[Nettime-bold] Re: questions (fwd)

[Almond Martinez <fluxis@mediaone.net>]

Josephine Bosma wrote:
> 
> fyi: this is an example of an interview that is not ok, because it is
> not finished. 

It is only as bad as if Brad was conducting the interview in real 
time, which is not so bad at all. 



> I asked Brad if we could do an interview, because the
> nature of his work, his persistent presence in the networks and most of
> all his endless attacks on any kind of art professional other then
> artists somehow come together in a way that does not make much sense,

It is true that perhaps Brad does not put enough pressure on 
artists to do what they all know they must do. He rarely names
names; which is what makes him a more "gentlemanly" figure than 
the likes of Max Herman. However, I could say that if there is 
anything you don't understand about Brads position on the art 
world, I am available to explain it to you from my own
perspective. 



> and I thought it might be good to see if there is actually more behind
> it then meets the eye. In quite a tragic way Brad's premature publishing
> of our correspondence (he obviously does not trust that I will publish
> it or he thinks this way he has more control)

That's an unfair assessment. The interview just takes place in 
real time on the net; it is "open source," as you all like to
say. 



> I wish some artists would see how
> even being a rebel needs some kind of idea and insight in how to go
> about it. 

This, again, seems like a premature dismissal.



> Brad, as opposed to someone like Heath Bunting for instance,

Are you saying Heath Bunting is "rebellious?" I find it 
interesting to even remotely consider that possibility...
Could you provide some examples of Heaths "Rebellious" 
behavior?



> does not see that he actually creates the very barriers and obstructions
> he says he fights against. He puts them in place instead of trying to
> find a way to deal with the problems around them and the basis of them.

He simply responded openly to questions you has asked him.
He was, in fact, "finding a way to deal with the problems around 
[barriers] and the basis of them." 



> It is also my sincere wish that most artists will be wise enough not to
> follow his pattern of thinking, simply because he is present in
> mailinglists and feeds on basic instincts.

If artists followed Brad's instincts the art world would come 
to a screeching halt. There would be no more interviews or 
museums or galleries or analysis, there would only be art. 
It is pie in the sky to even think this reality could come 
about; artists are too hungry to be brave and too distracted
to notice that the forces that keep them in tiny rooms in
the city are the people they are pandering to. It is not 
exclusive to the art world by any means, but it is what 
is inherently wrong with any hierarchical structure. The art 
world is exploitative of artists, the academy is exploitative
of artists.

It is not such a difficult idea to understand that the people
who make a career out of "promoting" other peoples work- and
attacking peoples work- are making a career out of the artists
work, regardless of whether the artists gets anything in return. 
This is exploitation, pure and simple, of the artist.

It is an important idea, however, that bears some listening;
not, I would say, to "artists," but to people who romanticize
artists or art, or to people who would like to become artists
as a career. Brad says it plainly and honestly: if you go 
to art school, make friends with the guys in the curating 
and history classes, because when they graduate they will pay 
you, if you play the game [one of the rules of which involves
interview etiquette and a respect for critics and pandering to 
academics] If you can't do that, then reconsider your future. 

I resigned from net.art so as not to become fodder for the 
academic career; everyone who persists in the field is simply
forwarding the institutions, regardless of their connections
to them or not. If you are an outsider, you will still be 
commented on; if you are not commented on, you provide part of
the pool on which other projects are evaluated against. This
is not an important issue to anyone but romantic perfectionists. 

I am a romantic perfectionist.



> For gods sake see how saying
> someone is shutting you out and treating them like they are being bad to
> you is making it impossible for yourself to be treated in a normal way.

Brad was not shutting you out, in my opinion. He was merely 
opening the windows so the rest of us could see in. And now, 
it has made it impossible for you to treat him in a normal way. 



> It is like going up to a stranger and saying he is not acknowledging
> your presence.

Many of us are not strangers. And many of us are not
acknowledged.


-eryk salvaggio-
Creative Director,
1000 Ridiculous Tragedies.
/one38.org/

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold