If brilliant computer images are not supported by equally brilliant
cultural ideas, their life span is very limited.
-lev manovich, http://www.rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread269&text 140#20140
++
thanks lev manovich
++
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
let's repeat:
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Shouldn't that be "brilliant" life span, then, for repetition's sake?
I wasn't posting that as a dig at Manovich. It seems to point at the
emptiness of lots of the more design oriented new media stuff. y, it's
cool but you forget it almost as soon as you stop looking at it.
y, it should be obvious, but it seems to be lacking mightily in the
digital/nm scene.
cya
On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 09:24 PM, Patrick Lichty wrote:
> Duh…
> But then, I have a serious 'Empereor's New Clothes" thing with much of
> Manovich's thought.
> I find a great deal of what he has to say based on awfully flawed
> fundamental assumptions (language of new media - much of it is great,
> but
> his foundations are swiss cheese, progrssivism, foundation in film
> theory,
> etc.) or fairly pedantic arguments (such as his Ars talk).
> He says things that are worth saying but they're not very
> revolutionary -
> they're just things that should be said that few are saying.
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:39 AM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: let's repeat:
>
>
>> If brilliant computer images are not supported by equally brilliant
>> cultural ideas, their life span is very limited.
>>
>> -lev manovich,
> http://www.rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread269&text 140#20140
>>
>>
>> ++
>>
>> thanks lev manovich
>>
>> ++
>> –
>> <twhid>
>> http://www.mteww.com
>> </twhid>
>> + 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
"t.whid" <[email protected]>
> I wasn't posting that as a dig at Manovich.
well - can I then…? [friday morning rant]
j'accuse manovich of limiting and constraining net.art.
A global speaker, his ideas and writing have proved the fundamental critical texts in
curating net art - open any catalogue and you'll find a quote, attend any conference and
he's one of the delegates - I swear the guy has mastered teleportation to be present on
such an international scale.
art criticism in the malaise of twenty first century art - one is no longer allowed to think
and feel one must interpret and critique. Squeezing new genres into half-sister
theoretics.
Manovich's aesthetics of interactivety are the most widely accepted and least
empowering texts imposed upon net.artists. Creativity formed from textual roots
destroyed by texts. ironic. Manovich's texts have created a high-profile (institutionaly
supported) cliche of artists in a symbiotic (parasitic?) relationship with their own critical
texts.
As far as I am concerned, Manovich will always be 'the bad guy'….
[takes a breath] rant over
jess. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
"t.whid" <[email protected]>
> I wasn't posting that as a dig at Manovich.
well - can I then…? [friday morning rant]
j'accuse manovich of limiting and constraining net.art.
A global speaker, his ideas and writing have proved the fundamental critical texts in
curating net art - open any catalogue and you'll find a quote, attend any conference and
he's one of the delegates - I swear the guy has mastered teleportation to be present on
such an international scale.
art criticism in the malaise of twenty first century art - one is no longer allowed to think
and feel one must interpret and critique. Squeezing new genres into half-sister
theoretics.
Manovich's aesthetics of interactivety are the most widely accepted and least
empowering texts imposed upon net.artists. Creativity formed from textual roots
destroyed by texts. ironic. Manovich's texts have created a high-profile (institutionaly
supported) cliche of artists in a symbiotic (parasitic?) relationship with their own critical
texts.
As far as I am concerned, Manovich will always be 'the bad guy'….
[takes a breath] rant over
jess. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
> "t.whid" <[email protected]>
>
> > I wasn't posting that as a dig at Manovich.
>
> well - can I then…? [friday morning rant]
>
> As far as I am concerned, Manovich will always be 'the bad guy'….
isn't it sort of the job of criticism to be "critical" as much as celebratory? i understand the complaints with Manovich - being prescriptive, etc… but so what? if his work is creating a cartel of new media practice, that's something to be concerned about - but it wouldn't be just his work that's doing that - other people (in positions of some kind of institutional power) would have to support it for reasons other than liking Manovich i think. we could be asking: why is Manovich (as a text) useful for someone/thing?
and i think t.whid makes a good point that if there is a Manovich cartel it's not all that dominant (not that that's a bad thing).
not really a rant… but i try.
ryan
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">this was supposed to be sent early
yesterday evening but my email went down for
42hrs, so a delayed rant:-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">————————-</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hi ryan,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">friday evening rant (sorry, you really
shouldn't encourage me:-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">>…. isn't it
sort of the job of criticism to be "critical" as much as celebratory?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">depends what you means as critical
- if you mean that you expound as if you have some
gnostic enlightenment as to form then the criticism become self-serving and valueless.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm quite serious about the religious
analogy…</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> >….i understand
the complaints with Manovich - being prescriptive, etc… but so what?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I think the problems for many artists,
curators  & new media writers as they search for a
viable language for new media criticism is that manovich's texts were accepted so
readily..</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>so enthusiastically </i>by
the institutions that it made it incredibly hard for any real
discussion of whether the prescription as to 'what net art should be' was viable.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> So what? Well, It means that artists
working outside of manovich's parameters are
institutionaly critiqued by a flawed yet dominant set of criteria. Limiting what is shown
institutionaly and creating a hostile environment to any discourses as whether the work
that fits so snugly into manovich's transfer model mediums actually has validity and/or
quality as an 'artwork'. Its a BIG 'what'.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> >….if his work
is creating a cartel of new media practice, that's something to be
concerned about -</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> but it wouldn't be
just his work that's doing that - other people (in positions of some kind
of institutional power)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> would have to support
it for reasons other than liking Manovich i think</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Manovich's writing applied an accepted
and already partially understood set of
parameters that was was understandable, controllable and  limitable. Institutionally this
was incredibly good news. The box was set and anything outside of these parameters
could be written off as 'not net'. I don't know if 'they' like manovich or not but his
aesthetics of interactivity must have seemed like net on plate - dressed and ready to
eat. I read this quote a while back from an old article written in 1993 which really gives
adequate warning:</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>"Once the system
is working and robust, then there will be time to deal with aesthetic
issues" is a common rationalisation. Yet in some cases, that time never comes. It is easy to
know if the technology isn't working. It's harder to know if the aesthetics aren't working.”  </b></span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">>…. we could
be asking: why is Manovich (as a text) useful for someone/thing?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">There are certain areas of manovich's
writings which I appreciate are good food for
thought - however that is what they should have remained. I really think you
underestimate how influential he is in terms of critical writing and establishing and
institutional agenda. I followed (in retrospect) the american institutions absorbing his
lead and I now watch dismally institutions (such as the Tate) here repeating the same
pattern. The huge dilemma is that no-one has been able to come up with a  viable
alternative critical language/voice for net.art/new media writing that is as accessible,
understandable and well supported as manovich's texts. I have no answers for this.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> …and i think
t.whid makes a good point that if there is a Manovich cartel it's not all that dominant (not that that's
a bad thing).</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">[cough sputter]</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">with respect to t.whid who I don't
think was asking for an anti-manovich rant;-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">If you mean that he is not setting
the agenda for net.artists -  absolutely.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">If you mean that there are a huge
amount of artists who don't give a crap if they fit into
manovich's parameter - completely</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">If you mean that manovich's writing
is not having an effect on some fantastic non-
manovich friendly works being created - I agree…</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">BUT</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">dominant - dominant as in stifling
institutional support, making net.art so damn
unattractive to viewers in galleries, promoting works that wouldn't have a chance of
standing up on their own two legs as artworks under any other set of parameters other
than manovich's - then wondering why the public doesn't 'get' net.art', creating an
agenda of op-art-esque self-indulgency in a clique of institutionaly supported artists
repeating manovich's writings to validate their work rather than the other way round</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">yes - I think he's a tad dominant.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">[deep breath] end of evening rant</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
with all due respect to Jess (who, IMO, is most worthy of a voluminous
amount of respect), I prompt her to expand upon her somewhat vague
critique of Manovich. Her caveat of 'rant' notwithstanding I think she
could be more precise. My specific questions below interspersed thru
her last post.
I'm no expert in his texts having read only the odd essay published to
Rhiz and his Language of New Media (LoNM) but I don't see this stifling
or 'cartel' effect that Jess 'rants' about.
On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Jess Loseby wrote:
> this was supposed to be sent early yesterday evening but my email went
> down for 42hrs, so a delayed rant:-)
> ————————-
> Hi ryan,
> friday evening rant (sorry, you really shouldn't encourage me:-)
> >
> >…. isn't it sort of the job of criticism to be "critical" as much
> as celebratory?
> depends what you means as critical - if you mean that you expound as
> if you have some gnostic enlightenment as to form then the criticism
> become self-serving and valueless.
> I'm quite serious about the religious analogy…
How does M expound in any way other than thousands of critics before
him? He writes in a persuasive way, but don't all critics? They are
trying to persuade people to agree with their assertions afterall. I
don't see how this de-values his writing or makes it self-serving any
more than all other criticism ever written.
>
> >….i understand the complaints with Manovich - being prescriptive,
> etc… but so what?
> I think the problems for many artists, curators
Gate Keeping & Who gets seen?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Thomas Moore said 'All attempts to give a strict form to life, even if they
are based in a fantasy of self improvement, participate in Sadeian monastic
ideals'.
I can understand Jess Loseby's declaration of doubt regarding Manovich's
decision not to include certain groups, other forms of net-based digital
creativity in his writings; yet I also see that it is to do with
circumstance.
Like Patrick Lichty, I feel that he contributes but not with as a wide or
broad net as some of us on the frontline would wish for. I remember looking
in an archive of Manovich's files under section 'F' with a silly, childish
and hopeful curiosity, wondering if he had mentioned Furtherfield at all
(after all we have been active as a net group since 97); I laughed out loud
to myself when I discovered a reference to Forest Gump and nothing of
ourselves. The only people who can really change this situation are those on
the frontlines as usual (like Patrick mentioned again). Which is why we
started Furtherfield in the first place.
The line that many of us net based progressive thinkers, net artists, wish
to redraw and potentially make less canon based and non linear is always
being reinterpreted by cultural shifts socially and politically all the
time. Those who mainly reside within those prescribed cultural boundaries,
who wish not to change the designated lines are workers for those
institutions, supporting them, even if they are actually situated outside
themselves. For once one engages in the dialogue of creativity with others
the process begins that whatever is discussed between becomes a space that
references what has been put in place for them to muse on as historical,
contemporary influence.
Jess Loseby said 'The huge dilemma is that no-one has been able to come up
with a viable alternative critical language/voice for net.art/new media
writing that is as accessible, understandable and well supported as
manovich's texts.'
The reason for this is not that they are not out there, they are, but they
are not being seen by the institutions themselves which makes it seem as
though they are not out there. This is not healthy because lazy curators
just choose the ones who are easier to focus on instead of actively
researching to find out what is really happening.
So, who gets seen, and why are they seen above others and more than others?
I read Manovich's recent article which was posted on this list a few days
ago 'Don't Call it Art: Ars Electronica 2003' mentioning that Ars
Electronica's decision to focus mainly on coding was a form of cultural
isolationism. This was, in fact a very important thing to say. For I can
remember thinking to myself, mmm Furtherfield are doing some pretty
interesting things but we cannot get involved with this festival because we
are eclectic and consciously trying not to be singular and actively
relational in matters regarding digital, new media and net art explorations.
So our group was isolated because we did not fit into a limited theme, and
us being more open in our field of practice, ideas and function was not what
they were interested in. Which is no great loss really as far as
Furtherfield are concerned because we are changing things in our own way,
which is actively open to using the mode of 'soft group' maneuvers,
hopefully more fluid in its essence and aiming beyond established static,
culturally revisionist tactics.
I want to move away from Manovich and putting him under the spotlight as
symbolic of what is stopping the wheel turning in the world, and spread the
load and give other examples that we ourselves at Furtherfield have
personally experienced.
Now, when we see certain people always getting promoted or written about
when there are many other significant people and groups out there involved
in just as much relevant work themselves who are not being accepted by those
who hold the keys to the 'representative' kingdom. Then there is something
that is not working. What this says, is that not much has changed regarding
creative entities being seen via institutional platforms. It is also obvious
that it takes years of positive change to penetrate such systems that
usually nurter their own, what they know already and usually not what they
do not know. Also, we must remember that many institutional academics prefer
to limit their agendas and stick to them as a centralized base to work
around. Which can be great for them because they finely tune their ideas to
a sharp focus, but in essence when exploring new media, digital and net art,
the landscape out there is perpetually changing and offers so much more.
Also, there is a big difference between intellectual argument and academic
argument. Academic argument comes from a place of culturalized reference,
high art, high science, or accepted and (supposed) informed knowledge that
has been institutionally accepted. This means that if you use an academic
argument, you are more likely to be agreed with by those who value such
structures and theories. They instantly understand the triggers, signifiers
being inferred. Thus, an immediate rapport occurs, a kind of mental
handshake and recognition that one has equally gone through the same
learning processes. This is of course a positive experience for those who
wish to have their references re-affirmed, but it serves no solution to
solve the issue or crux, that 'Academia' only serves the few.
What this means is that the probability in respect of those who have not had
institutional support compared to those who have had institutional support,
regarding being seen by writers and critics with strong institutional
connections, is a vast chasm. For some reason many institutional historians
it seems, do not to openly value social change, they value history instead.
Thus they do not feel that it as part of their remit to put forward a more
democratic vision. This slump into such a traditional dichotomy of
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">hi t.whid</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">gosh, I haven't had such a courteous
contrary opinion is a long time - how civisilised!
Cheers…!</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">My email has been down almost all
the weekend now (I'm hoping it will be working when
I actually come to send this) which has of course left me running around with work
undone and flapping like a chicken. I'll try and answer  your specific questions as best I
can but my time is limited - I'll try and back up my 'rant ' (although rant is what it was) in
the time and cover all the points you raised. I am more than happy to admit that my
'rants' tend to be rather overly emotional and tinged with flippancy but I do think this one
has a reasoned foundation;-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Firstly, I need to say that 'cartel'
was not my word (ryans, I think originally) but yes,
'stifling' I think is reasonable.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Secondly, I think Patrick's mail was
rather eloquent in many of the difficulties with LoNM
and I agree with much of his email.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">The texts (particularly LoNM) in themselves
I don't have a huge problem with as works
in their own right. I think I used words such as 'accessible' and 'understandable' with
reference to them and I do think they are. Manovich was/is brave and praiseworthy in
his attempt to build a New media language and a critical framework from which to
examine it. My problems begin with the fact that this language is limited in its
transferable nature yet it is transferred - more and more by manovich himself. He
actually indicates in the LoNM that it shouldn't be taken as a guide to aesthetics  etc but
proceeded to apply them (particularly within the last couple of years).  Written very
much as a language for one section of net.art (ie VR, Games) it is taken (as the title
suggests it should be) for a language for the whole of new media.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> Its difficult for me to justify this
in any way than anacdoteally. As rather a late-comer to
net.art I have looked to 'catch-up' & contextualise my own and other artists work around
me within a critical writing framework, and it is my observation is that the critical writing
framework (particularly in the form on online journals) that exits is underpinned by
manovich's theories.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I've just had a quick look back over
a recent discussion on the CRUMB list where I
knew manovich's language had come up to 'back up' this impression. Nobody used
language stronger than 'problematic' and the debate was left hanging with the original
suggestion that a new language was needed. The general response could be
summarized as  "its not great but its all we have"* (So far, Lev's book is pretty much
the
only one that explicitly addresses 'The Language of New Media'” - Christiane Paul)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm neither a writer, critic or theorist
and I have (which is perhaps the crux of the matter)
no language with which to counter his texts but in a nutshell here is what have lead to
my rant…</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I have a huge problem with his view
of the authority of database (as so called 'new
media') over narrative( as so called 'old media'). He promotes this view as his own
artistic preference but uses it to negate other works. Database may neither be my field
of practice or great interest (although  I have an almost awe of database driven artwork)
but the view that database/ datadriven work encompasses either all net.art should be or
is the 'best' or 'true' form there is breathtakingly arrogant. However he does it in such a
way that the undermining is subtle. Take his comments on the switch interview (also on
nettime i think)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">"If we are to adequately
reflect our own times we have to take the next step, generating works larger in size, more
complex, more multi-layered, more dense. A Web site consisting of a few pages can't be an adequate reflection
of a modern society."</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">or how about …</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">"To expect diffirent
countries to create their own national schools of Net</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">art is the same as to expect
them to create their own customized brands of Coca-Cola. The sole meaning of
Coca-Cola, its sole function is that it is the same everywhere."</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">His aim may well be for a coca-cola
art (as he seems to be under the impression that
net.artists want fervently to divorce themselves from their localities as the russian artists
rejected his research (snigger) But Its this kind of comment that I find so provocative.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I like chat-logs as they are so fresh
and this is another from a log Active Worlds chat
session (Sat Mar 25, 2000 1:19 PM) which was another that embedded my anti-
manovich tendencies</span></font></div>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: In fact Godard is completely anti-computer</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: Meaning that he is about montage</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">ommm: interesting…explain</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: and there is no montage
in new media</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">ok, so that might have got to me because
of my devotion to montage but then in the
same log..</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: Why shall we bring our
tired boring commercial and prosaic reality even into cyberspace </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(added whilst using VR  and questioning
why there are ‘paintings’ on the virtual walls)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">sometimes is the side comments that
say it all - and again in the same text…</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: Shall we desire "depth,"
complexity,"</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: "poetry" and all the other
traditional. things from new media?</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: Or shall we welcome it as it – pure
interface</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt">LevM: pure technology with
humans stuck to it</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">t.whid - surely that comment alone
enough to send  any artist with a yearning for
emotion and poetry into a rant ???</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">So, as for  his influence on
institutions & curating….</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Have you ever found a text that does
disagree with his premises?? He gave 45
international lectures in 2002 and was invited to 97. why? Are there no other new media
speakers, artists or writers out there?? It is my experience that lists, journals etc usually
tend (if anything) towards the adversarial in nature - particularly when given a fixed set
of criteria to get their teeth into. Why has manovich remained untouched?  My cynical
soul can't help feeling it is partly (partly!!) to do with an unwilling to bite the hand that
feeds you…. He speaks alongside the most established curators at (seemly) every
worldwide net conference. Its intimidation by proliferation.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">You asked about who and what are being
affected but I think you know my feelings
enough about previous curatial decisions at the Walker (see previous rants for details)
without me going on another here. I don't think it difficult to see the influence of
manovich on Dietz, Christiane Paul's or Honor Hargers texts and curatorial choices. I
fear (as much as it looks a stonking good conference) that manovich's residency and the
BALTIC conference  will do nothing but solidify his influence on UK curators (already
given a healthy manovich dose at user_mode earlier this year). </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Outside of these particulars (walker,
tate, baltic, ars) you need to remember the lens we
are looking at these through. Ironically, with the equalizing influence of the net I do need
to suggest that it is geography that may make the difference in perception of manovich.
My lens is only the net. Even london  is a rarity and my experience is often a static gaze
(and more often than not a retrospective one) My source of information are primarily
artworks themselves and then the writing that supports them without the 'context' of the
surrounding dialogues of the conferences themselves. This is where my 'impression' has
been formed and I stand by my accusation. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">All the best,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">*(Going back to the CRUMB discussion
I mentioned before it was Kate Southworth who
gave the only real viable alternative and her mail is well worth a read - she is so much
more reasoned than I!)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">——-</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> with all due respect to Jess
(who, IMO, is most worthy of a voluminous </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> amount of respect), I prompt
her to expand upon her somewhat vague </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> critique of Manovich. Her caveat
of 'rant' notwithstanding I think she </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> could be more precise. My specific
questions below interspersed thru </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">> her last post.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
hi t.whid
gosh, I haven't had such a courteous contrary opinion is a long time - how civisilised!
Cheers…!
My email has been down almost all the weekend now (I'm hoping it will be working when
I actually come to send this) which has of course left me running around with work
undone and flapping like a chicken. I'll try and answer your specific questions as best I
can but my time is limited - I'll try and back up my 'rant ' (although rant is what it was) in
the time and cover all the points you raised. I am more than happy to admit that my
'rants' tend to be rather overly emotional and tinged with flippancy but I do think this one
has a reasoned foundation;-)
Firstly, I need to say that 'cartel' was not my word (ryans, I think originally) but yes,
'stifling' I think is reasonable.
Secondly, I think Patrick's mail was rather eloquent in many of the difficulties with LoNM
and I agree with much of his email.
The texts (particularly LoNM) in themselves I don't have a huge problem with as works
in their own right. I think I used words such as 'accessible' and 'understandable' with
reference to them and I do think they are. Manovich was/is brave and praiseworthy in
his attempt to build a New media language and a critical framework from which to
examine it. My problems begin with the fact that this language is limited in its
transferable nature yet it is transferred - more and more by manovich himself. He
actually indicates in the LoNM that it shouldn't be taken as a guide to aesthetics etc but
proceeded to apply them (particularly within the last couple of years). Written very
much as a language for one section of net.art (ie VR, Games) it is taken (as the title
suggests it should be) for a language for the whole of new media.
Its difficult for me to justify this in any way than anacdoteally. As rather a late-comer to
net.art I have looked to 'catch-up' & contextualise my own and other artists work around
me within a critical writing framework, and it is my observation is that the critical writing
framework (particularly in the form on online journals) that exits is underpinned by
manovich's theories.
I've just had a quick look back over a recent discussion on the CRUMB list where I
knew manovich's language had come up to 'back up' this impression. Nobody used
language stronger than 'problematic' and the debate was left hanging with the original
suggestion that a new language was needed. The general response could be
summarized as "its not great but its all we have"* (So far, Lev's book is pretty much the
only one that explicitly addresses 'The Language of New Media'
Who the fuck is Lev Manovich
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: let's repeat:
>
> with all due respect to Jess (who, IMO, is most worthy of a voluminous
> amount of respect), I prompt her to expand upon her somewhat vague
> critique of Manovich. Her caveat of 'rant' notwithstanding I think she
> could be more precise. My specific questions below interspersed thru
> her last post.
>
> I'm no expert in his texts having read only the odd essay published to
> Rhiz and his Language of New Media (LoNM) but I don't see this stifling
> or 'cartel' effect that Jess 'rants' about.
>
> On Saturday, September 20, 2003, at 02:18 PM, Jess Loseby wrote:
>
> > this was supposed to be sent early yesterday evening but my email went
> > down for 42hrs, so a delayed rant:-)
> > ————————-
> > Hi ryan,
> > friday evening rant (sorry, you really shouldn't encourage me:-)
> > >
> > >…. isn't it sort of the job of criticism to be "critical" as much
> > as celebratory?
> > depends what you means as critical - if you mean that you expound as
> > if you have some gnostic enlightenment as to form then the criticism
> > become self-serving and valueless.
> > I'm quite serious about the religious analogy…
>
> How does M expound in any way other than thousands of critics before
> him? He writes in a persuasive way, but don't all critics? They are
> trying to persuade people to agree with their assertions afterall. I
> don't see how this de-values his writing or makes it self-serving any
> more than all other criticism ever written.
>
> >
> > >….i understand the complaints with Manovich - being prescriptive,
> > etc… but so what?
> > I think the problems for many artists, curators & new media writers
> > as they search for a viable language for new media criticism is that
> > manovich's texts were accepted so readily..so enthusiastically by the
> > institutions that it made it incredibly hard for any real discussion
> > of whether the prescription as to 'what net art should be' was viable.
>
> I would really like you to explain exactly how institutions are
> implementing M's ideas in their curatorial practices and what art is
> being left out due to these policies.
>
> > So what? Well, It means that artists working outside of manovich's
> > parameters are institutionaly critiqued by a flawed yet dominant set
> > of criteria. Limiting what is shown institutionaly and creating a
> > hostile environment to any discourses as whether the work that fits so
> > snugly into manovich's transfer model mediums actually has validity
> > and/or quality as an 'artwork'. Its a BIG 'what'.
>
> call me dumb, but what are M's parameters? My general take on LoNM is
> that it's simply a description of the formal qualities of new media and
> how they relate to what he posits as the dominant media before NM: film
> and cinema.
>
> >
> > >….if his work is creating a cartel of new media practice, that's
> > something to be concerned about -
> > but it wouldn't be just his work that's doing that - other people (in
> > positions of some kind of institutional power)
> > would have to support it for reasons other than liking Manovich i think
> > Manovich's writing applied an accepted and already partially
> > understood set of parameters that was was understandable, controllable
> > and limitable. Institutionally this was incredibly good news. The box
> > was set and anything outside of these parameters could be written off
> > as 'not net'. I don't know if 'they' like manovich or not but his
> > aesthetics of interactivity must have seemed like net on plate -
> > dressed and ready to eat. I read this quote a while back from an old
> > article written in 1993 which really gives adequate warning:
> > "Once the system is working and robust, then there will be time to
> > deal with aesthetic issues" is a common rationalisation. Yet in some
> > cases, that time never comes. It is easy to know if the technology
> > isn't working. It's harder to know if the aesthetics aren't working.
the hairy guy with the big mouth on the speakers table….:-)
>
>
> Who the fuck is Lev Manovich
>
> -e.
>
>
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
wow, jess - that's a lot of responding, all thoughtful - and t.whid didn't make it easy for you either! (and marc's anecdotal response was right on)
i just wanted to clarify my "so what?" remark - which wasn't meant to be flip, but to question what was at stake. which you mostly answered.
i think one reason why M is so accepted and used (i would say "used") is because it's easy to make his work about formal concerns - database structures, montage VS composite, etc… as Greenberg's work was, divorced from it's social meaning. even the inverse of the database aesthetic - "narrative" (Mark Stephen Meadows' "Pause and Effect" comes to mind)- becomes a kind of formalist one as celebrated.
but i think there are other narratives that can be read against this work too. some are institutionalized on their own (albeit smaller cliques) like Lunenfeld, Lovink, the Krokers, Lynn Hershman. some really critiquing "the institution" (or at least changing it) like the subRosa crew, Ricardo Dominguez, others. Of course, my examples show my biases, but i think there are others (a few on this list) creating smaller institutions (or infiltrating dominant ones) that are more able/willing to exist without stifling everything else. the difference may be in institutions that need openness to survive versus those that are more "agoraphobic."
this probably adds little to the discussion, but what the hell.
hola,
thanks for the thoughtful reply. along with Marc's post on this thread
it gives me a much better idea of what folks are thinking along these
lines. Thanks for picking up the challenge and giving us an interesting
view into one net artist's take on the reign of LM. Unfortunately, I'm
not in much shape for a rebuttal this week :-( couple notes below, but
they're lame.
cya
On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Jess Loseby wrote:
> hi t.whid
> gosh, I haven't had such a courteous contrary opinion is a long time -
> how civisilised! Cheers…!
>
i try to be nice–sometimes ;-)
> <snip>
> Firstly, I need to say that 'cartel' was not my word (ryans, I think
> originally) but yes, 'stifling' I think is reasonable.
> Secondly, I think Patrick's mail was rather eloquent in many of the
> difficulties with LoNM and I agree with much of his email.
>
> The texts (particularly LoNM) in themselves I don't have a huge
> problem with as works in their own right. I think I used words such as
> 'accessible' and 'understandable' with reference to them and I do
> think they are. Manovich was/is brave and praiseworthy in his attempt
> to build a New media language and a critical framework from which to
> examine it. My problems begin with the fact that this language is
> limited in its transferable nature yet it is transferred - more and
> more by manovich himself. He actually indicates in the LoNM that it
> shouldn't be taken as a guide to aesthetics
—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: let's repeat:
> hola,
>
> thanks for the thoughtful reply. along with Marc's post on this thread
> it gives me a much better idea of what folks are thinking along these
> lines. Thanks for picking up the challenge and giving us an interesting
> view into one net artist's take on the reign of LM. Unfortunately, I'm
> not in much shape for a rebuttal this week :-( couple notes below, but
> they're lame.
>
Hello T. Whid, and all rhizomers.
I have been following the thread. I find it interesting how there is an
implicit amount of otherization based on the traditional myth of the heroic
artist against the institution, which in the end only keeps the discourse at
a very low level of exchange. I think the best way to tackle a text, in the
end, is to actually examine it carefully – in any language that need not be
academic; and of course hoping that the author will not get defensive over
such criticism and push the dialogue into a child-ranting war – which has
happened on this list way too many times… I think it is safe to say that
Manovich would never do such a thing, and if he is reading all this jargon
he is taking it in stride. Curt's reply was an excellent anti-thesis that
raised excellent questions. Patrick Lichty's Semi-Fukuyama response was
also very helpful for me to reevaluate the original essay. I wish I could
send a more thorough comment, but I am spread rather thin at the moment.
Be well rhizomers.
Eduardo Navas
I guess I feel like everybody else, I ain't gotten nuthin'
> better to put forward.
neither do I. What an anti-climax;-)
best,
jess. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
hi ryan,
this probably adds little to the discussion, but what the hell
no, it adds a lot, particularly your list of writings that can be 'set against' this kind of
dialogue. Pause & Effect is one I keep seeing but never got around to looking at - nice
to have a recommendation.
I know what you mean about others.Even though rhizome has been rather 'wobbly'
lately, I do enjoy the mixed bag of ideas and approaches.
Right, I have no brain this morning so I need to track it down with the help of a large
mug of caffeine:-)
cheers,
jess. o
/^ rssgallery.com
][
<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">oh dear - </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Am suffering a persecution complex
feeling that although addressing
t.whid, this sideways jab was aimed partly at me, eduardo?</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I did preface my comments with 'rant'
and talked about lack of
vocabulary and that I was neither a theorist or writer. I was hoping to
raise questions (albeit in a a bulldozer sort of way) - the consequences
of the </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>application</i> of the text
rather than the texts themselves. I know I
pointed to debates on CRUMB & the switch article amongst others, and
ryan added some great books who were examining the text  'carefully' in
the way you suggest. Does everyone really have to write an 'anti-thesis'
to the list to be valid?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I didn't see evidence of a child ranting
war… although we all had
different opinions, everyone was being very nice to each other.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Yes, I 'm also sure 'manovich would
never do such a thing'</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(I cant believe you said that - LOL)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I do sometimes feel being an 'new
media' artist today is a little like
millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline and
remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
which of course I do:-) artists are expected to create stunning artworks
every three weeks whist  blazing their trail with insightful and critical
journal submissions and seminars, being able to contextualise their own
and very other one of  their peers work in high academic and
contemporay theoretic discourse, educate, promote and establish new
and engaging practice methodologies within their genre</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">and definitely, never, EVER</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">sound off a little on a list.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">ok then… (sigh)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Hello T. Whid,
and all rhizomers.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> I have been following
the thread.  I find it interesting how there is an</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> implicit amount
of otherization based on the traditional myth of the heroic</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> artist against
the institution, which in the end only keeps the discourse at</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> a very low level
of exchange.  I think the best way to tackle a text, in the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> end, is to actually
examine it carefully – in any language that need not be</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> academic; and
of course hoping that the author will not get defensive over</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> such criticism
and push the dialogue into a child-ranting war – which has</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> happened on this
list way too many times…  I think it is safe to say that</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Manovich would
never do such a thing, and if he is reading all this jargon</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> he is taking
it in stride.  Curt's reply was an excellent anti-thesis that</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> raised excellent
questions.  Patrick Lichty's Semi-Fukuyama response was</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> also very helpful
for me to reevaluate the original essay.  I wish I could</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> send a more thorough
comment, but I am spread rather thin at the moment.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Be well rhizomers.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> Eduardo Navas</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">></span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>
> I
> do sometimes feel being an 'new
> media' artist today is a little like
> millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
> raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
> finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline and
> remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
> which of course I do:-)
hi Jess,
i know that cultural/professional multi-tasking has become absurd (i applied for a job at a school that wanted someone to teach critical theory , digital imaging, design foundations and run a ceramics facility), but it seems being a woman still trumps any other occupation. at least based on the ones i know :)
parenting became an issue raised by a few women at the N5M4 recently.
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-September/001498.html
for the record, i'm now picturing everyone on the list in lacy underwear…thanks
ryan
Well, in getting my wife's position, we ran into situations where she was
asked to direct theatre, teach theory, advise students, write a book, sit on
committees, the whole shooting match. In consulting, I was pretty mich
asked to be programmer, designer, illustrator, HCI specialist, database
designer, and not outsource, and get it all done yesterday.
Now as a public new media artist/curator/editor, I'm now considered as one
who can be up to date on what everyone's doing, master 3-4 genres, keep a
wide social net, keep a cogent nattarive going in my own scholarship, and so
on. The great thing is that as someone who's known for a bit of
outrageousness (at least in hsis work), I'm now expected to wear the makeup
and lacy underthings, too. Which is fine, given that Baton Rouge is so hot
in the summer, I chafe far less with this. Lets me breathe. Just remember,
as Eddie Izzard says, there's a big difference between a drag queen and a
transvestite. He says a transvestite a lot like a male lesbian…
I feel pretty, oh so pretty….
> > I
> > do sometimes feel being an 'new
> > media' artist today is a little like
> > millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
> > raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
> > finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline and
> > remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
> > which of course I do:-)
> i know that cultural/professional multi-tasking has become absurd (i
applied for a job at a school that wanted someone to teach critical theory ,
digital imaging, design foundations and run a ceramics facility), but it
seems being a woman still trumps any other occupation. at least based on the
ones i know :)
> parenting became an issue raised by a few women at the N5M4 recently.
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-September/001498.html
> for the record, i'm now picturing everyone on the list in lacy
underwear…thanks
> ryan
Hi Patrick,
Well all this domesticity forces me to suggest that all those who have cats
should visit this site for yoga…
http://www.yogakitty.com/testimonials.html
click on the video section to vids- peace of mind is close.
marc
> Well, in getting my wife's position, we ran into situations where she was
> asked to direct theatre, teach theory, advise students, write a book, sit
on
> committees, the whole shooting match. In consulting, I was pretty mich
> asked to be programmer, designer, illustrator, HCI specialist, database
> designer, and not outsource, and get it all done yesterday.
>
> Now as a public new media artist/curator/editor, I'm now considered as one
> who can be up to date on what everyone's doing, master 3-4 genres, keep a
> wide social net, keep a cogent nattarive going in my own scholarship, and
so
> on. The great thing is that as someone who's known for a bit of
> outrageousness (at least in hsis work), I'm now expected to wear the
makeup
> and lacy underthings, too. Which is fine, given that Baton Rouge is so
hot
> in the summer, I chafe far less with this. Lets me breathe. Just
remember,
> as Eddie Izzard says, there's a big difference between a drag queen and a
> transvestite. He says a transvestite a lot like a male lesbian…
>
> I feel pretty, oh so pretty….
>
>
>
> > > I
> > > do sometimes feel being an 'new
> > > media' artist today is a little like
> > > millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
> > > raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
> > > finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline and
> > > remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
> > > which of course I do:-)
>
> > i know that cultural/professional multi-tasking has become absurd (i
> applied for a job at a school that wanted someone to teach critical theory
,
> digital imaging, design foundations and run a ceramics facility), but it
> seems being a woman still trumps any other occupation. at least based on
the
> ones i know :)
> > parenting became an issue raised by a few women at the N5M4 recently.
> >
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-September/001498.html
> > for the record, i'm now picturing everyone on the list in lacy
> underwear…thanks
> > ryan
>
>
> + 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
>
>
What's a Geert Lovink?
-e.
—– Original Message —–
From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: let's repeat:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Well all this domesticity forces me to suggest that all those who have
cats
> should visit this site for yoga…
> http://www.yogakitty.com/testimonials.html
>
> click on the video section to vids- peace of mind is close.
>
> marc
>
>
> > Well, in getting my wife's position, we ran into situations where she
was
> > asked to direct theatre, teach theory, advise students, write a book,
sit
> on
> > committees, the whole shooting match. In consulting, I was pretty mich
> > asked to be programmer, designer, illustrator, HCI specialist, database
> > designer, and not outsource, and get it all done yesterday.
> >
> > Now as a public new media artist/curator/editor, I'm now considered as
one
> > who can be up to date on what everyone's doing, master 3-4 genres, keep
a
> > wide social net, keep a cogent nattarive going in my own scholarship,
and
> so
> > on. The great thing is that as someone who's known for a bit of
> > outrageousness (at least in hsis work), I'm now expected to wear the
> makeup
> > and lacy underthings, too. Which is fine, given that Baton Rouge is so
> hot
> > in the summer, I chafe far less with this. Lets me breathe. Just
> remember,
> > as Eddie Izzard says, there's a big difference between a drag queen and
a
> > transvestite. He says a transvestite a lot like a male lesbian…
> >
> > I feel pretty, oh so pretty….
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I
> > > > do sometimes feel being an 'new
> > > > media' artist today is a little like
> > > > millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
> > > > raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
> > > > finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline
and
> > > > remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
> > > > which of course I do:-)
> >
> > > i know that cultural/professional multi-tasking has become absurd (i
> > applied for a job at a school that wanted someone to teach critical
theory
> ,
> > digital imaging, design foundations and run a ceramics facility), but it
> > seems being a woman still trumps any other occupation. at least based on
> the
> > ones i know :)
> > > parenting became an issue raised by a few women at the N5M4 recently.
> > >
> http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-September/001498.html
> > > for the record, i'm now picturing everyone on the list in lacy
> > underwear…thanks
> > > ryan
> >
> >
> > + 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
>
Hi Eryk,
I dunno what is Geert Lovink? Seems like you know the amswer to that one
already…
I do know that I am very partial to Lene Lovitch - playing many of her
tunes, right now even as I type.
marc
>
>
> What's a Geert Lovink?
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "marc.garrett" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 6:48 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: let's repeat:
>
>
> > Hi Patrick,
> >
> > Well all this domesticity forces me to suggest that all those who have
> cats
> > should visit this site for yoga…
> > http://www.yogakitty.com/testimonials.html
> >
> > click on the video section to vids- peace of mind is close.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> > > Well, in getting my wife's position, we ran into situations where she
> was
> > > asked to direct theatre, teach theory, advise students, write a book,
> sit
> > on
> > > committees, the whole shooting match. In consulting, I was pretty
mich
> > > asked to be programmer, designer, illustrator, HCI specialist,
database
> > > designer, and not outsource, and get it all done yesterday.
> > >
> > > Now as a public new media artist/curator/editor, I'm now considered as
> one
> > > who can be up to date on what everyone's doing, master 3-4 genres,
keep
> a
> > > wide social net, keep a cogent nattarive going in my own scholarship,
> and
> > so
> > > on. The great thing is that as someone who's known for a bit of
> > > outrageousness (at least in hsis work), I'm now expected to wear the
> > makeup
> > > and lacy underthings, too. Which is fine, given that Baton Rouge is
so
> > hot
> > > in the summer, I chafe far less with this. Lets me breathe. Just
> > remember,
> > > as Eddie Izzard says, there's a big difference between a drag queen
and
> a
> > > transvestite. He says a transvestite a lot like a male lesbian…
> > >
> > > I feel pretty, oh so pretty….
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > do sometimes feel being an 'new
> > > > > media' artist today is a little like
> > > > > millennium mother. In the same way as mothers are now expected to
> > > > > raise balanced, healthy children, whist wearing immaculate makeup,
> > > > > finishing a phd, running a small but prosperous business sideline
> and
> > > > > remembering to have the lacy underwear underneath (all of which
> > > > > which of course I do:-)
> > >
> > > > i know that cultural/professional multi-tasking has become absurd (i
> > > applied for a job at a school that wanted someone to teach critical
> theory
> > ,
> > > digital imaging, design foundations and run a ceramics facility), but
it
> > > seems being a woman still trumps any other occupation. at least based
on
> > the
> > > ones i know :)
> > > > parenting became an issue raised by a few women at the N5M4
recently.
> > > >
> >
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-europe/2003-September/001498.html
> > > > for the record, i'm now picturing everyone on the list in lacy
> > > underwear…thanks
> > > > ryan
> > >
> > >
> > > + 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
> >
>
>