is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your work, then rub yourself out.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"></HEAD> <BODY></BODY></HTML>
is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your work, then rub yourself out.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"></HEAD> <BODY></BODY></HTML>
> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it > just gets better and better.
What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the subtlety of how it's accomplished?
I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for its surreality, but we have to stop assuming that it actually *is* surreality. It was actually working on one of the most practical levels of consensus reality, which is government, which has a vast array of tools at its disposal to do a tremendous deal of harm by way of abuse and negligence. This project was shocking for revealing the transparency in the relationships between corporate hegemony, government abuse and terrorism. In this regard it was similar to art; and *had it been* art it would have been brilliant, but to keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us anywhere. It is *not* created as art, even though it may serve the same function of expanding our scope of what is possible- an avant garde government abuses. In this regard, any number of regimes have taken a primary drive which exists in art- the expansion of the peripherals of what is possible- and dragged it into areas of subjugation, oppression, and fascism. Torture, such as the incredibly elaborate mechanisms designed by Nazis, or the rituals for slaughter in the Cambodian Governments, down to the bomb at Hiroshima, all expand the peripheral in regards to what is possible in the destruction of humanity and the reduction of humanity; to a nonsensical abstraction much pornographic group sex; the reduction of entire human beings to body parts. Psychologically, the orchestrations of our government in projects like this are removing us even from the idea of reduction to a body and replacing it with reductions to an abstraction that we've invented; the flow of economics and currency. Even to be reduced solely to our bodies was not enough.
Human cruelty and human abuses, physical or psychological, are always an e-z bake avant garde, since most of "humans" don't like thier massacres to occur so obviously. While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see these elements seperated from us. Art may or may not be capable of achieving this, but art can at least disseminate the idea that there is *hope* for an element in the world to serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this.
> > Pentagon Abandons Plan for Futures Market on Terror > > http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/ > > is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your > work, then rub yourself out.
I see the blank page more like a minimal piece – a comment on "the white cube"… maybe late 20th Century art is being explored in a non-linear form. ;)
> > —– Original Message —– > From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]> > > > > If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it > > just gets better and better. > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for its surreality, but > we have to stop assuming that it actually *is* surreality.
I do not think anyone on the list, who so far responded to T.Whid's and Galloway's orgininal posts considers the PAM website an actual work of art. Maybe I am wrong but I read all the comments as yet another (playful) way of critiquing the unexpected events and measures that have developed since the war on terrorism started.
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets > > —– Original Message —– > From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]> > >> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it >> just gets better and better. > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for … <big fat snip> … > serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a > whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this. > I know its a troll, and I know I should not rise to it. But what is it about Eryk and his irony bypass?
Eryk, your dishonesty in how you treat such postings, by ignoring the main point of the post in order to make a laboured point, is staggering. Do you know what an Aunt Sally is? Well, you just put one up and knocked it down. Wow.
> > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > subtlety of how it's accomplished? >
Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now.
> keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us > anywhere.
Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To change Darpa
Good to see your reflexes working properly. Please try to respond to the content of my posts as opposed to the percieved tone. It's better for your blood pressure.
I am asking for a serious discussion on the ramifications of the project we were discussing. Your "main point" was dull, and your "irony" was trite and annoying, as irony usually is- why people haven't figured this out yet I don't know. Reacting to everything as if it was the opposite of what it actually is fine up to a point but tends to get stale quickly, IMO. I was trying to move *beyond* it by way of thought in regards to its working *in reality* while you were trying to address it as its polar opposite of what it actually is. My idea is that it accomplishes quite the opposite of what my ideal art would, and I addressed the problems I see with a great deal of art today that looks just like the DARPA "piece," which is that it reinforces the peripheral into despair and personal stagnation rather than individual empowerment. What's the problem?
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]> > > > >> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it > >> just gets better and better. > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > > > I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for … <big fat snip> … > > serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a > > whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this. > > > I know its a troll, and I know I should not rise to it. But what is it about > Eryk and his irony bypass? > > Eryk, your dishonesty in how you treat such postings, by ignoring the main > point of the post in order to make a laboured point, is staggering. Do you > know what an Aunt Sally is? Well, you just put one up and knocked it down. > Wow. > > Yours, > Ivan > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
> I do not think anyone on the list, who so far responded to T.Whid's and > Galloway's orgininal posts considers the PAM website an actual work of art. > Maybe I am wrong but I read all the comments as yet another (playful) way of > critiquing the unexpected events and measures that have developed since the > war on terrorism started. > > eduardoN
It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I do think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of sides to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly morbid and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100% when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, in so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, as a bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. I'll even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical thought, so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it and also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "M. River" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend, > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now. > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us > > anywhere. > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for that goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some ways you are. > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see > > these elements seperated from us. > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about Technology. What is our culpability? > > (ps. thanks for jpeg) > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
> > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing > with you and at it and > also thinking about what it means in a broader > scope. >
Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first for Rhizome this month?
Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA was one of the more interesting reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the world works, I
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets > > Ivan, > > Good to see your reflexes working properly. Please try to respond to the > content of my posts as opposed to the percieved tone. It's better for your > blood pressure. > > I am asking for a serious discussion on the ramifications of the project we > were discussing. Your "main point" was dull, and your "irony" was trite and > annoying
Well good grief then Eryk, why did you bother to write such a long earnest reply to my dull and trite joke in the first place? You ask for a response to the content. My post had no content, so what were you replying to? Ivan
Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just bash all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They should just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to Kill?
Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness of satiric content.
> > Here's my thinking Mr. M River, > > It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are > addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is > certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so > absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I do > think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of sides > to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly morbid > and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100% > when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, in > so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, as a > bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. I'll > even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no > less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical thought, > so I decided to inject some into the discussion. > > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it and > also thinking about what it means in a broader scope. > > -e. > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "M. River" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > > > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > > > > > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend, > > > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now. > > > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us > > > anywhere. > > > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we > make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look > at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To > change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for that > goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some ways > you are. > > > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it > > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see > > > these elements seperated from us. > > > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about Technology. > What is our culpability? > > > > (ps. thanks for jpeg) > > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
and yes. Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample reason for a comeback of the absurd.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Mark River wrote:
> – Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing >> with you and at it and >> also thinking about what it means in a broader >> scope. >> > > Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first > for Rhizome this month? > > Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out > to me that DADA was one of the more interesting > reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the > world works, I
> I do hope we get to talk about my "tone" for another 700 emails though, that > would be awesome. > > -e.
It is not about you Eryk.
In the past, I thought it was worthwhile to develop constructive threads, but I can see that even the most playful, productive, and creative threads (like the PAM postings) are effectively co-opted by loud voices only as a way to feed ideological egocentrism.
The testosterone level gets too high in this list at times.
As the new Brooklyn sign is supposed to read: "forge' abou' id!"
> In the past, I thought it was worthwhile to develop constructive threads, > but I can see that even the most playful, productive, and creative threads > (like the PAM postings) are effectively co-opted by loud voices only as a > way to feed ideological egocentrism.
As I've explained already, I have no problem with the humor factor of the thread, but I wanted to take a look at the situation from a different perspective. Now you have spent two emails whining about how I "co-opted" the thread. Here's a secret: You co-opted the thread by changing it into a dialogue on my co-optation. I never intended to do that; I responded to Ivan (Not You) and you responded about the tone of my response to Ivan. If that is what you want to talk about, we can keep doing it, or you can read what I *actually wrote* and ignore it or engage with it. That's all up to *you*, Eduardo- don't try to pawn that responsibility off on *me*.
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P>Is art a state of mind or consciousness?</P> <P>Is art the truest representation of freedom?</P> <P>Can the ideal be reconcilled with the avant garde?</P> <P>Any thought??? <BR><BR></P></DIV><BR><BR><BR> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM> </EM></FONT></P> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P> <DIV></DIV> <P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM> Walk the earth naked with me <BR> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>—-Original Message Follows—- <DIV></DIV>From: "t.whid" <[email protected]> <DIV></DIV>Reply-To: "t.whid" <[email protected]> <DIV></DIV>To: Mark River <[email protected]> <DIV></DIV>CC: [email protected] <DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets <DIV></DIV>Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:00:28 -0400 <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>actually. it was WW1. <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>and yes. Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample reason for a comeback of the absurd. <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Mark River wrote: <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>– Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>wrote: <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>> <DIV></DIV>>>I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing <DIV></DIV>>>with you and at it and <DIV></DIV>>>also thinking about what it means in a broader <DIV></DIV>>>scope. <DIV></DIV>>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first <DIV></DIV>>for Rhizome this month? <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out <DIV></DIV>>to me that DADA was one of the more interesting <DIV></DIV>>reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the <DIV></DIV>>world works, I
Eryk wrote: Here's a secret: You co-opted the thread by changing it into a > dialogue on my co-optation. I never intended to do that; I responded to Ivan > (Not You) and you responded about the tone of my response to Ivan.
The thread is public, if you do not want others to comment, do not send it to raw. If you do, anyone has permission to join in.
>If that > is what you want to talk about, we can keep doing it, or you can read what I > *actually wrote* and ignore it or engage with it. That's all up to *you*, > Eduardo- don't try to pawn that responsibility off on *me*.
Here is a secret: Everytime I bother answering your postings, at least two or three other people reply with similar comments as mine. In a past thread on feminism it was Patrick Lichty, Kanarinka, and Mark Cooley. This time around, it is Ivan Pope, M. River, and myself.
Maybe someone should learn to take criticism. As to the thread, I already sent my two cents after T.Whids comment. Join in if you like, but stop pointing at yourself, please.
I will not bother answering anymore comments coming from you unless it has to do directly with the PAM discussion.
> > It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from > the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me. > > Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness" > of "satirical content." > > -e. > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets > > > > Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just > bash > > all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They > should > > just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to > Kill? > > > > > > Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness > of > > satiric content. > > > > > > joseph the barbarian > > > > joseph and donna > > www.electrichands.com > > > > > > > > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > Here's my thinking Mr. M River, > > > > > > It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are > > > addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is > > > certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so > > > absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I > do > > > think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of > sides > > > to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly > morbid > > > and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100% > > > when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, > in > > > so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, > as a > > > bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. > I'll > > > even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no > > > less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical > thought, > > > so I decided to inject some into the discussion. > > > > > > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it > and > > > also thinking about what it means in a broader scope. > > > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > > From: "M. River" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM > > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets > > > > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or > the > > > > > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend, > > > > > > > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse > Now. > > > > > > > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us > > > > > anywhere. > > > > > > > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the > work we > > > make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to > look > > > at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. > To > > > change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for > that > > > goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some > ways > > > you are. > > > > > > > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it > > > > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see > > > > > these elements seperated from us. > > > > > > > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about > Technology. > > > What is our culpability? > > > > > > > > (ps. thanks for jpeg) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > > > -> post: [email protected] > > > > -> questions: [email protected] > > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > > > + > > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > > > Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > > -> post: [email protected] > > > -> questions: [email protected] > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > > + > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > >
It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me.
Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness" of "satirical content."
-e.
—– Original Message —– From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just bash > all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They should > just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to Kill? > > > Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness of > satiric content. > > > joseph the barbarian > > joseph and donna > www.electrichands.com > > > > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>: > > > > > Here's my thinking Mr. M River, > > > > It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are > > addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is > > certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so > > absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I do > > think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of sides > > to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly morbid > > and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100% > > when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, in > > so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, as a > > bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. I'll > > even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no > > less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical thought, > > so I decided to inject some into the discussion. > > > > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it and > > also thinking about what it means in a broader scope. > > > > -e. > > > > > > > > > > > > —– Original Message —– > > From: "M. River" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets > > > > > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the > > > > subtlety of how it's accomplished? > > > > > > > > > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend, > > > > > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now. > > > > > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us > > > > anywhere. > > > > > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we > > make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look > > at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To > > change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for that > > goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some ways > > you are. > > > > > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it > > > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see > > > > these elements seperated from us. > > > > > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about Technology. > > What is our culpability? > > > > > > (ps. thanks for jpeg) > > > > > > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > > -> post: [email protected] > > > -> questions: [email protected] > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > > + > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > > -> post: [email protected] > > -> questions: [email protected] > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > > + > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php > > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
> > It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from > the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me. > > Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness" > of "satirical content." > > -e. > > > —– Original Message —– > From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]> > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets > > >> Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just > bash >> all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They > should >> just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to > Kill? >> >> >> Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness > of >> satiric content. >> >> >> joseph the barbarian >> >> joseph and donna >> www.electrichands.com >> >> >> >> Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> Here's my thinking Mr. M River, >>> >>> It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are >>> addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is >>> certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so >>> absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I > do >>> think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of > sides >>> to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly > morbid >>> and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100% >>> when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, > in >>> so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, > as a >>> bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. > I'll >>> even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no >>> less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical > thought, >>> so I decided to inject some into the discussion. >>> >>> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it > and >>> also thinking about what it means in a broader scope. >>> >>> -e. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> —– Original Message —– >>> From: "M. River" <[email protected]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM >>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets >>> >>> >>>> Eryk Salvaggio wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or > the >>>>> subtlety of how it's accomplished? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend, >>>> >>>> Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse > Now. >>>> >>>>> keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us >>>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the > work we >>> make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to > look >>> at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. > To >>> change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for > that >>> goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some > ways >>> you are. >>>> >>>>> While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it >>>>> horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see >>>>> these elements seperated from us. >>>> >>>> I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about > Technology. >>> What is our culpability? >>>> >>>> (ps. thanks for jpeg) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup >>>> -> post: [email protected] >>>> -> questions: [email protected] >>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >>>> + >>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >>>> Membership Agreement available online at > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >>>> >>> >>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup >>> -> post: [email protected] >>> -> questions: [email protected] >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >>> + >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >>> >> >> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup >> -> post: [email protected] >> -> questions: [email protected] >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support >> + >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
m. said: Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…"
t. said: Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample reason for a comeback of the absurd.
j. m. said: of our elaborate plans / the end of everything that stands / the end
At 5:04 -0400 8/1/03, Curt Cloninger wrote: >m. said: >Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA >was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is >the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…" > >t. said: >Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample >reason for a comeback of the absurd. > >j. m. said: >of our elaborate plans / the end >of everything that stands / the end > >———- > >yet > >run/dmc said: >i'm not going out like that > >and > >radiohead said: >we ride tonight / ghost horses > >http://www.sarahmasen.com/dark/story.php/8 > >———- > >he who has ears, let him hear. >
> and i'm not sure what curt is saying… > > ;-) cya > > > At 5:04 -0400 8/1/03, Curt Cloninger wrote: > >m. said: > >Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA > >was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is > >the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…" > > > >t. said: > >Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample > >reason for a comeback of the absurd. > > > >j. m. said: > >of our elaborate plans / the end > >of everything that stands / the end > > > >———- > > > >yet > > > >run/dmc said: > >i'm not going out like that > > > >and > > > >radiohead said: > >we ride tonight / ghost horses > > > >http://www.sarahmasen.com/dark/story.php/8 > > > >———- > > > >he who has ears, let him hear. > > > > – > <twhid> > http://www.mteww.com > </twhid>
Comments
If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it
just gets better and better.
The relevant url:
> Pentagon Abandons Plan for Futures Market on Terror
> http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/
is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your
work, then rub yourself out.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252"></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>
It's very beautiful and very strange.
Cheers,
Ivan
If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it
just gets better and better.
The relevant url:
> Pentagon Abandons Plan for Futures Market on Terror
> http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/
is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your
work, then rub yourself out.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252"></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>
It's very beautiful and very strange.
Cheers,
Ivan
—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it
> just gets better and better.
What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
subtlety of how it's accomplished?
I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for its surreality, but
we have to stop assuming that it actually *is* surreality. It was actually
working on one of the most practical levels of consensus reality, which is
government, which has a vast array of tools at its disposal to do a
tremendous deal of harm by way of abuse and negligence. This project was
shocking for revealing the transparency in the relationships between
corporate hegemony, government abuse and terrorism. In this regard it was
similar to art; and *had it been* art it would have been brilliant, but to
keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
anywhere. It is *not* created as art, even though it may serve the same
function of expanding our scope of what is possible- an avant garde
government abuses. In this regard, any number of regimes have taken a
primary drive which exists in art- the expansion of the peripherals of what
is possible- and dragged it into areas of subjugation, oppression, and
fascism. Torture, such as the incredibly elaborate mechanisms designed by
Nazis, or the rituals for slaughter in the Cambodian Governments, down to
the bomb at Hiroshima, all expand the peripheral in regards to what is
possible in the destruction of humanity and the reduction of humanity; to a
nonsensical abstraction much pornographic group sex; the reduction of entire
human beings to body parts. Psychologically, the orchestrations of our
government in projects like this are removing us even from the idea of
reduction to a body and replacing it with reductions to an abstraction that
we've invented; the flow of economics and currency. Even to be reduced
solely to our bodies was not enough.
Human cruelty and human abuses, physical or psychological, are always an e-z
bake avant garde, since most of "humans" don't like thier massacres to occur
so obviously. While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see these
elements seperated from us. Art may or may not be capable of achieving this,
but art can at least disseminate the idea that there is *hope* for an
element in the world to serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a
whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this.
>
> It's very beautiful and very strange.
"Beautiful" ? How?
-e.
> > Pentagon Abandons Plan for Futures Market on Terror
> > http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/
>
> is now running a totally blank white page. Get the world to look at your
> work, then rub yourself out.
I see the blank page more like a minimal piece – a comment on "the white
cube"… maybe late 20th Century art is being explored in a non-linear form.
;)
Eduardo Navas
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
To: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
>
>
> > If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it
> > just gets better and better.
>
> What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> subtlety of how it's accomplished?
>
> I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for its surreality, but
> we have to stop assuming that it actually *is* surreality.
I do not think anyone on the list, who so far responded to T.Whid's and
Galloway's orgininal posts considers the PAM website an actual work of art.
Maybe I am wrong but I read all the comments as yet another (playful) way of
critiquing the unexpected events and measures that have developed since the
war on terrorism started.
eduardoN
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
>
>> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art, it
>> just gets better and better.
>
> What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> subtlety of how it's accomplished?
>
> I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for … <big fat snip> …
> serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a
> whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this.
>
I know its a troll, and I know I should not rise to it. But what is it about
Eryk and his irony bypass?
Eryk, your dishonesty in how you treat such postings, by ignoring the main
point of the post in order to make a laboured point, is staggering. Do you
know what an Aunt Sally is? Well, you just put one up and knocked it down.
Wow.
Yours,
Ivan
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> subtlety of how it's accomplished?
>
Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now.
> keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
> anywhere.
Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To change Darpa
Ivan,
Good to see your reflexes working properly. Please try to respond to the
content of my posts as opposed to the percieved tone. It's better for your
blood pressure.
I am asking for a serious discussion on the ramifications of the project we
were discussing. Your "main point" was dull, and your "irony" was trite and
annoying, as irony usually is- why people haven't figured this out yet I
don't know. Reacting to everything as if it was the opposite of what it
actually is fine up to a point but tends to get stale quickly, IMO. I was
trying to move *beyond* it by way of thought in regards to its working *in
reality* while you were trying to address it as its polar opposite of what
it actually is. My idea is that it accomplishes quite the opposite of what
my ideal art would, and I addressed the problems I see with a great deal of
art today that looks just like the DARPA "piece," which is that it
reinforces the peripheral into despair and personal stagnation rather than
individual empowerment. What's the problem?
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> >
> >> If, as Whid says, this is an example of the return of conceptual art,
it
> >> just gets better and better.
> >
> > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> > subtlety of how it's accomplished?
> >
> > I agree that this fiasco has been shocking if only for … <big fat
snip> …
> > serve as a catalyst for an opposing peripheral or a
> > whole new scope entirely. We can step outside of this.
> >
> I know its a troll, and I know I should not rise to it. But what is it
about
> Eryk and his irony bypass?
>
> Eryk, your dishonesty in how you treat such postings, by ignoring the main
> point of the post in order to make a laboured point, is staggering. Do you
> know what an Aunt Sally is? Well, you just put one up and knocked it down.
> Wow.
>
> Yours,
> Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Yes, I have no problem with that, I am now trying to discuss it from another
perspective.
I do hope we get to talk about my "tone" for another 700 emails though, that
would be awesome.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> I do not think anyone on the list, who so far responded to T.Whid's and
> Galloway's orgininal posts considers the PAM website an actual work of
art.
> Maybe I am wrong but I read all the comments as yet another (playful) way
of
> critiquing the unexpected events and measures that have developed since
the
> war on terrorism started.
>
> eduardoN
Here's my thinking Mr. M River,
It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are
addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is
certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so
absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I do
think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of sides
to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly morbid
and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100%
when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, in
so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, as a
bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. I'll
even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no
less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical thought,
so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it and
also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "M. River" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>
> >
> > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> > subtlety of how it's accomplished?
> >
>
> Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
>
> Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now.
>
> > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
> > anywhere.
>
> Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we
make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look
at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To
change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for that
goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some ways
you are.
>
> > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
> > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see
> > these elements seperated from us.
>
> I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about Technology.
What is our culpability?
>
> (ps. thanks for jpeg)
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
– Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing
> with you and at it and
> also thinking about what it means in a broader
> scope.
>
Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first
for Rhizome this month?
Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out
to me that DADA was one of the more interesting
reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the
world works, I
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
>
> Ivan,
>
> Good to see your reflexes working properly. Please try to respond to the
> content of my posts as opposed to the percieved tone. It's better for your
> blood pressure.
>
> I am asking for a serious discussion on the ramifications of the project we
> were discussing. Your "main point" was dull, and your "irony" was trite and
> annoying
Well good grief then Eryk, why did you bother to write such a long earnest
reply to my dull and trite joke in the first place? You ask for a response
to the content. My post had no content, so what were you replying to? Ivan
—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> Well good grief then Eryk, why did you bother to write such a long earnest
> reply to my dull and trite joke in the first place?
My "response" was to the website we were discussing.
> You ask for a response to the content. My post had no content, so what
were you replying to?
To the general thrust of the conversation regarding DARPA's qualifications
as a satirical art piece.
-e.
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just bash
all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They should
just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to Kill?
Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness of
satiric content.
joseph the barbarian
joseph and donna
www.electrichands.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
> Here's my thinking Mr. M River,
>
> It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are
> addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is
> certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so
> absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I do
> think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of sides
> to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly morbid
> and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100%
> when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it, in
> so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals, as a
> bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex. I'll
> even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no
> less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical thought,
> so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
>
> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it and
> also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "M. River" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
>
>
> > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or the
> > > subtlety of how it's accomplished?
> > >
> >
> > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
> >
> > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse Now.
> >
> > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
> > > anywhere.
> >
> > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the work we
> make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to look
> at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation. To
> change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for that
> goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some ways
> you are.
> >
> > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
> > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see
> > > these elements seperated from us.
> >
> > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about Technology.
> What is our culpability?
> >
> > (ps. thanks for jpeg)
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
actually. it was WW1.
and yes. Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed
ample reason for a comeback of the absurd.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Mark River wrote:
> – Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing
>> with you and at it and
>> also thinking about what it means in a broader
>> scope.
>>
>
> Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first
> for Rhizome this month?
>
> Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out
> to me that DADA was one of the more interesting
> reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the
> world works, I
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>
To: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Death Bets
> I do hope we get to talk about my "tone" for another 700 emails though,
that
> would be awesome.
>
> -e.
It is not about you Eryk.
In the past, I thought it was worthwhile to develop constructive threads,
but I can see that even the most playful, productive, and creative threads
(like the PAM postings) are effectively co-opted by loud voices only as a
way to feed ideological egocentrism.
The testosterone level gets too high in this list at times.
As the new Brooklyn sign is supposed to read: "forge' abou' id!"
eduardoN.
yikes! yes, sorry, ww1. it
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> In the past, I thought it was worthwhile to develop constructive threads,
> but I can see that even the most playful, productive, and creative threads
> (like the PAM postings) are effectively co-opted by loud voices only as a
> way to feed ideological egocentrism.
As I've explained already, I have no problem with the humor factor of the
thread, but I wanted to take a look at the situation from a different
perspective. Now you have spent two emails whining about how I "co-opted"
the thread. Here's a secret: You co-opted the thread by changing it into a
dialogue on my co-optation. I never intended to do that; I responded to Ivan
(Not You) and you responded about the tone of my response to Ivan. If that
is what you want to talk about, we can keep doing it, or you can read what I
*actually wrote* and ignore it or engage with it. That's all up to *you*,
Eduardo- don't try to pawn that responsibility off on *me*.
Cheers,
-e.
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Is art a state of mind or consciousness?</P>
<P>Is art the truest representation of freedom?</P>
<P>Can the ideal be reconcilled with the avant garde?</P>
<P>Any thought??? <BR><BR></P></DIV><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM> </EM></FONT></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P alignInter><FONT face="Courier New" color=#cc0000 size=2><EM> Walk the earth naked with me <BR>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>—-Original Message Follows—-
<DIV></DIV>From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
<DIV></DIV>Reply-To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
<DIV></DIV>To: Mark River <[email protected]>
<DIV></DIV>CC: [email protected]
<DIV></DIV>Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
<DIV></DIV>Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:00:28 -0400
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>actually. it was WW1.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>and yes. Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample reason for a comeback of the absurd.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>On Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 06:16 PM, Mark River wrote:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>– Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing
<DIV></DIV>>>with you and at it and
<DIV></DIV>>>also thinking about what it means in a broader
<DIV></DIV>>>scope.
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Yup, I think we are in agreement here. Is this a first
<DIV></DIV>>for Rhizome this month?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out
<DIV></DIV>>to me that DADA was one of the more interesting
<DIV></DIV>>reactions to WWII, as in; 'if this is the way the
<DIV></DIV>>world works, I
Eryk wrote:
Here's a secret: You co-opted the thread by changing it into a
> dialogue on my co-optation. I never intended to do that; I responded to
Ivan
> (Not You) and you responded about the tone of my response to Ivan.
The thread is public, if you do not want others to comment, do not send it
to raw. If you do, anyone has permission to join in.
>If that
> is what you want to talk about, we can keep doing it, or you can read what
I
> *actually wrote* and ignore it or engage with it. That's all up to *you*,
> Eduardo- don't try to pawn that responsibility off on *me*.
Here is a secret: Everytime I bother answering your postings, at least two
or three other people reply with similar comments as mine. In a past thread
on feminism it was Patrick Lichty, Kanarinka, and Mark Cooley. This time
around, it is Ivan Pope, M. River, and myself.
Maybe someone should learn to take criticism. As to the thread, I already
sent my two cents after T.Whids comment. Join in if you like, but stop
pointing at yourself, please.
I will not bother answering anymore comments coming from you unless it has
to do directly with the PAM discussion.
eduardoN.
Is.
Is.
Can.
Any.
Can.
Can?
joseph the barbarian
joseph and donna
www.electrichands.com
Quoting Arisen silently <[email protected]>:
>
> Is art a state of mind or consciousness?
> Is art the truest representation of freedom?
> Can
I am not living in a Monty Python Movie. I state again, I am not living in a
Monty Python Movie. I bash rabbits.
joseph the barbarian
joseph and donna
www.electrichands.com
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
> It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from
> the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me.
>
> Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness"
> of "satirical content."
>
> -e.
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
>
>
> > Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just
> bash
> > all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They
> should
> > just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to
> Kill?
> >
> >
> > Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness
> of
> > satiric content.
> >
> >
> > joseph the barbarian
> >
> > joseph and donna
> > www.electrichands.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
> >
> > >
> > > Here's my thinking Mr. M River,
> > >
> > > It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are
> > > addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is
> > > certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so
> > > absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I
> do
> > > think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of
> sides
> > > to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly
> morbid
> > > and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100%
> > > when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it,
> in
> > > so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals,
> as a
> > > bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex.
> I'll
> > > even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no
> > > less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical
> thought,
> > > so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
> > >
> > > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it
> and
> > > also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —– Original Message —–
> > > From: "M. River" <[email protected]>
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM
> > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> > >
> > >
> > > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or
> the
> > > > > subtlety of how it's accomplished?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse
> Now.
> > > >
> > > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
> > > > > anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the
> work we
> > > make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to
> look
> > > at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation.
> To
> > > change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for
> that
> > > goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some
> ways
> > > you are.
> > > >
> > > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
> > > > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see
> > > > > these elements seperated from us.
> > > >
> > > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about
> Technology.
> > > What is our culpability?
> > > >
> > > > (ps. thanks for jpeg)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > > >
> > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from
the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me.
Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness"
of "satirical content."
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]>
To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just
bash
> all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They
should
> just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to
Kill?
>
>
> Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness
of
> satiric content.
>
>
> joseph the barbarian
>
> joseph and donna
> www.electrichands.com
>
>
>
> Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>
> >
> > Here's my thinking Mr. M River,
> >
> > It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are
> > addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is
> > certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so
> > absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I
do
> > think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of
sides
> > to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly
morbid
> > and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100%
> > when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it,
in
> > so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals,
as a
> > bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex.
I'll
> > even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no
> > less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical
thought,
> > so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
> >
> > I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it
and
> > also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > —– Original Message —–
> > From: "M. River" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
> >
> >
> > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or
the
> > > > subtlety of how it's accomplished?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
> > >
> > > Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse
Now.
> > >
> > > > keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
> > > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the
work we
> > make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to
look
> > at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation.
To
> > change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for
that
> > goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some
ways
> > you are.
> > >
> > > > While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
> > > > horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see
> > > > these elements seperated from us.
> > >
> > > I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about
Technology.
> > What is our culpability?
> > >
> > > (ps. thanks for jpeg)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: [email protected]
> > > -> questions: [email protected]
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
> I will not bother answering anymore comments coming from you unless it has
> to do directly with the PAM discussion.
Thank god, all I was saying is that I wish you had done that in the first
place.
-e.
Common Problems With The Left.
No wonder the Right is in Power.
You all get sidetracked pretty easy.
on 7/31/03 2:06 AM, Eryk Salvaggio at [email protected] wrote:
>
> It's interesting, it's like if people are upset at me, it raises Joseph from
> the Dead to remind everyone that he, too, is upset at me.
>
> Check the archive, Joseph: I never said anything about the "appropriateness"
> of "satirical content."
>
> -e.
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "joseph the barbarian" <[email protected]>
> To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:20 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
>
>
>> Why do scientists and artists look alike? In a proper world, I could just
> bash
>> all their brains in. Makes me wonder, who gave authority to whom? They
> should
>> just rename the movie to Full Metal Glasses. Are we all Jokers Born to
> Kill?
>>
>>
>> Eryk… last I heard you were not qualified to judge the appropriateness
> of
>> satiric content.
>>
>>
>> joseph the barbarian
>>
>> joseph and donna
>> www.electrichands.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>
>>> Here's my thinking Mr. M River,
>>>
>>> It strikes me that this project of DARPA's was so ridiculous that we are
>>> addressing it as satire, when it isn't, it's the actual thing; this is
>>> certainly laughable to a degree- as I said, the surreality of it is so
>>> absurd that to a degree it's funny. And I am not discounting that, but I
> do
>>> think that there is another side to it- there are infinite number of
> sides
>>> to it- and the reality of that project is all the while significantly
> morbid
>>> and disturbing, and I don't know if we can afford to laugh about it 100%
>>> when there are some very disturbing and morbid underlying themes to it,
> in
>>> so much as how the government operates and in what the project reveals,
> as a
>>> bright and bold affirmation of a military-industrial-terrorist complex.
> I'll
>>> even deal with 75% laughing at it and 25% serious consideration, but no
>>> less. I think a project like this deserves some degree of critical
> thought,
>>> so I decided to inject some into the discussion.
>>>
>>> I don't believe in mutual exclusives; I am laughing with you and at it
> and
>>> also thinking about what it means in a broader scope.
>>>
>>> -e.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> —– Original Message —–
>>> From: "M. River" <[email protected]>
>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:22 PM
>>> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Death Bets
>>>
>>>
>>>> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are your criteria: The most number of people slaughtered, or
> the
>>>>> subtlety of how it's accomplished?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Eryk, My Friendster friend,
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, Dr. Strangelove is a better social critic than Apocalypse
> Now.
>>>>
>>>>> keep treating it as something other than what it is does not get us
>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, for me it does. Darpa created the proto-internet and the
> work we
>>> make stands on that foundation. It is nessary, every once in awhile, to
> look
>>> at the larger landscape that we are in and define ourselves in relation.
> To
>>> change Darpa's context from "gov r&d" to "artist" is an exercise for
> that
>>> goal. I know that you are not taking this all literally, but in some
> ways
>>> you are.
>>>>
>>>>> While you might think of this as "beautiful," I find it
>>>>> horrifying that there is not even a *desire* in human beings to see
>>>>> these elements seperated from us.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that brings the larger question when thinking about
> Technology.
>>> What is our culpability?
>>>>
>>>> (ps. thanks for jpeg)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>>> +
>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>>
>>>
>>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>> -> post: [email protected]
>>> -> questions: [email protected]
>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>> +
>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>>
>>
>> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
m. said:
Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA
was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is
the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…"
t. said:
Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample
reason for a comeback of the absurd.
j. m. said:
of our elaborate plans / the end
of everything that stands / the end
———-
yet
run/dmc said:
i'm not going out like that
and
radiohead said:
we ride tonight / ghost horses
http://www.sarahmasen.com/dark/story.php/8
———-
he who has ears, let him hear.
_
_
and i'm not sure what curt is saying…
;-) cya
At 5:04 -0400 8/1/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>m. said:
>Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA
>was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is
>the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…"
>
>t. said:
>Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample
>reason for a comeback of the absurd.
>
>j. m. said:
>of our elaborate plans / the end
>of everything that stands / the end
>
>———-
>
>yet
>
>run/dmc said:
>i'm not going out like that
>
>and
>
>radiohead said:
>we ride tonight / ghost horses
>
>http://www.sarahmasen.com/dark/story.php/8
>
>———-
>
>he who has ears, let him hear.
>
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
perhaps this diagram will help:
http://www.lab404.com/apmec/
+++++++
t.whid wrote:
> and i'm not sure what curt is saying…
>
> ;-) cya
>
>
> At 5:04 -0400 8/1/03, Curt Cloninger wrote:
> >m. said:
> >Along a this line, twhid and others have pointed out to me that DADA
> >was one of the more interesting reactions to WWI, as in; "if this is
> >the way the world works, I'm fucking out of here…"
> >
> >t. said:
> >Dada led to eventually to conceptual art and there is indeed ample
> >reason for a comeback of the absurd.
> >
> >j. m. said:
> >of our elaborate plans / the end
> >of everything that stands / the end
> >
> >———-
> >
> >yet
> >
> >run/dmc said:
> >i'm not going out like that
> >
> >and
> >
> >radiohead said:
> >we ride tonight / ghost horses
> >
> >http://www.sarahmasen.com/dark/story.php/8
> >
> >———-
> >
> >he who has ears, let him hear.
> >
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>