[-empyre-] For whom is art "made"?

[{ brad brace }]

Helen, I see that "new media," "open/interactive work," or
"net-performance" or "net-art..." all share similar,
submissive, institution-driven,
prescribed/packaged/curated-Themes... [After 30+ years of
unpaid, unsupported art work, I see rampant global
institutionalism, both acknowledged and not, as the
overarching, conceptually/culturally debilitating "theme."]
These really are just new taglines for the same old
oppression.

/:b

On Wed, 7 May 2008, Helen Thorington wrote:

> Wow, Brad.  Yes, too much art is made for
> art-institutions, and it saddens me to see it as a
> direction some of the artists we have dealt with over the
> years are taking. But if you check out the
> networked_performance blog -- an archive of networked
> projects since 2004, you'll see that thousands of creative
> people are in fact creating work for themselves and for
> others like themselves -- not for art- institutions. A lot
> of it is "open" work.  Many of the people doing this do
> not identify as artists, So question: can academics open
> to the change that has brought thousands into the new
> media field as creators of open, participatory work. Or
> will they stick with an older idea of artist -- the one
> the art institutions support?
>
> BTW, many of the projects I'm thinking about make use of
> familiar objects and things from everyday life. They thus
> "offer a return to the connection of art and life.."
> [Landy], which for many is most welcome.
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> On May 6, 2008, at 2:42 PM, { brad brace } wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > That's the problem Megan... AArt is determinately-made
> > for art-institutions and the plethora of art-minyons and
> > acolytes who profit-from-it and
> > say-everything's-ok-as-long-as-they-get-paid...
> > Basically, if it's called Art it's really not. I'm sorry
> > but you have no viable future... maybe that's called
> > 'AArt-History.'
> >
> >
> > /:b