implicit art

Howdy all. If you remember, early last year I developed a new WordPress theme as part of the launch of SAartsEmerging.org - promoting and critiquing emerging South African artists. That site is now maintained by Bronwyn Lace and Rat Western, and you should keep an eye out for upcoming changes.

Given the popularity of this theme, I’ve decided to release a new, widget-compatible version, and you can expect all future releases to be maintained from this site. I believe the most beneficial aspect of this 2-column design is its easy customization. The zip file includes:

• new design, with different sidebars for posts, pages and single posts - these are now customizable using WordPress’ built-in widgets
• header and footer images using a detail of Nathaniel Stern’s Compressionist work
• layered Photoshop file to put in your own image; includes gradient, curved edges and “pre-cut” slices (and instructions)

Download the zip file. (open source CC/GPL)

As you can see, this blog now also uses the new artsemerging theme (with a “widgetized” sidebar - note that all changes happened in the WP interface - I needed no code in any of the php files to customize this), and this coincides with the announcement of some upcoming changes around here — as I concentrate on my PhD research and writing over the next year, blogging will again pick up pace, mostly concentrating on thoughts and works related to my dissertation topic. You’ll see texts (rants?) that intersect between performance studies, art, embodiment and technology, and eventually a re-design of this whole site to match my thesis (this, over the next 4-5 months). In the meanwhile, note that “nathaniel and the non-aggressive” is no more, and this blog is henceforth to be known as “implicit art.” Enjoy the theme, and the blog, and please let me know if you encounter any problems, in the comments section.

More soon!

(PS Technorati Wordpress and Theme)

We love her.

Some nice further discussion in the comments section of Tom Moody’s post about my Wireframe Series, and I’m glad for the crit - some positive, some negative, all useful for when I implement the next iteration (hopefully in Joburg in September). I’m even more grateful for his second post, a point by point comparison to Stephen Hendee (image: The Eye, New Britain Museum, New Britain, CT, USA, 2005):

-specifically evokes “wireframe” computer model (or “invokes” in the case of Stern, who uses the word in his title)
-reproduces wireframe outlines as an actual object
-”problematizes” computer drawing with surrealist invention, deformation
-use of materials such as tape and foamcor (Hendee) and rope (Stern) suggests folk-like or cargo-cult-like reification or fetishization of high technology
-inverts the idea of a computer as effortless and airy through the conspicuous employment of hand labor

I think that these, coupled with his point of it being “activated through its contact with people” (both the performers/volunteers, and the public) are where I should re-double my efforts.

Tom Moody defends Sentimental Construction #1 after Paddy Johnson’s initial slate. Although I tend to take criticism well, and Paddy and I are “still friends” (we met through professional channels, and now I like to think of us as such), I was very pleased to see my name on Tom’s channel in my RSS reader, and I’m a little less mopey about the initial bad review - what with Tom’s taking her to task. (Intellectual Property Spokesperson Tom Chance also had good things to say on the iCommons site, but it means more to me coming from an artist, and on an arts blog I read / like.) Above are better pics of the installation view than Tom (Moody) managed to find (he was just looking in the wrong place - it was on my camera, rather than online anywhere…), and there are direct links to the video and images on the lower right, here.

(Here are another set of parentheses, just to drive home the point that I think in little node-like bubbles.)

I’m not sure Paddy’s post on the panel represents my position very well, and moreover seems to fall in line with the (de-contextualized - David is actually saying something else) claim that my attention to try and make a little money for my art is exploitative (see the comments here). I think Tom Chance does a better job explaining what the vast majority of my presentation was about; and in light of MTAA’s response, I thought there’d be nothing wrong with my doing some clarification as well.

Most of my presentation was about the artist in residence program. I explained why it began (to bring more fine artists into the fold), ventured into the diversity of artists we invited (what they do, how they are - directly or indirectly - involved with CC, and what the two can offer to each other), explained what the residency was encouraging artists to look at (1. Differing modes of production that move beyond re-mixing; and 2. How we as artists can sustain ourselves — this was at the request of the iCommons), showed some of my own work and where my interests lie, and finally, I gave one potential example of each of these (production and money-making). Only one of these, the final bit, one slide, gave a bit on how to use CC to make money. Most of my presentation was just contextualizing for the rest of the artists.

I think, when talking about my own interpreatation, the far more interesting point was the one about context and site-specificity, and how CC might allow for or encourage international collaboration (something that may create a minor tension with Tim’s point about CC having little to do with the value of a work, but the argument could go either way). Read Tom Chance’s post or take a look at the CC description for Sentimental Construction #1 for more on what I was trying to say here.

update: paddy makes the point that she did not say there was anything wrong with my marketing my work (in my comments), and she’s right: she didn’t say that. So, I wanted to add that I only felt misrepresented because “marketing” was the only part of my talk that warranted a mention in her post, not that she “got it wrong” on any level, but that I wanted to give mention to some of the other things I talked about. That, coupled with David’s crit (which does kind of allude to “bad-ness”), above, inspired this post.

Of money, meaning and artists in residence is a lovely response to our artist talk and work by Tom Chance, while Paddy’s insightful review is slightly more critical (especially of my own work). It inspired a great conversation, actually, and I’m excited about where I might go with the next Wireframe, as I think through what happened, and what didn’t (with or without Paddy’s approval :).

And more from Joy. And, oh well, go here. That’s what technorati is for - I’m off to a planning meeting for next year’s Summit!

updated links (and again):

http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2007/06/14/the-art-happens-here/#comment-39071
http://www.parthsuthar.com/derive/2007/06/15/the-art-happens-here/
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/06/by_prokofy_neva.html#more
Why don’t artists use open source software?
Second Summit
http://www.ugotrade.com/2007/06/18/second-life-a-global-creative-context-of-the-future/
http://www.turbulence.org/blog/archives/004417.html
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/06/icommons_keynot.html

Go/diva of the Icommons is an extension of Patrick Lichty’s (re)constructing Cicciolina project in which he, recontextualized as real-life avatar Cicciolina, questions the translations of mythology, culture, normative sociology, gender and IP issues. Here, Lichty stood in the iCommons art gallery for 30 minutes, then rode through the iCommons performance area before exiting. While the double play of Cicciolina asks questions of identity and image in cultural terms, Cicciolina as Go/diva is far more symbolic, asking what cultures we are creating in online communities. Attached is a properly sized texture for a primitive. Thanks for the opportunity, and it’s been an honor.

Opening went really well last night in Dubrovnik (still open for 2 days if you missed it)! There are a constant stream of pictures on flickr from the iCommons Air stream, as well as write-ups (more coming) on the iCommons site (we love you Paddy). Great turn out and response, and several net stars made the artists giddy (Jimmy Wales, for example, writing “edit this art” in chalk on Joy’s mural).

While this was going on, Sitearm Madonna and Cory (Linden) were finishing up the SL build for that iteration of the exhibition (mostly live now), and M.River, the other half of our AiR team MTAA, is in NYC re-mixing the photo stream, live (check out his copyright story on that here).

Forgot to blog this, an interview I did with Paddy, and also hers with Kathryn. Awesome. Actually, as you would imagine, the iCommons site is booming right now, so I highly recommend the feed.