Image: Brian Belott
IMG MGMT (as in image management)…involves artists curating images off the Net, either because they routinely do that in their work or simply because more artists are exposed to or otherwise glom onto this material with the effect that it slowly seeps into their work (or doesn’t). In a sense We Are All Surf Clubs now…
Tom Moody‘s above summation is a response to the first two essays in the series by Saul Chernick and Kevin Bewersdorf, both of whom curated images off the web, though to clarify, IMG MGMT begins at this point, and expands. The rationale for this is primarily based on my interest in both the ease of download and upload of images to the web. In as often as I see Oliver Laric’s sentiment “I don’t see any necessity in producing images myself — everything that I would need exists, it’s just about finding it”, quoted amongst net artists, many of these same people are creating web cam videos and using cell phone pictures in their art, which suggests a greater interest in the idea than building a rigid practice around it (though I’m pretty sure no one was suggesting that in the first place). Representing artists like Stephanie Diamond, a photographer who explores virtually any method shooting a picture can occur, is an important aspect of the series, because it not only speaks to the ease in which images are created and distributed but the way it effects the culture.
Not that such grand themes were necessarily the impetus for the series. On a pretty basic level IMG MGMT is about giving artists a venue to show and discuss images they happen to have interest in. Moody draws out a few similarities between the Saul Chernick and Kevin Bewersdorf essays, which is useful for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it adds a bit of shape to the series; both are collections, both follow a top to bottom list, both are not the artists “normal” work. Notably, only the first observation can be applied unilaterally to the project, though it’s reasonable to assume the participating artists will largely share the second and third commonalities (Diamond an exception to the third). Moody also observes a commonality explanatory text (Kevin Zucker‘s post also shares this), and interest in the other worldly, providing great counterpoints like Damon Zucconi and Jim Punk to the IMG MGMT series.
{ 12 comments }
Well, this didn’t start a conversation, but I appreciate your response to my response.
By way of follow up, I would consider the Kari Altmann post to be compatible with the Bewersdorf and Chernick in being (a) a collection (b) about the otherworldly (transcendence through “beaming”) and (c) having an explanatory text (written in the comments).
Well, this didn’t start a conversation, but I appreciate your response to my response.
By way of follow up, I would consider the Kari Altmann post to be compatible with the Bewersdorf and Chernick in being (a) a collection (b) about the otherworldly (transcendence through “beaming”) and (c) having an explanatory text (written in the comments).
I was wondering if you would lump it in with those. To be honest I feel like it’s very different in that it was originally posted with zero commentary – and that’s how it’s meant to be seen. I see the “artist comments” as more of a conversation in reaction to the piece. I also feel I take a slightly different approach toward the transcendent in my collection, finding akward moments where it tries to exist and, by juxtaposition, calling it out on its failure. I think the whole point of my post was that the people in those videos never went anywhere, only somewhere imagined/virtual, therefore my post created a virtual scenario of why they might have vanished that critiqued them at the same time.
I was wondering if you would lump it in with those. To be honest I feel like it’s very different in that it was originally posted with zero commentary – and that’s how it’s meant to be seen. I see the “artist comments” as more of a conversation in reaction to the piece. I also feel I take a slightly different approach toward the transcendent in my collection, finding akward moments where it tries to exist and, by juxtaposition, calling it out on its failure. I think the whole point of my post was that the people in those videos never went anywhere, only somewhere imagined/virtual, therefore my post created a virtual scenario of why they might have vanished that critiqued them at the same time.
I think the ways the posts differ are interesting, my objective was not to “lump” them (if lump means marginalize). I’m guessing Kevin Bewersdorf would also say his collection finds awkward moments (or is an extended awkward moment) where transcendence tries to exist and, by juxtaposition (or sheer repetition), calls it out on its failure. I don’t think your goals are that dissimilar from his. The difference between the two of you and Chernick is I believe he loves his subject matter and you love/hate yours.
I think the ways the posts differ are interesting, my objective was not to “lump” them (if lump means marginalize). I’m guessing Kevin Bewersdorf would also say his collection finds awkward moments (or is an extended awkward moment) where transcendence tries to exist and, by juxtaposition (or sheer repetition), calls it out on its failure. I don’t think your goals are that dissimilar from his. The difference between the two of you and Chernick is I believe he loves his subject matter and you love/hate yours.
I think I’ve just been reading Kevin’s philosophies a lot and tend to disagree with him so its possible I’m trying to locate that same disagreeance in our posts. He claims the physical has no value and I strongly disagree – in a way I feel those youtubers, when collected in that manner, displayed that same disregard for physicality which is what I was attempting to critique. IE when you disregard your physical existence so recklessly a higher “nature” (especially one you created through this attitude) almost deserves to win because you failed to understand your contract with it. We were using similar methods I agree – but expressing something different. I was also influenced by your blog in which you seemed to suggest that Kevin was one of the artists attempting to infuse the computer world of deadness with some kind of spiritual presence – whereas I think I’m trying to promote a more holistic approach of “spirit” and deadness existing on both sides since both are physical environments…
I think I’ve just been reading Kevin’s philosophies a lot and tend to disagree with him so its possible I’m trying to locate that same disagreeance in our posts. He claims the physical has no value and I strongly disagree – in a way I feel those youtubers, when collected in that manner, displayed that same disregard for physicality which is what I was attempting to critique. IE when you disregard your physical existence so recklessly a higher “nature” (especially one you created through this attitude) almost deserves to win because you failed to understand your contract with it. We were using similar methods I agree – but expressing something different. I was also influenced by your blog in which you seemed to suggest that Kevin was one of the artists attempting to infuse the computer world of deadness with some kind of spiritual presence – whereas I think I’m trying to promote a more holistic approach of “spirit” and deadness existing on both sides since both are physical environments…
OK you win. I’m not going to defend Kevin’s philosophy as some kind of cheeky sarcasm since he seems to be getting more into this hippie mysticism and as I said on my twitter page “the art does not happen in my chakras.”
OK you win. I’m not going to defend Kevin’s philosophy as some kind of cheeky sarcasm since he seems to be getting more into this hippie mysticism and as I said on my twitter page “the art does not happen in my chakras.”
Haha, not trying to “win” just, ya know, “conversation starting”
Haha, not trying to “win” just, ya know, “conversation starting”
Comments on this entry are closed.