The Artist speaking of his Brushes

Posted by 100LUZiano testi paul | Thu Aug 8th 2002 1 a.m.

2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works focusing on anything related to computers and technology.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54346,00.html
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.

    http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236

    -e.

    100LUZiano testi paul wrote:

    >2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
    >RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works focusing on anything related to computers and technology.
    >
    >http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54346,00.html
    >+ working?????????
    >-> 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.php3
    >
  • Max Herman | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    The Six rules are fairly noumenous however they do address 1. The question
    of technology in design and 2. The number of human biology, i.e. 6. Seems to
    me they exist with this basic intention, and I acclaim Eryk in making simple
    basic rules. No one else seems to like it but it's a worthy vein,
    rule-making.

    I myself do not adhere or disadhere to the Six Rules, per se, as I am still
    in the process of a massive quadrahistoric dramaturgy of 4 and 4 governs my
    artistic process at the current time. By reason of technical poverty and a
    textual line, all my work before and after the Six Rules falls under or out
    of them at no great diminution i.e. standard deviation.

    I would also like to be known henceforth primarily as a "writer and
    mathematician." This is my preference, indeed my destiny. Those who might
    tar me as "a pschyo-polymath blasphemer" or heretic for saying "the six rules
    plus a/k/h/a equals ten dimensions of time in a 6/4 universe" are just not
    correct imao.

    However as we all know, it's in the numbers that do not add up we find the
    error-term, the art.

    Davis Jarman
    genius2000.net

    ++

    In a message dated 8/9/2002 1:03:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
    eryk@maine.rr.com writes:

    > Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.
    >
    > http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236
    >
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > 100LUZiano testi paul wrote:
    >
    > >2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
    > >RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works
    > focusing on anything related to computers and technology.
  • wowm .org | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    rule 2 - one of the best rules
    when i pointed that out on -empyre- list, they all jumped on me:
    how can you say that?!no intros?! blasphemy!!that's new public out there! t=
    hey won't understand a thing otherwise!
    m

    > Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.
    >
    > http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236
    >
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > 100LUZiano testi paul wrote:
    >
    > >2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
    > >RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works
    focusing on anything related to computers and technology.
    > >

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Nmherman@aol.com
    To: eryk@maine.rr.com ; nonsense@100luz.com.ar ; list@rhizome.org
    Cc: 7-11@mail.ljudmila.org
    Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:15 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: The Artist speaking of his Brushes

    The Six rules are fairly noumenous however they do address 1. The questi=
    on of technology in design and 2. The number of human biology, i.e. 6. See=
    ms to me they exist with this basic intention, and I acclaim Eryk in making=
    simple basic rules. No one else seems to like it but it's a worthy vein, =
    rule-making.

    I myself do not adhere or disadhere to the Six Rules, per se, as I am sti=
    ll in the process of a massive quadrahistoric dramaturgy of 4 and 4 governs=
    my artistic process at the current time. By reason of technical poverty a=
    nd a textual line, all my work before and after the Six Rules falls under o=
    r out of them at no great diminution i.e. standard deviation.

    I would also like to be known henceforth primarily as a "writer and mathe=
    matician." This is my preference, indeed my destiny. Those who might tar =
    me as "a pschyo-polymath blasphemer" or heretic for saying "the six rules p=
    lus a/k/h/a equals ten dimensions of time in a 6/4 universe" are just not c=
    orrect imao.

    However as we all know, it's in the numbers that do not add up we find th=
    e error-term, the art.

    Davis Jarman
    genius2000.net

    ++

    In a message dated 8/9/2002 1:03:45 AM Central Daylight Time, eryk@maine.=
    rr.com writes:

    Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.

    http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236

    -e.

    100LUZiano testi paul wrote:

    >2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
    >RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works=
    focusing on anything related to computers and technology.
  • Kanarinka | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    I would like to be known henceforth as a "superheroine of might" with
    "superhuman powers of flight" and "laser beam eyes that kill on sight".

    long live the six rules the twelve months the 24 hours of the day...

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
    Of Nmherman@aol.com
    Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:16 AM
    To: eryk@maine.rr.com; nonsense@100luz.com.ar; list@rhizome.org
    Cc: 7-11@mail.ljudmila.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: The Artist speaking of his Brushes

    The Six rules are fairly noumenous however they do address 1. The
    question of technology in design and 2. The number of human biology,
    i.e. 6. Seems to me they exist with this basic intention, and I acclaim
    Eryk in making simple basic rules. No one else seems to like it but
    it's a worthy vein, rule-making.

    I myself do not adhere or disadhere to the Six Rules, per se, as I am
    still in the process of a massive quadrahistoric dramaturgy of 4 and 4
    governs my artistic process at the current time. By reason of technical
    poverty and a textual line, all my work before and after the Six Rules
    falls under or out of them at no great diminution i.e. standard
    deviation.

    I would also like to be known henceforth primarily as a "writer and
    mathematician." This is my preference, indeed my destiny. Those who
    might tar me as "a pschyo-polymath blasphemer" or heretic for saying
    "the six rules plus a/k/h/a equals ten dimensions of time in a 6/4
    universe" are just not correct imao.

    However as we all know, it's in the numbers that do not add up we find
    the error-term, the art.

    Davis Jarman
    genius2000.net

    ++

    In a message dated 8/9/2002 1:03:45 AM Central Daylight Time,
    eryk@maine.rr.com writes:

    Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.

    http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236

    -e.

    100LUZiano testi paul wrote:

    >2:00 a.m. Aug. 8, 2002 PDT
    >RECIFE, Brazil -- Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works
    focusing on anything related to computers and technology.
  • Ivan Pope | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    > Imagine Rule #5 of the Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art.
    >
    > http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?3236

    Eryk strikes again. Personally, being of the anarchist pursuasion, I don't
    hold much with rules.
    Anyway, these rules are little more than a desire to
    a)see the work in isolation:

    2. No introduction pages - never apologise, never explain
    6. The work stands alone - no CVs, the artist ceases to exist

    and b) impose formal constraints on work:

    1. No Flash - its too common
    3. No more art for the sake of error - its too common
    4. Images must be unique to the sitemaker - you will knit your own images
    5. Technology is not a subject. The internet is not a subject - these
    subjects are simply irrelevant, my dears

    If we conform to these 'rules', we get to be 'New Net Art'. Well, of course
    everyone is completely free to invent their own movements, groupings,
    heresies, parties and sects. But is it art, and more to the point, is it any
    good, new, net, art or whatever.

    To strip Eryk down to the essense (with apologies for the editing):

    Boundaries ... inspired ... "heroic" early net.art
    ... a homoginization of net.art ... A design aesthetic prevails ... with no
    message or point or content.
    ... we seem mired in ... the trappings of tradition
    The new net.art will not appeal to [unbelievers]

    ... frustration at ... work on the internet ... has started to bore me
    ... means of provocation to thought
    ... other artists ... are ... falling into ... traps;
    the work I list below is ... merely rampant;

    Eryk's posting raises these issues for me:

    Surely in all areas of art, most is unimaginative and derivative. Visibly
    successful artists will 'inspire' countless copycats. Art becomes what art
    is seen to be. It is incredibly hard to break out of this vicious circle.
    Why do you think that your list will lead to the production of any art at
    all, let alone great art?
    Why are you driven to a public declaration of your dissatisfaction with the
    state of (digtally based) art? Is this a professional view, or a personal
    view? Does it bug you as an art consuming member of the public that there
    just isn't enough art about these days (goddam it, when I was a lad ...) or
    as an artist who needs to absorb x amount of art a week to survive (just
    need to find one more show before friday)?

    I find Eryk's rules a bit negative to do any good. Don't do this, don't do
    that, don't use this, don't use that. Actually the only positive rule is
    'you must use your own images' (which could also be construed as a negative
    rule - don't use other people's images). But how radical is this? I mean,
    it's Warhol and Duchamp v. every art school ever ...

    My view would be that a huge amount of work needs to be produced in order
    for the good stuff to emerge. It seems that one of the wonders of the global
    art scene is that there is so much going on, so much work towards the
    production of art. In this sea swim all art producers, all existing
    somewhere in the food chain. This is not a bad thing, it is the driver of
    art. Can you imagine a world in which only 'good' art is produced?

    I think that one thing
    Art-Which-Originates-To-Some-Degree-From-The-Digital-Realm needs is to align
    itself more with the long existing and structured non-digital art world. One
    of the problems with AWOTSDFTDR is that the tools and the routines are so
    seductive, so replete with possibility. The distribution mechanism is so
    open, so grateful. The colours are dead sexy. Flash is flashy. Viruses are
    nom de la jour. Whatever it might seem from inside Rhizome, almost the
    entire world doesn't have a clue how this is all done (and nor do I, come to
    that).
    Maybe what Eryk is saying is 'Look guys, we're about to be rumbled that we
    are in love with our tools but have not managed to rise above them.'

    Here's my stab at some rules of thumb for artists who happen to find
    themselves working in the digital zone:

    Make work with atoms on a regular basis
    Don't master your tools, let them confuse you
    Aspire to allude to something fundamental to humanity but don't care if
    no-one gets it
    Let your work slide back and forth between the digital and the analog
    Aspire to be exhibited in the greatest of galleries and to win the greatest
    of art prizes
    Don't be afraid to throw a pot of paint in the eye of your fellow artists

    Eryk also said:
    >If no one responds to it, I am quitting the list.

    Actually, if it wasn't for the few Eryks, I would quit this list.

    Does anyone else feel that there is little or no discussion, community,
    passion, planning on this (or any other) list?

    Cheers,
    Ivan
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    Donna and I will henceforth be known as the "Wonder Twins" and each time we
    start a show or use our pocketpcs to beam each other, we will say "Wonder Twin
    Powers Activate!"

    Screw the rules, the sun, and we are supposed to be living 25 hour days anyway.

    Cheers ;)

    --
    Joseph Franklyn McElroy
    Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
  • Christopher Fahey | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    > "Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works focusing
    > on anything related to computers and technology."
    > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54346,00.html

    I read the rest of the article, and it seems to me that ALL of the work
    is focused very much on being "about technology". None of them would
    pass Eryk's rule#5 (which, by the way, is my favorite rule, even though
    I break it a lot because I love science fiction too much).

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Ivan,

    >If we conform to these 'rules', we get to be 'New Net Art'. Well, of course
    >everyone is completely free to invent their own movements, groupings,
    >heresies, parties and sects. But is it art, and more to the point, is it any
    >good, new, net, art or whatever.
    >

    Actually if a work conforms to the rules, I've been referring to it as
    "Six Rules Compliant," or 6RC, which is nice because it looks like an
    internet service provider, not to mention that purely aesthetically the
    characters make some nice loops, the 6 and the R look like they're
    connecting, that sort of thing.

    "Is it art" is the question and I guess according the some discussions,
    it isn't, so I guess I will have to live with that. But frankly the
    rules don't guarantee at all that it is art, or good art; they're just a
    template to lay over any concepts you might have, so that you can find
    ways around expressing them in common ways. If it's "bad art" [although
    I thought that there was no such thing as "bad art" anymore] in flash it
    will probably be "bad art" if it's 6RC; the point is that with 6RC it
    would almost have to be a noble visual experiment vs a bad flash
    animation. This of course isn't the only rule; but just as an example.
    I'm using ASCII a lot now, maybe if everyone else did it would get
    boring to me; though I doubt it because I like ascii for a multitude of
    reasons. But the rules can help people define their own aesthetic; I
    don't see anything wrong with that. Maybe one's aesthetic is Macromedia
    products- and surely, it works for Turux; Oculart, and a multitude of
    others. Fine by me.

    >Surely in all areas of art, most is unimaginative and derivative. Visibly
    >successful artists will 'inspire' countless copycats. Art becomes what art
    >is seen to be. It is incredibly hard to break out of this vicious circle.
    >Why do you think that your list will lead to the production of any art at
    >all, let alone great art?
    >

    Well as far as I can tell this question is mute, since the Rules have
    apparently inspired some work to be made; which is nice, and most of it
    I have liked. Do I think it will produce "Great Art"? As you're an
    anarchist I am surprised you would use that term. I don't really know
    what "Great Art" means; surely some would say it is impossible to do it
    with online art, some would say it is impossible to do, period. Some
    would say it impossible to do with my rules, some might say it is only
    possible with my rules. How do you define "Great Art"? Once you have
    that definition, do you see any way for "Great Art" to be done in the
    framework of the six rules? Whatever your answer is, is your answer for
    both.

    >Why are you driven to a public declaration of your dissatisfaction with the
    >state of (digitally based) art?
    >

    I don't like being bored by a lot of what I see, and I also don't like
    this rush towards technology that gets abandoned as soon as the new
    shiny thing comes out for everyone to buy. The rules are reductive,
    they're a "step back" that is really still lateral. I was tired of these
    arguments that the only way you could do new media anymore was to create
    software or massive flash/director files. I like the Six Rules because
    they are entry level; you can come in and follow those rules and you are
    making art and contributing to dialogue.

    >Is this a professional view, or a personal
    >view?
    >

    I don't know if there is a difference really.

    >I find Eryk's rules a bit negative to do any good. Don't do this, don't do
    >that, don't use this, don't use that.
    >

    Interesting; I felt that these made the rules a lot more open ended.
    They're reductive rules. Would people care if I said "You must use HTML
    only, and then when you use it, you must talk about emotional subjects,
    or else you're not art." That's kind of disgusting to me. I don't want
    to tell people what to do, but I don't mind saying what they should
    avoid doing. Maybe there's no difference? People can talk about anything
    they want with the six rules; except for technology. People can use any
    approach they want- graphics, text only- except for flash. People can
    take images from anywhere they want, just don't type in "ascot" at
    googles image directory and then take that image and put it on your
    ascot art website. I even suggested someone take a still photo of the
    screen after finding an image they wanted. The point is that the image
    would end up more reflective of your approach.

    > Actually the only positive rule is
    >'you must use your own images' (which could also be construed as a negative
    >rule - don't use other people's images). But how radical is this? I mean,
    >it's Warhol and Duchamp v. every art school ever ...
    >

    Oh yeah, see above. Use images from anywhere but make them your own
    somehow. I'm rethinking Rule 4 to exclude the word "re-appropriation,"
    especially since I already struck the thirty percent rule, this one
    seems too stringent.

    >In this sea swim all art producers, all existing
    >somewhere in the food chain. This is not a bad thing, it is the driver of
    >art. Can you imagine a world in which only 'good' art is produced?
    >

    I think you overestimate the power of the Six Rules. And we never
    defined "good art" anyway.

    >Here's my stab at some rules of thumb for artists who happen to find
    >themselves working in the digital zone:
    >
    >Make work with atoms on a regular basis
    >

    I actually hate to say that after making some of my first ASCII prints
    that the idea of the physical object is seductive. But at the same time
    it's kind of absurd; I don't really get why the image is different on
    photographic stock as opposed to on the computer; where the light is
    brighter and everything is more hi tech and wow-ing. But other than
    that, I grew up on the internet. In high school I was bored by the
    drawing classes [my teacher kept chastising me for writing words on the
    paper] and most of the only art I have ever done offline was Graffiti,
    which was the same sort of open-publishing system, and definitely kept
    me impressed with getting my "work" in a bathroom stall or in the
    Guggenheim; they're both impressive ups where your word will be
    remembered. So I don't really have any physical objects, three
    paintings, that's it. I don't know if that is a major problem for me. I
    like the work I make online. I don't play a musical instrument either,
    except for the computer, and I have a cd coming out. Isn't all that
    quite good, though? I mean democratic, open ended. Computer art takes a
    new kind of talent I think, it's one that we haven't been able to
    recognize really but we're starting to.

    For visual work, it's primarily the talent of choice; you have various
    options to execute on your concepts, so which option do you choose?
    Which concepts do you choose? The brain does the same thing with
    physical objects. The difference is just in efficiency. If digital art
    is not remembered for any tactile skill, then maybe digital artists
    should be referred to as "choice artists". It's how the computer music
    is made, it's how the computer art is made.

    >Aspire to allude to something fundamental to humanity but don't care if
    >no-one gets it
    >

    I don't know, "not caring is anyone gets it" is kind of elitist isn't
    it? I mean if I make work for people why shouldn't I want them to "get
    it?" I think we're better off just making art that doesn't insult the
    intelligence of the general public, but isn't so wrapped up in
    personalized metaphors that it can't connect to anyone.

    Cheers,
    -e.

    >
    >
  • MTAA | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    i agree with chris. for example, the piece with 2 cyborgs making love
    seems to me to be about tech, no?

    from the article:
    One of the pieces in the man and machine group is Cyborg Sex Manual,
    from WRO (Poland), where the spectator becomes a voyeur watching two
    cyborgs. Created by Peter Style, in association with Rafal Ewertowski
    (3-D modeling) and Michale van der Hagen (interaction programming),
    Cyborg Sex Manual is dedicated to young cyborgs.

    it's hook is the tech (ie cyborg).

    anyway...

    it's a good idea to start working with subject matter and content
    that has nothing to do with tech.

    at eyebeam a while back was exhibited one of the most successful new
    media works using tech transparently. a video installation which
    consisted of a projection on the floor of figures walking about in
    urban settings created using motion capture and 3D modeling and
    animation. the vantage point was from far overhead and the illusion
    was very clever. the walking figures would create dance-like patterns
    now and then. it was riveting. but i can't find the name of the piece
    or the artists with a quick search.. sorry.

    At 13:10 -0400 8/9/02, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
    >> "Imagine a celebration of digital art that bans works focusing
    >> on anything related to computers and technology."
    >> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,54346,00.html
    >
    >I read the rest of the article, and it seems to me that ALL of the work
    >is focused very much on being "about technology". None of them would
    >pass Eryk's rule#5 (which, by the way, is my favorite rule, even though
    >I break it a lot because I love science fiction too much).
    >
    >-Cf
    >

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Christopher Fahey | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    > i agree with chris. for example, the piece with 2
    > cyborgs making love seems to me to be about
    > tech, no?
    >
    > from the article:
    > One of the pieces in the man and machine group
    > is Cyborg Sex Manual, from WRO (Poland), where
    > the spectator becomes a voyeur watching two
    > cyborgs.
    >
    > it's hook is the tech (ie cyborg).

    Wow! Wired... inaccurate? Practicing hyperbole? I'm shocked?

    > at eyebeam a while back was exhibited one of the
    > most successful new media works using tech
    > transparently. a video installation which consisted of
    > a projection on the floor of figures walking about in
    > urban settings created using motion capture and 3D
    > modeling and animation.
    <snip>
    > it was riveting. but i can't find the name of the piece or the artists
    with a quick search.. sorry.

    It's by Shelley Eshkar (an old chum of mine) and Paul Kaiser:

    http://www.artproductionfund.org/pedestrian/pedestrian_pres.html

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • Ivan Pope | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    > Hi Ivan,

    Firstly, if I might just say this, whether we agree or disagree, I love your
    submissions because they give us something to talk about on this generally
    sterile list, and I think we could spend a few nights in the bar together.
    And I think the rules are certainly a step in a correct direction.
    Anyway ...

    >> If we conform to these 'rules', we get to be 'New Net Art'.
    >>
    >
    > Actually if a work conforms to the rules, I've been referring to it as
    > "Six Rules Compliant,"

    Are you here referring to your original rules or these new rules?
    Oh god, this is so freaky to me. Am I six rules compliant, should I care? I
    understand what you are trying to do: get those working with technology to
    confront the fact that they are playing games. But rules is rules. Made to
    be broken. I think my main issue is that your rules are like a checklist: do
    I comply, whoops, 40% of my work is in Flash, better cut that back a bit and
    scrap the CV. Then I am compliant and will avoid the discursive police.

    >> Surely in all areas of art, most is unimaginative and derivative. Visibly
    >> successful artists will 'inspire' countless copycats. Art becomes what art
    >> is seen to be. It is incredibly hard to break out of this vicious circle.
    >> Why do you think that your list will lead to the production of any art at
    >> all, let alone great art?
    >>
    >
    > Do I think it will produce "Great Art"? As you're an
    > anarchist I am surprised you would use that term. I don't really know
    > what "Great Art" means; ... How do you define "Great Art"?

    By great art I mean surely that we aspire to art being as good as it
    possibly can be, that we aspire to our art remaining in the minds of those
    who have seen it, that it challenges them, worries them, confuses them,
    keeps them coming back wondering. Im not sure why anarchy and great art are
    mutually exclusive? Great art is just the art that changes our view of the
    world. Anarchy is just an absence of given rules.

    >> Why are you driven to a public declaration of your dissatisfaction with the
    >> state of (digitally based) art?
    >>
    > I don't like being bored by a lot of what I see, and I also don't like
    > this rush towards technology that gets abandoned as soon as the new
    > shiny thing comes out for everyone to buy. ... I like the Six Rules because
    > they are entry level; you can come in and follow those rules and you are
    > making art and contributing to dialogue.

    I still dont see why you feel that it is a public issue: that you are bored,
    that you feel it should be like this or like that, so what? And for the six
    rules, I mean, are you Chairman Mao? I find your statement that by following
    the six rules you are making art to be preposterous. Surely by following the
    six rules you are avoiding boring Eryk Salvaggio. Whatever else you are
    doing is in the lap of the gods. I guess my point here is that your six
    rules are nothing of the sort. They are like the prescriptions of bored
    busybodies everywhere: dont do this, dont do that, do this, it will all be
    alright. Sod it, Eryk, dont tell people not to do what people want to do.
    Write long learned papers regretting the trend towards the attachment of a
    CV to every bit of work, or the overuse of Flash, make you case where you
    wish. But to impose rules on us like we are imbiciles, no, please.

    >> I find Eryk's rules a bit negative to do any good. Don't do this, don't
    do
    >> that, don't use this, don't use that.
    >>
    >
    > Interesting; I felt that these made the rules a lot more open ended.
    > They're reductive rules. Would people care if I said "You must use HTML
    > only, and then when you use it, you must talk about emotional subjects,
    > or else you're not art." That's kind of disgusting to me. I don't want
    > to tell people what to do, but I don't mind saying what they should
    > avoid doing. Maybe there's no difference? People can talk about anything
    > they want with the six rules; except for technology.

    Well, Id rather you didnt invent rules but engaged in a conversation about
    what ails you. There is a lot to be said on this subject. But I just find
    your rules to be banal and barely thought out. Just tossed off. How long did
    you ponder them? They vary from the absolutist (dont promote yourself) to
    the trivial (dont use more than 70% Flash, I mean, where did that come from,
    how about 65% or 80%)

    Cheers, Ivan
  • Max Herman | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 8/9/2002 12:11:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
    askROM@graphpaper.com writes:

    > I love science fiction too much

    So I got my deck back. This is some serious Chinese ice-carver, don't ask
    where they got it so I didn't. The ninja knew how to hunt and kill in the
    dark. Liquid in the earth.

    Bob

    ++
  • joseph mcelroy | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    Finally he spoke a few simple words that were to change the direction of my
    life once again. He said, "I find that the longer I live, the more I worry
    about people and the less I worry about rules."

    I doubt if you can imagine the impact these words had on me. This was
    practically a sacrilege, and of course doubly astounding coming from a priest.
    Not worry about rules? My God, if you don't worry about rules what do you worry
    about -- if you're a Roman Catholic?

    Providence (from Ishmael Community www.ishmael.com)

    -------------------------------------------------
    This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri Aug 9th 2002 1 a.m.
    Hi Ivan.

    Ivan Pope wrote:

    >>Firstly, if I might just say this, whether we agree or disagree, I love your
    >>submissions because they give us something to talk about on this generally
    >>sterile list, and I think we could spend a few nights in the bar together.
    >>And I think the rules are certainly a step in a correct direction.
    >>Anyway ...
    >>

    I ordered a Shirley Temple the last time I was in a bar and the waitress
    refused to serve it to me. True story.

    >Are you here referring to your original rules or these new rules?
    >

    Oh these are the same rules. I linked to the archived rule list. Maybe
    this is where I should end this whole email discussion, but I have a
    bowl of cinnamon toast crunch to get through and nowhere to go.

    >But rules is rules. Made to
    >be broken.
    >

    This is the unspoken rule of the six rules. I need to rewrite them, get
    them more concrete, I don't know. All that you say about the checklist
    for good art, I think is a great idea. If only we had more of these
    checklists. "Rap-Core? Okay; Not 6RC, move along now." It makes the
    whole art process easier I think, if you can just have a list to look at
    when you're doing it. Paint by Numbers Net.Art, for example. Second, all
    I was trying to do, really, was identify cliches, as I saw them. If
    people want to ignore the rules I'm not out to put tanks on their
    borders. And as I have been quick to say, I like a lot of art that
    breaks the rules. Maybe I should be more staunch about it. But I like
    Lia, and JODI especially, even though Lia = Macromedia and JODI = "about
    technology."

    >I think my main issue is that your rules are like a checklist: do
    >I comply, whoops, 40% of my work is in Flash, better cut that back a bit and
    >scrap the CV. Then I am compliant and will avoid the discursive police.
    >

    Oh, I don't know. I seldom bring up the rules unless it is in relation
    to my own work. Maybe if a new piece by someone else is in flagrant
    violation of my six rules I'll mention it; consider it a permanent guide
    to constructive criticism by Eryk Salvaggio, if anyone ever wants it. I
    also prefer the rules to be looked at as a puzzle to solve, not as a
    checklist. That is to say; an artist might have an idea but wonder how
    to express such an idea. Then the artist can say "Maybe I will make it
    6RC." If they do and it is good, then good for me, because I won't be
    bored by it. In the process they'll maybe discover a technique they like
    for themselves. The rules aren't criticism, not really; they're an
    invitation to expanding one's horizons. You are assailing me for
    publishing a cook book because you mistake it for a menu.

    I don't think artists should be afraid of the discourse police, and I
    don't think they should be afraid of rules. Rules are a tool to make
    things easier. Break them if you want to and if you can pull it off.
    Break them if you don't want to and can't pull it off, for all I care.
    I've dealt with it for a while; at the same time I think it can be
    annoying. If an artist isn't going to make work because of my six rules
    then I don't know, consider this my apology now, to all of mankind, for
    all the lost pieces of art I am responsible for.

    >Im not sure why anarchy and great art are
    >mutually exclusive? Great art is just the art that changes our view of the
    >world. Anarchy is just an absence of given rules.
    >

    But to have "Great Art" you have a checklist yourself things it must be;
    these are rules. I don't like arguing about anarchy- I consider myself
    an anarchosocialist in theory and a typical Green in practice. I mean
    calling things great or not implies a values judgment and value
    judgments are based on power because one must be in a position of power
    to make them. Just a thought is all.

    >I still dont see why you feel that it is a public issue: that you are bored,
    >that you feel it should be like this or like that, so what?
    >

    I don't know, why are we talking about it then?

    >And for the six
    >rules, I mean, are you Chairman Mao? I find your statement that by following
    >the six rules you are making art to be preposterous.
    >

    Well I would too, if I ever made that claim I guess I could argue with
    you, but that has never been what I said.

    >Whatever else you are
    >doing is in the lap of the gods. I guess my point here is that your six
    >rules are nothing of the sort. They are like the prescriptions of bored
    >busybodies everywhere: dont do this, dont do that, do this, it will all be
    >alright. Sod it, Eryk, dont tell people not to do what people want to do.
    >

    Okay.

    >Write long learned papers regretting the trend towards the attachment of a
    >CV to every bit of work, or the overuse of Flash, make you case where you
    >wish. But to impose rules on us like we are imbiciles, no, please.
    >

    Oh that sounds really uninteresting don't you think? Aren't all these
    papers just about forcing out people in a more subtle way? I believe in
    the new criticism, where the agendas are up front. The six rules weren't
    a high minded way of ostracizing people the way most academic texts and
    criticisms can be.

    >
    >Well, Id rather you didnt invent rules but engaged in a conversation about
    >what ails you.
    >

    That's what happened when I published the rules. That is what we are doing.

    >There is a lot to be said on this subject. But I just find
    >your rules to be banal and barely thought out. Just tossed off. How long did
    >you ponder them?
    >

    I guess you have a lot to say about the banal. I've been formulating the
    rules since my net.art resignation in early 2000.

    >They vary from the absolutist (dont promote yourself) to
    >the trivial (dont use more than 70% Flash, I mean, where did that come from,
    >how about 65% or 80%)
    >

    That rule has been eliminated for the Exhibition at the University of
    Colorado, date to be announced. It is now "No Flash," pure and simple.
    Also since I revised the thirty percent rule I'm rethinking the rule
    about documentary photos only and allowing for alteration of images one
    presents. I'll do it later on sometime.

    Cheers,
    -e.
  • Plasma Studii | Sat Aug 10th 2002 1 a.m.
    ------------- Forwarded message follows -------------

    a)see the work in isolation:
    >
    > 2. No introduction pages - never apologise, never explain
    > 6. The work stands alone - no CVs, the artist ceases to exist
    >
    > and b) impose formal constraints on work:
    >
    > 1. No Flash - its too common
    > 3. No more art for the sake of error - its too common
    > 4. Images must be unique to the sitemaker - you will knit your own
    images
    > 5. Technology is not a subject. The internet is not a subject - these
    > subjects are simply irrelevant, my dears
    >

    Hey, if this is a fair summary of those rule Eryk made up, sounds cool
    but even too nice. No apologies/explanaitions/intros is wonderful but
    not as wonderful as beautiful work that needs no explanation. The
    statue of David. Nothing there to think about, no words (unless you
    happen to be one of those people who can't quite manager to get one's
    head out of one's ass), wether you like it or not, just look at it.

    but wouldn't it be more effective to say no Flash that looks like
    Flash? Flash is a royal pain to use, buggy, inconsistantly
    designed, ... but those are problems for the author to deal with. If
    that's all fine with them, then who cares. Who would know?

    I'm just sick of the Flash look. I don't want to see Java that looks
    like Flash either. I don't want to think about what stupid program an
    artist used to make something. I wanna see the art. If I want to see
    the "paint brushes" I have the manuals.

    But more important than some random person picking up the rules and
    applying them to their work, for them to recognize their own
    tendancies, their own bad habits. To construct their own personal list
    of rules.

    "Rules" is a dumn word anyway. Think of them as "premises". These are
    ivan's. They are cool too. Neither apply to what I do, but I doubt
    my "rules" would help them in any way, either.

    >
    > Make work with atoms on a regular basis
    > Don't master your tools, let them confuse you
    > Aspire to allude to something fundamental to humanity but don't care
    if
    > no-one gets it
    > Let your work slide back and forth between the digital and the analog
    > Aspire to be exhibited in the greatest of galleries and to win the
    greatest
    > of art prizes
    > Don't be afraid to throw a pot of paint in the eye of your fellow
    artists
    >

    ___________________
    PLASMA STUDII
    PMB 130
    New York, NY 10003
    http://plasmastudii.org
  • Pall Thayer | Sat Aug 10th 2002 1 a.m.
    I don't understand why we can't have the CV. At traditional art exhibits
    the visitors usually have access to a bunch of information about the
    artist and his/her art (frequently it's way too much but it's there none
    the less). Also, I agree with qwerty on the Flash. Alot of Flash users
    seem to want everything flash look the same. For instance, you gotta
    have a "loading" bar. I'll bet a bunch of people delay their movies on
    purpose just so everyone can see their cool "loading" bar. But Flash has
    a lot to offer. Maybe that's just one of the rules we have to see if we
    can break and pull it off.

    Otherwise they seem to me like a good, sound set of rules. I think if we
    can get a good sized group working along a defined set of guidlines that
    everyone agrees with, that might be one of the first true steps forward
    for internet based art. At least one that comes from the artists and not
    from Macromedia.

    Hinn 10.08.2002 kl. 03:55 ritadhi Eryk Salvaggio:

    >
    >
    > Hi Ivan.
    >
    >
    >
    > Ivan Pope wrote:
    >
    >>> Firstly, if I might just say this, whether we agree or disagree, I
    >>> love your
    >>> submissions because they give us something to talk about on this
    >>> generally
    >>> sterile list, and I think we could spend a few nights in the bar
    >>> together.
    >>> And I think the rules are certainly a step in a correct direction.
    >>> Anyway ...
    >>>
    >
    > I ordered a Shirley Temple the last time I was in a bar and the
    > waitress refused to serve it to me. True story.
    >
    >
    >> Are you here referring to your original rules or these new rules?
    >>
    >
    > Oh these are the same rules. I linked to the archived rule list. Maybe
    > this is where I should end this whole email discussion, but I have a
    > bowl of cinnamon toast crunch to get through and nowhere to go.
    >
    >> But rules is rules. Made to
    >> be broken.
    >
    > This is the unspoken rule of the six rules. I need to rewrite them, get=

    > them more concrete, I don't know. All that you say about the checklist
    > for good art, I think is a great idea. If only we had more of these
    > checklists. "Rap-Core? Okay; Not 6RC, move along now." It makes the
    > whole art process easier I think, if you can just have a list to look
    > at when you're doing it. Paint by Numbers Net.Art, for example. Second,=

    > all I was trying to do, really, was identify cliches, as I saw them. If=

    > people want to ignore the rules I'm not out to put tanks on their
    > borders. And as I have been quick to say, I like a lot of art that
    > breaks the rules. Maybe I should be more staunch about it. But I like
    > Lia, and JODI especially, even though Lia = Macromedia and JODI =
    > "about technology."
    >
    >
    >> I think my main issue is that your rules are like a checklist: do
    >> I comply, whoops, 40% of my work is in Flash, better cut that back a
    >> bit and
    >> scrap the CV. Then I am compliant and will avoid the discursive police.
    >>
    >
    > Oh, I don't know. I seldom bring up the rules unless it is in relation
    > to my own work. Maybe if a new piece by someone else is in flagrant
    > violation of my six rules I'll mention it; consider it a permanent
    > guide to constructive criticism by Eryk Salvaggio, if anyone ever wants=

    > it. I also prefer the rules to be looked at as a puzzle to solve, not
    > as a checklist. That is to say; an artist might have an idea but wonder=

    > how to express such an idea. Then the artist can say "Maybe I will make=

    > it 6RC." If they do and it is good, then good for me, because I won't
    > be bored by it. In the process they'll maybe discover a technique they
    > like for themselves. The rules aren't criticism, not really; they're an=

    > invitation to expanding one's horizons. You are assailing me for
    > publishing a cook book because you mistake it for a menu.
    >
    > I don't think artists should be afraid of the discourse police, and I
    > don't think they should be afraid of rules. Rules are a tool to make
    > things easier. Break them if you want to and if you can pull it off.
    > Break them if you don't want to and can't pull it off, for all I care.
    > I've dealt with it for a while; at the same time I think it can be
    > annoying. If an artist isn't going to make work because of my six rules=

    > then I don't know, consider this my apology now, to all of mankind, for=

    > all the lost pieces of art I am responsible for.
    >
    >
    >> Im not sure why anarchy and great art are
    >> mutually exclusive? Great art is just the art that changes our view of=

    >> the
    >> world. Anarchy is just an absence of given rules.
    >>
    >
    > But to have "Great Art" you have a checklist yourself things it must
    > be; these are rules. I don't like arguing about anarchy- I consider
    > myself an anarchosocialist in theory and a typical Green in practice. I=

    > mean calling things great or not implies a values judgment and value
    > judgments are based on power because one must be in a position of power=

    > to make them. Just a thought is all.
    >
    >
    >> I still dont see why you feel that it is a public issue: that you are
    >> bored,
    >> that you feel it should be like this or like that, so what?
    >
    > I don't know, why are we talking about it then?
    >
    >
    >> And for the six
    >> rules, I mean, are you Chairman Mao? I find your statement that by
    >> following
    >> the six rules you are making art to be preposterous.
    >
    > Well I would too, if I ever made that claim I guess I could argue with
    > you, but that has never been what I said.
    >
    >> Whatever else you are
    >> doing is in the lap of the gods. I guess my point here is that your six
    >> rules are nothing of the sort. They are like the prescriptions of bored
    >> busybodies everywhere: dont do this, dont do that, do this, it will
    >> all be
    >> alright. Sod it, Eryk, dont tell people not to do what people want to
    >> do.
    >>
    >
    > Okay.
    >
    >
    >> Write long learned papers regretting the trend towards the attachment
    >> of a
    >> CV to every bit of work, or the overuse of Flash, make you case where
    >> you
    >> wish. But to impose rules on us like we are imbiciles, no, please.
    >>
    >
    > Oh that sounds really uninteresting don't you think? Aren't all these
    > papers just about forcing out people in a more subtle way? I believe in=

    > the new criticism, where the agendas are up front. The six rules
    > weren't a high minded way of ostracizing people the way most academic
    > texts and criticisms can be.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> Well, Id rather you didnt invent rules but engaged in a conversation
    >> about
    >> what ails you.
    >
    > That's what happened when I published the rules. That is what we are
    > doing.
    >
    >
    >> There is a lot to be said on this subject. But I just find
    >> your rules to be banal and barely thought out. Just tossed off. How
    >> long did
    >> you ponder them?
    >
    > I guess you have a lot to say about the banal. I've been formulating
    > the rules since my net.art resignation in early 2000.
    >
    >> They vary from the absolutist (dont promote yourself) to
    >> the trivial (dont use more than 70% Flash, I mean, where did that come=

    >> from,
    >> how about 65% or 80%)
    >>
    >
    > That rule has been eliminated for the Exhibition at the University of
    > Colorado, date to be announced. It is now "No Flash," pure and simple.
    > Also since I revised the thirty percent rule I'm rethinking the rule
    > about documentary photos only and allowing for alteration of images one=

    > presents. I'll do it later on sometime.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > + vs. every art school ever...
    > -> 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.php3
    >
    >
    _____________________________________
    Pall Thayer
    myndlistamadhur/kennari
    artist/teacher
    Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
    http://www.this.is/pallit
    _____________________________________
  • Christopher Fahey | Sun Aug 11th 2002 1 a.m.
    > No apologies/explanaitions/intros is wonderful but
    > not as wonderful as beautiful work that needs no explanation. The
    > statue of David. Nothing there to think about, no words (unless you
    > happen to be one of those people who can't quite manager to get one's
    > head out of one's ass), wether you like it or not, just look at it.

    Unless you're a martian or a philistine (!), there are LOTS of things
    that you are probably thinking about when you see David.

    It seems to me that it would greatly help one's appreciation of David to
    know who the heck that "David" guy is. It's not just Michaelangelo's
    "Naked Man" - it's "David"! It's got to add *something* to your
    experience to understand what that sling and rock he's holding are used
    for, who Goliath was, who the Jews are, and how important David is to
    the Old Testament and to Jewish history. Is this before or after he
    slays Goliath? Is he showing pride in what he has accomplished (if so,
    where's the head of Goliath that so many other sculptors include with
    David?) or cockiness in what he is about to do?

    The Israelites were not known for fighting buck naked. Why, then, did
    Michealangelo make David naked? You may already know enough about
    Michaelangelo to know how deeply he appreciated the male nude. Does this
    knowledge not affect your understanding and appreciation of the work?
    Ever wonder why this Jewish prince has a foreskin?

    There are other historical things that make the appreciation of it so
    much richer, at least to me: To understand how the sculpture was meant
    to be placed on a tower and viewed from 50 feet below, explaining why
    his head, neck, and hands are disproportionally large. To understand
    that Michaelangelo carved it from a single legendarily huge block of the
    most expensive marble around - and the economics and politics
    surrounding that kind of expenditure. To understand how difficult,
    time-consuming, and dangerous carving and polishing marble really is (I
    mean, he didn't make it out of clay). To understand that so many other
    great sculptors had made great sculptures of David before, and that by
    making a David, Michaelangelo knew he would be compared to Donatello and
    others.

    Having any knowledge at all about an artwork is, to me, like opening a
    Pandora's box: it's folly to pretend I have no knowledge, to pretend
    that I have a "virgin eye". And once I have some knowledge, I always
    want more.

    > "Rules" is a dumn word anyway.

    Yeah!

    -Cf

    [christopher eli fahey]
    art: http://www.graphpaper.com
    sci: http://www.askrom.com
    biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
  • Lewis LaCook | Sun Aug 11th 2002 1 a.m.
    > It seems to me that it would greatly help one's appreciation of David to know who the heck that "David" guy is. =====
    ~~~~true, yes....just as image and text appropriation and re-contextualization work best when the user/viewer has some knowledge of the source, or can at least recognize it....
    p.s.====i use flash all the time...."corporate crap?" (i got this from jess' post, her complaint about this attitude, don't know if these sentiments are attributed to you)~~~~~& how do you suppose the infrastructure of this "internet" thing you're using got developed? to brand flash as corporate and denigrate it because of this is foolish...what's in it's place? html? javascript? seems to me people use those things in the corporate world too...how about visual basic? hmmmm....programming windows applications easier....i'm tired of discussions about flash being "corporate"....it's a tool...language is a tool, and the state taught you language, and your parents, both institutions being cultural apparti====to argue for some "pure" net art is foolish...the machines we work on are made by corporations...the network is supported by corporations...
    it's not the origin of the tool, kids...it's what you do with it....

    bliss
    lewis lacook
  • Plasma Studii | Mon Aug 12th 2002 1 a.m.
    Chris, man,

    this is sheer boo-honkey doo doo. I hope you're ok.

    Mike gets off on this hot naked guy and he gets off chiseling marble
    (and probably gets off even more knowing how good he was at
    chiselling), but he may feel a little obligated to give the statue a
    name with some historical/religious significance. But the name is
    just tacked on for the folks with their heads screwed on too tight,
    sitting behind their thinking caps and playing with their pencils.

    And for those freaks among us who aren't Martians or a Philistines,
    the Statue of David is a pretty good Western icon for dusting out
    those ever-accumulating things we call "thoughts" from our heads. If
    we aren't careful, and clean from time to time, they start building
    up into dust bunnies and we end up unable to see meaninglessness for
    all its glory!

    Judson

    > > No apologies/explanaitions/intros is wonderful but
    > > not as wonderful as beautiful work that needs no explanation. The
    > > statue of David. Nothing there to think about, no words (unless you
    > > happen to be one of those people who can't quite manager to get one's
    > > head out of one's ass), wether you like it or not, just look at it.
    >
    >Unless you're a martian or a philistine (!), there are LOTS of things
    >that you are probably thinking about when you see David.
    >
    >It seems to me that it would greatly help one's appreciation of David to
    >know who the heck that "David" guy is. It's not just Michaelangelo's
    >"Naked Man" - it's "David"! It's got to add *something* to your
    >experience

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PLASMA STUDII
    http://plasmastudii.org
    223 E 10th Street
    PMB 130
    New York, NY 10003
  • Max Herman | Mon Aug 12th 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 8/12/2002 12:21:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
    office@plasmastudii.org writes:

    > this is sheer boo-honkey doo doo. I hope you're ok.

    Yo Judmaster!

    did you say "Michelagnolo's David needs no introduction?" Stand-alone art is
    a myth. What in the name of convention do you ground this autonomous art on?
    Nothing.

    You must be mad, my good fellow. Distracted unto distraction.

    Judson.

    Max

    ++
  • Max Herman | Mon Aug 12th 2002 1 a.m.
    In a message dated 8/12/2002 12:21:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
    office@plasmastudii.org writes:

    > David is a pretty good Western icon for dusting out
    > those ever-accumulating things we call "thoughts" from our heads.

    I swear you're a CIA plant man. Donatello's St. George is better tho. Very
    arguably let's say, David is worse. Dusting in, not out; or in bot-speak,
    I/O.

    The answer could only be uncertain via heisenberg.

    In which case, "David is this and such" is plain breeze from your
    hindquarters, conventional tripe-ola.

    We change, but the museum doesn't, isn't that the new take on the NY History
    museum now? That it is absurd but worth preserving? How far you can take
    it, whatever "it" is, is the question of dramatics and dramturgy. Or not.

    All good in the hood,

    Joshua Herman
    Violinist, Composer

    ++
  • wowm .org | Mon Aug 12th 2002 1 a.m.
    david, oh, david
    "When Mike met Gally"
    http://www.freemanifesta.org/artists/wowm.html

    //sorry for sal's typing//
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Plasma Studii" <office@plasmastudii.org>
    To: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <askROM@graphpaper.com>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:23 AM
    Subject: RE: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: The Artist speaking of his Brushes

    > Chris, man,
    >
    > this is sheer boo-honkey doo doo. I hope you're ok.
    >
    > Mike gets off on this hot naked guy and he gets off chiseling marble
    > (and probably gets off even more knowing how good he was at
    > chiselling), but he may feel a little obligated to give the statue a
    > name with some historical/religious significance. But the name is
    > just tacked on for the folks with their heads screwed on too tight,
    > sitting behind their thinking caps and playing with their pencils.
    >
    > And for those freaks among us who aren't Martians or a Philistines,
    > the Statue of David is a pretty good Western icon for dusting out
    > those ever-accumulating things we call "thoughts" from our heads. If
    > we aren't careful, and clean from time to time, they start building
    > up into dust bunnies and we end up unable to see meaninglessness for
    > all its glory!
    >
    > Judson
    >
    >
    > > > No apologies/explanaitions/intros is wonderful but
    > > > not as wonderful as beautiful work that needs no explanation. The
    > > > statue of David. Nothing there to think about, no words (unless you
    > > > happen to be one of those people who can't quite manager to get one's
    > > > head out of one's ass), wether you like it or not, just look at it.
    > >
    > >Unless you're a martian or a philistine (!), there are LOTS of things
    > >that you are probably thinking about when you see David.
    > >
    > >It seems to me that it would greatly help one's appreciation of David to
    > >know who the heck that "David" guy is. It's not just Michaelangelo's
    > >"Naked Man" - it's "David"! It's got to add *something* to your
    > >experience
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    > PLASMA STUDII
    > http://plasmastudii.org
    > 223 E 10th Street
    > PMB 130
    > New York, NY 10003
    > + vs. every art school ever...
    > -> 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.php3
Your Reply