you are holding at http://arteonline.arq.br/newsletter/debate.htm
touches some very emotional strings in me, so I send you this response,
cc-ing it to the Rhizome netartnewslist because something similar
be going on there as well and I think your applaudible initiative
the attention of its members fully.
My position in regard to payment for net artists is the same as my
regarding selling art in general. So I would agree with most people
raise arguments for net art as being specifically suited to be offered
of charge, but I cannot see it as being fundamentally different for
artists then for other artists. Let me further this by taking myself
been a poet since I can remember and I only very recently turned to
publishing on the net in ways that can be considered as net art. Previously
I just used the net to make my texts available to whomever would want
read them. I preferred that to (trying to) publish them through traditional
channels like poetry magazines or publishers of printed poetry. I
that because I felt that turning my poetry into a product on todays
would be a kind of betrayal to the work itself.
published in printed form may not be a real product in the sense
that it makes money for those who do the publishing bit- in a 'small'
language like Dutch, the chances for a publisher to gain a single
it are less than zero - I felt and still feel that the very act of
it out there as a product you can buy, inflicts it with the very virus
it tries to withstand, just by being poetry.
feeling I sometimes utter in sentences like: 'society is fundamentally
hostile to art'. It stems from my conviction that the society we live
a catastrophical piece of machinery that by its very nature tries
everything that exposes it as such. I fear that even the net is in
danger of being silenced the same way. I realise those convictions
aren't shared by many, so I point them out as an underlying assumption,
people can stop reading this here and turn the telly on instead of
their time with my pessimistic mumbling about.
continue, I did welcome the arrival of internet as an escape route
out of the dilemma, because of course, without the internet the poet
limited as to the amount of readers she will get. Internet is the
way to ensure that people are able to get at your texts without them
to be made public in any economical system. The only thing you need
friend who has) a computer with an internet connection. No more need
inscribe yourself into the established economical order if you did
that order, which was perfect for me.
the publication part is only half of the dilemma. The other being
that you need time to produce art, in my case poetry, and since some
now, net art. Artistic creation time is like any other time attributed
individuals: you have to earn it. This is one of the most efficient
which our society is hostile to art. One could argue that artists
any good are rewarded by society with prizes, commisions and revenues
publications, and thus society enables true artists to continue and
their time (=money) on producing art, but I would disagree and say
economical machine driving us is very selective and very carefull
selection of art. This Deleuzian machine generally only selects to
that art that by the very act of gratifying it, it can turn into harmless
objects. Wild rebellion can take place in harmless objects. Put Sid
in a box and let him scream all he could, the effect would be very
entertaining indeed. Publication within the machine renders art harmless.
Acknowledgement of an artist of the powerfull media in this world
her and her work to objects of entertainment. It's a very simple process
encapsulation. You can't escape it. So these are really very interesting
times for an artist to live in: the chinese way, a curse.
despair or sadness is not an efficient way to tackle any problem,
let's not indulge in those drab feelings, as Foucault correctly pointed
with a Wittgensteinian twist, see what is the case, and draw our
conclusions. Or, rather, our deliberated and sound advice for non-artists
and artists alike.
is not too late: we have 24 hours to go.
takes place between 0:.00 and 1:00.
only applies to real artists. You can tell a real artist from
a fake artist by driving a wooden stake through her heart: if she
it's a true artist all right.
(individuals living on this planet) are social processes.
Descriptions of social processes are being made available constantly
persons who call themselves sociologists.
* Artists are dead persons. They have ceased to exist as social
processes and have become artistic processes. Gilles Deleuze once
are all dead". He was referring to himself and other artists.
they are dead persons, artists still are productive
processes. But instead of producing social goods, they produce artistic
goods, what is commonly known as Art (for clarity, I will capitalise
word from now on so as to distinguish Art made by true Artists and
by manufacturers of artfull objects, whom I consider in no way to
persons, on the contrary...)
an artistic process is not 'transcending' or 'descending',
it is simply a change of state. Therefor, artists are in no way above
below live persons. The most accurate position to put them in would
something like (in the java language)
Integer.parseInt(person)-Integer.parseInt(value_of_live), but I'm
that will not compute.
* Becoming an artistic process is not a volutile act. (Sh)it happens.
Although many artists consider themselves to be artist of their own
there is overwhelming proof to the thesis that declaring onseself
is an act of consciousness after the event. A correcter timeline would
that at a given point in time society declares you're dead as a person
that sometime later you've come to realise that and act accordingly.
quote Frank Zappa here, but to avoid confusion, I think I'll leave
just hint at how he proclaimed the essential sexlessness of artistic
* Although artists are no longer persons, they still share a lot of
processes with regular persons. Most artists have social security
drive cars, eat, sleap and have sex. Artists do what persons do, but
conscious artist knows she's doing it while being dead.
can lead to some dramatic situations, one could document the
consequences in highly rated soap series probably. Imagine a newly
artist telling her partner she's really dead and that it would be
her to have children. Or a daddy-artist trying to explain to his teenage
daughter she had better stop seeing that awkard kid or she'll end
* Financially being dead puts the artist in an awkward position. She
can continue to do what persons do to make a living, but making a
just what they by their very nature can't do. So even though some
are really very brilliant and capable people, somehow they never quite
succeed in what's easy for far lesser talented persons. They question
themselves while brushing their teeth. They ask themselves why they
teeth that belong to a dead person. They should just hurry and brush
teeth or they'll be late for the meeting, but instead they suddenly
smacking their faces in the mirror and someone has to call an ambulance.
* It follows that persons caring about Art should support the dead
person living as an artist by all means they can imagine. They shouldn't
bother trying to keep the artist alive for any other reason that the
art she produces because it can't be done. Allways remember that artists
are dead persons consuming (a lot of) resources and producing art,
nothing much more. If you don't value art, cut on your expences and
drop the dead meat. Persons should know that counting on the artist's
goodwill to produce something of immediate value to them as a social
process will only lead to frustration because :
are very bad at producing such goods because they don't feel
the goods the same way as you do
* artists don't care about your world the same way because they are
being excluded from it
* artists will only produce such goods to keep communicating with
are very keen on communicating with live persons. This is understandably
so because they remember very well being alive and they keep longing
back to that situation. Some artists have made great works of art
referring to some Arcadia or Atlantis or some other Aland where things
used to be better. They are referring to how things used to be before
they ended up dead
you're a person and you value Art, do not throw too much money
at artists. Throwing too much money at them risks bringing them back
live. Good revival therapies do exist for artists, but they are very
expensive, involving swimming pools situated in areas of advantageous
climat, numerous hired persons of exceptional beauty doing everything
artist wants them to do and a carefull mix of potent drugs and food
substitutes to clear the artists mind of every memory of being dead.
* If you're a person and you value life, do not send your children
Art schools. This used to be a good way to protect your children from
but things have changed rapidly over the years: because there are
few people left who care about Art, nowadays Art schools are crowded
Artists pretending to be persons. You can make them out by the devastated
look they have on their faces while teaching art. They are thus afflicted
because they feel they are wasting their time and should be making
instead, or at least teach Art, not art.
* If you're an artist and you value life, try and convince some
persons to treat you to a decent revival therapy. Or make up a business
for your next project and convince major networks you are now ready
out (better ask your partner to do it for you). Or join some self-aid
like the characters in the Fighting Club movie to feel sorry for yourself
an efficient way.
* If you'r an Artist and you value Art: hide. Wait till this blows
over and the next season of 24 is on. My guess is it won't be about
Vekemans, Central Cathedral Authoring Process
@ the Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
ViLT DiGiTAL ViSiON
++32 16 582880