isabelle dinoire

Posted by abe | Tue Feb 7th 2006 1:47 a.m.

  • Michael Szpakowski | Tue Feb 7th 2006 4:09 a.m.
    This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    source material is done with consummate skill.
    Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    current event,the story of which moreover, even
    allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    strangeness, I don't deny)..
    I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    *tell the truth*...
    michael

    --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:

    > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • Marisa Olson | Tue Feb 7th 2006 8:32 a.m.
    > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire

    > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > source material is done with consummate skill.

    I agree. It was very engaging.

    > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > *tell the truth*...

    I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...

    *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    *[How] does it lie?
    *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    "documentary" material?
    *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true footage
    plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?

    Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)

    Marisa

    On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    > and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > *tell the truth*...
    > michael
    >
    > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    >
    > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> 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
    >
  • annie abrahams | Tue Feb 7th 2006 9:50 a.m.
    This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :

    > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.
    > For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.
    > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly
    > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    > and you didn't denounce anything
    >
    > you were
    > just making fun?
    >
    > did I miss something?
    >
    > best Annie Abrahams"
    >

    it's impossible to tell the truth.
    this is not about truth or falsity

    maybe about morals?

    On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >
    > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    >
    > I agree. It was very engaging.
    >
    > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > *tell the truth*...
    >
    > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    >
    > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    > *[How] does it lie?
    > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    > *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    > "documentary" material?
    > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true footage
    > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    >
    > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    >
    > Marisa
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    > > and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    > > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    > > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > *tell the truth*...
    > > michael
    > >
    > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > >
    > > > +
    > > > -> 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
    > >
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >

    --

    Traces :

    Sessions provi&testi 2005
    francais http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/index.htm
    english http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/indexang.htm

    Puisque ma Voix
    francais http://bram.org/special/puisque/index.htm
    english http://bram.org/special/puisque/indexeng.htm
  • Marisa Olson | Tue Feb 7th 2006 10:32 a.m.
    I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln might
    have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece doesn't
    read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense that
    it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which are, in
    themselves, often "fun."

    To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
    Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely
    be read in that way.

    I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one
    person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective
    response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The
    subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
    generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media
    saturated culture.

    And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy
    debate about both cloning and copyright.

    > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > this is not about truth or falsity

    I agree with you here, Annie.

    This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the
    observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself, is a
    complex operation...

    Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work. Dare I
    ask in what way "the images on the tele were a lot more impressive," and
    how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
    sentiment about the footage?

    I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and media
    treatment of this story to be more outrageous...

    Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications far
    broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.

    Marisa

    On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
    > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    >
    > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.
    > > For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.
    > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly
    > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    > > and you didn't denounce anything
    > >
    > > you were
    > > just making fun?
    > >
    > > did I miss something?
    > >
    > > best Annie Abrahams"
    > >
    >
    >
    > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > this is not about truth or falsity
    >
    > maybe about morals?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > >
    > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > >
    > > I agree. It was very engaging.
    > >
    > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > *tell the truth*...
    > >
    > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    > >
    > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    > > *[How] does it lie?
    > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    > > *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    > > "documentary" material?
    > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true
    footage
    > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    > >
    > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    > >
    > > Marisa
    > >
    > >
    > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > > > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > > > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    > > > and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    > > > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    > > > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > > > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > > > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > > > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > > > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > *tell the truth*...
    > > > michael
    > > >
    > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > > >
    > > > > +
    > > > > -> 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
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > +
    > > -> 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
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Traces :
    >
    > Sessions provi&testi 2005
    > francais http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/index.htm
    > english http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/indexang.htm
    >
    > Puisque ma Voix
    > francais http://bram.org/special/puisque/index.htm
    > english http://bram.org/special/puisque/indexeng.htm
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
  • abe | Tue Feb 7th 2006 11:10 a.m.
    hello,

    this video is about the truth of nerve endings and microphones.

    abe

    aabrahams wrote:
    > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    >
    >
    >>"I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.
    >>For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.
    >>you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly
    >>inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    >>and you didn't denounce anything
    >>
    >>you were
    >>just making fun?
    >>
    >>did I miss something?
    >>
    >>best Annie Abrahams"
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > this is not about truth or falsity
    >
    > maybe about morals?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >
    >>>>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >>
    >>>The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    >>>suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    >>>source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>
    >>I agree. It was very engaging.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    >>>is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    >>>in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    >>>*tell the truth*...
    >>
    >>I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    >>
    >>*Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    >>*Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    >>*How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    >>*[How] does it lie?
    >>*Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    >>larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    >>*Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    >>"documentary" material?
    >>*Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    >>*Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true footage
    >>plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    >>*Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    >>larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    >>from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    >>
    >>Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    >>
    >>Marisa
    >>
    >>
    >>On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    >>>The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    >>>suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    >>>source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>>Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    >>>I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    >>>particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    >>>call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    >>>and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    >>>convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    >>>projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    >>>current event,the story of which moreover, even
    >>>allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    >>>media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    >>>resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    >>>strangeness, I don't deny)..
    >>>I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    >>>is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    >>>in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    >>>*tell the truth*...
    >>>michael
    >>>
    >>>--- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >>>>
    >>>>+
    >>>>-> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>+
    >>-> 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
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Traces :
    >
    > Sessions provi&testi 2005
    > francais http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/index.htm
    > english http://bram.org/special/provi&testi/indexang.htm
    >
    > Puisque ma Voix
    > francais http://bram.org/special/puisque/index.htm
    > english http://bram.org/special/puisque/indexeng.htm
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Michael Szpakowski | Tue Feb 7th 2006 11:43 a.m.
    Hi Marisa
    Whoa! :)
    I did try to phrase my rather uncertain response to
    the piece in as temperate a way as possible precisely
    in order to avoid a polarised yes it is no it isn't
    kind of thing.
    Some responses:
    <*Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?>
    Of course there's no law that says it is but my
    contention would be that art which in *some sense*
    reflects the complex structure of reality is more
    likely to interest me & take up my time & lead me to
    recommend it to others as worthy of *their* time than
    work that does not.
    <*Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in
    a work of art?>
    I'm in favour of truth telling in general - of
    striving to understand how & why things work the way
    they do & then (in life , politics &c) stating this as
    clearly & straightforwardly as possible & (in art)
    creating work which *somehow* (begs a lot of questions
    I know!) bears witness to or least does not
    oversimplify tendentiously, or glibly, or cheaply,
    what is going on.
    <*How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your
    opinion? & *[How] does it lie?>
    Well I *worry* that it doesn't tell the truth -I
    *worry* that it ( & I'll put it more brutally than
    Annie) feels like a cheap shot -*but* I'm not
    sure..I'm genuinely interested & open to discussion on
    it..

    This is open to misunderstanding & I absolutely don't
    want to raise the polemical temperature but I have a
    similar problem with this rather nicely made miniature
    that I do with 'Birth of a Nation' or 'Triumph of The
    Will' -the *craply made* problem pieces are not in the
    long run problem pieces... and of course I'm *not*,
    absolutely *not* suggesting there is a similar degree
    of moral doubt here as in those pieces, but it's the
    combination of a very assured technique with the
    problematic content that bothers me.(& I don't reject
    *anything* in principle in art as far a content or
    technique goes, *how* it's deployed is the interesting
    question & this comes back to me to what I would call
    artistic 'truth')

    I'm going to pass on the rest of your questions
    because I've set out my stall here I think as clearly
    as I can.
    I just wanted to address two more issues from other
    bits of this discussion.
    One. The remix thing. Well, Marisa, as you know,
    nobody loves a remix as much has I do but, I do find
    your analogy "remixing the face" a little strained -
    I'm not sure that one can in any way read back worries
    about this piece to attacks or concerns about or even
    defense of remix culture from this rather artifical
    rhetorical tactic..
    Two. I *do* believe in truth -or at least that we can
    approach the truth about things by the exercise of
    observation & reason both scientifically ( & I include
    history &c. here) and artistically.
    I think this probably does underlie some of our
    differences? What do you think? :)
    best
    michael
    --- Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:

    > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >
    > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of
    > 'arc of
    > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    > the
    > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    >
    > I agree. It was very engaging.
    >
    > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as
    > it
    > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow
    > fails
    > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way
    > to
    > > *tell the truth*...
    >
    > I find this to be an interesting point. Some
    > questions...
    >
    > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in
    > a work of art?
    > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your
    > opinion?
    > *[How] does it lie?
    > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to
    > human subjects or some
    > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all
    > art?)
    > *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art
    > because of its use of
    > "documentary" material?
    > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself,
    > not true enough?
    > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double
    > positive" (ie true footage
    > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so,
    > but just jumping to the
    > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically
    > problematic" to draw
    > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    >
    > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this
    > post. :)
    >
    > Marisa
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
    > wrote:
    > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of
    > 'arc of
    > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    > the
    > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative
    > from
    > > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it
    > is,
    > > and the synching of the final frames to the music,
    > the
    > > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am
    > simply
    > > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as
    > it
    > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow
    > fails
    > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way
    > to
    > > *tell the truth*...
    > > michael
    > >
    > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > >
    > > > +
    > > > -> 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
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • Pall Thayer | Tue Feb 7th 2006 12:30 p.m.
    I would just like to jump in here and say that, although I'm not
    going to say that art has to tell the truth in any way shape or form,
    I believe an element of truth adds validity to the conceptual side of
    work. For instance, a piece purporting to be a carnivore client could
    easily be faked with a simple script generating the data that is
    being presented as carnivore data. Would we know the difference? But
    one of the things that makes carnivore clients interesting is the
    fact that the data being used is a true representation of what's
    going on on a given network. Since we can't necessarily tell the
    difference, it's comes down to the artist's own personal integrity.
    If we take for instance, Vito Acconci's Seedbed. He didn't really
    have to masturbate under the floorboards. No-one even knew he was
    there. What if we found out that he faked it all, he wasn't really
    masturbating. Does the work remain the same?

    One of the reasons I have an opinion about this is that a couple of
    years ago I was doing some work with some theater people. I had all
    sorts of ideas, wanted to set up some sensors and use them to trigger
    lighting etc. The theater people looked at me and said, "Why?" We can
    just fake it. We can make it "look" like the actors are controlling
    the lights, and it dawned on me that theater is an art of lies and
    fakery whereas (I think) conceptually grounded visual arts are an art
    of truth.

    BUT (and there always has to be a "but".) As is always the case in
    art, you have instances where the opposite is tested. Where the
    primary concept is the "lie". Such as with MTAA's One Year
    Performance. But of course it's presented in a way that you know that
    slight-of-hand plays a part. The lie isn't being hidden.

    OK, I'm just spewing this stuff out as I go along so I reserve the
    right to reverse my position on anything I've said. I think this is a
    topic worthy of much discussion. Especially in regards to data-based
    artwork, much of which takes the "truth" (data) and twists it into
    something else. As in Jonah Brucker-Cohens Police State. The
    carnivore collected data is true. But what about the message that the
    work relays to the viewer? I know the piece is hearing the truth, but
    is it telling me the truth?

    Pall

    On 7.2.2006, at 13:43, Michael Szpakowski wrote:

    > Hi Marisa
    > Whoa! :)
    > I did try to phrase my rather uncertain response to
    > the piece in as temperate a way as possible precisely
    > in order to avoid a polarised yes it is no it isn't
    > kind of thing.
    > Some responses:
    > <*Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?>
    > Of course there's no law that says it is but my
    > contention would be that art which in *some sense*
    > reflects the complex structure of reality is more
    > likely to interest me & take up my time & lead me to
    > recommend it to others as worthy of *their* time than
    > work that does not.
    > <*Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in
    > a work of art?>
    > I'm in favour of truth telling in general - of
    > striving to understand how & why things work the way
    > they do & then (in life , politics &c) stating this as
    > clearly & straightforwardly as possible & (in art)
    > creating work which *somehow* (begs a lot of questions
    > I know!) bears witness to or least does not
    > oversimplify tendentiously, or glibly, or cheaply,
    > what is going on.
    > <*How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your
    > opinion? & *[How] does it lie?>
    > Well I *worry* that it doesn't tell the truth -I
    > *worry* that it ( & I'll put it more brutally than
    > Annie) feels like a cheap shot -*but* I'm not
    > sure..I'm genuinely interested & open to discussion on
    > it..
    >
    > This is open to misunderstanding & I absolutely don't
    > want to raise the polemical temperature but I have a
    > similar problem with this rather nicely made miniature
    > that I do with 'Birth of a Nation' or 'Triumph of The
    > Will' -the *craply made* problem pieces are not in the
    > long run problem pieces... and of course I'm *not*,
    > absolutely *not* suggesting there is a similar degree
    > of moral doubt here as in those pieces, but it's the
    > combination of a very assured technique with the
    > problematic content that bothers me.(& I don't reject
    > *anything* in principle in art as far a content or
    > technique goes, *how* it's deployed is the interesting
    > question & this comes back to me to what I would call
    > artistic 'truth')
    >
    > I'm going to pass on the rest of your questions
    > because I've set out my stall here I think as clearly
    > as I can.
    > I just wanted to address two more issues from other
    > bits of this discussion.
    > One. The remix thing. Well, Marisa, as you know,
    > nobody loves a remix as much has I do but, I do find
    > your analogy "remixing the face" a little strained -
    > I'm not sure that one can in any way read back worries
    > about this piece to attacks or concerns about or even
    > defense of remix culture from this rather artifical
    > rhetorical tactic..
    > Two. I *do* believe in truth -or at least that we can
    > approach the truth about things by the exercise of
    > observation & reason both scientifically ( & I include
    > history &c. here) and artistically.
    > I think this probably does underlie some of our
    > differences? What do you think? :)
    > best
    > michael
    > --- Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >
    >>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >>
    >>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of
    >> 'arc of
    >>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    >> the
    >>> source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>
    >> I agree. It was very engaging.
    >>
    >>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as
    >> it
    >>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow
    >> fails
    >>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way
    >> to
    >>> *tell the truth*...
    >>
    >> I find this to be an interesting point. Some
    >> questions...
    >>
    >> *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    >> *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in
    >> a work of art?
    >> *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your
    >> opinion?
    >> *[How] does it lie?
    >> *Is this simply a question of humane reference to
    >> human subjects or some
    >> larger point about the responsibility of art? (all
    >> art?)
    >> *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art
    >> because of its use of
    >> "documentary" material?
    >> *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself,
    >> not true enough?
    >> *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double
    >> positive" (ie true footage
    >> plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    >> *Without implying that this piece tries to do so,
    >> but just jumping to the
    >> larger question, is it "artistically and ethically
    >> problematic" to draw
    >> from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    >>
    >> Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this
    >> post. :)
    >>
    >> Marisa
    >>
    >>
    >> On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>> This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    >>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of
    >> 'arc of
    >>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    >> the
    >>> source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>> Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    >>> I think because it seems to impose a narrative
    >> from
    >>> particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    >>> call as my witness the music, accomplished as it
    >> is,
    >>> and the synching of the final frames to the music,
    >> the
    >>> convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am
    >> simply
    >>> projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    >>> current event,the story of which moreover, even
    >>> allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    >>> media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    >>> resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    >>> strangeness, I don't deny)..
    >>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as
    >> it
    >>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow
    >> fails
    >>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way
    >> to
    >>> *tell the truth*...
    >>> michael
    >>>
    >>> --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >>>>
    >>>> +
    >>>> -> 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
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > +
    > -> 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
  • ryan griffis | Tue Feb 7th 2006 1:44 p.m.
    > One of the reasons I have an opinion about this is that a couple of
    > years ago I was doing some work with some theater people. I had all
    > sorts of ideas, wanted to set up some sensors and use them to trigger
    > lighting etc. The theater people looked at me and said, "Why?" We can
    > just fake it. We can make it "look" like the actors are controlling
    > the lights, and it dawned on me that theater is an art of lies and
    > fakery whereas (I think) conceptually grounded visual arts are an art
    > of truth.

    this is an interesting thread...
    to take up Pall's points, which bring up some great things to discuss:
    how does work like Walid Raad/Atlas Project's generate a response in
    relation to truth/fabrication? One could say the there are "give aways"
    to the work's fabricated elements, but i think that all depends on the
    audience. Those "in the know" know...
    Or how about the Center for Tactical Magic? or CAE? or the Yes Men?
    Part of the effect and affect of the work is that momentary (or for
    some, sustained) suspension of disbelief. (or maybe more accurately,
    suspension of relief!)
    Going back a bit historically for this discussion, Alan Sekula's
    critique of documentary and photography are interesting to consider.
    This statement is particularly relevant here:
    "What I am arguing is that we understand the extent to which art
    redeems a repressive social order by offering a wholly imaginary
    transcendence, a false harmony, to docile and isolated spectators."
    (from "Dismantling Modernism, Reinventing Documentary" 1976/8) Sekula
    goes on however to argue that a new kind of documentary is needed, from
    his very Marxist position, that is critical of the "objectivity of the
    camera" while recreating a kind of socialist realism.
    To update that, Nato Thompson (MassMoCA curator of "The
    Interventionists") has been working with people like CAE, CTM, CLUI,
    Speculative Archive, Trevor Paglen, etc) and compiled a small article +
    series of works for Art Journal last year, prefacing the works with
    this statement:
    "What unifies their individual approaches is a shared attempt to deploy
    the aesthetics of truth in order to raise criticality. By aesthetics of
    truth, I mean an intellectual manipulation of visual codes that signify
    a truth claim. To be clear about what this entails, examples might
    include videotaped confessions, textbook-inspired design strategies,
    and experimental lectures in which claims are asserted that are, in
    fact, inaccurate, if not flagrantly false. Yet these projects do not
    simply manipulate the visuality of what may lead us to accept them as
    truth but, more important, they use this method critically to raise
    concrete historical issues. Their work is not simply sign play. The
    subjects of the individual projects range from Ninjitsu to beekeeping
    to the prison industry to the United States--backed coup in Chile."
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0425/is_1_63/ai_114632849/
    pg_1
    i don't think i would have arrived at this discussion so much from
    abe's video on my own... it just doesn't push those same buttons for
    me. i have a similar reaction to it as Marisa expressed. i read it as a
    response to the immediacy of the media image (document) that is already
    read through other narratives (sci-fi, "Face Off," etc). it doesn't
    challenge the dominant narrative (as "truth") as much as show how
    problematic and discursive that narrative already is.
  • annie abrahams | Tue Feb 7th 2006 2:13 p.m.
    I just watched the video again

    What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary, more exciting
    and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more interesting
    and even more artistic )

    In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
    justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap without her
    conscent.

    I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
    Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
    better with Orlan as the subject.

    bye
    Annie

    On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln might
    > have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece doesn't
    > read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense that
    > it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which are, in
    > themselves, often "fun."
    >
    > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
    > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely
    > be read in that way.
    >
    > I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one
    > person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective
    > response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The
    > subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
    > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media
    > saturated culture.
    >
    > And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy
    > debate about both cloning and copyright.
    >
    > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > this is not about truth or falsity
    >
    > I agree with you here, Annie.
    >
    > This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the
    > observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself, is a
    > complex operation...
    >
    > Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work. Dare I
    > ask in what way "the images on the tele were a lot more impressive," and
    > how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
    > sentiment about the footage?
    >
    > I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and media
    > treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
    >
    > Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications far
    > broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
    >
    > Marisa
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
    > > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    > >
    > > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.
    > > > For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.
    > > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly
    > > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    > > > and you didn't denounce anything
    > > >
    > > > you were
    > > > just making fun?
    > > >
    > > > did I miss something?
    > > >
    > > > best Annie Abrahams"
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > this is not about truth or falsity
    > >
    > > maybe about morals?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > >
    > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > >
    > > > I agree. It was very engaging.
    > > >
    > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > > *tell the truth*...
    > > >
    > > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    > > >
    > > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    > > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    > > > *[How] does it lie?
    > > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    > > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    > > > *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    > > > "documentary" material?
    > > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    > > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true
    > footage
    > > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    > > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    > > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    > > >
    > > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    > > >
    > > > Marisa
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > > > > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > > > > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    > > > > and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    > > > > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    > > > > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > > > > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > > > > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > > > > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > > > > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > > *tell the truth*...
    > > > > michael
    > > > >
    > > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
  • annie abrahams | Tue Feb 7th 2006 2:41 p.m.
    > i don't think i would have arrived at this discussion so much from
    > abe's video on my own... it just doesn't push those same buttons for
    > me. i have a similar reaction to it as Marisa expressed. i read it as a
    > response to the immediacy of the media image (document) that is already
    > read through other narratives (sci-fi, "Face Off," etc). it doesn't
    > challenge the dominant narrative (as "truth") as much as show how
    > problematic and discursive that narrative already is.
    >

    Hye

    I am aware that I must seem a bit (a lot) bitchy to some of you.

    I was profoundly shocked yesterday when I saw this woman, being glad
    with a face I thought ugly monstruous. (but she came from no face at
    all, no control at all over her mouth muscles, so indeed what a gain)
    I cannot look at a media image as an image or as a narration.
    I see and feel reality behind.
    (but not truth)

    best
    annie
  • marc garrett | Tue Feb 7th 2006 3:14 p.m.
    Hi all,

    I agree with Annie,

    and I also see the mediation and the spectacle of someone's pain created
    into theatre, snuff-tainment.

    marc

    >>i don't think i would have arrived at this discussion so much from
    >>abe's video on my own... it just doesn't push those same buttons for
    >>me. i have a similar reaction to it as Marisa expressed. i read it as a
    >>response to the immediacy of the media image (document) that is already
    >>read through other narratives (sci-fi, "Face Off," etc). it doesn't
    >>challenge the dominant narrative (as "truth") as much as show how
    >>problematic and discursive that narrative already is.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Hye
    >
    >I am aware that I must seem a bit (a lot) bitchy to some of you.
    >
    >I was profoundly shocked yesterday when I saw this woman, being glad
    >with a face I thought ugly monstruous. (but she came from no face at
    >all, no control at all over her mouth muscles, so indeed what a gain)
    >I cannot look at a media image as an image or as a narration.
    >I see and feel reality behind.
    >(but not truth)
    >
    >best
    >annie
    >
    >+
    >-> 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ryan griffis | Tue Feb 7th 2006 3:20 p.m.
    > I am aware that I must seem a bit (a lot) bitchy to some of you.

    not at all... if that's "bitchy" - bitch on. (not that my "permission"
    is needed, of course!)
    humanism, after all, has as much room to criticize anti-humanism (not
    to mention post-humanism) as the other way around. especially now.
    >
    > I was profoundly shocked yesterday when I saw this woman, being glad
    > with a face I thought ugly monstruous. (but she came from no face at
    > all, no control at all over her mouth muscles, so indeed what a gain)
    > I cannot look at a media image as an image or as a narration.
    > I see and feel reality behind.
    > (but not truth)
    >
    > best
    > annie
    >
  • Dirk Vekemans | Tue Feb 7th 2006 3:33 p.m.
    > exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
    > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
    > things in a media saturated culture.
    >
    >
    > Marisa
    >
    >
    >
    Nice wording and the artist might agree, but personally i don't see how
    remixing media into more media brings you or your audience any closer to
    making sense of things. Can be fun but it only adds more media to the media,
    reiterates pointless referrals to referrals to prrt prrt building up to an
    endless repetition of the global amen to the the state of things. If this
    particular instance is a statement (the indicative artistic framing of it),
    it is a (funny/sarcastic/whathaveyou) statement of echoing the statement of
    that amen. Sure it _also_ echoes the other (?) media's disrespect for the
    individual once called isabelle d., but who could hold anyone responsible
    for such a minor moral injustice when he's part of a generation of artists?

    OTH Abe's work is nice enough, i admire it's vitality, but that part of it
    that makes it that vital sure isn't the remixing methodology, more in spite
    of it like what often happens to a good artist using a method. There's that
    old delicate balance of punk in it, sometimes, haha. And then this, well no,
    it doesn't/didn't get really through to me, hence it fails for me, no
    truthbells ringing, or, to be more exact, i see no way out hiding behind it,
    only some well-crafted powerful images that stick to your retina a while,
    until the usual dumbness of give-us-our-daily-horror takes over.

    just my 2 cents,
    dv
  • Turbulence.org | Tue Feb 7th 2006 3:44 p.m.
    Two human faces, side by side, stretched taught as a drum, manipulated and toyed with (much like a cat toys with a mouse before he kills it). As if this is not monstrous enough, Linkoln has cut her vocal chords, silenced her, period.

    Truth?

    The artist’s?
    The subject’s?
    Mine?

    Jo

    annie abrahams wrote:

    > I just watched the video again
    >
    > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary, more exciting
    > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more interesting
    > and even more artistic )
    >
    > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
    > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap without her
    > conscent.
    >
    > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
    > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
    > better with Orlan as the subject.
    >
    > bye
    > Annie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln
    > might
    > > have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece
    > doesn't
    > > read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense
    > that
    > > it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which
    > are, in
    > > themselves, often "fun."
    > >
    > > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a
    > face.
    > > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    > > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    > > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can
    > definitely
    > > be read in that way.
    > >
    > > I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously
    > just one
    > > person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another
    > subjective
    > > response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants.
    > The
    > > subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part
    > of a
    > > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a
    > media
    > > saturated culture.
    > >
    > > And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense
    > policy
    > > debate about both cloning and copyright.
    > >
    > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > > this is not about truth or falsity
    > >
    > > I agree with you here, Annie.
    > >
    > > This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the
    > > observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself,
    > is a
    > > complex operation...
    > >
    > > Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work.
    > Dare I
    > > ask in what way "the images on the t鬩 were a lot more
    > impressive," and
    > > how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
    > > sentiment about the footage?
    > >
    > > I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and
    > media
    > > treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
    > >
    > > Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications
    > far
    > > broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
    > >
    > > Marisa
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
    > > > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    > > >
    > > > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't
    > understand you.
    > > > > For me the images on the t鬩 were a lot more impressive.
    > > > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when
    > certainly
    > > > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    > > > > and you didn't denounce anything
    > > > >
    > > > > you were
    > > > > just making fun?
    > > > >
    > > > > did I miss something?
    > > > >
    > > > > best Annie Abrahams"
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > > this is not about truth or falsity
    > > >
    > > > maybe about morals?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > > >
    > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > >
    > > > > I agree. It was very engaging.
    > > > >
    > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > > > *tell the truth*...
    > > > >
    > > > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    > > > >
    > > > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > > > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of
    > art?
    > > > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    > > > > *[How] does it lie?
    > > > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects
    > or some
    > > > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    > > > > *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its
    > use of
    > > > > "documentary" material?
    > > > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true
    > enough?
    > > > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie
    > true
    > > footage
    > > > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > > > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just
    > jumping to the
    > > > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic"
    > to draw
    > > > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    > > > >
    > > > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    > > > >
    > > > > Marisa
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    > > > > > source material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > > > > > particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    > > > > > call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    > > > > > and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    > > > > > convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    > > > > > projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    > > > > > current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    > > > > > media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    > > > > > resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    > > > > > strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    > > > > > is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    > > > > > in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    > > > > > *tell the truth*...
    > > > > > michael
    > > > > >
    > > > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >
  • ryan griffis | Tue Feb 7th 2006 4:27 p.m.
    i'm starting to think that the whole "truth" discussion was/is a bit
    off the mark...
    i could, very likely, be totally wrong, but it sounds like people are
    more concerned with the responsibility of affect + representation?
    when someone says "linkoln has cut her vocal chords..." that has to be
    taken as a statement about representation. we're not talking about
    Santiago Sierra after all.
    both the original video and linkoln's mod are tools for affect, no? is
    the question about which one is more manipulative (i.e. less
    transparent)? which one is more oppressive/repressive to the
    objectified (and, i guess, by extension, us)?
    i think the critiques of the vid make some good points...
    all of this kind of reminds me of the news i've been listening to all
    day regarding the controversial danish cartoons... many journalists are
    saying they understand the "free speech" rights of the publishers, but
    such rights don't negate responsibility or create obligations. "just
    because they can" isn't justification. that point can def be translated
    into remix culture... is a remix liberating just by nature?

    On Feb 7, 2006, at 4:44 PM, Turbulence.org wrote:

    > Two human faces, side by side, stretched taught as a drum, manipulated
    > and toyed with (much like a cat toys with a mouse before he kills it).
    > As if this is not monstrous enough, Linkoln has cut her vocal chords,
    > silenced her, period.
    >
    > Truth?
    >
    > The artist's?
    > The subject's?
    > Mine?
    >
    > Jo
  • Dirk Vekemans | Tue Feb 7th 2006 4:48 p.m.
    i thought sth similar for a moment too, but i find that's (sorry for the
    pun) stretching it a bit, art i mean: no way this is going to register as an
    event to that effect, it would have to matter before it could do that and it
    doesn't matter because it doesn't escape the (monstrous) repetition it
    re-enacts. Art fails, thank god and these things are orchestrated for
    failure.
    You're taking the metaphor where it doesn't go, it's mistaking what we put
    into it for what gets out, including its unwonted side effects. Cartoons and
    cartoonists don't kill people, mediatised avalanches of hatred and
    frustration do.

    In the unlikely event i.d. (sic) get's to see this, she'll (hopefully) just
    classify it as more media bs. If there's any real moral issue here it's
    restricted to us, Lincoln's piece making us perhaps painfully aware of what
    might be, or how we fail to make the audience aware, or even ourselves. Art
    silencing art. Remixing as an artistic process encourages silence,
    encapsulating the encapsulation.
    dv

    > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    > Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
    > Namens Turbulence.org
    > Verzonden: dinsdag 7 februari 2006 23:45
    > Aan: list@rhizome.org
    > Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: isabelle dinoire
    >
    > Two human faces, side by side, stretched taught as a drum,
    > manipulated and toyed with (much like a cat toys with a mouse
    > before he kills it). As if this is not monstrous enough,
    > Linkoln has cut her vocal chords, silenced her, period.
    >
    > Truth?
    >
    > The artist's?
    > The subject's?
    > Mine?
    >
    > Jo
    >
    >
    > annie abrahams wrote:
    >
    > > I just watched the video again
    > >
    > > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary,
    > more exciting
    > > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more
    > interesting
    > > and even more artistic )
    > >
    > > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
    > > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap
    > without her
    > > conscent.
    > >
    > > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
    > > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
    > > better with Orlan as the subject.
    > >
    > > bye
    > > Annie
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > I fully understand where you are coming from in saying
    > that Linkoln
    > > might
    > > > have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece
    > > doesn't
    > > > read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps
    > in the sense
    > > that
    > > > it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which
    > > are, in
    > > > themselves, often "fun."
    > > >
    > > > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a
    > > face.
    > > > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to
    > juxtapose tissue
    > > > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to
    > overstate or
    > > > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can
    > > definitely
    > > > be read in that way.
    > > >
    > > > I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously
    > > just one
    > > > person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another
    > > subjective
    > > > response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants.
    > > The
    > > > subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part
    > > of a
    > > > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
    > things in a
    > > media
    > > > saturated culture.
    > > >
    > > > And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense
    > > policy
    > > > debate about both cloning and copyright.
    > > >
    > > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > > > this is not about truth or falsity
    > > >
    > > > I agree with you here, Annie.
    > > >
    > > > This video reads, to me, like an animation of the
    > "techniques of the
    > > > observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself,
    > > is a
    > > > complex operation...
    > > >
    > > > Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work.
    > > Dare I
    > > > ask in what way "the images on the t? were a lot more
    > > impressive," and
    > > > how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
    > > > sentiment about the footage?
    > > >
    > > > I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy
    > headlines and
    > > media
    > > > treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
    > > >
    > > > Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with
    > implications
    > > far
    > > > broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
    > > >
    > > > Marisa
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
    > > > > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    > > > >
    > > > > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't
    > > understand you.
    > > > > > For me the images on the t? were a lot more impressive.
    > > > > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when
    > > certainly
    > > > > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons) and you didn't
    > > > > > denounce anything
    > > > > >
    > > > > > you were
    > > > > > just making fun?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > did I miss something?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > best Annie Abrahams"
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
    > > > > this is not about truth or falsity
    > > > >
    > > > > maybe about morals?
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    > > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    > the source
    > > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I agree. It was very engaging.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
    > > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
    > > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
    > > > > > > truth*...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    > > > > >
    > > > > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    > > > > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of
    > > art?
    > > > > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    > > > > > *[How] does it lie?
    > > > > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to
    > human subjects
    > > or some
    > > > > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?) *Is
    > > > > > this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its
    > > use of
    > > > > > "documentary" material?
    > > > > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true
    > > enough?
    > > > > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie
    > > true
    > > > footage
    > > > > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    > > > > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just
    > > jumping to the
    > > > > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically
    > problematic"
    > > to draw
    > > > > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Marisa
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    > > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    > > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
    > the source
    > > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
    > > > > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    > > > > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    > particular
    > > > > > > fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I call as my
    > witness the
    > > > > > > music, accomplished as it is, and the synching of the final
    > > > > > > frames to the music, the convulsive quality of it -
    > & I don't
    > > > > > > think I am simply projecting any personal
    > squeamishness here)
    > > > > > > onto a current event,the story of which moreover, even
    > > > > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our media, is
    > > > > > > clearly a complex web of tragedy, resourcefulness,
    > gratitude,
    > > > > > > ( oh -& a deep strangeness, I don't deny)..
    > > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
    > > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
    > > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
    > > > > > > truth*...
    > > > > > > michael
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    > >
    > +
    > -> 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 | Tue Feb 7th 2006 6:07 p.m.
    I think the piece has much in common with a Francis Bacon Portrait.
    I'm not going to get heavily involved, but I don't see why this either truthful, untruthful, moral or immoral. It seems to use digital media to push and pull reality without losing the essence of the source, as a Bacon painting pushes and pulls the appearance of his subject. This is interesting in that it's time based( now I'm thinking of the Nurse from The Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstien). You should know there is a good deal of distance between the actual subjects life and the imagination contained in the work, which makes it successful for me.
    Eric
  • marc garrett | Tue Feb 7th 2006 6:17 p.m.
    Hi Eric,

    >I think the piece has much in common with a Francis Bacon Portrait.

    I agree...

    marc

    >I think the piece has much in common with a Francis Bacon Portrait.
    >I'm not going to get heavily involved, but I don't see why this either truthful, untruthful, moral or immoral. It seems to use digital media to push and pull reality without losing the essence of the source, as a Bacon painting pushes and pulls the appearance of his subject. This is interesting in that it's time based( now I'm thinking of the Nurse from The Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstien). You should know there is a good deal of distance between the actual subjects life and the imagination contained in the work, which makes it successful for me.
    >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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic | Tue Feb 7th 2006 6:52 p.m.
    Marisa wrote:

    >To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
    >Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    >sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    >impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely
    >be read in that way.

    Annie's right.In Isabelle's case we couldn't talk about "remixing",maybe,we=
    can talk about "insert"(part of face
    ,de facto, fill a gap in one missing face.Remixing could,eventuality, treat=
    completed,new look of Isabella's face,so this term
    point the way this man(Mr.Linkoln)treat a problem:it's something out of hi=
    s comprehend of human as a
    complex structure.In his words:" This video is about the truth of nerve end=
    ings and microphones."
    On certain way this particular woman became heap of nerve endings,playgroun=
    d for bad comprehend "remixing" game.
    So :Orlan's kind of"remixing"product,same as Mickey Rourke,or Tiger,Lizard.=
    ..man,but
    Isabelle is horrible incident,and Marisa's quasi excuse("To put it very cru=
    dely")talk about something
    worse than crudely-she is indifferent same as Mr.Linkoln."It's not my role =
    to overstate or
    impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely
    be read in that way."
    Obvious your role IS to do what you've already dun.
    About "intention":my intention's to put in one grave all dead person(soldie=
    rs and their victims)in Iraq war.
    That could be nice example of "remixing",more cynical intention than Mr.Li=
    nkoln's,certainly.
    Must I ask what you think about political consequence of such "intention"?J=
    ust think about Danish comic.
    To treat Isabelle Dinoire on Mr.Linkolns way is easy,mean and immorality.

    More Marisa:

    >I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one
    >person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective
    >response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The
    >subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
    >generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media
    >saturated culture.

    >And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy

    I'm sure you deeply doubt in moral of this video(simple psychological
    rule is when somebody talk
    about honest,there's something wrong with it,kind of "homosemantism",I supp=
    ose,equivalent in body
    language,touch nose when lie etc).
    I'm not familiar with "mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants",b=
    ut it's consolation for us to know that Mr.Linkoln is part of such semantic=
    disposed generation.
    He maid express his self one day?In culture...
    I'm disgust with people who profit on somebody else's pain.
    (Mr.Linkoln is paradigm for cases like that,as artist unimportant.)

    MANIK
  • Eric Dymond | Tue Feb 7th 2006 8:41 p.m.
    manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic wrote:

    > Obvious your role IS to do what you've already dun.
    > About "intention":my intention's to put in one grave all dead
    > person(soldie=
    > rs and their victims)in Iraq war.
    thats just silly.
    by the same extrapolation we could blame abe for Hiroshima, and every atrocity known to man.
    > Must I ask what you think about political consequence of such
    > "intention"?J=
    > ust think about Danish comic.
    > To treat Isabelle Dinoire on Mr.Linkolns way is easy,mean and
    > immorality.

    Why? Provide a little critical reasoning. I understand Annies discomfort, but you are just being beligerent.
    Describe the work, and then explore its meaning.
  • Lee Wells | Tue Feb 7th 2006 11:57 p.m.
    I love reading the list when it gets all revved up and the personalities
    textually collide.

    I think there could have been a more well thought out explanation about the
    piece as well. Only putting it context with his previous work doesn't
    doesn't quiet cut it. Abe's piece is kind of a one liner and conceptually
    falls short for me. I didn't see the interview on tv but saw the photos
    today in the paper in addition to Abe's video, I felt sorry for her.

    For as little as Abe has said today about his piece I find it interesting
    that Manik is the only one to evoke any sort of response out of him.

    Cheers,
    Lee

    On 2/7/06 4:13 PM, "aabrahams" <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:

    > I just watched the video again
    >
    > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary, more exciting
    > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more interesting
    > and even more artistic )
    >
    > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
    > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap without her
    > conscent.
    >
    > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
    > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
    > better with Orlan as the subject.
    >
    > bye
    > Annie
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >> I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln might
    >> have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece doesn't
    >> read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense that
    >> it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which are, in
    >> themselves, often "fun."
    >>
    >> To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
    >> Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    >> sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    >> impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely
    >> be read in that way.
    >>
    >> I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one
    >> person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective
    >> response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The
    >> subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
    >> generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media
    >> saturated culture.
    >>
    >> And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy
    >> debate about both cloning and copyright.
    >>
    >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.
    >>> this is not about truth or falsity
    >>
    >> I agree with you here, Annie.
    >>
    >> This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the
    >> observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself, is a
    >> complex operation...
    >>
    >> Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work. Dare I
    >> ask in what way "the images on the tele were a lot more impressive," and
    >> how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
    >> sentiment about the footage?
    >>
    >> I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and media
    >> treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
    >>
    >> Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications far
    >> broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
    >>
    >> Marisa
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
    >>> This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
    >>>
    >>>> "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.
    >>>> For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.
    >>>> you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly
    >>>> inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)
    >>>> and you didn't denounce anything
    >>>>
    >>>> you were
    >>>> just making fun?
    >>>>
    >>>> did I miss something?
    >>>>
    >>>> best Annie Abrahams"
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.
    >>> this is not about truth or falsity
    >>>
    >>> maybe about morals?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
    >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >>>>
    >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree. It was very engaging.
    >>>>
    >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    >>>>> *tell the truth*...
    >>>>
    >>>> I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
    >>>>
    >>>> *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
    >>>> *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?
    >>>> *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
    >>>> *[How] does it lie?
    >>>> *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some
    >>>> larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)
    >>>> *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of
    >>>> "documentary" material?
    >>>> *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?
    >>>> *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true
    >> footage
    >>>> plus true footage equals falsity..)?
    >>>> *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the
    >>>> larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw
    >>>> from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
    >>>>
    >>>> Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Marisa
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>> This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
    >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
    >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the
    >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.
    >>>>> Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
    >>>>> I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
    >>>>> particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I
    >>>>> call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,
    >>>>> and the synching of the final frames to the music, the
    >>>>> convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply
    >>>>> projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a
    >>>>> current event,the story of which moreover, even
    >>>>> allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our
    >>>>> media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,
    >>>>> resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep
    >>>>> strangeness, I don't deny)..
    >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it
    >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails
    >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to
    >>>>> *tell the truth*...
    >>>>> michael
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
    >
    > +
    > -> 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

    --
    Lee Wells
    Brooklyn, NY 11222

    http://www.leewells.org
    917 723 2524
  • Jason Van Anden | Wed Feb 8th 2006 7:27 a.m.
    I did not look at this work because I find the subject extremelydisturbing. I avoid Hirst's cut up animals for the same reason. Ihave enough trouble dealing with upsetting images once they enter myhead and have no desire to multiplex them.
    > I love reading the list when it gets all revved up and the personalities> textually collide.
    I'm with Lee.
    Jason Van Andenwww.smileproject.com

    On 2/8/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:> I love reading the list when it gets all revved up and the personalities> textually collide.>> I think there could have been a more well thought out explanation about the> piece as well. Only putting it context with his previous work doesn't> doesn't quiet cut it. Abe's piece is kind of a one liner and conceptually> falls short for me. I didn't see the interview on tv but saw the photos> today in the paper in addition to Abe's video, I felt sorry for her.>> For as little as Abe has said today about his piece I find it interesting> that Manik is the only one to evoke any sort of response out of him.>> Cheers,> Lee>>> On 2/7/06 4:13 PM, "aabrahams" <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:>> > I just watched the video again> >> > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary, more exciting> > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more interesting> > and even more artistic )> >> > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might> > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap without her> > conscent.> >> > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.> > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served> > better with Orlan as the subject.> >> > bye> > Annie> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:> >> I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln might> >> have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece doesn't> >> read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense that> >> it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which are, in> >> themselves, often "fun."> >>> >> To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.> >> Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue> >> sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or> >> impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely> >> be read in that way.> >>> >> I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one> >> person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective> >> response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The> >> subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a> >> generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media> >> saturated culture.> >>> >> And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy> >> debate about both cloning and copyright.> >>> >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.> >>> this is not about truth or falsity> >>> >> I agree with you here, Annie.> >>> >> This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the> >> observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself, is a> >> complex operation...> >>> >> Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work. Dare I> >> ask in what way "the images on the tele were a lot more impressive," and> >> how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your> >> sentiment about the footage?> >>> >> I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and media> >> treatment of this story to be more outrageous...> >>> >> Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications far> >> broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.> >>> >> Marisa> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:> >>> This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :> >>>> >>>> "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.> >>>> For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.> >>>> you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly> >>>> inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)> >>>> and you didn't denounce anything> >>>>> >>>> you were> >>>> just making fun?> >>>>> >>>> did I miss something?> >>>>> >>>> best Annie Abrahams"> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.> >>> this is not about truth or falsity> >>>> >>> maybe about morals?> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:> >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire> >>>>> >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of> >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the> >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.> >>>>> >>>> I agree. It was very engaging.> >>>>> >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it> >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails> >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to> >>>>> *tell the truth*...> >>>>> >>>> I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...> >>>>> >>>> *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?> >>>> *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?> >>>> *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?> >>>> *[How] does it lie?> >>>> *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some> >>>> larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)> >>>> *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of> >>>> "documentary" material?> >>>> *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?> >>>> *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true> >> footage> >>>> plus true footage equals falsity..)?> >>>> *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the> >>>> larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw> >>>> from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?> >>>>> >>>> Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)> >>>>> >>>> Marisa> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:> >>>>> This is as well made as one would expect it to be.> >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of> >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the> >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.> >>>>> Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?> >>>>> I think because it seems to impose a narrative from> >>>>> particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I> >>>>> call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,> >>>>> and the synching of the final frames to the music, the> >>>>> convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply> >>>>> projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a> >>>>> current event,the story of which moreover, even> >>>>> allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our> >>>>> media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,> >>>>> resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep> >>>>> strangeness, I don't deny)..> >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it> >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails> >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to> >>>>> *tell the truth*...> >>>>> michael> >>>>>> >>>>> --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire> >> > +> > -> 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>> --> Lee Wells> Brooklyn, NY 11222>> http://www.leewells.org> 917 723 2524>>> +> -> 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>

    --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

    --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com
  • Myron Turner | Wed Feb 8th 2006 8:48 a.m.
    This thread has worked up such a great amount of interest that I was finally drawn in to see what it was all about. I'm afraid I couldn't help finding the video amusing--it was so over the top. So the question is, first: what did I find amusing, and secondly at what is the amusement directed?

    My amusement was first of all separate from the subject, isabelle dinoire--that is, what I saw was a spoof of 40's/50's horror flicks. But, I had seen the Dinoire interview on the news, and cutting through the sympathy that one could not help but feel was her intention to continue smoking despite its dangers to the immune system and its potential to cause rejection. So, somehow absurdity seemed to pile on absurdity. And my amusement.

    But once the real Isabelle entered into my reaction, when I was no longer reacting to just the spoof of horror flicks, I had to step back and ask what kind of person I was to find this pathetic situation amusing. And here is where the second question comes in: at what is the amusement directed.

    Well, I don't really think I'm such a bad guy. But, I found her intention to continue smoking to be ridiculous, ethically ridiculous. Not that she doesn't have the right to destroy herslf. But here is a person who has focused on her case the attention of the world's medical community, who has put the state to great expense in order to undertake the procedure and who has moreover, willingly or not, participated in bringing the attention of the world to her plight and has implictly if not in fact explicity, in the interview, asked for our sympathy and good wishes. So her reckless disregard struck me as ridiculous, and I'm afraid that that sense of the ridiculous added to my amusement when I watched the video.

    That's my personal response. But it doesn't answer any questions about the video itself. Is the video in fact a spoof? And if so at what is the humor directed? Is it simply directed at the genre? Well, it can't be, at least not for us, since we can't dissociate it from the interview and the situation. Or is it a serious piece, expressing revulsion. If so, what's the revulsion directed at? Or is it ambidextrous, expressing both amusement and revulsion? Someone mentioned that the video is part of the artist's larger interest in re-mixing. I can see that, but I'm not clear about what the video wants us to understand from that allusion. I guest what I'm saying is that I don't feel the video supplies us with enough context to make these judgments and that we are left to supply the contexts ourselves. It's hard for me to believe, for instance, that there's not an element of pardoy in the piece. But to be honest, I'm not sure. And if there is parody, I'm not sure what the parody means. So,
    finally, I'm left on my own.
  • Nad | Wed Feb 8th 2006 3:20 p.m.
    Marisa Olson wrote:

    > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a
    > face.
    > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
    > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or
    > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can
    > definitely
    > be read in that way.
    >

    yes i also think one could read it in this way. However
    there is something crucially missing in this juxtaposition:

    What is so special about Dinoires case? Its not the remixing
    of tissue itself. It is the fact that the tissue comes from another
    persons face. a dead person. another living.

    and that fact is the scary and facinating part of it - not
    the way she looks like now or the tissue mixing.
    a face is also an interface. it is the bridge from the outside
    to the inside. if you meet someone you try to "read in his/her
    face". so what tells us her face now?

    I do not see that Abes work reflects this
    (to my point of view) most important part.
    So i miss it.

    Moreover I didnt see Isabelle Dinoire speaking, I
    saw only Abes video and the first thought i had was:
    you can always find someone make an odd face at a moment
    and then sample it into a horror face. My computer is
    quite slow and so even Marisas beautiful face (in your joint blog video)
    stopped sometimes in some awkward positions, which made her look "scary"
    once in a while :-).... So why is it so scary to see Isabelle
    Dinoire in Abes video?- my guess is that this is only
    in part due to the fact of her actual appearance it is mostly due to
    what we know about her... the fact of the dual person.

    Abes images are truely catching. He did a good job in choosing them.
    they are really sticky.
    however i cant help it, they remind me of some school yard situation:
    there was a girl who was heavily limping due to a polio.
    she also had to wear some device. there was a group of boys
    watching her and then some of the boys started to mimic her
    by limping around. the boys were scared, they were feeling
    uneasy and invoking the disrespectful reaction was somehow
    helping them. a strange mechanism, but one can observe it
    quite often.

    i do not want to draw any parallels to your work Abe I have
    no idea what your intentions were...this is just what i
    got in my head when i saw your video.

    Nad
  • Tiago Borges da Silva | Wed Feb 8th 2006 4 p.m.
    i think that only parts of her face have been replaced, not all of it
    (from what i got from the news) so i believe she still retains most
    of her original emotions (i think emotions express intuitive stuff
    and when we use our body language to communicate such things they
    transcend the physicality of the body, well, i think this experience
    will tell us more about how the body codes intuitive communication)

    kisses

    www.panda-man.info/w-o-r-d/

    tiago
    --

    ---------------------------_
  • Jim Andrews | Thu Feb 9th 2006 5:30 a.m.
    > hello,
    >
    > this video is about the truth of nerve endings and microphones.
    >
    > abe

    I haven't seen the original footage it was taken from. I suspect that must
    have been painful to view. Certainly viewing Abe's piece produced painful
    little shivers. Not solely at what the surgeons had done but what the video
    editing had done. A face transplant and then a video transplant of that.

    I wasn't sure, actually, about Abe's intent. I didn't really make any
    judgements about it.

    The video reminded me of something Salman Rushdie once said (and I
    undoubtedly recollect it improperly), to the effect that we sometimes become
    grotesques (but freer) in our nonetheless real and valuable attempts to heal
    ourselves in a world that is often grotesquely indifferent to pain and
    suffering.

    Of course the question crossed my mind if Abe was being cruel in his use of
    this footage, later, reading the posts, but that wasn't really clear to me
    in viewing the video, although it is painful to watch.

    But, Abe, I don't think you can hide behind statements like "this video is
    about the truth of nerve endings and microphones". That may or may not be
    what you thought it was about. It is definitely about this particular
    woman's pain, isn't it, whatever else it is about such as media blah blah.
    However you cut it. However you cut it, you cut her.

    It feels to me that you should acknowledge that. Presenting the pain of
    other people in works of art is not uncommon. It goes way back even beyond
    the tragedies to religious ritual. But it is still volatile and delicate as
    flesh and bone. As is the recognition.

    ja
  • curt cloninger | Sat Feb 11th 2006 12:32 a.m.
    Hi all,

    I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have a television and I don't read the news. Without the backstory, my only story is the video itself and your responses. Some observations from this perspective:

    1.
    People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have obviously been moved by a heroic media narrative. Having no backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only surmised a synopsis of the story via this thread, abe's piece seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled for the worst, and I almost didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I kept waiting to be disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or read something evocative in the media coverage that moved you, something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you see the "reality" of the event? Really?

    To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of the spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false sense of immunization that sucks you into an even deeper symbiotic relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris? Why are most of you still in New York, Los Angeles, and London? "Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."

    2.
    The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's piece is touching and brave. The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and truth are subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the nuanced differences between truth and reality in this context is like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey expresses a more appropriate sense of mourning.

    3.
    http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/silenthill/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIwCHNUazzE

    curt

    abe wrote:

    > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
Your Reply