Thanks for the replies. Using the translator below.
Martin's post translated:
Hello Max, not if your sequence makes quiza but noise,
the context of where arises SSSSHHHHHHHHT is the Colombian
context auque in general I believe that the means of the
world give too many seating things by and keep a silence
complice as opposed to many of the great problems (and
opportunities) that has the humanity.
I agree on the two main points, that noise is kind of a drag and open discussion is very often dangerous, a cause of damage and making worse of problems. Over this history of humanity open free discussion has been the exception, not the rule. This has many reasons. A big aspect of art and its attempt to maintain some degree of preservable development and evolution through time is that it has to avoid yelling fire in a crowded theater. And I am greatly in agreement that open discussion so to speak cannot get blood from a stone, not can it solve everything, nor is it usually harmless. I think one has to be careful and should try to manage one's sense of stress and confusion about being careful. For example, the great Galileo worked in his house and smuggled out his notes for the future to read, after things cooled off. Sometimes that is all that can be hoped for and is, as they say in tennis, the percentage play.
As for noise, I think noise is generally on the harmless side. It's just clutter, fuzz, nada. I frankly don't dislike it really. If it hurts the ears, i.e. is painfully loud, then sure. But I like non-specific sounds often. Sometimes noise means distraction from the game plan, i.e. the academic group consensus. And this can be a great irritant to some, who are trying to get a message across. For example, if the key mission of Rhizome today was to establish its Postmodernist loyalty and fealty to the New Museum leadership, then mentioning other options could be seen as a demoralizing distraction.
On the other hand, noise can be seen as a positive. Think of the image of moving your radio dial from station to station. There is static as you are searching for a station. Or, a researcher would collect a lot of disconnected data while doing experiments. What appears to be noise at first can take shape and make sense over time. Thus, looking for a new hypothesis for the art-historical period of the 21st c. would involve some noise or experimental data collection, by necessity. Also, even if very clear and coherent it could sound like noise from the prevailing perspective.
Total exclusion of noise is not necessarily the best plan, even when stability and security are the goal.
The debate over noise on Rhizome used to focus on people getting too many e-mails in their inbox, and having to press "delete" many times. Now with the postboard format that is not a concern. You can just scroll past whatever you wish to ignore, it's no difficulty at all.
Martin's post translated:
You have in general Jerga and a language very centralized
very moved away to my way to see of the multiplicity and
the Rhizoma I believe that if to which you talk about with
posmodernidad is to a specialized and academicista slang
or that on esteem the power and does not know you limit
them of the average because the average has you limit,
thresholds. In aim I believe that Deleuze used little I
finish posmoderno and permitia unexpected flows in his
practices and thought croe that if it already handled an
average one like this habria turned at least a source of
linguisticos encounter and sense but alla of its own
Although I'm pretty sure Postmodernism has very great flaws and weaknesses, I am not expertly well-read in all contemporary theory. I do know that Deleuze mentioned the idea of rhizomes, as opposed to arborescent or tree-like social information activities, and that Rhizome.org's name is kind of a reference to Deleuze. However I don't take this to mean only Deleuzianism should be allowed on Rhizome. I myself am also skeptical about Deleuze, based on what I know of his work. I wouldn't mind at all discussing it more and comparing it to Postmodernism and how this comparison affects Rhizome.org's relation to the New Museum and Postmodernism in general.
As a non-sequitur, famous curator Maxwell Anderson said around 2000 I think that art should try to get away from the academy. I'm not sure if he has changed his mind on that or not. But that comment may have meant that art should try to get away from Postmodernism. It's difficult to know. But it is true that most selling artists make their primary income from academic posts obtained after they have sold works. This applies to many literary writers too.
Back to the question of Deleuze qualifying as non-Postmodern and more free-form, i.e. not having such weaknesses as may be attributed to a calcified academic theory having reached maturity. All in all I would say that Deleuze was prejudiced against arborescent information functions, and ignored perhaps the value and necessity of long-term stable structures.
Yet I would have to study him more to get a complete discussion and analysis of his philosophy. Does anyone else here have more ideas about Deleuze or any critique of his work, Rhizome.org's modeling of itself on his idea of the rhizome, and so on? This could be a good topic to focus on regarding several current issues on the list.
Lastly, does "Jerga" mean jargon? A lot of talk about art and a lot of talk about ideas and so on can seem like jargon, I agree. However, I'm also skeptical of those who completely avoid logical or critical discussion, as that can be biased or arbitrary too and as such is very common in many social settings that wish to avoid unpleasant topics.
The Genius 2000 Network
Le Cafe online nowhttp://www.geocities.com/genius-2000