From: "Drew Tarico" <tarico@puresimplicity.net>
To: cry
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: african attrition artHello-
I'm a friend of Matt Mehlen, and he mentioned your work to me a little while ago. I was told that you send your digital files to "a place in africa" that renders them to oil on canvas. I've heard of places like this here in the states, but the african twist is interesting. I've only seen your work up on the shinkoyo site, so I'm not sure if you're intentionally dealing with outsourcing/offshoring globalization issues. But if you don't mind giving it out, I wonder if I could get the contact info of the operation you deal with in africa. Any other information you have (like pricing, shipping rates, etc.) would be really helpful too. I have a friend who's interested in using the company for a project here (in urbana, IL at U of I u-c) dealing with white hegemony in the "third world." I'd love to hear more about your work and why you chose to use the african company as opposed to, say, one in brooklyn. Well, thank you very much, hope to hear from you soon. Oh, and matt never gave me your name.drew tarico
www.puresimplicity.net/~tarico
tarico@puresimplicity.net
----------------------------------------------
From: cry
To: Drew Tarico
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: RE:african attrition artwhy not brooklyn ? a) not aware that this is a wide practice in US b) cost for 'getting someone to paint your painting for you' would be pretty high and less in all other ways- its like jeff koons has artist assistants who do all his work but i am sure he pays them well and he gets what he pays for - a pretty literal and exact copy of whatever plan/model he has them work from.
the asian gig is more of a study in translation, i work from the computer, modeling everything digitally before it gets translated into the 'analog' (ie physically applying the paint to the canvas). in any translation process there opens up a small gap for something very appropriately brilliant to happen that was unintended originally. for someone to take part in this translation process with a completely different set of cultural intelligences is much more interesting, especially since my work has some elements of popular culture immersed into it. i'm working now on software that is able to do the same thing in a way and output this information has paint by number systems in which others can participate in the outcome of the actual painting - subtle transformations occuring hopefully to an advantage.i know some feminist remade duchamp's urinal in bronze but as for faciliating this in any way i hesistate to the point of freezing. i prefer to keep my idea for myself, and encourage others to get their own.
cheers,
j
----------------------------------------------
From: Drew Tarico
To: cry
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: RE:african attrition art
Hi J-
Thanks for taking the time for a response, and I appreciate your principled stance. I wish there was more of that around.
While I don't claim to be an expert in the field, I do know that most commercial paintings (like the ones they sell to hotels, malls, rich fucks) are reproduced in art 'sweatshops' across the country by 'starving' painters. It is rather common, however the only reason I know about the practice is because I have an aunt in the furniture business who sells to said rich fucks (and is coincidentally a rich fuck herself) since I (nor you?) can't afford that kind of stuff. But that's beside the point I'd like to make.
Yes, art can get expensive, can't it? So I guess you're insinuating that "[your] idea" using a "different set of cultural intelligences" which you find "much more interesting" happens to be cheaper than the above cases and your fine example of Jeff Koons simply by virtue of being an untapped or 'underground' resource. After all, if every new york artist that deals with "some elements of popular culture" (I think there are quite a few) had access to "the asian gig" (not African- my misinfo) they might get rich and famous off of "[your] idea," thus driving up the price of production. Hyperbolic sarcasm aside, I know (or really hope) your response is based on a deeper subscription to 'artistic originality' rather than a naive subscription to reason in free market capitalism, but I'm still making my point.
What's to stop these guys in 'Asia' from stealing "[your] idea" anyway? So if I grabbed your jpegs off the shinkoyo site, and sent them over to these guys (below), would that count as "get[ting my] own [idea]"?
> From: "oil painter" <paintingstudio@sohu.com>
> Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 10:14:09 PM America/Chicago
> Subject: the oil paintings
>
> Art Studio
>
> We are a group of professional oil painters in china.
> We provide service for galleries, digital artists and
> photographers from all over the world.And we work accroding to what
> our customers require in order to make their artworks into any size
> original oil paintings.The artists who now cooperate with us are
> very satisfied with our oil paintings.
> They belive oil paintings have some important virtues in comparison
> to their digital prints and photographs.
> 1. Oil painting can last a very long time.
> 2. Oil painting can be more valuable than the print or photograph.
> 3. The Oil painting can be made much larger and better as it is not
> restricted to the print size or number of pixels.Make the print
> become better and bigger.They are not restricted by the print and the
> pixel.
> They remain digital artists or photographers, but the form of the
> available artworks are oil paintings,not prints or photographs.
> Please e-mail us if you are interested in this professional service.
> We are e-mailing you only once.
> Thank you for considering our service.These are your guys, right? Now that I've found them (quite easily) on my own, does that mean I can exploit them too? Or do you have property rights on the process itself? Perhaps any work I send to them would constitute a borrowing or rehashing of "[your] idea," since I know 'you found them first.' Please let me know where you want to draw the line in the sand so I can tell my lawyers... *a joke.
Look, I don't mean to be crude, but as far as any "study in translation" goes, I'd have to suggest that you get in line with the rest of the artists using that for a tagline (the subject was required reading for an art class). And it may seem you're ahead of the crowd in exploiting the exotic orient for your own material/professional gain, but I'm afraid that's been done too (by nike, martha stewart, anyone else in the art community that got the above email). I'm sorry, but I just can't swallow your pretentous bullshit about protecting the likes of Duchamp from "some feminist." Unfortunately (and I really do think this is unfortunate), if "[your] idea" is so good, it's already being ripped off by other (white) artists with more clout than either of us for cash. But that's the way the (white) art world works; if you can't stand the heat... let it all burn down.
Thanks again for your reply. I hope your idea (with dropped quotes) serves you well, and I wish you luck with your work. I also hope there are no hard feelings, please rebut if you've got the time I think this issue requires. Oh, and I would
yours,
drew
www.puresimplicity.net/~tarico
tarico@puresimplicity.net
----------------------------------------------
From: cry
To: Drew Tarico
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:05 PM
Subject: R: sanfran afr o 9nt att 49'ersyou seem pretty angry at 'rich motherfuckers'.
actually all i really care about are results, it's interesting that those people exist ' for the purpose of digital artists or photographers' - i'm sure it was a matter of time - but no those aren't my peeps.
i don't really think nike ever exploited someone's 'mind'. whether this is better or worse you decide. but honestly my art isn't much about ideas, at least ones that constitute a simple 'process' or act of some sort. its just that process plays ( an unavoidable ) role that i have to deal with and am exploring different ways of doing so. (also known as: i don't give a shit about what you've read in art class in the middle of nowhere illinois. if you took a class that mentioned brushstroke should i paint with my teeth instead ? )so i'm really not wrestling with any 'issue' and i'm not certain what you see that requires so much time. i think the most valuable thing here is what comes first ( and ultimately, last) the artwork itself.
try to pull the wolf out of your eyes,
j
----------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: football game
From: "Drew" <tarico@puresimplicity.net>
Date: Mon, November 3, 2003 10:32 pm
To: "cry"
Priority: NormalJ-
> you seem pretty angry at 'rich motherfuckers'.
Well briefly, I'm of the mindset that "rich fucks" hording large sums of money when billions of people around the world have none is destructively irresponsible. That's a separate argument that I'd lose against Ronald Reagan or insert-your-favorite-rich-right-winger-here. I suppose their actions make me angry, yeah.
>
> actually all i really care about are results, it's interesting that
> those people exist ' for the purpose of digital artists or
> photographers' - i'm sure it was a matter of time - but no those
> aren't my peeps.I guess I don't know what you mean when you say "all i really care about are results" when you knew the results of my project would have been different from yours, regardless of the process. I took your first response to be something like 'my work is heavily based on this process and I retain exclusive rights to use it.' So I don't get the "all i really care..." comment; it sounds like a contradiction to me.
> i don't really think nike ever exploited someone's 'mind'. whether this
> is better or worse you decide.Since you brought it up, I think nike has exploited minds by allowing them to believe that shoes magically appear on stores' shelves and athletes' feet, not to mention make you run faster or look cool. Again, I'd lose this argument to Karl Rove but I think that one-sided advertising (aka propaganda) is exploitation when you can buy off or bust down the media. Yeah, and they make kids work for pennies a day, while the CEO rolls in it. So I decide the guys at nike are a bunch of well-rounded assholes.
> but honestly my art isn't much about
> ideas, at least ones that constitute a simple 'process' or act of some
> sort. its just that process plays ( an unavoidable ) role that i have
> to deal with and am exploring different ways of doing so. (also known
> as: i don't give a shit about what you've read in art class in the
> middle of nowhere illinois. if you took a class that mentioned
> brushstroke should i paint with my teeth instead ? )Indeed! You're right on track when you say the uiuc is "in the middle of nowhere" demeaning it as a dry, banal art school. My argument is actually strengthened by pointing out that in one of these banal, tactless art classes they're discussing your line of study. Now that doesn't insult your work, rather I'm pointing out that your notion of its originality was biased in your favor. But that's really ok (don't sweat the originality); I think most of the best work being done at any given point isn't necessarily in a brand new area. It's just when guys get all priggish about sharing their research with each other that makes them seem like ignorant snobs. None of us would be where we are if nobody shared. I mean come on, like I'm supposed to believe you invented this stuff? And you're absolutely right on with the bit about teeth painting, but all I did, to continue the analogy, was ask where you got your paintbrushes. So please don't tell me I should "get [my] own" because you had dibs on your art supply store. You don't have any ownership of these guys you deal with in Asia either. I'd argue further about ownership of your work, since you didn't invent pop-culture, translation, or art; but I know everybody's got to sell something to eat (myself included). I hope you can see that the art world is big enough for both of us.
>
> so i'm really not wrestling with any 'issue' and i'm not certain what
> you see that requires so much time. i think the most valuable thing
> here is what comes first ( and ultimately, last) the artwork itself.I think wrestling with issues is what makes for good art, but that's just my opinion. I know that many other artists I've met see their work as a transcendental path to enlightenment through creative expression of beauty, but I guess I don't buy it just like I don't buy jesus. If that's the focal point of our disagreement, we can leave it at that. Critical thinking takes time, for me at least, especially about artwork. It's too easy to idly let a white male prophecy fulfill itself when it benefits us at every other's expense. I'm not all about easy.
>
> try to pull the wolf out of your eyes,
> j
>
>we all try and fail while the wolves chew on our faces
take care,
drew
----------------------------------------------
From: cry
To: Drew
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: RE:Re: i have a dream.net> > you seem pretty angry at 'rich motherfuckers'.
>
> Well briefly, I'm of the mindset that "rich fucks" hording large sums of
> money when billions of people around the world have none is
> destructively
> irresponsible. That's a separate argument that I'd lose against Ronald
> Reagan or insert-your-favorite-rich-right-winger-here. I suppose their
> actions make me angry, yeah.its like being mad at retards, its futile and the world isn't prepared for some type of communism.
> > actually all i really care about are results, it's interesting that
> > those people exist ' for the purpose of digital artists or
> > photographers' - i'm sure it was a matter of time - but no those
> > aren't my peeps.
>
> I guess I don't know what you mean when you say "all i really care about
> are results" when you knew the results of my project would have been
> different from yours, regardless of the process. I took your first
> response to be something like 'my work is heavily based on this process
> and I retain exclusive rights to use it.' So I don't get the "all i
> really care..." comment; it sounds like a contradiction to me.i think you are reading things into my persona that aren't true. . it's a mistake to believe i really too heavily upon conception. and my point with the ' oh i took a class on this' thing is that i don't think its anything new. translation is part of the process - whether you are converted electrical pulses into sound or whether you are getting an idea from you head to the piece of paper. i see it as the same problem.
> Indeed! You're right on track when you say the uiuc is "in the middle
> of nowhere" demeaning it as a dry, banal art school. My argument is
> actuall strengthened by pointing out that in one of these banal, tactless art
> classes they're discussing your line of study. Now that doesn't insult
> your work, rather I'm pointing out that your notion of its originality
> was biased in your favor. But that's really ok (don't sweat the
> originality);I think most of the best work being done at any given point isn't
> necessarily in a brand new area. It's just when guys get all priggish
> about sharing their research with each other that makes them seem like
> ignorant snobs. None of us would be where we are if nobody shared. I
> mean come on, like I'm supposed to believe you invented this stuff? And
> you're absolutely right on with the bit about teeth painting, but all I
> did, to continue the analogy, was ask where you got your paintbrushes.
> So please don't tell me I should "get [my] own" because you had dibs on
> your art supply store. You don't have any ownership of these guys you deal
> with in Asia either. I'd argue further about ownership of your work,
> since you didn't invent pop-culture, translation, or art; but I know
> everybody's got to sell something to eat (myself included). I hope you
> can see that the art world is big enough for both of us.
>a) all art school does (or can do) is teach you someone elses' technique
b) yeah lets not concern ourselves too much w/ originalityi don't know what your 'project' is about, i thought it was supposedly for ' your friend '. i don't know you. helping you could be not in my best interest for a variety of reasons. you sound overly concerned with politics and i really hate when art is dragged into the political. i was having discussion with today who was on a panel that was giving grant $$$ and he was telling me what a problem my proposal was for a certain individual who was offended i didn't really mention or seem to concern myself or my time with the moral or whatever issue involved in 'taking credit' or what have you w/ the whole internet painting game.
i am not a sociologist or an economist but what would you have nike do instead ? this isn't easy to answer. they are not in fact 'making' anyone do anything as you point out. what would be the ramifications if they paid there foreign workers 'what they deserve'. what do they deserve ? what if they didn't employ foreign workers at all ? these things are not simple issues. if some ways nike is helping, but they are playing on a entirely different ballfield in those cases. you can't always so easily 'translate' our ideas of justice (economically or what ever you have) into that field. i think people underestimate this. there have been articles written on how child labor benefits the children in some cases to the point where to eliminate it, to ban it would actually harm the child more. granted - corporations are largely assholes and self-serving. USA baby.> that comes first ( and ultimately, last) the artwork itself.
>
> I think wrestling with issues is what makes for good art, but that's
> just
> my opinion. I know that many other artists I've met see their work as a
> transcendental path to enlightenment through creative expression of
> beauty, but I guess I don't buy it just like I don't buy jesus. If
> that's
> the focal point of our disagreement, we can leave it at that. Critical
> thinking takes time, for me at least, especially about artwork. It's
> too
> easy to idly let a white male prophecy fulfill itself when it benefits
> us
> at every other's expense. I'm not all about easy.i don't buy that issue makes for good art, wrestling maybe. and i don't have a comment for the other. i'm more closely inclined to work that effects my 'nervous system', jars me in some way, perhaps bordering the line between ridiculous and sublime. i like to avoid blantant or comprehensive meanings or storytelling. what prophecy, what benefit, what other ?
j
----------------------------------------------
From: "Drew Tarico" <tarico@puresimplicity.net>
To: "cry"
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: i sell a dream.comWhen an artwork is censored by some institution, is it simply because that particular work 'has politics' while others do not? What would make a 'lack of politics' so appealing to the people running this insitution? Well first of all, you can easily say that 'a-political' work supports the status quo as far as politics go. Yet, isn't that just supporting existing politics? If there were suddenly to be a massive regime change or shift in pardigm to a world that maybe is "prepared for some type of communism," do you think jackson pollock could still be 'a-political'? My guess is that his work would represent an earlier artistic era, and therefore he along with warhol and rauschenberg would be associated with some type of capitalism. And in this new hypothetical era, silkscreening madonna onto canvas would be *very* political, probably enough to induce censorship. History usually associates movements in art with political movements, you can even see it in pop-music. So you may not agree, but art is always "dragged into the politcal" because it represents money and power, both of which make politics possible. Without them, there would be no government, and there would in fact be 'a-political' art. That's not the world we live in though. Politicians are always looking to affirm their money and power, and art is often used as a vehicle for this. What if some mayor gets embroiled in a sex scandal, and then opens an art museum to take the press heat off his back. Can any of the art in that museum be considered 'a-political'? I'd say no, since every work's primary function was to distract from the mayor's sex scandal, regardless of the work's content.
You said that "these are not simple issues" regarding nike. Well you're right, of course, but calling them complicated doesn't remove any of your
> moral responsiblity. If you're prepared to back up your claim about the benefits of child labor, then you've got an opinion. But, saying there are twenty sides to every issue doesn't mean you get to be neutral. Not taking sides almost always translates to taking the side of the apathetic consumer that indirectly supports the side of the issue that has more money- in this case nike. So you tell me, how does one translate ignorance/apathy into some language that the kids in malaysia can understand? If you could figure that out, I think everyone would be getting somewhere. If you give up because it's too complicated, then you're just handing nike or halliburton or clearchannel the buck, becuase those guys sure make it seem like they've got it figured out. All the big powerful corporations have proportionally big powerful opinions that they deserve to keep making money. This drags in art, music, literature, science, politics,... always because that's how the money is made. Your personal support of the art system is just another vote for those guys, no matter how successful you are, because they're already pulling your pursestrings.I just read this: Health South CEO Indicted on Fraud Charges In business news, the CEO of Health South, one of the country's largest health services company, was indicted yesterday on 85 counts. Prosecutors charge the CEO, Richard Scrushy, helped commit $2.7 billion in fraud. The Washington Post reports Scrushy used the money to buy a Lamborghini, a 92-foot yacht as well as paintings by Picasso and Renoir. He is believed to be the first top executive to be charged under the nation's new corporate governance law. [from http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/05/1533244]
Can those works by picasso and renoir still be 'a-political'? I know they didn't intend their work to be used this way, but they were pawns in the money game. They don't get to absolve themselves of this, despite the fact that they're dead. They knew what they were getting into when they painted those things; this is the best they could've hoped for. Yet it's just plunder at this point, and pirates use the booty to prove their power to the other pirates. You just can't extract the works from their systems; it's oversimplification.
I don't really intend to write a manifesto here, but I'll bet that person on the grant panel saw his/her ass on the line upon examining your work. It's not because your work disavows politics, but rather supports a very dangerous brand of politics: glibly ignorant exploitation in the name of money (art). Yes, money is often laundered through art. Grant money usually goes to work that's more of the warm&fuzzy/save-the-children variety, since it usually comes from guys that want to cover their asses while doing the opposite. Maybe I'm flat out wrong, but I hope it's something to think about.
At this point, I think I've roughly laid out my whole stance. Oh, and the info was for a friend, but I took it as my own for the sake of argument. I'm not an explicitly visual artist, and I'm not a communist. I do believe in justice, and I hope the world is ready for some type of that. If not, I'll keep working. Calling one person's work futile doesn't make it so, and I'm aware the converse is true as well. The prophecy is descended from the biblical notions of god's chosen people ruling the world in a restored eden; our benefit is that we happen to be the same color as god's chosen people (white) and we enjoy the priveleges; the other is anything too evil or political to fit into this mold set up by the prophecy's beneficiaries.
We all own a share of american mythology inc,
drew
www.puresimplicity.net/~tarico
tarico@puresimplicity.net