How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code

Posted by Luca Leggero | Wed Jan 25th 2006 7:25 a.m.

How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich/

"... This page gives you the HTML code to "... make a perfect Malevich painting...". It's a basic HTML code. Everyone can have a Malevich, you can see it on your computer screen or print it. This is the POWER of net.art, you can't do this with old art! ..."

"... Source Code ("this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is")

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Malevich</TITLE>
<!-- this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is -->
<!-- http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich --> ..."

Credits
"How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code" by
LUNK & guddene
  • Regina Pinto | Wed Jan 25th 2006 7:56 a.m.
    Hi Lunk,

    It is very interesting but I prefer this "new" Malevich:
    http://arteonline.arq.br/

    This below is very important:

    "This is the POWER of net.art, you can't do this with old (and wonderful)
    art! ..."

    Thanks for let me know this HTML code,

    Regina Celia Pinto

    http://arteonline.arq.br/
    http://arteonline.arq.br/library.htm

    New Works:

    http://arteonline.arq.br/magic_walls/
    http://arteonline.arq.br/eva/
    http://arteonline.arq.br/ducks/
    http://arteonline.arq.br/ecologia/

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "LUNK" <lumaca42@email.it>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:25 PM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only
    basic HTML code

    > How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
    > http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich/
    >
    > "... This page gives you the HTML code to "... make a perfect Malevich
    > painting...". It's a basic HTML code. Everyone can have a Malevich, you
    > can see it on your computer screen or print it. This is the POWER of
    > net.art, you can't do this with old art! ..."
    >
    > "... Source Code ("this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it
    > is")
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    > <HTML>
    > <HEAD>
    > <TITLE>Malevich</TITLE>
    > <!-- this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is -->
    > <!-- http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich --> ..."
    >
    > Credits
    > "How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code" by
    > LUNK & guddene
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • Roman Minaev | Wed Jan 25th 2006 9:07 a.m.
  • Pall Thayer | Wed Jan 25th 2006 9:47 a.m.
    > <!-- this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is -->
    > <!-- http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich --> ..."

    I disagree. It's a copy of a Malevich-ish idea. Not even a copy of a
    Malevich painting. However, whatever you do with this is a Sol Lewitt
    drawing:

    Six-part drawing. The wall is divided horizontally and vertically
    into six equal parts. 1st part: On red, blue horizontal parallel
    lines, and in the center, a circle within which are yellow vertical
    parallel lines; 2nd part: On yellow, red horizontal parallel lines,
    and in the center, a square within which are blue vertical parallel
    lines; 3rd part: On blue, yellow horizontal parallel lines, and in
    the center, a triangle within which are red vertical parallel lines;
    4th part: On red, yellow horizontal parallel lines, and in the
    center, a rectangle within which are blue vertical parallel lines;
    5th part: On yellow, blue horizontal parallel lines, and in the
    center, a trapezoid within which are red vertical parallel lines; 6th
    part: On blue, red horizontal parallel lines, and in the center, a
    parallelogram within which are yellow vertical parallel lines. The
    horizontal lines do not enter the figures.

    >
    > Credits
    > "How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML
    > code" by
    > LUNK & guddene
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> 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
    >

    --
    Pall Thayer
    p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
    http://www.this.is/pallit
  • Regina Pinto | Wed Jan 25th 2006 10:38 a.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Pall Thayer" <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca>
    To: "listserv Rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:48 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only
    basic HTML code

    >
    >> <!-- this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is -->
    >> <!-- http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich --> ..."
    >
    > I disagree. It's a copy of a Malevich-ish idea. Not even a copy of a
    > Malevich painting. >

    Yes, you are completely right, we can't do perfect paintings with
    computers. (up to now, perhaps in the future?)

    When painting there is a tangible medium - paint, which makes a sloppy mess
    in cyan, yellow and magenta. In the case of computers, what we have is light
    and pixels, and red, green, blue, a clean art and.a certain limitation due
    to the software.

    What I think that is important is to explore in digital mediums all the
    possibilities of recognized Works of Art, it is a way of continue creating
    with that work. It means that the work continues alive. Exactely for this
    Creative Commons and Free Art are so important.

    Regina
  • Eric Dymond | Wed Jan 25th 2006 4:43 p.m.
    But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
    Now, then I'd be impressed.

    Eric
  • Regina Pinto | Thu Jan 26th 2006 3:40 a.m.
    Dear Eric,

    That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are completely
    right, the skills and tools are completely different, paintings are
    paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very interesting in their own
    ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is possible, but they would be
    only simulacra of sites because they would not be on the web and they will
    not be interactive. Maybe in the future all of this will be possible! We
    never know how technology will devellop.

    However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win paintings:
    the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive today, but I am
    almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in 2600. Last Sunday for
    example, I was searching for some photos I took at the start of 80's and I
    found them, but they were completely ancient, impossible to use. If they
    were paintings, it would not occur.

    Bye, have a good day,

    Regina

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using
    only basic HTML code

    > But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
    > Now, then I'd be impressed.
    >
    > Eric
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Thu Jan 26th 2006 4:56 a.m.
    Hi Regina & Eric,

    I found this Malevich piece pretty interesting...

    I think that trying to pretend that one can have their own copy of a
    Malevich on the Internet is admirable in one sense, yet these 'many
    steps' removed HTML versions offer no context in respect of the artworks
    source. And this was definately not the point of it either. Malevich's
    dynamic and Suprematist paintings were for instance influenced by the
    three different phases of cubism, Facet Cubism, Analytic Cubism and
    Synthetic Cubism. Which of course ware, if our history books are true
    (they must always be re-evaluated), spawned by the intensive work of
    Picasso and Braque who initiated the cubist movement- they followed the
    work of Paul Cezanne.

    Paintings are not just about what one sees, they are very much about the
    real experience and trhe scale, presence and viscosity, in a formal
    sense. If you look at an art image in a book it can inspire you but
    nothing beats experiencing a painting in real life, that's when they
    really live. Copies are no way as stimulating or interesting in
    photographic or Internet format.

    I feel that what these new distributable (HTML) Malevich's comment on
    our contemporary way of engaging in art in a more conceptual way.
    Perhaps it is linking or referencing to how see and experince art now.
    It certainly is not about the authenticity of the artwork itself or the
    original artist 'Malevich', who painted it. Malevich and the item/object
    chosen, both equally respected art icons in their own right, are much
    more used as famous architypes, a bit like drawing a moustache on the
    Mona Lisa.

    Exploiting the context of art declaring that function is now part of the
    art as well, and the technology used. That redistribution and
    appropriation of it, of famous works, such as this piece, can also be
    perceived as re-claiming/claiming an art territory, that traditionally
    has been owned by a certain group of high art institutions. This
    questions that authority, not by saying this is ART but by saying this
    can now be yours and anyone's. Claim it, it yours, do what you will with
    it...

    I like it :-)

    marc

    Dear Eric,

    That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are
    completely right, the skills and tools are completely different,
    paintings are paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very
    interesting in their own ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is
    possible, but they would be only simulacra of sites because they would
    not be on the web and they will not be interactive. Maybe in the future
    all of this will be possible! We never know how technology will devellop.

    However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win
    paintings: the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive today,
    but I am almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in 2600. Last
    Sunday for example, I was searching for some photos I took at the start
    of 80's and I found them, but they were completely ancient, impossible
    to use. If they were paintings, it would not occur.

    Bye, have a good day,

    Regina

    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting
    using only basic HTML code

    > But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
    > Now, then I'd be impressed.
    >
    > Eric
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> 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
    >
    >

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> 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

    > Dear Eric,
    >
    > That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are
    > completely right, the skills and tools are completely different,
    > paintings are paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very
    > interesting in their own ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is
    > possible, but they would be only simulacra of sites because they would
    > not be on the web and they will not be interactive. Maybe in the
    > future all of this will be possible! We never know how technology will
    > devellop.
    >
    > However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win
    > paintings: the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive
    > today, but I am almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in
    > 2600. Last Sunday for example, I was searching for some photos I took
    > at the start of 80's and I found them, but they were completely
    > ancient, impossible to use. If they were paintings, it would not occur.
    >
    > Bye, have a good day,
    >
    > Regina
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting
    > using only basic HTML code
    >
    >
    >> But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
    >> Now, then I'd be impressed.
    >>
    >> Eric
    >> +
    >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
    >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    >> -> 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
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • Eric Dymond | Thu Jan 26th 2006 9:34 p.m.
    no kids, you don't get it.
    I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
    They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.
    What I am saying here is that here and now..., everything is good, in fact it's very good.
    we are not connected to those old school characters, we are new and on our own..., thank God.
    i don't need verity from history, i don't need acceptance from the gurus who specialize in the dusty past.
    I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD, the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and will be available in 2600 ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
    Eric
  • Eric Dymond | Thu Jan 26th 2006 10:17 p.m.
    let it go

    Eric
  • Rob Myers | Fri Jan 27th 2006 2:29 a.m.
    Quoting Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>:

    > I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
    > They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to
    > targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.

    Art's target market is humanity.

    > What I am saying here is that here and now..., everything is good, in
    > fact it's very good.

    Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.

    > I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly
    > nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD,
    > the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and
    > will be available in 2600

    It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to run code
    written for the 2600.

    > ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).

    I do. I like humans.

    - Rob.
  • Eric Dymond | Sat Jan 28th 2006 9:15 p.m.
    Rob Myers wrote:
    Eric Dymond added:
    > Art's target market is humanity.
    That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
    > Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.
    why? I don't see that.
    Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable illness.

    > It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
    > run code
    > written for the 2600.
    The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.

    >
    > > ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
    >
    > I do. I like humans.
    I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.
    We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.
    It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
    And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs carbon argument?
    And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)
    Eric

    >
    > - Rob.
    >
  • Lee Wells | Sun Jan 29th 2006 12:34 a.m.
    > Rob Myers wrote:
    > Eric Dymond added:
    >> Art's target market is humanity.
    > That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus groups and
    > specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic practice a long time ago.
    > It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
    It all depends on which art world you want to speak to. Its one thing to
    make art for the gallery, the museum, the biennial, the neighborhood, the
    community center, or for just someone or some place.
    What about the need to just create? What about the self? The personal need
    to make art, although a modernist concept still has validity today.

    Painting will never die but my g4 has been on the fritz lately, tomorrow I
    am backing up my drive. Cant wait till I can get my Bluetooth chip in my
    head to do it for me.

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    917 723 2524
  • Eric Dymond | Sun Jan 29th 2006 1:07 a.m.
    Hi Lee,
    I must admit I was being pretty pointed in my response.
    Art , as you point out is made honestly in some contexts.
    For most of the discussion though, we were talking about Malevich in the context of "Official Art".
    He won't be showing up at any community center, and was making art for a well-defined audience, and with an eye on the future.
    Art has many sides, but I believe we were talking about "Professional Art" the art that has only one context, and that is the context of Art History as written by Art Gallerists and Vested Curators.
    I hope that helps the understanding here,
    and I still say..., that venue is dead.
    Eric
  • Rob Myers | Sun Jan 29th 2006 10:13 a.m.
    On 29 Jan 2006, at 04:15, Eric Dymond wrote:

    > Rob Myers wrote:
    > Eric Dymond added:
    >> Art's target market is humanity.
    > That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus
    > groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic
    > practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.

    You have to wait a lot of tables to get to your first audition. At no
    point in history has art been free of patronage and its distortions.

    If capitalism imploded tomorrow, in a thousand years time art of some
    kind would still exist and some contemporary art would still be of
    interest.

    Capitalism would prefer an art free of (any sign of) patronage as it
    prefers isolated, self-contained products that can be freely
    exchanged. Capitalism's patronage of the arts (or the fact that art
    is a tool of capitalist recreation, which amounts to the same thing)
    makes art unclean and problematic *for capitalism*. This irony of its
    production gives art critical potential.

    > Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred
    > sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the
    > accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily
    > commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to
    > us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable
    > illness.

    I personally am on the other side of a fracture from the fracture. It
    is an uncertain place, but I have Vermeer, Michaelangelo, the artists
    of Lascaux and Art & Language for company.

    >> It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
    >> run code
    >> written for the 2600.
    > The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup
    > according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that
    > there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers
    > and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They
    > didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.

    That is a good point.

    >>> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
    >>
    >> I do. I like humans.
    > I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will
    > not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.

    We cannot predict how, or whether, future humans will be. One of my
    fondest hopes is for a feminist SF future of changed social
    individuals rather than a mausculinist SF future of kewl gadgets
    provided by the wonders of capital.

    > We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including
    > Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has
    > little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like
    > Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on
    > medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.

    I believe that we are. Duchamp described art as "a game played
    between all people of all times". Reconnecting with the historical
    traditions (and disruptions!) that capitalism wishes us to forget so
    that we can forever be resold (and reselling) a "new" that isn't
    would be a form of resistance (or whatever).

    > It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the
    > end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
    > And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone
    > replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs
    > carbon argument?
    > And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple
    > announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)

    Capitalism provides us with many distractions and false promises. All
    of which it profits from.

    - Rob.
  • LUNK | Mon Jan 30th 2006 4:28 p.m.
    i didn't know SUPREMATISM by trashconnection, it's very cool.
    can i add it to my gallery "net.art LOVES old.art" http://lunk.altervista.org/naloa/ ?
    ("... Net art loves old art is a page collecting
    digital simulations of ‘old’ art...")
    i've also made this some years ago: "tribute to fontana - click on the cut" http://lunk.altervista.org/fontana/ ........L

    ---
    LUNK: http://lunk.altervista.org
    MAIS: http://mais.altervista.org

    <embed src=0.avi autostart=true> Roman Minaev wrote:

    > trashconnection suprematism:
    > http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/suprematism
Your Reply