Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

Posted by marc garrett | Wed Feb 19th 2003 2:07 p.m.

Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

'Some thoughts regarding Cory Archangel's
Data Diaries & established culturalization'.

In the western world, technologies are now so much a part of the everyday,=

the use of it has become habitual. You turn the computer on, it loads up,=

you click a couple of tabs and then you are away, reading, sending emails o=
r

creating an artwork via given applications. Cory seems to be moving towards=

transcending such presumed habits, very much like those electronic geeks

'Kraftwerk', diverting the program. Rebuilding and reworking perceived

notions of what programs and hardware is used for. Coming up with alternate=

shifts that do not necessarily infuse collective or world issues but it is=

very much part of a digital genre that deconstructs the medium itself.

Cory's (what might seem flippant) use of data, as virtual substance, filler=
;

reevaluating the computer with a conduit sensibility. Whilst actively

diverting programs and the hardware 'uses', and re-inventing via method and=

conceptual poetics. You get the impression of a kind of innocence at play,=

this is of course a self-conscious decision, and all part of the small

scheme of things. When I say small scheme, I mean that work itself does

not wish to enter a dialogue with the user or viewer. What you see is what=

you get. Therefore the communication is functional, not emotional. To expec=
t

emotion from this work is like expecting figurative painting or emotional=

content or narrative from a 'sixty's' 'frank Stella' painting. You just ain=
't

gonna get any, and that's fair enough.

'Data Diaries' is primarily a formal piece, sitting (surprisingly) well wit=
h

modernist principles of abstraction, is Cory Archangel a contemporary

American 'Computer Abstractionist'? This work is Art as Art, not reflecting=

global or emotional issues, politics about our lives in any way, in fact it=

declares quite clearly an anti narrative. The work relies heavily on

'exformation', 'exformation is everything we do not actually say but have i=
n

our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the

measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with'. [Tor

Norretranders, The User Illusion (1998)]

So what arrives is function rather than narrative, thus you witness the raw=

object as it is, no obvious space for intuitive interpretation in respect o=
f

relational or lateral dialogue. This means that the work is for hanging on=

your wall, it is a picture, not a message. It can only be a message in the=

context of what is attached to it, via labeling, as Art given context. And=

this is how its meaning is determined. So therefore we end up dealing with=

constructed references around it, to support its essence. If it did not hav=
e

the support of an art institutional background to relate to it, where would=

it go, who would look at it?

To answer this question one has to look at examples that others have

willingly referred; giving it art-clout. This means that much of the

discourse that surrounds it is via a culturalized art and language mind-set=
,

which may not necessarily contribute to its (supposed) punk essence. The

work itself may not warrant such interest, when compared to artists such as=

Picasso, or even Heath Bunting. Ah but that has also been taken care of, du=
e

to what we all now know as the 'Heroic Period'. So here comes along the

issue of who gets known by whom and why? And it could be construed that

Cory is at the tail end of the political and 'divisionist' term 'Heroic

Period'. Not by his own making but by others who wish to place him in an ar=
t

context that the artworld can understand. A product, a brand and an

aesthetic nuance that can be appreciated by an educated audience, but not t=
o

a generation of people who wish for such barriers to be broken down.

What we have learnt here is, that Internet art has to be more institutional=
ly

friendly, more referenced based to be acknowledged by the establishment. So=

you get artists who are still experimenting trying to break the rule of cod=
e

which will be a 'no no', unless supported by certain structures. Everything=

gets pulled back into the black hole of controlled representation. What

could begin to happen (may be it already has), is that certain people will=

be ignored because they have chosen to believe that they could break the

rules in a relational way, not an aesthetic way. So those who thought that=

the walls had suddenly crashed down for them; and thought that they were

part of something special; are finding the walls rising back up again. In=

fact, they were not ever in the story in the first place.

So if we bypass whether narrative is important or not and cut to the chase=

of how things work. Radical becomes product, not as a physical object you=

can hold but as a currency, a sale's pitch. You'll get the 'Heroic Period'=

gang, being shunted to exhibition to exhibition by the funding elite, over=

and over again. Then you'll get the next generation who advocate them as

influential to their own work. Therefore falling into the same culturalized=

trappings, running the art arena gauntlet, thus using the same tactics as=

many others have done before, and millions are now. 'Pissing' up the wall a=
s

others watch them mark out there 'canonized territory. This activity,

usually male in motion (now a unisex activity), is a very traditional

stance.

So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to certain agendas, just like=

what was perceived as traditional before the Internet age. Making work that=

does not question institutional remits because it would be foolhardy to do=

so. Work that is radical in its 'soul' can now only be considered as myth=

and delusory. It will be left out, ignored by those who can gain more

mileage out of the invented terminology's and written histories that have=

now been tagged, like a stamp of official acceptance that these one's are=

ok. 'You can touch these dudes they have been affiliated'.

Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in=

the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism=
.

But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenge=
d

and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it=

advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that pun=
k

fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it=

certainly ain't Punk.

I personally enjoy Cory's work but I do not like what comes with it, the

background noise is far too loud for me and it gets in the way of the work=

itself.

marc garrett

http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.furthernoise.org
http://www.dido.uk.net
We Can Make Our Own World.
  • marc garrett | Wed Feb 19th 2003 3:14 p.m.
    Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

    'Some thoughts regarding Cory Archangel's
    Data Diaries & established culturalization'.

    In the western world, technologies are now so much a part of the everyday,

    the use of it has become habitual. You turn the computer on, it loads up,

    you click a couple of tabs and then you are away, reading, sending emails or

    creating an artwork via given applications. Cory seems to be moving towards

    transcending such presumed habits, very much like those electronic geeks

    'Kraftwerk', diverting the program. Rebuilding and reworking perceived

    notions of what programs and hardware is used for. Coming up with alternate

    shifts that do not necessarily infuse collective or world issues but it is

    very much part of a digital genre that deconstructs the medium itself.

    Cory's (what might seem flippant) use of data, as virtual substance, filler;

    reevaluating the computer with a conduit sensibility. Whilst actively

    diverting programs and the hardware 'uses', and re-inventing via method and

    conceptual poetics. You get the impression of a kind of innocence at play,

    this is of course a self-conscious decision, and all part of the small

    scheme of things. When I say small scheme, I mean that work itself does

    not wish to enter a dialogue with the user or viewer. What you see is what

    you get. Therefore the communication is functional, not emotional. To expect

    emotion from this work is like expecting figurative painting or emotional

    content or narrative from a 'sixty's' 'frank Stella' painting. You just
    ain't

    gonna get any, and that's fair enough.

    'Data Diaries' is primarily a formal piece, sitting (surprisingly) well with

    modernist principles of abstraction, is Cory Archangel a contemporary

    American 'Computer Abstractionist'? This work is Art as Art, not reflecting

    global or emotional issues, politics about our lives in any way, in fact it

    declares quite clearly an anti narrative. The work relies heavily on

    'exformation', 'exformation is everything we do not actually say but have in

    our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the

    measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with'. [Tor

    Norretranders, The User Illusion (1998)]

    So what arrives is function rather than narrative, thus you witness the raw

    object as it is, no obvious space for intuitive interpretation in respect of

    relational or lateral dialogue. This means that the work is for hanging on

    your wall, it is a picture, not a message. It can only be a message in the

    context of what is attached to it, via labeling, as Art given context. And

    this is how its meaning is determined. So therefore we end up dealing with

    constructed references around it, to support its essence. If it did not have

    the support of an art institutional background to relate to it, where would

    it go, who would look at it?

    To answer this question one has to look at examples that others have

    willingly referred; giving it art-clout. This means that much of the

    discourse that surrounds it is via a culturalized art and language mind-set,

    which may not necessarily contribute to its (supposed) punk essence. The

    work itself may not warrant such interest, when compared to artists such as

    Picasso, or even Heath Bunting. Ah but that has also been taken care of, due

    to what we all now know as the 'Heroic Period'. So here comes along the

    issue of who gets known by whom and why? And it could be construed that

    Cory is at the tail end of the political and 'divisionist' term 'Heroic

    Period'. Not by his own making but by others who wish to place him in an art

    context that the artworld can understand. A product, a brand and an

    aesthetic nuance that can be appreciated by an educated audience, but not to

    a generation of people who wish for such barriers to be broken down.

    What we have learnt here is, that Internet art has to be more
    institutionally

    friendly, more referenced based to be acknowledged by the establishment. So

    you get artists who are still experimenting trying to break the rule of code

    which will be a 'no no', unless supported by certain structures. Everything

    gets pulled back into the black hole of controlled representation. What

    could begin to happen (may be it already has), is that certain people will

    be ignored because they have chosen to believe that they could break the

    rules in a relational way, not an aesthetic way. So those who thought that

    the walls had suddenly crashed down for them; and thought that they were

    part of something special; are finding the walls rising back up again. In

    fact, they were not ever in the story in the first place.

    So if we bypass whether narrative is important or not and cut to the chase

    of how things work. Radical becomes product, not as a physical object you

    can hold but as a currency, a sale's pitch. You'll get the 'Heroic Period'

    gang, being shunted to exhibition to exhibition by the funding elite, over

    and over again. Then you'll get the next generation who advocate them as

    influential to their own work. Therefore falling into the same culturalized

    trappings, running the art arena gauntlet, thus using the same tactics as

    many others have done before, and millions are now. 'Pissing' up the wall as

    others watch them mark out there 'canonized territory. This activity,

    usually male in motion (now a unisex activity), is a very traditional

    stance.

    So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to certain agendas, just like

    what was perceived as traditional before the Internet age. Making work that

    does not question institutional remits because it would be foolhardy to do

    so. Work that is radical in its 'soul' can now only be considered as myth

    and delusory. It will be left out, ignored by those who can gain more

    mileage out of the invented terminology's and written histories that have

    now been tagged, like a stamp of official acceptance that these one's are

    ok. 'You can touch these dudes they have been affiliated'.

    Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in

    the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism.

    But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged

    and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it

    advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk

    fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it

    certainly ain't Punk.

    I personally enjoy Cory's work but I do not like what comes with it, the

    background noise is far too loud for me and it gets in the way of the work

    itself.

    marc garrett

    http://www.furtherfield.org
    http://www.furthernoise.org
    http://www.dido.uk.net
    We Can Make Our Own World.
    http://www.furtherfield.org
    http://www.furthernoise.org
    http://www.dido.uk.net
    We Can Make Our Own World.
  • marc garrett | Wed Feb 19th 2003 3:18 p.m.
    (rtf version)

    Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

    'Some thoughts regarding Cory Archangel's Data Diaries & established
    culturalization'.

    In the western world, technologies are now so much a part of the everyday,
    the use of it has become habitual. You turn the computer on, it loads up,
    you click a couple of tabs and then you are away, reading, sending emails or
    creating an artwork via given applications. Cory seems to be moving towards
    transcending such presumed habits, very much like those electronic geeks
    'Kraftwerk', diverting the program. Rebuilding and reworking perceived
    notions of what programs and hardware is used for. Coming up with alternate
    shifts that do not necessarily infuse collecitve or world issues but it is
    very much part of a digital genre that deconstructs the medium itself.

    Cory's (what might seem flippant) use of data, as virtual substance, filler;
    reevaluating the computer with a conduit sensibility. Whilst actively
    diverting programs and the hardware 'uses', and re-inventing via method and
    conceptual poetics. You get the impression of a kind of innocence at play,
    this is of course a self-conscious decision, and all part of the small
    scheme of things. When I say small scheme, I mean that that work itself does
    not wish to enter a dialogue with the user or viewer. What you see is what
    you get. Therefore the communication is functional, not emotional. To expect
    emotion from this work is like expecting figurative painting or emotional
    content or narative from a 'sixty's' 'frank Stella' painting. You just ain't
    gonna get any, and that's fair enough.

    'Data Diaries' is primarily a formal piece, sitting (surprisingly) well with
    modernist principles of abstraction, is Cory Archangel a contemporary
    American 'Computer Abstractionist'? This work is Art as Art, not reflecting
    global or emotional issues, politics about our lives in any way, in fact it
    declares quite clearly an anti narrative. The work relies heavily on
    'exformation', 'exformation is everything we do not actually say but have in
    our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the
    measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with'. [Tor
    Norretranders, The User Illusion (1998)]

    So what arrives is function rather than narrative, thus you witness the raw
    object as it is, no obvious space for intuitive interpretation in respect of
    relational or lateral dialogue. This means that the work is for hanging on
    your wall, it is a picture, not a message. It can only be a message in the
    context of what is attached to it, via labeling, as Art given context. And
    this is how its meaning is determined. So therefore we end up dealing with
    constructed references around it, to support its essence. If it did not have
    the support of an art insitutional background to relate to it, where would
    it go, who would look at it?

    To answer this question one has to look at examples that others have
    willingly refered; giving it art-clout. This means that much of the
    discourse that surrounds it is via a culturalized art and language mind-set,
    which may not necessarily contribute to its (supposed) punk essence. The
    work itself may not warrant such interest, when compared to artists such as
    Picasso, or even Heath Bunting. Ah but that has also been taken care of, due
    to what we all now know as the 'Heroic Period'. So here comes along the
    issue of who gets known by whom and why? And it could be construded that
    Cory is at the tail end of the political and 'divisionist' term 'Heroic
    Period'. Not by his own making but by others who wish to palce him in an art
    context that the artworld can understand. A product, a brand and an
    aesthetic nuance that can be appreciated by an educated audience, but not to
    a generation of people who wish for such barriers to be broken down.

    What we have learnt here is, that Internet art has to be more insitutionally
    friendly, more referenced based to be acknowledged by the establishment. So
    you get artists who are still experimenting trying to break the rule of code
    which will be a 'no no', unless supported by certain structures. Everything
    gets pulled back into the black hole of controlled representation. What
    could begin to happen (may be it already has), is that certain people will
    be ignored because they have chosen to believe that they could break the
    rules in a relational way, not an easthetic way. So those who thought that
    the walls had suddenly crashed down for them; and thought that they were
    part of something special; are finding the walls rising back up again. In
    fact, they were not ever in the story in the first place.

    So if we bypass whether narrative is important or not and cut to the chase
    of how things work. Radical becomes product, not as a physical object you
    can hold but as a currency, a sale's pitch. You'll get the 'Heroic Period'
    gang, being shunted to exhibition to exhibition by the funding elite, over
    and over again. Then you'll get the next generation who advocate them as
    influential to their own work. Therfore falling into the same culturalized
    trappings, running the art arena gauntlet, thus using the same tactics as
    many others have done before, and millions are now. 'Pissing' up the wall as
    others watch them mark out there 'cannonized' territory. This activity,
    usually male in motion (now a unisex activity), is a very traditional
    stance.

    So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to certain agendas, just like
    what was percieved as traditional before the Internet age. Making work that
    does not question institutional remits because it would be foolhardy to do
    so. Work that is radical in its 'soul' can now only be considered as myth
    and delusory. It will be left out, ignored by those who can gain more
    mileage out of the invented terminologies and written histories that have
    now been tagged, like a stamp of official acceptance that these one's are
    ok. 'You can touch these dudes they have been affiliated'.

    Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in
    the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism.
    But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged
    and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
    advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk
    fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it
    certainly ain't Punk.

    I personally enjoy Cory's work but I do not like what comes with it, the
    background noise is far too loud for me and it gets in the way of the work
    itself.

    marc garrett

    http://www.furtherfield.org
    http://www.furthernoise.org
    http://www.dido.uk.net
    We Can Make Our Own World.
  • Dyske Suematsu | Wed Feb 19th 2003 4:24 p.m.
    Hi Marc,

    It is an interesting essay in many ways. Let me start a discussion here.

    I must assume that your use of the term "deconstruct" is not Derridean. You
    are using it to mean "destruct," "undermine", or "subvert." You are not
    using it to mean "decenter," for otherwise it would not make sense. So
    assuming this is what you mean. I continue.

    The central criticism of your essay is towards the structure of the art
    world; institutions such as museums, galleries, artistic funds, and online
    venues (such as turbulence.org) as structural centers and artists as their
    elements. Here you are proposing to decenter (or deconstruct) this structure
    (though you do not use the term "deconstruct" in this context.). My first
    question is that in our past discussion, you have stated:

    "Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
    to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving it
    to fall apart, like an old car body part."

    But in your latest essay, you are suggesting to deconstruct the structure of
    the art world (in Derridean sense of the term).

    However, a deeper reading of your essay reveals that what you are suggesting
    may not be deconstruction of the art world at all. What you are suggesting
    towards the end of your essay is not to deconstruct, but simply to use the
    same structure, but in what you perceive to be a better (or fairer) way of
    using the structure. What you criticize is not the structure of the center,
    say "A", determining the worth of the artist, "B", but "A" deciding the
    worth of "B" to be more than "C". In this sense, you are not deconstructing
    at all. You are simply frustrated that certain works of art you deem to be
    better are being ignored by the structure. And, your criteria for making any
    piece of art better is the existence of "narrative", or discourse with the
    audience. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

    I liked Cory's work very much. I do not think it is groundbreaking, but it
    is fun to watch. Conceptually speaking there is nothing new here. Many
    artists of the past have done the same thing. One of the most prominent
    artists to repurpose medium is John Cage. His "William Mix" is almost
    identical in concept. To use any medium outside of its intended purpose is a
    concept that has been done to death. Combine that with aleatory twist of
    I-Ching, what you get is the school of John Cage. Cory's work certainly
    belongs in this category. Conceptually, I'm not impressed at all with his
    work, but I do not believe that he himself meant it to have any historical
    significance. It appears that he was just having fun. I myself have done a
    project of this spirit.

    The issue that you seem to have is why something that was simply done for
    fun gets a funding. I'd say, why not? If someone likes it enough to give
    money. I'm sure if you were in a position to give funds to artists, many
    people would probably have issues with your choice of artists too. (In fact,
    aren't you already in that position with furtherfield.org ?)

    If your criticism is towards the very structure of the art world, it would
    be more constructive, but since you are just as much dependent on the very
    structure you criticize (in order to support your own idealized vision), it
    turns into an expression of your frustration on which we cannot build
    anything constructive. In other words, you are yourself complicit in this
    structure that you criticize. As long as there are forces and desires to
    rank and measure the worth of art, there will be a central structure such as
    museums. Assuming that there is no mathematical formula to determine the
    absolute worth of art, there will always be those who are dissatisfied with
    the evaluations of others. And, critical theories to substantiate or
    unsubstantiate art are not particularly useful or productive (though I must
    admit that I'm guilty of it myself.).

    Dyske

    --
    Dyske Suematsu
    http://www.dyske.com
    Where Nothing Is Everything
  • ryan griffis | Wed Feb 19th 2003 5:07 p.m.
    hi marc,

    > Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
    > advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not
    > fill the void that punk
    > fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to
    > justify its being, it
    > certainly ain't Punk.

    my vote for "most accurate bit of criticism of the
    year"

    ryan

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
    http://shopping.yahoo.com
  • curt cloninger | Wed Feb 19th 2003 5:25 p.m.
    I've added cory's piece to this exhibit:
    http://www.deepyoung.org/current/hardwired/ (scroll down some), Deep linking it past the artist statement, and [re/de]-contexualizing it according to the Young method.

    had you first come upon it this way, would it qualify as punk?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    marc wrote:
    Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism. But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it certainly ain't Punk.
  • marc garrett | Wed Feb 19th 2003 5:33 p.m.
    Glad someone could read it without a set of references behind them...

    it's good to not rely on support structures emotionally sometimes, in fact
    it is healthy.

    respect - marc

    > hi marc,
    >
    > > Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
    > > advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not
    > > fill the void that punk
    > > fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to
    > > justify its being, it
    > > certainly ain't Punk.
    >
    > my vote for "most accurate bit of criticism of the
    > year"
    >
    > ryan
    >
    >
    > __________________________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
    > http://shopping.yahoo.com
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> post: list@rhizome.org
    > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    > +
    > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Wed Feb 19th 2003 11:14 p.m.
    Hi Dyske,

    Thank you for responding...
    I find your questions challenging and it helps to me keep on my toes.

    Here's a reference:

    'Virtually all organizations known to you work largely by means of your
    greed. They attract you because what they say or do appeals to your
    greed. This is concealed only by their appearance. If you stop listening
    to their words and look at the effect, you will soon see it'.
    Idris Shah. Learning how to Learn.

    > It is an interesting essay in many ways. Let me start a discussion here.
    > I must assume that your use of the term "deconstruct" is not Derridean.
    You
    > are using it to mean "destruct," "undermine", or "subvert." You are not
    > using it to mean "decenter," for otherwise it would not make sense. So
    > assuming this is what you mean. I continue.

    Your definition of deconstruction is a literary one, not one that relates to
    being
    conscious. Meaning that language has nuances that fit into many cavities,
    not
    necessarily txt book based representations.

    I feel that the way that you see things, is not specifically fully informed
    regarding
    your own mind. Now, this is not to say that you do not know what you are
    saying
    - you do. But a lot of what you say is backed up by reference, it does not
    seem to
    be coming from your own the heart. I also feel that we will probably not
    meet on a
    middle ground - for where I am coming from there are not many accepted
    writers
    like Derrida, to help me out of a fix. But for this txt, I am going to
    question my own
    method and use references, thus enhancing our complex communication. For it
    is complexities that form energy, and realization occurs once we see
    something
    clearly once we emerge out of complexity.

    > The central criticism of your essay is towards the structure of the art
    > world; institutions such as museums, galleries, artistic funds, and online
    > venues (such as turbulence.org) as structural centers and artists as their
    > elements. Here you are proposing to decenter (or deconstruct) this
    structure
    > (though you do not use the term "deconstruct" in this context.). My first
    > question is that in our past discussion, you have stated:
    >
    > "Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
    > to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving
    it
    > to fall apart, like an old car body part."
    >
    > But in your latest essay, you are suggesting to deconstruct the structure
    of
    > the art world (in Derridean sense of the term).

    No way am I dissing anyone - and especially not Turbulence.org or Alex - in
    fact I have been visiting their site quite a lot, its kool.

    You need to remember here Dyske, that one might be in the Army because you
    love certain things about it, but this does not mean that you have to agree
    with all
    its rules or ideas. We are all in the human race together, the same goes for
    the
    art arena to some degree, just because I have questions about it does not
    mean
    that I do wish to be part of it - that kind of simplistic 'side-taking' is
    not appropriate.
    I am on everybody's side here really and wish everyone well, I bear no
    malice
    against them, I am not like that.

    Life's full of shadows and perspectives, it's not about sitting on one side
    of the
    fence, the kind of 'You are either with us or against us' nonsense. I am
    here to
    change things but I am also here to be changed. And you may contribute in
    that
    factor...

    We are all hypocrites to a point, who isn't? For me, life is not about
    picking a team
    and saying I'm on their side. We are all dealing with various tugging
    dichotomies
    or multi-chotomies, which ask very strong questions in relation to our
    actions and
    motives. I cannot get by in the world on my own, I need you to reflect back
    to me
    my failings and successes, so I can grow. And this goes the same for
    everyone
    who frequents this list, some may admit, some may not. I admit it...

    The problem with Art becoming official - is that it always has to have a
    reason,
    it can't just be there like having a piss. It's like this has got to fit
    there, and that has
    to fit here. Too much time is spent on space filling. Sometimes it's ok to
    leave things
    unsure till something comes along that seems appropriate.

    >
    > However, a deeper reading of your essay reveals that what you are
    suggesting
    > may not be deconstruction of the art world at all. What you are suggesting
    > towards the end of your essay is not to deconstruct, but simply to use the
    > same structure, but in what you perceive to be a better (or fairer) way of
    > using the structure. What you criticize is not the structure of the
    center,
    > say "A", determining the worth of the artist, "B", but "A" deciding the
    > worth of "B" to be more than "C". In this sense, you are not
    deconstructing
    > at all. You are simply frustrated that certain works of art you deem to be
    > better are being ignored by the structure. And, your criteria for making
    any
    > piece of art better is the existence of "narrative", or discourse with the
    > audience. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

    Now, here you are closer - but also further away at the same time. Your use
    of the accepted notion of deconstruction, thus literary; skews my reasoning.

    My standards inform me that I must adapt accordingly via intuitive process.
    Perhaps, some institutional dudes will see me via cliche protocols as a
    whining artist'. That presumption will deny them the ability to understand
    the
    real essence of where I am coming from, as an artist and a human being. By
    being openly vulnerable - I declare my ideas and thoughts around a subject
    as best I can, hopefully with mutual sensibilities.

    I remember hearing about a woman on the radio and her husband who used t
    o beat her. The authorities asked her 'why did he beat you?' She said 'he
    said
    that he hated me nagging him all the time'. They said 'did you nag him? hum
    all
    of the time?' The woman was probably questioning her spouse or husband on
    why does he always spend all the families money at the pub, so he hit her.

    In a sense I ma asking people to suggest alternative vistas on how we could
    operate. No way do I have even 10% of the answers but I know that we can do
    better and others can do better.

    I also have nothing against applying for funding. Although 'furtherfield',
    did it
    the other way round first. We did not apply for funding because we got a lot
    of
    negative responses due to us harboring transgressive art on the site with
    too
    much sex on it, and at the time - funding bodies were obsessed with
    workshops
    and children being apart of them. So we were seen as offensive. So instead,
    we
    started a web design business, and offered educational resources to teach
    web
    stuff using a business name, this got us cash to do what we wanted to do.
    After
    getting staff who had not had experience of web design but a passion to
    explore
    working with 'strange' people like ourselves, we then paid wages once they
    started
    building and designing web sites and teaching themselves. To this day we
    have
    one paid member of furtherfield, and it is not us, it is Matt, who we love
    dearly.

    I used to earn money by working in homeless hostels, then working in
    computer
    resource center's for the homeless, teaching them all kinds of applications.
    Plus
    applying for funding - getting them paid intern situations in working
    environments
    of their choice. I did this for about 9 years, and learnt an amazing amount
    about
    humans, and how vulnerable we all really are. And that institutions do not
    cater
    for people's emotional needs. Now I teach dissertation to students, and
    still do not
    earn anything from furtherfield, and neither does Ruth. And we vowed years
    ago,
    if anyone wanted to have work furtherfield on who did not know how to make a
    web
    site that we would either show them how to, or do it for them. Also, Our
    policy of
    choosing, has consciously been from an angle of not creating competitions.
    We
    invite people on to furtherfield mainly, look at people's work. They do not
    need a CV,
    or had to have gone to college, or have references, if we like the work,
    then that'll
    do. It's not perfect but it works for us and those who use furtherfield,
    only had one
    complaint, and that was because I said I would get someone an interview and
    I took
    too long getting it arranged for them.

    We've always tried to work our way around brick walls, now we collaborate
    with
    other artists/people and apply for funding but on our terms. What I am
    asking for,
    is something that is actually much more of an attitude shift regarding art
    and its
    communication. Forget about looking at language, look at ways around
    problems.
    That creates change...

    best - marc
  • Dyske Suematsu | Thu Feb 20th 2003 2:55 a.m.
    Hi Marc,

    What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of questions,
    within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
    Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was "Deconstruct
    the Narrative..." I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers to
    entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
    deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
    title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
    "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.

    In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
    not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from my
    own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
    in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
    is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original you
    might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
    Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not make
    any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
    obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
    authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
    nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.

    If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
    entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word it
    was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
    "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
    "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
    fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
    of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
    avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of art
    and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality of
    my ideas.

    Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
    nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove (and
    neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
    constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it may.

    "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
    creates change..."

    Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use of
    language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
    visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
    something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
    language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget about
    looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.

    Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
    are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
    that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
    work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
    aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
    contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
    Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language all
    their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
    not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
    world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
    to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
    George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
    deconstruct such violent claims.

    Regards,
    Dyske
  • marc garrett | Thu Feb 20th 2003 5:31 a.m.
    HI Dyske,

    Thanx again - interesting points, will try to answer within the next couple
    of days...

    marc

    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
    questions,
    > within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
    > Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
    "Deconstruct
    > the Narrative..." I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
    to
    > entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
    > deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
    > title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
    > "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
    >
    > In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
    > not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
    my
    > own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
    > in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
    > is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
    you
    > might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
    > Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
    make
    > any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
    > obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
    > authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
    > nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
    >
    > If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
    > entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
    it
    > was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
    > "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
    > "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
    > fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
    > of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
    > avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
    art
    > and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
    of
    > my ideas.
    >
    > Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    > get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
    > nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
    (and
    > neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
    > constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
    may.
    >
    > "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
    > creates change..."
    >
    > Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
    of
    > language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
    > visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
    > something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
    > language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
    about
    > looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
    >
    > Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
    > are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
    > that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
    > work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
    > aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
    > contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
    > Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
    all
    > their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
    > not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
    > world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
    > to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
    > George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
    > deconstruct such violent claims.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Dyske
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • D42 Kandinskij | Thu Feb 20th 2003 10:51 p.m.
    On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Dyske Suematsu wrote:

    > There is no discourse, especially in the West, that is independent of
    > the history of thoughts.

    Simplement untrue.

    > In fact, that is what discourse is; to participate in history.

    Negative nein.

    > If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
    > entire history of that word.

    We write without history.
    http://punkassbitch.org/t=0/

    > The word "art" you use, is not the same word it was a hundred years ago.

    A majorly fraudulent assumption, even within cultural-programmatic
    networks.

    > Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    > get into.

    > Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use of
    > language.

    The idolatry introduced by Gutenberg.

    > And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
    > visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
    > something for real.

    And so does technologie. Culture. Art. Food. Air.

    > Also, there are different kinds of change as well.

    Rzp.
  • marc garrett | Fri Feb 21st 2003 7:57 p.m.
    So, did you get the meaniing of what I wrote or was you distracted by
    language?

    marc

    >
    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
    questions,
    > within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
    > Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
    "Deconstruct
    > the Narrative..." I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
    to
    > entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
    > deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
    > title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
    > "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
    >
    > In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
    > not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
    my
    > own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
    > in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
    > is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
    you
    > might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
    > Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
    make
    > any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
    > obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
    > authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
    > nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
    >
    > If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
    > entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
    it
    > was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
    > "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
    > "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
    > fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
    > of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
    > avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
    art
    > and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
    of
    > my ideas.
    >
    > Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    > get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
    > nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
    (and
    > neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
    > constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
    may.
    >
    > "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
    > creates change..."
    >
    > Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
    of
    > language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
    > visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
    > something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
    > language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
    about
    > looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
    >
    > Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
    > are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
    > that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
    > work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
    > aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
    > contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
    > Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
    all
    > their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
    > not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
    > world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
    > to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
    > George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
    > deconstruct such violent claims.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Dyske
    >
  • Dyske Suematsu | Fri Feb 21st 2003 8:21 p.m.
    > So, did you get the meaniing of what I wrote or was you distracted by
    > language?

    I'm not sure what you mean. Did you post something before this one?

    -Dyske
  • marc garrett | Sat Feb 22nd 2003 12:53 p.m.
    Hi Dyske,

    You are right - 'sincerity is not something that I can logically prove'.

    But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
    To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about productive
    change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
    development of humanity.

    marc

    Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
    nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove (and
    neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
    constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it may.

    >
    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
    questions,
    > within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
    > Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
    "Deconstruct
    > the Narrative..." I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
    to
    > entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
    > deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
    > title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
    > "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
    >
    > In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
    > not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
    my
    > own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
    > in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
    > is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
    you
    > might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
    > Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
    make
    > any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
    > obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
    > authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
    > nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
    >
    > If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
    > entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
    it
    > was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
    > "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
    > "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
    > fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
    > of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
    > avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
    art
    > and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
    of
    > my ideas.
    >
    > Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
    > get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
    > nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
    (and
    > neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
    > constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
    may.
    >
    > "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
    > creates change..."
    >
    > Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
    of
    > language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
    > visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
    > something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
    > language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
    about
    > looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
    >
    > Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
    > are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
    > that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
    > work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
    > aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
    > contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
    > Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
    all
    > their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
    > not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
    > world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
    > to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
    > George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
    > deconstruct such violent claims.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Dyske
    >
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sat Feb 22nd 2003 2:17 p.m.
    > But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
    > To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
    productive
    > change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
    > development of humanity.

    Hi Marc,

    I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
    people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of how
    many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
    productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..

    What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
    sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
    inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not an
    appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
    entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.

    If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of others,
    the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
    "masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a great
    person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
    life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me. In
    this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
    for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
    actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who do.

    -Dyske
  • marc garrett | Sat Feb 22nd 2003 2:49 p.m.
    Hi Dyske,

    > > But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
    > > To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
    > productive
    > > change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
    > > development of humanity.

    >
    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
    > people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of
    how
    > many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
    > productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..

    Yet if we include emotion in that equation - Desire is a precursor to logic.

    >
    > What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
    > sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
    > inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not
    an
    > appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
    > entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.

    Ah, yes I agree - I would never wish to dismiss logic at all. What I am
    trying
    to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the hierarchical
    positioning
    of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness. A mixture, and more as
    far
    as I am concerned, would be more oppropriate when dealing with humane
    situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this, even the realm of
    science...

    >
    > If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of
    others,
    > the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
    > "masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a
    great
    > person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
    > life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me.
    In
    > this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
    > for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
    > actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who
    do.

    I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
    to them
    and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is missing
    in logic,
    it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...

    much respect - marc

    >
    > -Dyske
    >
    >
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sat Feb 22nd 2003 10:07 p.m.
    Hi Marc,

    <quote>
    What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
    hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness.
    A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate when
    dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this,
    even the realm of science...
    I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
    to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
    missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...
    </quote>

    I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much credit.
    Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
    reverse what you said, this is what you get:

    "This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
    problems."

    Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
    respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
    mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."

    The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
    human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?

    You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
    image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
    that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
    appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
    much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
    problems.

    You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
    academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
    control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with your
    logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
    trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why do
    you think that it could do much to control the world?

    The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
    it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own logical
    prowess.

    Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
    argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
    naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
    "willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
    anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive or
    academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy of
    your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read it
    (fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
    attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
    almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
    might even say it after reading just the title "Established
    culturalization."

    If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
    forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
    "Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
    world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
    these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
    penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
    various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
    involved philosophers around.

    I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't feel
    that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
    being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
    you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
    what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction is
    in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
    Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
    way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It is
    not your enemy.

    On a more personal note:

    I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I understand
    your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
    for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
    is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
    an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what I
    try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
    as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
    the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things in
    appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
    know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of me
    being like Spock.

    Best Regards,
    Dyske
  • curt cloninger | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 12:57 a.m.
    dyske wrote:
    >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
    >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.

    hi dyske,

    your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
    http://www.playdamage.org/23.html

    i find that words shared in this medium
    http://www.playdamage.org/37.html

    can have extraordinary emotional effect
    http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm

    especially when specifically referencing
    http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/

    other media
    http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov

    I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional literature as rock + roll:
    http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html

    everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.

    hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
    curt
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 1:38 a.m.
    Hi Curt,

    I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
    simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
    commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
    lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
    respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
    practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
    forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
    bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.

    When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
    powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
    him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
    medium.

    Regards,
    Dyske

    > dyske wrote:
    > >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
    > >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
    >
    > hi dyske,
    >
    > your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
    > http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
    >
    > i find that words shared in this medium
    > http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
    >
    > can have extraordinary emotional effect
    > http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
    >
    > especially when specifically referencing
    > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
    >
    > other media
    > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
    >
    > I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
    philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
    ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
    confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
    literature as rock + roll:
    > http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
    >
    > everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
    >
    > hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
    > curt
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
  • curt cloninger | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 10:12 a.m.
    Hi Dyske,

    If I want to convince you of something (particularly if it's
    something about art), I can appeal to your emotions as well as your
    intellect. There is a type of critical prose that does both (I need
    not resort to poety nor flaming).

    Lev Manovich and Marshall McCluhan are both sharp fellas, but
    McCluhan is infinitely more appealing, simply because he is the
    better writer. There is a craftiness to his critical prose that
    qualifies it as art. His form often carries his argument. You dig
    what he's saying well before you intellectually "get it." McCluhan
    once said of his own method, "I have no theories whatever about
    anything. I make observations by way of discovering contours, lines
    of force, and pressures. I satirize at all times, and my hyperboles
    are as nothing compared to the events to which they refer."

    This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
    intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.

    it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,
    curt

    At 12:41 AM -0500 2/23/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
    >Hi Curt,
    >
    >I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
    >simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
    >commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
    >lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
    >respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
    >practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
    >forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
    >bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.
    >
    >When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
    >powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
    >him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
    >medium.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Dyske
    >
    >
    > > dyske wrote:
    > > >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
    > > >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
    > >
    > > hi dyske,
    > >
    > > your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
    > > http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
    > >
    > > i find that words shared in this medium
    > > http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
    > >
    > > can have extraordinary emotional effect
    > > http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
    > >
    > > especially when specifically referencing
    > > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
    > >
    > > other media
    > > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
    > >
    > > I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
    >philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
    >ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
    >confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
    >literature as rock + roll:
    > > http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
    > >
    > > everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
    > >
    > > hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
    > > curt
    > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > > -> 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
    > >
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 10:47 a.m.
    Hi Fee,

    <quote>
    Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
    decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing as
    an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
    polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
    emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
    admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic affect
    each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
    limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.

    Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they figure
    out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
    empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
    approach...lol
    </quote>

    Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing of
    logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You are
    certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if someone
    gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
    not going to argue.

    -Dyske
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 10:51 a.m.
    Hi Curt,

    > This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
    > intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
    >
    > it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,

    I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.

    Best,
    Dyske
  • marc garrett | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 11:08 a.m.
    Hi Dyske,

    You are so missing the point - I just do not know how to deconstruct your
    deconstructive attitude, which sadly, is the only way to get into your
    cranium. Go ahead - play games with my txt...

    I am talking from real experience, furtherfield, insitutions, net art, art
    etc but you are just playing about with language which is fine, but when you
    feel able to let people be who they are - I would be interested in having a
    real discussion with you.

    Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...

    best - marc

    > Hi Marc,
    >
    > <quote>
    > What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
    > hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and
    intuitiveness.
    > A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate
    when
    > dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate
    this,
    > even the realm of science...
    > I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I
    listen
    > to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
    > missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...
    > </quote>
    >
    > I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much
    credit.
    > Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
    > reverse what you said, this is what you get:
    >
    > "This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
    > problems."
    >
    > Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
    > respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
    > mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."
    >
    > The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
    > human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?
    >
    > You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
    > image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
    > that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
    > appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
    > much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
    > problems.
    >
    > You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
    > academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
    > control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with
    your
    > logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
    > trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why
    do
    > you think that it could do much to control the world?
    >
    > The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
    > it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own
    logical
    > prowess.
    >
    > Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
    > argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
    > naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
    > "willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
    > anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive
    or
    > academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy
    of
    > your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read
    it
    > (fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
    > attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
    > almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
    > might even say it after reading just the title "Established
    > culturalization."
    >
    > If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
    > forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
    > "Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
    > world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
    > these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
    > penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
    > various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
    > involved philosophers around.
    >
    > I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't
    feel
    > that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
    > being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
    > you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
    > what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction
    is
    > in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
    > Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
    > way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It
    is
    > not your enemy.
    >
    > On a more personal note:
    >
    > I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I
    understand
    > your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
    > for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
    > is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is
    not
    > an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what
    I
    > try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
    > as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
    > the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things
    in
    > appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
    > know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of
    me
    > being like Spock.
    >
    > Best Regards,
    > Dyske
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 11:28 a.m.
    > Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...

    Marc,

    I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting. So,
    it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.

    Regards,
    Dyske
  • Are | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 12:56 p.m.
    This net.art work makes me feel happy.
    Or rather "happy."
    That is to say :-)

    This net.art work makes me feel sad.
    Or rather "sad."
    That is to say :-(

    Art criticism as emoticon: it's the emotional state of the art.

    -af
  • marc garrett | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 12:59 p.m.
    Ok - Dyske,

    Fair enough,

    Sorry for getting moody - I bet your cute really..

    marc

    > > Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there...
    >
    > Marc,
    >
    > I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting.
    So,
    > it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Dyske
    >
    >
  • marc garrett | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 1:04 p.m.
    emoticon as Art criticism: the state of the art it's emotional.

    respect -marc

    > This net.art work makes me feel happy.
    > Or rather "happy."
    > That is to say :-)
    >
    > This net.art work makes me feel sad.
    > Or rather "sad."
    > That is to say :-(
    >
    > Art criticism as emoticon: it's the emotional state of the art.
    >
    > -af
    > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
    > -> 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
    >
    >
  • Fee Dickson | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 2:01 p.m.
    Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford dictiona=
    ry and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and art suppl=
    ies shop ( only the French would combine the two...)
    yours awaiting enlightenment
    cheers,
    fee
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Dyske Suematsu
    To: feedickson ; list@rhizome.org
    Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:50 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian posit=
    ioning.

    Hi Fee,

    <quote>
    Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
    decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing=
    as
    an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
    polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
    emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
    admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic aff=
    ect
    each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
    limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.

    Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they fig=
    ure
    out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
    empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
    approach...lol
    </quote>

    Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing=
    of
    logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You =
    are
    certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if some=
    one
    gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
    not going to argue.

    -Dyske
  • curt cloninger | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 3:41 p.m.
    c:
    > > This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
    > > intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
    > >
    > > it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,

    d:
    >I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.
    >
    >Best,
    >Dyske

    c:
    doh! Please don't switch (or at least continue posting to both).
    I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even trying to undermine your
    approach. I'm just arguing for the simultaneous legitimacy of a less
    than detatched dialectic style.

    [although from the passive/agressive vibes emanating from your terse
    response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]

    rock on,
    curt
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 3:46 p.m.
    Hi Fee,

    <quote>
    "Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford
    dictionary and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and
    art supplies shop ( only the French would combine the two...)"
    </quote>

    That's interesting that it's not in the Oxford Dictionary, because it is in
    my measly Microsoft Encarta Dictionary.
    English not being my first language, I have to say that I'm not in a
    position to be explaining to you what it means, but:
    bri
  • Dyske Suematsu | Sun Feb 23rd 2003 3:52 p.m.
    > [although from the passive/aggressive vibes emanating from your terse
    > response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]

    True. I guess I secretly enjoy being passive-aggressive. That's my style, I
    guess.

    But the reason why it comes across that way is because I'm actually a very
    aggressive person who is trying hard not to give into my aggression. I guess
    that is the definition of "passive/aggressive".

    Regards,
    Dyske
Your Reply