I have been troubled by Maniks posts. Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be addressed. The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is America. If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is in reaction to it, what am I left with? Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist agenda? Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest of the world could live without you. I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of network exchange is wrong. I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that midear. How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's? Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American Military, and maybe then we can talk. Otherwise, I am signing off, Good Luck and Good News Eric
I have been troubled by Maniks posts. Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be addressed. The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is America. If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is in reaction to it, what am I left with? Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist agenda? Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest of the world could live without you. I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of network exchange is wrong. I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that midear. How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's? Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? Not much as far as I can tell. I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American Military, and maybe then we can talk. Otherwise, I am signing off, Good Luck and Good News Eric
The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical methods - weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing tool. The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or are crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara
There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus capable of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter. - Guy Debord
> I have been troubled by Maniks posts. > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American > interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be > addressed. > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art > History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The > Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media > community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is > America. > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is > in reaction to it, what am I left with? > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests > and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist > agenda? > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest > of the world could live without you. > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and > the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of > network exchange is wrong. > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the > road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that > midear. > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's? > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? > Not much as far as I can tell. > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American > Military, and maybe then we can talk. > Otherwise, I am signing off, > Good Luck and Good News > Eric > > > + > -> 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
thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight into thought substantia, a little circle shifting around the a of Arsenic, grains of Regensburg - Spitze an der Donau - in the shot-through textile of the Doctor Universalis(0), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of Aquinauts & mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding jocular glasses to pointes & with seemingly Californian righteousness the simultaneous Resurrector of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the spirit, the Father Lite of the Three Egged Mortification for the Sake of Humanity Itself)
thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in wax for De Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the words "rub the cooked head of the green lizard with line oil in the greying hair of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker, the glowing but of salvation in the marbled quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere) (however) (then what tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp the sneering seashells of the poisonous green sisters Bonnet on the balcony of Monet, positpaintpointingly the mysogenic first coating in the mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters
it's romantical ticking against your saved screens your hand meanwhile gliding down, your finger searching an alternate side to the mouse button, saying hello to a handkerchief pointing inwards
for
(satisfaction of the suffering in compassion, serving Kees another Klare:)
Pang ing dedede, - o the monume monume monu mental deposit on the balance of banks (mess ian is
sepulchri (ad ultimam sequentiae peripateticae dedi cati o ) ( )
thus it is (the harmony of colours not musical or mathematical but governed by the will inward )
thus it is (& by the roguish laugher of the sad little rust- muncher dodding its head turning more grey every day
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer, Central Authoring Process of the Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—– > Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Namens Lee Wells > Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29 > Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected] > Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK > Urgentie: Laag > > The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely > empirical methods - weave around art a complicated web which > converts it into a willing tool. > The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in > which the artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by > its machinery and only rare talents may create their own > work. The rest become shameless hacks or are crushed. - > Ernesto Che Guevara > > There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as > starting from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one > finds oneself thus capable of condemning the world without > even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter. > - Guy Debord > > > > On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have been troubled by Maniks posts. > > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. > > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by > > American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one > > that needs to be addressed. > > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the > mainstream > > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American > Industrial > > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work > heralded by > > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a > *sick* social > > construct that is America. > > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally > ignore the art > > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with? > > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. > > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American > New Media > > interests and still develop streams that give us hope > amongst the fear > > of a militarist agenda? > > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, > > the rest of the world could live without you. > > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and > > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has > manipuated > > the history of network exchange is wrong. > > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of > the American > > road to > > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of > > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad > > intentions. Good luck with that midear. > > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO > critics of the 1950's? > > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. > > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? > > Not much as far as I can tell. > > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. > > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to > the American > > Military, and maybe then we can talk. > > Otherwise, I am signing off, > > Good Luck and Good News > > Eric > > > > > > + > > -> 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 > > – > Lee Wells > Brooklyn, NY 11222 > > http://www.leewells.org > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com > 917 723 2524 > > + > -> 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 was meant as an absurd post. Pointing out he silliness of generalization and the subsequent paranoia. ah well….
> <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> Sic() > > > thus it is (triangular) (hexagonal) > > > > thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight > into thought substantia, a little circle shifting > around the a of Arsenic, grains of Regensburg - Spitze > an der Donau - in the shot-through textile > of the Doctor Universalis(0), > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of Aquinauts > & mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding > jocular glasses to pointes & with seemingly Californian > righteousness the simultaneous Resurrector > of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the spirit, > the Father Lite of the > Three Egged Mortification > for the Sake of Humanity Itself) > > > thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1) > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in wax > for De Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the > words > "rub the cooked head of the green lizard > with line oil in the greying hair > of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically > encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker, > the glowing but of salvation in the marbled > quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere) (however) (then what > tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp > the sneering seashells of the poisonous green > sisters Bonnet on the balcony of Monet, > positpaintpointingly the > mysogenic first coating > in the mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters > > > it's romantical ticking > against your saved screens > your hand meanwhile gliding > down, your finger searching > an alternate side to the mouse button, > saying hello to a handkerchief > pointing inwards > > for > > (satisfaction of the suffering > in compassion, serving > Kees another Klare:) > > Pang ing dedede, - o the > monume monume monu > mental deposit on the > balance of banks > (mess > ian > is > > sepulchri > (ad ultimam sequentiae > peripateticae dedi > cati > o > ) > ( > ) > > > > thus it is (the harmony > of colours not musical or mathematical but > governed by the will inward ) > > > > thus it is (& by the roguish laugher > of the sad little rust- > muncher dodding its > head turning more grey > every day > > - by bald balding, > ever drier desire) > > > > thus it is (pris > ma- > tic) > > > > <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> thus it is() ; > > > > > > > > Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer, > Central Authoring Process of the > Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends > http://www.vilt.net/nkdee > > > > > >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—– >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Namens Lee Wells >> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29 >> Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected] >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK >> Urgentie: Laag >> >> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely >> empirical methods - weave around art a complicated web which >> converts it into a willing tool. >> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in >> which the artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by >> its machinery and only rare talents may create their own >> work. The rest become shameless hacks or are crushed. - >> Ernesto Che Guevara >> >> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as >> starting from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one >> finds oneself thus capable of condemning the world without >> even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter. >> - Guy Debord >> >> >> >> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I have been troubled by Maniks posts. >> > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. >> > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by >> > American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one >> > that needs to be addressed. >> > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the >> mainstream >> > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American >> Industrial >> > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work >> heralded by >> > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a >> *sick* social >> > construct that is America. >> > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally >> ignore the art >> > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with? >> > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. >> > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American >> New Media >> > interests and still develop streams that give us hope >> amongst the fear >> > of a militarist agenda? >> > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, >> > the rest of the world could live without you. >> > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and >> > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has >> manipuated >> > the history of network exchange is wrong. >> > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of >> the American >> > road to >> > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of >> > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad >> > intentions. Good luck with that midear. >> > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO >> critics of the 1950's? >> > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. >> > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? >> > Not much as far as I can tell. >> > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. >> > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to >> the American >> > Military, and maybe then we can talk. >> > Otherwise, I am signing off, >> > Good Luck and Good News >> > Eric >> > >> > >> > + >> > -> 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 >> >> – >> Lee Wells >> Brooklyn, NY 11222 >> >> http://www.leewells.org >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com >> 917 723 2524 >> >> + >> -> 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 >> > >
Well it is pretty absurd now isn't it (the translated poem was meant for another list but i accidentally posted it to rhizome when my parents-in-law arrived for an unexpected Sunday visit - no harm done, it doesn't look too bad here either). Paranoia? No, it's quite hectic when they arrive but i wouldn't say they induce paranoia. Otherwise, mrs Manic seems quite succesful at what she does, doesn't she? Where's she from anyway? dv
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—– > Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 19:01 > Aan: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK > Urgentie: Laag > > It was meant as an absurd post. Pointing out he silliness of > generalization and the subsequent paranoia. > ah well…. > > > > <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> Sic() > > > > > > thus it is (triangular) (hexagonal) > > > > > > > > thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight > into thought > > substantia, a little circle shifting around the a of > Arsenic, grains > > of Regensburg - Spitze an der Donau - in the shot-through > textile of > > the Doctor Universalis(0), > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of > Aquinauts & > > mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding jocular > glasses to > > pointes & with seemingly Californian righteousness the simultaneous > > Resurrector of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the > spirit, the > > Father Lite of the Three Egged Mortification for the Sake > of Humanity > > Itself) > > > > > > thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1) > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in > wax for De > > Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the > > words "rub the cooked head of the green lizard with line oil in the > > greying hair of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically > > encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker, the glowing but > of salvation > > in the marbled quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere) > (however) (then > > what tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp the sneering > > seashells of the poisonous green sisters Bonnet on the balcony of > > Monet, positpaintpointingly the mysogenic first coating in the > > mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters > > > > > > it's romantical ticking > > against your saved screens > > your hand meanwhile gliding > > down, your finger searching > > an alternate side to the mouse button, saying hello to a > handkerchief > > pointing inwards > > > > for > > > > (satisfaction of the suffering > > in compassion, serving > > Kees another Klare:) > > > > Pang ing dedede, - o the > > monume monume monu > > mental deposit on the > > balance of banks > > (mess > > ian > > is > > > > sepulchri > > (ad ultimam sequentiae > > peripateticae dedi > > cati > > o > > ) > > ( > > ) > > > > > > > > thus it is (the harmony > > of colours not musical or mathematical but governed by the > will inward > > ) > > > > > > > > thus it is (& by the roguish laugher > > of the sad little rust- > > muncher dodding its > > head turning more grey > > every day > > > > - by bald balding, > > ever drier desire) > > > > > > > > thus it is (pris > > ma- > > tic) > > > > > > > > <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> thus it is() ; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer, Central Authoring > > Process of the Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends > > http://www.vilt.net/nkdee > > > > > > > > > > > >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—– > >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens > >> Lee Wells > >> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29 > >> Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected] > >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK > >> Urgentie: Laag > >> > >> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical > >> methods - weave around art a complicated web which > converts it into a > >> willing tool. > >> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the > >> artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and > >> only rare talents may create their own work. The rest become > >> shameless hacks or are crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara > >> > >> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything > as starting > >> from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself > >> thus capable of condemning the world without even wanting > to hear its > >> deceitful chatter. > >> - Guy Debord > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > I have been troubled by Maniks posts. > >> > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. > >> > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being > driven by > >> > American interests. This has been an inadvertent > direction, but one > >> > that needs to be addressed. > >> > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the > >> mainstream > >> > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American > >> Industrial > >> > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work > >> heralded by > >> > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a > >> *sick* social > >> > construct that is America. > >> > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally > >> ignore the art > >> > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with? > >> > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. > >> > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American > >> New Media > >> > interests and still develop streams that give us hope > >> amongst the fear > >> > of a militarist agenda? > >> > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe > it or not, > >> > the rest of the world could live without you. > >> > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and > >> > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has > >> manipuated > >> > the history of network exchange is wrong. > >> > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of > >> the American > >> > road to > >> > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of > >> > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad > >> > intentions. Good luck with that midear. > >> > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO > >> critics of the 1950's? > >> > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. > >> > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? > >> > Not much as far as I can tell. > >> > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is > actualized. > >> > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to > >> the American > >> > Military, and maybe then we can talk. > >> > Otherwise, I am signing off, > >> > Good Luck and Good News > >> > Eric > >> > > >> > > >> > + > >> > -> 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 > >> > >> – > >> Lee Wells > >> Brooklyn, NY 11222 > >> > >> http://www.leewells.org > >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com > >> 917 723 2524 > >> > >> + > >> -> 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 agree with you but there is some obvious truth in your jest. The quotes I pulled were not directed at you specifically but more to the community at large. It was more a late night critique of Rhizome and the factions that have formed within it.
We all should implicate ourselves as servants of the spectacle. What happens when the chef revolts against their master?
> The post was meant as pure absudity, I didn't expect the reaction I got. > I thought the points were funnily obvious. > Oh well….
> —–Original Message—– > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Lee Wells > Sent: February 18, 2006 11:29 PM > To: Eric Dymond; [email protected] > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
>> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical methods - >> weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing tool. >> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the artist >> has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare >> talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or are >> crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara >> >> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting from >> oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus capable >> of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful >> chatter. >> - Guy Debord >> >> >> >> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have been troubled by Maniks posts. >>> Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. >>> I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by >>> American >>> interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to >>> be >>> addressed. >>> The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of >>> Art >>> History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. >>> The >>> Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media >>> community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that >>> is >>> America. >>> If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art >>> that is >>> in reaction to it, what am I left with? >>> Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. >>> How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media >>> interests >>> and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a >>> militarist >>> agenda? >>> Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the >>> rest >>> of the world could live without you. >>> I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( >>> and >>> the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history >>> of >>> network exchange is wrong. >>> I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American >>> road to >>> *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of >>> truths). the >>> road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck >>> with that >>> midear. >>> How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the >>> 1950's? >>> Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. >>> How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? >>> Not much as far as I can tell. >>> I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. >>> Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American >>> Military, and maybe then we can talk. >>> Otherwise, I am signing off, >>> Good Luck and Good News >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> + >>> -> 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 >> >> – >> Lee Wells >> Brooklyn, NY 11222 >> >> http://www.leewells.org >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com >> 917 723 2524 >> >> >
Do we need to care about the New Media establishment? Isn't New Media situated within (at least to some extent) the Outsider Art tradition? Of course if we want our work on sites that get many hits and in galleries we have to conform to the ethos (ethoses?) of these venues, but that doesn't mean we must buy into a particular aesthetic or ideology in a wholesale manner. To get work accepted by some group, just that work has to conform to their standards. One doesn't need to sell one's artistic soul – either to an ant-icapitalist New Media clique or to the commercial media cabal. Of course one is unlikely to get featured by an organization one has specifically attacked in other work in a very public way, but generally venues are unaware of previous work done in an entirely different context (like I doubt commercial media venues would be aware of one's antcapitalist works published in the more avant garde, new media venues, even relatively well-known ones)…
Of course by responding "seriously" I am missing the point of Eric's joke… But I am put in mind of the title of Richard Feynman's second autobiography, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" If you are invested (in terms of having made an effiort to get work published and contribute to its discussions, etc.) in Rhizome, or some other New Media subculture, it makes sense to debate about its values and tastes, but the field in general is quite large and there is room for many styles and ideologies.
On the other hand, it is true in a rather crass sense that the field of New Media (while potentially as large as the Internet) is actually tiny: While anyone can post their art online, and there are many, many more or less selective (more or less curated/edited) sites where you can get published for a wider audience, it is true that if one wants….gasp!….to earn a living at New Media Art, one has to apply to the few sources of funding for independent New Media Art (Rhizome, Turbulence, Whitney Artport, Tate, local and national arts organizations, a few mainstream media organizations such as branches of the CBC, BBC, AOL/Time Warner, MTV, etc.) or else teach New Media. And obviously the money and the jobs go to people who participate in the ideology and the aesthetic of the funders…
—- P.S. Don't get me started on the subject of fields that exist primarily to train people to join the field, so they can in turn train more people, etc. in a sort of cultiral pyramid scheme. When I was very young, my father mentioned that a family friend was a philosopher, so I asked the friend "what do philosophers do?" and he responded, "they teach philosophy at the university," to which I immediately retorted, "you mean philosophers teach people to teach people to teach people etc. etc to teach philosophy?" and everyone laughed.
> Hi Eric: > > I agree with you but there is some obvious truth in your jest. > The quotes I pulled were not directed at you specifically but more to the > community at large. It was more a late night critique of Rhizome and the > factions that have formed within it. > > We all should implicate ourselves as servants of the spectacle. > What happens when the chef revolts against their master? > > All the best, > Lee > > On 2/19/06 12:56 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The post was meant as pure absudity, I didn't expect the reaction I got. >> I thought the points were funnily obvious. >> Oh well…. > >> —–Original Message—– >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of >> Lee Wells >> Sent: February 18, 2006 11:29 PM >> To: Eric Dymond; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK > >>> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical >>> methods - >>> weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing >>> tool. >>> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the >>> artist >>> has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare >>> talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or >>> are >>> crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara >>> >>> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting >>> from >>> oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus >>> capable >>> of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful >>> chatter. >>> - Guy Debord >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have been troubled by Maniks posts. >>>> Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour. >>>> I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by >>>> American >>>> interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs >>>> to >>>> be >>>> addressed. >>>> The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream >>>> of >>>> Art >>>> History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial >>>> Complex. >>>> The >>>> Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media >>>> community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that >>>> is >>>> America. >>>> If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art >>>> that is >>>> in reaction to it, what am I left with? >>>> Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA. >>>> How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media >>>> interests >>>> and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a >>>> militarist >>>> agenda? >>>> Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the >>>> rest >>>> of the world could live without you. >>>> I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( >>>> and >>>> the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history >>>> of >>>> network exchange is wrong. >>>> I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American >>>> road to >>>> *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of >>>> truths). the >>>> road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck >>>> with that >>>> midear. >>>> How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the >>>> 1950's? >>>> Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene. >>>> How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney? >>>> Not much as far as I can tell. >>>> I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized. >>>> Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American >>>> Military, and maybe then we can talk. >>>> Otherwise, I am signing off, >>>> Good Luck and Good News >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> + >>>> -> 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 >>> >>> – >>> Lee Wells >>> Brooklyn, NY 11222 >>> >>> http://www.leewells.org >>> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com >>> 917 723 2524 >>> >>> >> > > – > Lee Wells > Brooklyn, NY 11222 > > http://www.leewells.org > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com > 917 723 2524 > > + > -> 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 >
Millie Niss wrote: > On the other hand, it is true in a rather crass sense that the field > of New > Media (while potentially as large as the Internet) is actually tiny: > While > anyone can post their art online, and there are many, many more or > less > selective (more or less curated/edited) sites where you can get > published > for a wider audience, it is true that if one wants….gasp!….to earn > a > living at New Media Art, one has to apply to the few sources of > funding for > independent New Media Art (Rhizome, Turbulence, Whitney Artport, Tate, > local > and national arts organizations, a few mainstream media organizations > such > as branches of the CBC, BBC, AOL/Time Warner, MTV, etc.) or else teach > New > Media. And obviously the money and the jobs go to people who > participate in > the ideology and the aesthetic of the funders… although I didn't forsee this thread pursuing this issue, it is probably important to note that most new media artists, teach new media (food counts) so the absurd has a kernel of truth, which is in turn, absurd. now thats just lovely Eric
Hi Lee and Milly(ie?) and Dick, The absurdity of the comment doesn't mean it isn't true. New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spirit, for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right). I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been purged from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the revitalized DIA foundation? The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce or fight for our personal experiences. Incorporate the individual or let the network fall. Eric
Hi Eric, Sorry did i spell your name wrong somewhere? If so i do apologise, i often write to rhizome and other lists when i'm short of time - i shouldn't- but i do try to show respect for everyone, and getting the name right is the least one can do. Dick sounds nice though, it's more in accordance with the things i make, i suppose.
Absurdity has a way of touching truth that can't be achieved otherwise. I value that. Art _is_ being encapsulated (i wouldn't say driven - if it's driven by anything else than art itself it's bad art, but then everyone has a different opinion as to what art is) by global processes that can be named as a commercial-military power grid to the point that some artists want to achieve personal satisfaction, fame and wealth within that grid. You can't really blame anyone for wanting to make money when everybody else is doing it. And people tend to look less critically at the art they make the more succesful they get with it. That's not really new, as others have pointed out already. But the efficiency of encapsulation has grown so enormously, i feel, that it's getting extremely difficult to escape it. All of these terms may be absurd too, but strung together they may hint at truth nonetheless. You can't cut truth out of language and paste it on a screen. Cliches are all we got. Eat, digest & spit or shit them out is what we can do. Untsoweiter.
In the unlikely case that i ever get succesful artistically, i'll change may name to dick varymans or sth and re-enlist to rhizome. Poets need to stay foot-soldiers in the war on war, commerce and the absolute terror of things. Otherwise they end up worse than what they're fighting.
greetings, dv
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—– > Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Namens Eric Dymond > Verzonden: dinsdag 21 februari 2006 4:54 > Aan: [email protected] > Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK > > Hi Lee and Milly(ie?) and Dick, > The absurdity of the comment doesn't mean it isn't true. > New media and the Art world are driven by a > commercial/military spirit, for or agianst( as long as you > spell my name right). > I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had > been purged from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept > support from the revitalized DIA foundation? > The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can > acquiesce or fight for our personal experiences. > Incorporate the individual or let the network fall. > Eric > + > -> 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 >
Comments
—– Original Message —–
From: manik
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:34 PM
Subject: NEW MANIK'S WORK
3 NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
_____________________________________
2 NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
01,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
02,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
04,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
04,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
ANOTHER WORK FOR TODAY
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
05,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
3 NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
—– Original Message —–
From: manik
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: NEW MANIK'S WORK
07,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
10,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
—– Original Message —–
From: manik
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:58 AM
Subject: NEW MANIK'S WORK
12,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
15,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
16,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
17,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
17,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
SECOND
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
18,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be addressed.
The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is America.
If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is in reaction to it, what am I left with?
Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist agenda?
Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest of the world could live without you.
I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of network exchange is wrong.
I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that midear.
How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's? Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American Military, and maybe then we can talk.
Otherwise, I am signing off,
Good Luck and Good News
Eric
I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be addressed.
The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is America.
If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is in reaction to it, what am I left with?
Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist agenda?
Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest of the world could live without you.
I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of network exchange is wrong.
I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that midear.
How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's? Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
Not much as far as I can tell.
I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American Military, and maybe then we can talk.
Otherwise, I am signing off,
Good Luck and Good News
Eric
The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical methods -
weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing tool.
The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the artist
has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare
talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or are
crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara
There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting from
oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus capable
of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter.
- Guy Debord
On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
> Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
> I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by American
> interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to be
> addressed.
> The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of Art
> History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex. The
> Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media
> community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that is
> America.
> If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art that is
> in reaction to it, what am I left with?
> Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
> How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media interests
> and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a militarist
> agenda?
> Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the rest
> of the world could live without you.
> I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa( and
> the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history of
> network exchange is wrong.
> I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American road to
> *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of truths). the
> road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck with that
> midear.
> How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the 1950's?
> Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
> How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
> Not much as far as I can tell.
> I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
> Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American
> Military, and maybe then we can talk.
> Otherwise, I am signing off,
> Good Luck and Good News
> Eric
>
>
> +
> -> 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
–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222
http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> Sic()
thus it is (triangular) (hexagonal)
thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight
into thought substantia, a little circle shifting
around the a of Arsenic, grains of Regensburg - Spitze
an der Donau - in the shot-through textile
of the Doctor Universalis(0), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of Aquinauts
& mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding
jocular glasses to pointes & with seemingly Californian
righteousness the simultaneous Resurrector
of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the spirit,
the Father Lite of the
Three Egged Mortification
for the Sake of Humanity Itself)
thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in wax
for De Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the
words
"rub the cooked head of the green lizard
with line oil in the greying hair
of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically
encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker,
the glowing but of salvation in the marbled
quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere) (however) (then what
tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp
the sneering seashells of the poisonous green
sisters Bonnet on the balcony of Monet,
positpaintpointingly the
mysogenic first coating
in the mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters
it's romantical ticking
against your saved screens
your hand meanwhile gliding
down, your finger searching
an alternate side to the mouse button,
saying hello to a handkerchief
pointing inwards
for
(satisfaction of the suffering
in compassion, serving
Kees another Klare:)
Pang ing dedede, - o the
monume monume monu
mental deposit on the
balance of banks
(mess
ian
is
sepulchri
(ad ultimam sequentiae
peripateticae dedi
cati
o
)
(
)
thus it is (the harmony
of colours not musical or mathematical but
governed by the will inward )
thus it is (& by the roguish laugher
of the sad little rust-
muncher dodding its
head turning more grey
every day
- by bald balding,
ever drier desire)
thus it is (pris
ma-
tic)
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> thus it is() ;
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Lee Wells
> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29
> Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected]
> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
> Urgentie: Laag
>
> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely
> empirical methods - weave around art a complicated web which
> converts it into a willing tool.
> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in
> which the artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by
> its machinery and only rare talents may create their own
> work. The rest become shameless hacks or are crushed. -
> Ernesto Che Guevara
>
> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as
> starting from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one
> finds oneself thus capable of condemning the world without
> even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter.
> - Guy Debord
>
>
>
> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
> > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
> > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by
> > American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one
> > that needs to be addressed.
> > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the
> mainstream
> > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American
> Industrial
> > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work
> heralded by
> > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a
> *sick* social
> > construct that is America.
> > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally
> ignore the art
> > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with?
> > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
> > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American
> New Media
> > interests and still develop streams that give us hope
> amongst the fear
> > of a militarist agenda?
> > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not,
> > the rest of the world could live without you.
> > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and
> > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has
> manipuated
> > the history of network exchange is wrong.
> > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of
> the American
> > road to
> > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of
> > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad
> > intentions. Good luck with that midear.
> > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO
> critics of the 1950's?
> > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
> > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
> > Not much as far as I can tell.
> > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
> > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to
> the American
> > Military, and maybe then we can talk.
> > Otherwise, I am signing off,
> > Good Luck and Good News
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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 was meant as an absurd post. Pointing out he silliness of
generalization and the subsequent paranoia.
ah well….
> <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> Sic()
>
>
> thus it is (triangular) (hexagonal)
>
>
>
> thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight
> into thought substantia, a little circle shifting
> around the a of Arsenic, grains of Regensburg - Spitze
> an der Donau - in the shot-through textile
> of the Doctor Universalis(0),
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of Aquinauts
> & mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding
> jocular glasses to pointes & with seemingly Californian
> righteousness the simultaneous Resurrector
> of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the spirit,
> the Father Lite of the
> Three Egged Mortification
> for the Sake of Humanity Itself)
>
>
> thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1)
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in wax
> for De Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the
> words
> "rub the cooked head of the green lizard
> with line oil in the greying hair
> of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically
> encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker,
> the glowing but of salvation in the marbled
> quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere) (however) (then what
> tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp
> the sneering seashells of the poisonous green
> sisters Bonnet on the balcony of Monet,
> positpaintpointingly the
> mysogenic first coating
> in the mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters
>
>
> it's romantical ticking
> against your saved screens
> your hand meanwhile gliding
> down, your finger searching
> an alternate side to the mouse button,
> saying hello to a handkerchief
> pointing inwards
>
> for
>
> (satisfaction of the suffering
> in compassion, serving
> Kees another Klare:)
>
> Pang ing dedede, - o the
> monume monume monu
> mental deposit on the
> balance of banks
> (mess
> ian
> is
>
> sepulchri
> (ad ultimam sequentiae
> peripateticae dedi
> cati
> o
> )
> (
> )
>
>
>
> thus it is (the harmony
> of colours not musical or mathematical but
> governed by the will inward )
>
>
>
> thus it is (& by the roguish laugher
> of the sad little rust-
> muncher dodding its
> head turning more grey
> every day
>
> - by bald balding,
> ever drier desire)
>
>
>
> thus it is (pris
> ma-
> tic)
>
>
>
> <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> thus it is() ;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
> Central Authoring Process of the
> Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
> http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
>
>
>
>
>
>> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
>> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Namens Lee Wells
>> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29
>> Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected]
>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
>> Urgentie: Laag
>>
>> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely
>> empirical methods - weave around art a complicated web which
>> converts it into a willing tool.
>> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in
>> which the artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by
>> its machinery and only rare talents may create their own
>> work. The rest become shameless hacks or are crushed. -
>> Ernesto Che Guevara
>>
>> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as
>> starting from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one
>> finds oneself thus capable of condemning the world without
>> even wanting to hear its deceitful chatter.
>> - Guy Debord
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
>> > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
>> > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by
>> > American interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one
>> > that needs to be addressed.
>> > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the
>> mainstream
>> > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American
>> Industrial
>> > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work
>> heralded by
>> > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a
>> *sick* social
>> > construct that is America.
>> > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally
>> ignore the art
>> > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with?
>> > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
>> > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American
>> New Media
>> > interests and still develop streams that give us hope
>> amongst the fear
>> > of a militarist agenda?
>> > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not,
>> > the rest of the world could live without you.
>> > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and
>> > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has
>> manipuated
>> > the history of network exchange is wrong.
>> > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of
>> the American
>> > road to
>> > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of
>> > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad
>> > intentions. Good luck with that midear.
>> > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO
>> critics of the 1950's?
>> > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
>> > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
>> > Not much as far as I can tell.
>> > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
>> > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to
>> the American
>> > Military, and maybe then we can talk.
>> > Otherwise, I am signing off,
>> > Good Luck and Good News
>> > Eric
>> >
>> >
>> > +
>> > -> 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
>>
>> –
>> Lee Wells
>> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>>
>> http://www.leewells.org
>> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>> 917 723 2524
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
Well it is pretty absurd now isn't it (the translated poem was meant for
another list but i accidentally posted it to rhizome when my parents-in-law
arrived for an unexpected Sunday visit - no harm done, it doesn't look too
bad here either). Paranoia? No, it's quite hectic when they arrive but i
wouldn't say they induce paranoia. Otherwise, mrs Manic seems quite
succesful at what she does, doesn't she? Where's she from anyway?
dv
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 19:01
> Aan: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> Onderwerp: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
> Urgentie: Laag
>
> It was meant as an absurd post. Pointing out he silliness of
> generalization and the subsequent paranoia.
> ah well….
>
>
> > <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> Sic()
> >
> >
> > thus it is (triangular) (hexagonal)
> >
> >
> >
> > thus it is (from irruption point to distinction, straight
> into thought
> > substantia, a little circle shifting around the a of
> Arsenic, grains
> > of Regensburg - Spitze an der Donau - in the shot-through
> textile of
> > the Doctor Universalis(0),
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus> Breeder of
> Aquinauts &
> > mystical Burrier of the Bloodless Heart, grinding jocular
> glasses to
> > pointes & with seemingly Californian righteousness the simultaneous
> > Resurrector of the Swirling Blood, the aquafresh for the
> spirit, the
> > Father Lite of the Three Egged Mortification for the Sake
> of Humanity
> > Itself)
> >
> >
> > thus it is (Giovanni Battista della Porta (1)
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Della_Porta> scrapes it in
> wax for De
> > Refractione, 1593, & on the left-overs of the printing plates the
> > words "rub the cooked head of the green lizard with line oil in the
> > greying hair of old matrons", thus the first polyalfabetically
> > encrypted gateway to the darkest of oker, the glowing but
> of salvation
> > in the marbled quarry of imagined marble, (asitwere)
> (however) (then
> > what tentacles reach through the vermillion timewarp the sneering
> > seashells of the poisonous green sisters Bonnet on the balcony of
> > Monet, positpaintpointingly the mysogenic first coating in the
> > mirror-framed discours, the aristocratical cluttering of letters
> >
> >
> > it's romantical ticking
> > against your saved screens
> > your hand meanwhile gliding
> > down, your finger searching
> > an alternate side to the mouse button, saying hello to a
> handkerchief
> > pointing inwards
> >
> > for
> >
> > (satisfaction of the suffering
> > in compassion, serving
> > Kees another Klare:)
> >
> > Pang ing dedede, - o the
> > monume monume monu
> > mental deposit on the
> > balance of banks
> > (mess
> > ian
> > is
> >
> > sepulchri
> > (ad ultimam sequentiae
> > peripateticae dedi
> > cati
> > o
> > )
> > (
> > )
> >
> >
> >
> > thus it is (the harmony
> > of colours not musical or mathematical but governed by the
> will inward
> > )
> >
> >
> >
> > thus it is (& by the roguish laugher
> > of the sad little rust-
> > muncher dodding its
> > head turning more grey
> > every day
> >
> > - by bald balding,
> > ever drier desire)
> >
> >
> >
> > thus it is (pris
> > ma-
> > tic)
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/sic.jsp> thus it is() ;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer, Central Authoring
> > Process of the Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
> > http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens
> >> Lee Wells
> >> Verzonden: zondag 19 februari 2006 8:29
> >> Aan: Eric Dymond; [email protected]
> >> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
> >> Urgentie: Laag
> >>
> >> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical
> >> methods - weave around art a complicated web which
> converts it into a
> >> willing tool.
> >> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the
> >> artist has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and
> >> only rare talents may create their own work. The rest become
> >> shameless hacks or are crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara
> >>
> >> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything
> as starting
> >> from oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself
> >> thus capable of condemning the world without even wanting
> to hear its
> >> deceitful chatter.
> >> - Guy Debord
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
> >> > Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
> >> > I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being
> driven by
> >> > American interests. This has been an inadvertent
> direction, but one
> >> > that needs to be addressed.
> >> > The art that has been documented and incorporated into the
> >> mainstream
> >> > of Art History has been driven by reactions to the American
> >> Industrial
> >> > Complex. The Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work
> >> heralded by
> >> > the New Media community is by and large a reaction to a
> >> *sick* social
> >> > construct that is America.
> >> > If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally
> >> ignore the art
> >> > that is in reaction to it, what am I left with?
> >> > Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
> >> > How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American
> >> New Media
> >> > interests and still develop streams that give us hope
> >> amongst the fear
> >> > of a militarist agenda?
> >> > Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe
> it or not,
> >> > the rest of the world could live without you.
> >> > I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and
> >> > Marisa( and the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has
> >> manipuated
> >> > the history of network exchange is wrong.
> >> > I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of
> >> the American
> >> > road to
> >> > *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of
> >> > truths). the road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad
> >> > intentions. Good luck with that midear.
> >> > How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO
> >> critics of the 1950's?
> >> > Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
> >> > How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
> >> > Not much as far as I can tell.
> >> > I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is
> actualized.
> >> > Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to
> >> the American
> >> > Military, and maybe then we can talk.
> >> > Otherwise, I am signing off,
> >> > Good Luck and Good News
> >> > Eric
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > +
> >> > -> 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
> >>
> >> –
> >> Lee Wells
> >> Brooklyn, NY 11222
> >>
> >> http://www.leewells.org
> >> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> >> 917 723 2524
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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 Eric:
I agree with you but there is some obvious truth in your jest.
The quotes I pulled were not directed at you specifically but more to the
community at large. It was more a late night critique of Rhizome and the
factions that have formed within it.
We all should implicate ourselves as servants of the spectacle.
What happens when the chef revolts against their master?
All the best,
Lee
On 2/19/06 12:56 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The post was meant as pure absudity, I didn't expect the reaction I got.
> I thought the points were funnily obvious.
> Oh well….
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Lee Wells
> Sent: February 18, 2006 11:29 PM
> To: Eric Dymond; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
>> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical methods -
>> weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing tool.
>> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the artist
>> has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare
>> talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or are
>> crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara
>>
>> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting from
>> oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus capable
>> of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful
>> chatter.
>> - Guy Debord
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
>>> Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
>>> I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by
>>> American
>>> interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs to
>>> be
>>> addressed.
>>> The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream of
>>> Art
>>> History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial Complex.
>>> The
>>> Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media
>>> community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that
>>> is
>>> America.
>>> If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art
>>> that is
>>> in reaction to it, what am I left with?
>>> Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
>>> How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media
>>> interests
>>> and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a
>>> militarist
>>> agenda?
>>> Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the
>>> rest
>>> of the world could live without you.
>>> I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa(
>>> and
>>> the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history
>>> of
>>> network exchange is wrong.
>>> I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American
>>> road to
>>> *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of
>>> truths). the
>>> road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck
>>> with that
>>> midear.
>>> How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the
>>> 1950's?
>>> Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
>>> How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
>>> Not much as far as I can tell.
>>> I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
>>> Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American
>>> Military, and maybe then we can talk.
>>> Otherwise, I am signing off,
>>> Good Luck and Good News
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> +
>>> -> 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
>>
>> –
>> Lee Wells
>> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>>
>> http://www.leewells.org
>> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>> 917 723 2524
>>
>>
>
–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222
http://www.leewells.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
917 723 2524
Do we need to care about the New Media establishment? Isn't New Media
situated within (at least to some extent) the Outsider Art tradition? Of
course if we want our work on sites that get many hits and in galleries we
have to conform to the ethos (ethoses?) of these venues, but that doesn't
mean we must buy into a particular aesthetic or ideology in a wholesale
manner. To get work accepted by some group, just that work has to conform
to their standards. One doesn't need to sell one's artistic soul – either
to an ant-icapitalist New Media clique or to the commercial media cabal. Of
course one is unlikely to get featured by an organization one has
specifically attacked in other work in a very public way, but generally
venues are unaware of previous work done in an entirely different context
(like I doubt commercial media venues would be aware of one's antcapitalist
works published in the more avant garde, new media venues, even relatively
well-known ones)…
Of course by responding "seriously" I am missing the point of Eric's joke…
But I am put in mind of the title of Richard Feynman's second autobiography,
"What Do You Care What Other People Think?" If you are invested (in terms
of having made an effiort to get work published and contribute to its
discussions, etc.) in Rhizome, or some other New Media subculture, it makes
sense to debate about its values and tastes, but the field in general is
quite large and there is room for many styles and ideologies.
On the other hand, it is true in a rather crass sense that the field of New
Media (while potentially as large as the Internet) is actually tiny: While
anyone can post their art online, and there are many, many more or less
selective (more or less curated/edited) sites where you can get published
for a wider audience, it is true that if one wants….gasp!….to earn a
living at New Media Art, one has to apply to the few sources of funding for
independent New Media Art (Rhizome, Turbulence, Whitney Artport, Tate, local
and national arts organizations, a few mainstream media organizations such
as branches of the CBC, BBC, AOL/Time Warner, MTV, etc.) or else teach New
Media. And obviously the money and the jobs go to people who participate in
the ideology and the aesthetic of the funders…
Millie Niss
www.sporkworld.org
Current online projects: Dispatx Art Collective:
http://www.dispatx.com/wip/index.php?cat=6&idiom=en
Contagious Media Festival:
http://pills.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
—-
P.S. Don't get me started on the subject of fields that exist primarily to
train people to join the field, so they can in turn train more people, etc.
in a sort of cultiral pyramid scheme. When I was very young, my father
mentioned that a family friend was a philosopher, so I asked the friend
"what do philosophers do?" and he responded, "they teach philosophy at the
university," to which I immediately retorted, "you mean philosophers teach
people to teach people to teach people etc. etc to teach philosophy?" and
everyone laughed.
—– Original Message —–
From: "Lee Wells" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
> Hi Eric:
>
> I agree with you but there is some obvious truth in your jest.
> The quotes I pulled were not directed at you specifically but more to the
> community at large. It was more a late night critique of Rhizome and the
> factions that have formed within it.
>
> We all should implicate ourselves as servants of the spectacle.
> What happens when the chef revolts against their master?
>
> All the best,
> Lee
>
> On 2/19/06 12:56 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The post was meant as pure absudity, I didn't expect the reaction I got.
>> I thought the points were funnily obvious.
>> Oh well….
>
>> —–Original Message—–
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
>> Lee Wells
>> Sent: February 18, 2006 11:29 PM
>> To: Eric Dymond; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
>
>>> The monopoly capitalists - even while employing purely empirical
>>> methods -
>>> weave around art a complicated web which converts it into a willing
>>> tool.
>>> The superstructure of society ordains the type of art in which the
>>> artist
>>> has to be educated. Rebels are subdued by its machinery and only rare
>>> talents may create their own work. The rest become shameless hacks or
>>> are
>>> crushed. - Ernesto Che Guevara
>>>
>>> There is nothing more natural than to consider everything as starting
>>> from
>>> oneself, chosen as the center of the world; one finds oneself thus
>>> capable
>>> of condemning the world without even wanting to hear its deceitful
>>> chatter.
>>> - Guy Debord
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/19/06 12:53 AM, "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been troubled by Maniks posts.
>>>> Not because I think they are mysoginist or off colour.
>>>> I am concerned that the history of Internet Art is being driven by
>>>> American
>>>> interests. This has been an inadvertent direction, but one that needs
>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>> addressed.
>>>> The art that has been documented and incorporated into the mainstream
>>>> of
>>>> Art
>>>> History has been driven by reactions to the American Industrial
>>>> Complex.
>>>> The
>>>> Yes Men, Brandon and every Internet art work heralded by the New Media
>>>> community is by and large a reaction to a *sick* social construct that
>>>> is
>>>> America.
>>>> If I ignore America's hobgoblin military, and equally ignore the art
>>>> that is
>>>> in reaction to it, what am I left with?
>>>> Not much according to the New Museum, Whitney and MOMA.
>>>> How can we divest ourselves of the megalomania of American New Media
>>>> interests
>>>> and still develop streams that give us hope amongst the fear of a
>>>> militarist
>>>> agenda?
>>>> Even criticism promotes the military agenda, and believe it or not, the
>>>> rest
>>>> of the world could live without you.
>>>> I Arrive at this point and have to say that Manik is right, and Marisa(
>>>> and
>>>> the New York times said…, who cares ?)who has manipuated the history
>>>> of
>>>> network exchange is wrong.
>>>> I don't believe it was done on purpose, but the nature of the American
>>>> road to
>>>> *Truth* is paved with misinformation and the subtle rewriting of
>>>> truths). the
>>>> road to success, fame etc… is paved with bad intentions. Good luck
>>>> with that
>>>> midear.
>>>> How different are the New Media Critics from the NATO critics of the
>>>> 1950's?
>>>> Hilton Kramer=Rachel Greene.
>>>> How differnet is Marisa from Dick Cheney?
>>>> Not much as far as I can tell.
>>>> I think T Whid was aware of this before, well now it is actualized.
>>>> Rewrite the history of the Internet without references to the American
>>>> Military, and maybe then we can talk.
>>>> Otherwise, I am signing off,
>>>> Good Luck and Good News
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> -> 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
>>>
>>> –
>>> Lee Wells
>>> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>>>
>>> http://www.leewells.org
>>> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>>> 917 723 2524
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> –
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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
>
Millie Niss wrote:
> On the other hand, it is true in a rather crass sense that the field
> of New
> Media (while potentially as large as the Internet) is actually tiny:
> While
> anyone can post their art online, and there are many, many more or
> less
> selective (more or less curated/edited) sites where you can get
> published
> for a wider audience, it is true that if one wants….gasp!….to earn
> a
> living at New Media Art, one has to apply to the few sources of
> funding for
> independent New Media Art (Rhizome, Turbulence, Whitney Artport, Tate,
> local
> and national arts organizations, a few mainstream media organizations
> such
> as branches of the CBC, BBC, AOL/Time Warner, MTV, etc.) or else teach
> New
> Media. And obviously the money and the jobs go to people who
> participate in
> the ideology and the aesthetic of the funders…
although I didn't forsee this thread pursuing this issue, it is probably important to note that most new media artists, teach new media (food counts)
so the absurd has a kernel of truth, which is in turn, absurd.
now thats just lovely
Eric
20,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
21,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
20,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
Hi Lee and Milly(ie?) and Dick,
The absurdity of the comment doesn't mean it isn't true.
New media and the Art world are driven by a commercial/military spirit, for or agianst( as long as you spell my name right).
I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had been purged from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept support from the revitalized DIA foundation?
The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can acquiesce or
fight for our personal experiences.
Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Sorry did i spell your name wrong somewhere? If so i do apologise, i often
write to rhizome and other lists when i'm short of time - i shouldn't- but
i do try to show respect for everyone, and getting the name right is the
least one can do. Dick sounds nice though, it's more in accordance with the
things i make, i suppose.
Absurdity has a way of touching truth that can't be achieved otherwise. I
value that. Art _is_ being encapsulated (i wouldn't say driven - if it's
driven by anything else than art itself it's bad art, but then everyone has
a different opinion as to what art is) by global processes that can be
named as a commercial-military power grid to the point that some artists
want to achieve personal satisfaction, fame and wealth within that grid. You
can't really blame anyone for wanting to make money when everybody else is
doing it. And people tend to look less critically at the art they make the
more succesful they get with it. That's not really new, as others have
pointed out already. But the efficiency of encapsulation has grown so
enormously, i feel, that it's getting extremely difficult to escape it. All
of these terms may be absurd too, but strung together they may hint at truth
nonetheless. You can't cut truth out of language and paste it on a screen.
Cliches are all we got. Eat, digest & spit or shit them out is what we can
do. Untsoweiter.
In the unlikely case that i ever get succesful artistically, i'll change may
name to dick varymans or sth and re-enlist to rhizome. Poets need to stay
foot-soldiers in the war on war, commerce and the absolute terror of things.
Otherwise they end up worse than what they're fighting.
greetings,
dv
> —–Oorspronkelijk bericht—–
> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Namens Eric Dymond
> Verzonden: dinsdag 21 februari 2006 4:54
> Aan: [email protected]
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: NEW MANIK'S WORK
>
> Hi Lee and Milly(ie?) and Dick,
> The absurdity of the comment doesn't mean it isn't true.
> New media and the Art world are driven by a
> commercial/military spirit, for or agianst( as long as you
> spell my name right).
> I wonder how Warhol would react if he saw that his Irony had
> been purged from the Warhol foundation. Would Smithson accept
> support from the revitalized DIA foundation?
> The unique role of the artist is being usurped, and we can
> acquiesce or fight for our personal experiences.
> Incorporate the individual or let the network fall.
> Eric
> +
> -> 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
>
21,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
23,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
24,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
24,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
2 NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
26,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
2 NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
27,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
02,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
03,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
05,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
06,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
08,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
12,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
13,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
14,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
14,MARCH___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
28,FEBRUARY___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
16,April___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
17,April___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
i think it's a bit of a pity the resolution is only what it is. Would want
to see them a bit larger.
greetings,
dv
Dirk Vekemans, poet - freelance webprogrammer,
Central Authoring Process of the
Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
[email protected]
http://www.vilt.net <http://www.vilt.net/>
http://www.viltdigitalvision.com <http://www.viltdigitalvision.com/>
_____
Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens manik
Verzonden: maandag 17 april 2006 12:04
Aan: [email protected]
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: NEW MANIK'S WORK
17,April___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7
20,April___MANIK_______2006_____________)_
NEW MANIK'S WORK ON SEEcult.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7