New Discussion Section Policy

Posted by Nick Hasty | Thu May 7th 2009 12:29 p.m.

Dear Rhizome Discuss Community,

After a few weeks of testing, we have set in place a new policy for the discussion section. All posts containing off-topic advertisements or bogus links are now subject to moderation by the Rhizome Staff. We hope that this policy will prevent unwanted spamming and maintain this section as a forum for critical and creative engagement.

Thanks again for your patience and understanding.

Sincerely,

Nick Hasty
  • curt cloninger | Thu May 7th 2009 3:15 p.m.
    Hi Nick,

    Following Derrida, it is worth noting what is being implicitly preferenced here (as opposed to what is being explicitly subordinated):
    "on-topic" posts
    "non-commercial" posts
    "authentic" links (no rickrolling?)
    "desirable" unspamming

    And what is being implicitly subordinated (as opposed to what is being explicitly preferenced):
    uncritical, uncreative non-engagement

    The means by which one distinguishes "authentic creative" non-sequitir absurdity from "bogus uncreative" opportunistic spamming might be worth a bit of "critical engagement." According to Barthes, artistic tactics that try to evade the mythologizing of language (tactics like dadaist/surrealist absurdity, essentialist poetry, or precise mathematical language) eventually wind up getting mythologized whole cloth ("E=MC2" as a myth of math itself, "the chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella" as a myth of absurdity itself). The critical efficacy of these tactics is diluted once they are thus mythologized.

    So absurdist jodi.org ascii text passes the filters as approved neo-dada (authentic, desirable, critical, [safe, mythologizable, art-world contextualizable]), but not-quite-on-topic spam is filtered as unapproved commercialism (bogus, undesirable, uncritical, [dangerous, having-already-been-recouped, art-world uncontextualizable]).

    The initial 1917 filtering of R. Mutt's "Fountain" was justified (in part) because it was a mass-produced, utilitarian, overtly commercial object.

    For great deals on fountains, shop home depot!

    Patiently,
    Curt
    • Brian Droitcour | Fri May 8th 2009 8:39 p.m.
      If this is a joke, it's almost funny.
    • Eric Dymond | Wed May 13th 2009 1:30 a.m.
      The initial 1917 filtering of R. Mutt's "Fountain" was justified (in part) because it was a mass-produced, utilitarian, overtly commercial object.

      I don't think that Fountain had anything to do with those reasons (in part or not) . In fact I am sure of it.
  • Joan Collins | Fri May 15th 2009 12:36 a.m.
  • Vijay Pattisapu | Fri May 15th 2009 1:35 a.m.
  • Eric Dymond | Sat May 16th 2009 1:25 a.m.
    That's such a cool scan. I still think that fountain, as per Duchamps own pleading, was a porcelain vagina.
    I just like that concept. Immersed in Freud, trying desperately to be contrary, the receptacle becomes the focus of our eyes. Yet our eyes can't experience the pleasure that the function/device demands.
    Oh well
    On a complete aside.
    The analogue begets the digital, where so many think it all ends..., but what will the digital beget?
    HAHAHAHAH
    yes it's a quandary.
    Where is the paper?
Your Reply