drawn through entrenchment) between folks whose Internet-based art incorporates custom coding and more elaborate support and those who tend to focus on the media… This seems to me an unproductive typology, but of course I only have a vague idea of what Tom is putting forward.
What I’ve been wondering about “Net Art 2.0” (I’m one of the folks characterized as “wailing” about it in Tom’s post) is what exactly is it supposed to be?
On the Rhizome thread I asked Tom to explain what he sees as the boundaries of the term, but he wasn’t very forthcoming (I suppose he was pretty exasperated with the discussion on Rhizome) and has seemed to have withdrawn from the conversation.
As far as I can gather is that what Tom means by “Net Art 2.0” is art that is transmitted, digested, & sometimes reworked on message boards and the like. (I’m always a bit bemused when message boards are considered “Web 2.0” since they very closely resemble pre-web BBSs).
Tom seems to be drawing a line (or at least allowing a line to be drawn through entrenchment) between folks whose Internet-based art incorporates custom coding and more elaborate support and those who tend to focus on the media… This seems to me an unproductive typology, but of course I only have a vague idea of what Tom is putting forward.
It seems you are coming in very late on the conversation and putting it on me to explain this for some reason. Rhizome has had two public panels on the topic of “Net Aesthetics 2.0,” two panels on “Blogging and the Arts,” and between the Rhizome threads, Paddy’s blog, at least four years of posts on my blogs about the shifts in art Internet practice, Marcin Ramocki’s and Olia Lialina’s essays on the “surf clubs” and social media, plus all the dialogue on the club sites themselves, you ought to have crystal clear picture, not a vague picture, of “what Tom is putting forward.”
You asked me if a scan of a photo of painting on someone’s blog counted as net art and I told you but you won’t accept yes for an answer.
As for “message boards” being the medium I have no idea where you are getting that. This is a blog; these are called comments.
It seems you are coming in very late on the conversation and putting it on me to explain this for some reason. Rhizome has had two public panels on the topic of “Net Aesthetics 2.0,” two panels on “Blogging and the Arts,” and between the Rhizome threads, Paddy’s blog, at least four years of posts on my blogs about the shifts in art Internet practice, Marcin Ramocki’s and Olia Lialina’s essays on the “surf clubs” and social media, plus all the dialogue on the club sites themselves, you ought to have crystal clear picture, not a vague picture, of “what Tom is putting forward.”
You asked me if a scan of a photo of painting on someone’s blog counted as net art and I told you but you won’t accept yes for an answer.
As for “message boards” being the medium I have no idea where you are getting that. This is a blog; these are called comments.
[Apologies to Paddy for dragging this sort of discourse to your comments… if you want to nip this thread in the bud and not publish this comment, I won’t take offense]
Tom, I’m not really sure why you’re driven to read me as an antagonist. I’ll admit I didn’t rigorously research before daring to try to talk to you, but I did definitely glance through the various threads and linked pdfs, etc. If you’re really interested in promoting the idea that there’s a “Net Art 2.0” movement, it might be useful to use reasonably friendly questions as an opportunity to spread the word. If I’m not certain what you’re trying to say, you can bet that’s there’s lots of other people who aren’t either.
I’m perfectly happy to accept that you include someone posting a photograph of a painting on a blog as Net Art 2.0. Part of the cost of using sarcasm (especially in text, where tone isn’t apparent) is that readers aren’t always sure when you’re being serious and when you’re being snotty.
The problem I see with having such a broad definition of Net Art [2.0] is that it really becomes near meaningless. I honestly thought you were suggesting something more interesting–that Net Art 2.0 involved art that percolated up via some sort of online community interaction. If the only characteristic of the “movement” is that it’s a graphic that’s been put online, then there really isn’t much to it.
Anyway, sorry to have annoyed you by being intrigued with your ideas. I guess you’ll be pleased that I pretty much have lost interest.
[Apologies to Paddy for dragging this sort of discourse to your comments… if you want to nip this thread in the bud and not publish this comment, I won’t take offense]
Tom, I’m not really sure why you’re driven to read me as an antagonist. I’ll admit I didn’t rigorously research before daring to try to talk to you, but I did definitely glance through the various threads and linked pdfs, etc. If you’re really interested in promoting the idea that there’s a “Net Art 2.0” movement, it might be useful to use reasonably friendly questions as an opportunity to spread the word. If I’m not certain what you’re trying to say, you can bet that’s there’s lots of other people who aren’t either.
I’m perfectly happy to accept that you include someone posting a photograph of a painting on a blog as Net Art 2.0. Part of the cost of using sarcasm (especially in text, where tone isn’t apparent) is that readers aren’t always sure when you’re being serious and when you’re being snotty.
The problem I see with having such a broad definition of Net Art [2.0] is that it really becomes near meaningless. I honestly thought you were suggesting something more interesting–that Net Art 2.0 involved art that percolated up via some sort of online community interaction. If the only characteristic of the “movement” is that it’s a graphic that’s been put online, then there really isn’t much to it.
Anyway, sorry to have annoyed you by being intrigued with your ideas. I guess you’ll be pleased that I pretty much have lost interest.
Ethan, if you ask someone a question and they answer you, and then you call their answer meaningless that is antagonistic.
And sorry, appeal to yourself as an authority (“If I’m not certain what you’re trying to say, you can bet that’s there’s lots of other people who aren’t either”) isn’t very persuasive.
Nevertheless, for you and all the legions of others like you who you swear are out there, I came up with a quiz to help determine whether a net artist is first or second generation:
http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/06/22/what-kind-of-net-artist-are-you/
Ethan, if you ask someone a question and they answer you, and then you call their answer meaningless that is antagonistic.
And sorry, appeal to yourself as an authority (“If I’m not certain what you’re trying to say, you can bet that’s there’s lots of other people who aren’t either”) isn’t very persuasive.
Nevertheless, for you and all the legions of others like you who you swear are out there, I came up with a quiz to help determine whether a net artist is first or second generation:
http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/06/22/what-kind-of-net-artist-are-you/
Ethan, if you ask someone a question and they answer you, and then you call their answer meaningless that is antagonistic.
And sorry, appeal to yourself as an authority (“If I’m not certain what you’re trying to say, you can bet that’s there’s lots of other people who aren’t either”) isn’t very persuasive.
Nevertheless, for you and all the legions of others like you who you swear are out there, I came up with a quiz to help determine whether a net artist is first or second generation:
http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/06/22/what-kind-of-net-artist-are-you/
Also (sorry Paddy):
“But I did definitely glance through the various threads and linked pdfs, etc”
What did you learn? Why is it necessary for me to give you a remedial education? I’m not sure why you are tracking me from site to site demanding answers (and then scoffing at the ones you get). I can’t assuage your anxiety about where you fit in the new world order.
Also (sorry Paddy):
“But I did definitely glance through the various threads and linked pdfs, etc”
What did you learn? Why is it necessary for me to give you a remedial education? I’m not sure why you are tracking me from site to site demanding answers (and then scoffing at the ones you get). I can’t assuage your anxiety about where you fit in the new world order.
Also (sorry Paddy):
“But I did definitely glance through the various threads and linked pdfs, etc”
What did you learn? Why is it necessary for me to give you a remedial education? I’m not sure why you are tracking me from site to site demanding answers (and then scoffing at the ones you get). I can’t assuage your anxiety about where you fit in the new world order.
Make sure you read Fulbright’s original article on Foxnews.com (regarding porn) before taking shots at her. She did not make the assumption that everyone ‘knows’ that porn is cheating. She pointed out that some people think so – and this was not her opinion on it (she didn’t tell us how she stands).
Make sure you read Fulbright’s original article on Foxnews.com (regarding porn) before taking shots at her. She did not make the assumption that everyone ‘knows’ that porn is cheating. She pointed out that some people think so – and this was not her opinion on it (she didn’t tell us how she stands).
I did read the piece. You’re right to point out that that was sloppily written (I edited the text after I received your comment), though the reason piece evoked a reaction in the first place is because she wrote it as though it should be obvious that such behavior was equal to cheating.
I did read the piece. You’re right to point out that that was sloppily written (I edited the text after I received your comment), though the reason piece evoked a reaction in the first place is because she wrote it as though it should be obvious that such behavior was equal to cheating.
Comments on this entry are closed.