as it ends

the very last?

Hi Eric,

'eric dymond is a synthesis of performance art' mmmm…

I would say that this definition (above) of eric dymond is, non
contextual. It places you in a passive mode.

It does not reflect your real or actual engagements, or describe any of
your more relational functions and deeper connections with others,
realistically. Your actions have been successful in acting out a more
fluid and valuable set of experiences. Breaking down the more mannerist,
static and intermediatory forms of singular thought patterns that many,
who expound more 'handed down' singular theories that are already
accepted as institutionalised 'truth', (lazy theorumz) - you have not
got it all worked out for you before hand, so you explore…

I would of said that a more closer definition in respect of 'eric
dymond' is a synthesis of performative expression, which happens to be
part of the everyday - perhaps a 'life-hacker' by nature.

shut up marc!!!

>As we move along things change. sometimes for the better.
>Now discussion has ended. Well thats the way things go. We had a good run, and we exchanged ideas and thoughts that revealed our personalities.
>But those days are gone.
>Today a list is a one way announcement of achievements and money making opportunity,
>Thats actually a good turn of events. Who could make money or a career 10 years ago?
>Now the exchange of ideas via listserv has passed. I think it was the most interesting form of artistic expression in late 20th century and early 21st century art.
>Performance can't continue forever, we all get exhausted, but i hope the memories serve you well. I enjoyed all of it, but like everone else i am tired of the venue. Relaxing and sitting back , this performance art work is retiring. good luck with everything.
>
>http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Eric+Dymond&type=1
>
>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
>
>
>
>

Hi Eric,
I agree. I often wonder what exactly happened? It's always been a bit
on-and-off but there used to be considerably more engaging discussion
on Rhizome. The field seems to be lacking passion and it's strange
because, the way the internet has progressed over the past few years,
I see it as offering much more potential for art now than it did,
say, five years ago. There's just so much 'stuff' out there to work
from. Perhaps the 'artworld' became overly enthusiastic too early and
decided to abandon Internet based art before it reached any level of
maturity. If the galleries and museums were still watching, I think
they could become quite excited about stuff that's coming out now.
But they don't appear to be and that is quite a passion killer in
itself. I'm extremely passionate about the work I do but I have to
admit that the current lack of interest in this kind of art can be
very frustrating. It's hard to maintain passion if it feels like
you're the only one who has any. On the other hand, it could be that
it's not in the best interest of commercial galleries to promote this
kind of art. What's in it for them if you can't sell it? And if you
can sell it, why would anyone want to buy it if you can't adequately
preserve it? Does it have any 'investment' potential? Could a gallery
owner say to a Wall Street analyst who's looking for ways to spend
his $300,000 year-end bonus, "Sure, buy it for $3,000 now and in 20
years you can get at least $10,000 for it." Can the (capital a)
Artworld afford to accept and embrace an art form that's essentially
un-sellable? I'm sure some people are going to say, "Is that what
it's all about? Selling work?" We can try to convince ourselves that
it's not, but it has a lot to do with what 'goes' and what doesn't.
This may appear as a 'shameless plug' but it's relevant and
interesting: An on-line magazine here in Montreal, recently published
an article about a piece of mine. It's a long article but although
the title is On Everything by Pall Thayer, less than half of it talks
about the work directly. The rest of it talks more or less about art
work that you don't have to pay for, implications and justifications.
The article is here:

http://www.ciac.ca/magazine/oeuvre3.htm (in French)

and a Google translation here:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://
www.ciac.ca/magazine/
oeuvre3.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%
3Dthayer%2Bon%2Beverything%2Bciac%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dsafari%
26rls%3Den

So this clearly is an issue. We can go around screaming that 'the
ephemerality of it all is a reflection on our times' till we're blue
in the face but we still have to ask ourselves how that ephemerality
is going to be of any importance if future generations can't examine
it properly. If there's nothing left over for historical discourse.
How do you properly document work that is in a constant state of
dynamic flux in a way that preserves the importance of that dynamic
flux? Sure, I could sell prints of screen-captures from my work but
they don't really do it justice. The screen-captures themselves
aren't all that significant. The significance is in the non-repeating
flux. Even a 10 hour long video capture wouldn't do it justice
because it would introduce repetition in work that has no repetition.
Maybe it's time to go back to painting (just kidding).

Despite all this, if anyone wants to purchase a signed, high-quality
printed screen-capture, feel free to contact me and we'll discuss it ;-)

Happy holidays everyone and may the coming year bring wealthy and
engaging discourse on Rhizome raw.

Pall Thayer

On 21-Dec-06, at 11:14 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> As we move along things change. sometimes for the better.
> Now discussion has ended. Well thats the way things go. We had a
> good run, and we exchanged ideas and thoughts that revealed our
> personalities.
> But those days are gone.
> Today a list is a one way announcement of achievements and money
> making opportunity,
> Thats actually a good turn of events. Who could make money or a
> career 10 years ago?
> Now the exchange of ideas via listserv has passed. I think it was
> the most interesting form of artistic expression in late 20th
> century and early 21st century art.
> Performance can't continue forever, we all get exhausted, but i
> hope the memories serve you well. I enjoyed all of it, but like
> everone else i am tired of the venue. Relaxing and sitting back ,
> this performance art work is retiring. good luck with everything.
>
> http://www.googlism.com/index.htm?ism=Eric+Dymond&type=1
>
> Eric

–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit

it's inerestin to note the diffs between the art world and the literary
world. i'm a writer, mainly. i see no lack of interest in literary journals
and on lists such as poetics out of buffalo in discussion of digital art.

but the literary arts are much less concerned with what can be sold. erma
bombeck sells very well. what sells is just not of primary interest to
writers or publishers of serious literary art because what sells well is too
often unremarkable as art. also, literary art is not collected and sold in
the same way that visual art is. you don't invest in interesting poets. you
chase them out of town.

also, the net continues to be of interest to writers. partly because it is
so text-oriented; partly because it's how writers correspond via email;
also, it's cheaper to publish on the net; and you reach an international
audience on the net; you are able to read a wider range of writers than you
find in the bookstores; you can publish as you want it to look; there's
exciting new territory still for literary form and literary form in
synthesis with other arts. i've seen a lot of interesting literary journals
spring up on the net over the last few years. they're getting more diverse
and numerous, not fading out. and they publish a mix of print-oriented
things and sometimes my sort of work.

the literary world is just starting to tune in to the net. blogs helped. you
don't have to learn html to do a blog. most writers would rather have their
fingernails ripped off than learn html. but also i think the pioneers have
helped a bit in creating the start of an innovative, semi-connected literary
web on the net.

are the media arts forever doomed to go where the money is like duplicitous
dilettantes in the next big thing? no. but sometimes it looks that way.

you're not the only one persevering in your folly, pall. that's what william
blake said, by the way. he said he was persevering in his folly.

i would no more return to the typewriter and print-oriented work than i
would return to snail mail correspondence. let the world catch up. and it
will.

nice to read the article on your work, pall.

ja
http://vispo.com