Re: dream7 piece

Posted by Michael Szpakowski | Fri May 9th 2003 5:18 a.m.

Yes it's a nice piece.
I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but without
recourse to having the viewer click for the sake of
it.
There is a kind of genre of
noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
consistently exciting and interesting and which I
suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
have rather more importance than they are accorded
now.
The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
-obviously thought and care went into them.
I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds anything
at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
orthodoxy.
best
michael

--- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
>
>
> Some good work I haven't seen mentioned here, dream7
> and fakeshop.
>
> -e.
>

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri May 9th 2003 5:37 a.m.
    You've been reading too much Rhizome, Michael, don't let them fool you-
    dream7 and fakeshop *are* the "big hitters." :)

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
    To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:18 AM
    Subject: Re: dream7 piece

    > Yes it's a nice piece.
    > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but without
    > recourse to having the viewer click for the sake of
    > it.
    > There is a kind of genre of
    > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
    > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
    > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
    > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
    > consistently exciting and interesting and which I
    > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
    > have rather more importance than they are accorded
    > now.
    > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
    > -obviously thought and care went into them.
    > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds anything
    > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
    > orthodoxy.
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
    > >
    > >
    > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned here, dream7
    > > and fakeshop.
    > >
    > > -e.
    > >
    >
    >
    > =====
    > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
    the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
    way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
    the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
    your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
    this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
    when emailing us. District Postmaster.
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > http://search.yahoo.com
    >
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri May 9th 2003 6:47 a.m.
    Hi Eryk
    < dream7 and fakeshop *are* the "big hitters." :)>
    is that so? -I obviously don't get out enough, real or
    virtually.
    What I do find though is that looking at new media art
    that gains funding here in the UK is it tends to be
    "high concept" ( and often about surveillance cameras,
    the internet, search engines, global positioning
    software blah blah blah) and not at all the kind of
    ,loosely speaking, 'narrative' work that I see and
    admire in this piece.
    From my passing acquaintance with museum curated net
    art/new media art in the States this also seems to be
    true over there.
    Some of the positions taken on Rhizome do reflect this
    tendency it's true, but by no means a majority, but
    again I have to say I see in Rhizome a more diverse
    and open group than you seem to.
    Keep posting!
    best
    michael

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • Liza Sabater | Fri May 9th 2003 11:42 a.m.
    On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 04:18 America/New_York, Michael Szpakowski
    wrote:
    > There is a kind of genre of
    > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
    > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
    > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
    > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
    > consistently exciting and interesting and which I
    > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
    > have rather more importance than they are accorded
    > now.

    oh but au contraire my friend, when it comes to what is considered
    netart these days, movies are all the rage. i am sorry, no offense
    intended to the the people behind dream7, fakeshop or even the grand
    daddy of the form, josh davis, but the problem with flash is that it
    has made everybody assume that what is happening on the screen is an
    extension of video or movies; when in truth, for most 'heavy hitters'
    it is an extension of painting, writing, adventures in bad coding and
    video games. but does most of the artworld know that? nope.

    david ross is one example. at the rhizome benefit he turns to napier
    and says, 'nice video loop'. i just wanted to smack him upside the
    head. now with the loss of steve dietz at walker arts, you will
    basically see all of netart, n'importe quoi, lumped in with video
    because, well, why have new media curators in this country if we
    already have video curators?

    as to the clicking issue --people just don't get how powerful a blank
    screen is. to understand how important is the aesthetics of
    interactivity one has to read Maurice Blanchot. in "Reading" (from
    "The Gaze of Orpheus") he says:

    The statue that is unearthed and displayed for everyone's admiration
    does
    not expect anything, seems rather to have been torn from its place. But
    it isn't
    true that the book that has been exhumed, the manuscript that is take
    out of a
    jar and enters the broad daylight of reading, is born all over again
    through an
    impressive piece of luck? What is a book that no one reads? Something
    that has
    not yet been written. Reading, then, is not writing the book again but
    causing the
    book to write itself or *be* written ---this time without the writer as
    intermediary,
    without anyone writing it.

    the world wide web is the greatest book ever to be written by the oft
    diss'ed mouse click --which is our tool for *reading* this new world.
    even though you can click to kingdom come with a tv remote, you cannot
    *do* anything with a tv show but to maybe read it in the Blanchot-ian
    sense of the word. with the web, it is a whole different story. we have
    not just text, video and sound but now tools & interfaces that allow us
    to not just gaze but do and be in this virtual world.

    i have a horrendously biased opinion of what is netart but, when it
    comes to flash pieces, well ... it's not that the graphics or the cuts
    and jumps need to be 'flashy' but, given what is possible . . . it is
    kind of a let down. i mean, for pieces dealing with text i truly
    believe that flash is the worst possible tool to use ----again, because
    you are competing with the greatest "livre a venir".

    best,
    / l i z a
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri May 9th 2003 1:19 p.m.
    Hi Liza
    that's food for thought and I take some of the points
    about net art being viewed as a species of video by
    defualt or ignorance.
    However much though, we might like this to be true:
    <with the web, it is a whole
    different story. we have
    not just text, video and sound but now tools &
    interfaces that allow us
    to not just gaze but do and be in this virtual
    world.>
    I'm not sure that it is yet so.
    For me the most exciting thing about the new media is
    the sheer efficiency of the net as a means of
    communication and delivery and the unification within
    it of precisely those texts, videos and sounds of
    which you speak. Now I ask - are all their
    possibilities played out, has everything been said?
    I'm not anti interaction - I just think it's possible
    to both fetishise it and overplay it. I know it's a
    cliche but it's true nonetheless that great art has
    always been interactive, in a much deeper sense than
    is currently afforded by a mouse click.
    In one sense situating net art within the broader
    traditions of artistic practice, bringing down the
    barriers, would be no bad thing -
    it would force us to compare what we do with the
    Beethovens, the Picassos, the Tarkovskys - sobering
    but ultimately strengthening.
    best
    michael
    >
    > i have a horrendously biased opinion of what is
    > netart but, when it
    > comes to flash pieces, well ... it's not that the
    > graphics or the cuts
    > and jumps need to be 'flashy' but, given what is
    > possible . . . it is
    > kind of a let down. i mean, for pieces dealing with
    > text i truly
    > believe that flash is the worst possible tool to use
    > ----again, because
    > you are competing with the greatest "livre a venir".
    >
    > best,
    > / l i z a
    >
    >
    >
    >

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • curt cloninger | Fri May 9th 2003 1:46 p.m.
    for pieces dealing with text i truly
    > believe that flash is the worst possible tool to use ----again,
    > because
    > you are competing with the greatest "livre a venir".
    >
    > best,
    > / l i z a
    >

    And yet I find that http://www.yhchang.com combines flash and text brilliantly. I agree with you about the underestimated radicality of non-linearity and programmability. But http://www.dream7.com forks pretty wildly. It's still closed interactivity (discrete amount of paths) vs. open interactivity (infinite amount of paths), but margaret has done her share of experimentation with the linking event.

    To dis Flash en toto seems too tool-specific a critique. Flash does not mean web movies, although that's what it was original meant to make.

    Not to butter you up, but Mark Napier is the best of both worlds -- conversant in concept, network, and coding, with an eye for the resultant visual aesthetic.

    But if I have to choose between 01010101 life sharing and superbad.com, I am going to choose superbad every time. If the museum curators start preferring good looking stuff over bad looking "surveilance cam" stuff (to borrow M. Szpakowski dis), great.

    Whether young hae chang's work is legal net art is irrelevant to me. I think it is medium-specific, in an anti-web sort of way. It subverts the interaction of text chat rooms, it subverts the flash of Flash animations. It uses the web to do the exact opposite of what the web is supposed to be best at, and this "wrong" formalism perfectly contextualizes the cynically playful subjects of its text. (Additionally, I think it's beatiful visual minimalism.)

    There's one aspect of the web that most people in gallery NYC overlook -- the web is popular/rural/brut/folk. All those attributes are inherently "web-centric" as well. I can run an online "gallery" like http://www.deepyoung.org from my home office in my spare time and get emails from "real" curators saying, "you displayed x's work; do you have his contact information," when all I did was link to some guy's site. Margaret Penney of dream7 can make funky collabs with people in England while she teaches high school students in upstate New York. All these things are "net-centric" too. In truth, populist playing is what all those then amateur now famous(?) eastern european net.artists were doing back in the day. True, they didn't use Flash. They didn't have it.

    I'm still not at the point of saying "it's all good," but I could do with a little more home-grown audio-visual funk and a little less allusive academic sleight of hand. But then I have a day job (albeit as a new media academic) and I'm known to quote Steely Dan in serious conversation.
  • Liza Sabater | Fri May 9th 2003 2:29 p.m.
    On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:46 America/New_York, curt cloninger wrote:

    > To dis Flash en toto seems too tool-specific a critique.

    just a quick reply:

    NONONONONONONONONONO!

    my intention is not to dis flash in toto. there is a lot of
    commercial/non-art (or whatever you want to call it) done in Flash that
    i quite like --from design portfolios to photojournals to pre-school
    kids games. flash is a thing of wonder --albeit a proprietary one (and
    that is a topic for a whole other thread).

    > Flash does not mean web movies, although that's what it was original
    > meant to make.

    but, see, that's the problem ---people do look at all of what is
    produced for the web as an extension of Video and Film.

    i suspect that part of the problem is that this art movement was
    "academized" BEFORE it actually existed as a movement. and that a lot
    of these academics were coming straight out of video and performance
    studies. it could be also be that people are so used to seeing a screen
    and "reading" it as TV that they do not have any other way to apprehend
    this new media.

    all in all, i object to the art world taking Video, and using it as
    the measure for ALL digital art.

    best,
    / l i z a
  • MTAA | Fri May 9th 2003 2:36 p.m.
    i'll dis flash in Toto.

    Toto should not eat flash :-)

    >On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:46 America/New_York, curt cloninger wrote:
    >
    >> To dis Flash en toto seems too tool-specific a critique.
    >
    >just a quick reply:
    >
    >NONONONONONONONONONO!
    >

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Fri May 9th 2003 2:46 p.m.
    Well, if by "big hitters" you mean "gets funding" then perhaps not, I tend
    to look at success on a broader scale, and that's what I meant by "reading
    too much rhizome." I feel the need to start acknowledging who the really
    important people are and distinguish them from those who simply get funding
    and/or make work that is easy enough to place into an exhibition setting
    without putting off shareholders or "the board." There are many internet
    artists who exist on a level similar to the Velvet Underground or the
    Throwing Muses. They don't sell a lot of records but they have an influence
    that reaches far beyond themselves. That's what I would define as success,
    and the false perception on many mailing lists and the "net.art community"
    is that these artists don't actually matter. Give them a few years and watch
    what happens. Everyone getting shows and money now are just easing the way
    into the true explosion of new media.

    If JODI keeps exhibiting it will be encouraging to see that net.art does not
    need to turned into installation art before it can be "exhibited."

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
    To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 5:47 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece

    > Hi Eryk
    > < dream7 and fakeshop *are* the "big hitters." :)>
    > is that so? -I obviously don't get out enough, real or
    > virtually.
    > What I do find though is that looking at new media art
    > that gains funding here in the UK is it tends to be
    > "high concept" ( and often about surveillance cameras,
    > the internet, search engines, global positioning
    > software blah blah blah) and not at all the kind of
    > ,loosely speaking, 'narrative' work that I see and
    > admire in this piece.
    > From my passing acquaintance with museum curated net
    > art/new media art in the States this also seems to be
    > true over there.
    > Some of the positions taken on Rhizome do reflect this
    > tendency it's true, but by no means a majority, but
    > again I have to say I see in Rhizome a more diverse
    > and open group than you seem to.
    > Keep posting!
    > best
    > michael
    >
    >
    > =====
    > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
    the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
    way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
    the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
    your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
    this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
    when emailing us. District Postmaster.
    http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > http://search.yahoo.com
    >
  • curt cloninger | Fri May 9th 2003 2:51 p.m.
    >but, see, that's the problem ---people do look at all of what is
    >produced for the web as an extension of Video and Film.
    >
    >i suspect that part of the problem is that this art movement was
    >"academized" BEFORE it actually existed as a movement. and that a
    >lot of these academics were coming straight out of video and
    >performance studies. it could be also be that people are so used to
    >seeing a screen and "reading" it as TV that they do not have any
    >other way to apprehend this new media.
    >
    >all in all, i object to the art world taking Video, and using it as
    >the measure for ALL digital art.
    >
    >best,
    >/ l i z a

    I agree, but this is my problem with a lot of conceptual art (no
    matter what anything is about, it's always about my problem with
    conceptual art). If I have to read an artist statment to know that
    what seems to be video is actually randomly generated,
    database-derived, real-time compiled new media with video data
    components, then it just as soon be video. Video is as video does
    (or behaves, or seems). If the piece is experientially different
    than video, then I won't experience it as video -- problem solved.
    Nobody ever mistook http://www.re-move.org for video. If they did,
    they are mired in old media and why do I care what they think? What?
    They are in charge of some grant money I might qualify for if only
    they understood our medium better? I've got a day job -- problem
    solved.

    I can control my own critical writing. I can control the art I make.
    Academics and galleries can get right or get left. If some Flash
    artist is making cool stuff* that is liable to be mistaken for video,
    but it's still cool stuff*, then I'm bound to support it regardless
    of how it might or might not adversely effect the evolution of our
    understanding of "new media." Because I'm not responsible for our
    overall understanding of new media. I'm only responsible to make and
    hype cool stuff*.

    peace,
    curt

    * US patent pending
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri May 9th 2003 3:29 p.m.
    <Well, if by "big hitters" you mean "gets funding"
    then perhaps not, I tend
    to look at success on a broader scale,>
    Oh I absolutely agree! & I'm much more interested in
    art that seems to me honest in intention, skilled in
    execution and worthy of many repeat experiences,
    irrespective of its 'respectability' by any criterion,
    peer, academic, cuaratorial.
    It's just that my sense of justice feels that the two
    groups should be more similar!
    best
    michael

    and that's
    > what I meant by "reading
    > too much rhizome." I feel the need to start
    > acknowledging who the really
    > important people are and distinguish them from those
    > who simply get funding
    > and/or make work that is easy enough to place into
    > an exhibition setting
    > without putting off shareholders or "the board."
    > There are many internet
    > artists who exist on a level similar to the Velvet
    > Underground or the
    > Throwing Muses. They don't sell a lot of records but
    > they have an influence
    > that reaches far beyond themselves. That's what I
    > would define as success,
    > and the false perception on many mailing lists and
    > the "net.art community"
    > is that these artists don't actually matter. Give
    > them a few years and watch
    > what happens. Everyone getting shows and money now
    > are just easing the way
    > into the true explosion of new media.
    >
    > If JODI keeps exhibiting it will be encouraging to
    > see that net.art does not
    > need to turned into installation art before it can
    > be "exhibited."
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Michael Szpakowski" <szpako@yahoo.com>
    > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>;
    > <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 5:47 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece
    >
    >
    > > Hi Eryk
    > > < dream7 and fakeshop *are* the "big hitters." :)>
    > > is that so? -I obviously don't get out enough,
    > real or
    > > virtually.
    > > What I do find though is that looking at new media
    > art
    > > that gains funding here in the UK is it tends to
    > be
    > > "high concept" ( and often about surveillance
    > cameras,
    > > the internet, search engines, global positioning
    > > software blah blah blah) and not at all the kind
    > of
    > > ,loosely speaking, 'narrative' work that I see and
    > > admire in this piece.
    > > From my passing acquaintance with museum curated
    > net
    > > art/new media art in the States this also seems to
    > be
    > > true over there.
    > > Some of the positions taken on Rhizome do reflect
    > this
    > > tendency it's true, but by no means a majority,
    > but
    > > again I have to say I see in Rhizome a more
    > diverse
    > > and open group than you seem to.
    > > Keep posting!
    > > best
    > > michael
    > >
    > >
    > > =====
    > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is
    > for the use is that of
    > the sender and does not bind the precautions to
    > minimise authority in any
    > way. If you copy or distribute this by software
    > viruses email. We have taken
    > the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we
    > advise that you carry out
    > your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
    > email that you observe
    > this lack is not a secure communication medium, and
    > we advise of security
    > when emailing us. District Postmaster.
    > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > >
    > > __________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > > http://search.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

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • MTAA | Fri May 9th 2003 4:03 p.m.
    >>but, see, that's the problem ---people do look at all of what is
    >>produced for the web as an extension of Video and Film.
    >>
    >>i suspect that part of the problem is that this art movement was
    >>"academized" BEFORE it actually existed as a movement. and that a
    >>lot of these academics were coming straight out of video and
    >>performance studies. it could be also be that people are so used to
    >>seeing a screen and "reading" it as TV that they do not have any
    >>other way to apprehend this new media.
    >>
    >>all in all, i object to the art world taking Video, and using it
    >>as the measure for ALL digital art.
    >>
    >>best,
    >>/ l i z a
    >
    >
    >I agree, but this is my problem with a lot of conceptual art (no
    >matter what anything is about, it's always about my problem with
    >conceptual art). If I have to read an artist statment to know that
    >what seems to be video is actually randomly generated,
    >database-derived, real-time compiled new media with video data
    >components, then it just as soon be video. Video is as video does
    >(or behaves, or seems).

    ++

    my problem with curt's (general) crit is that he's always bringing up
    this duality: gallery vs. web, conceptual vs. visual, elitist vs.
    populist, etc.

    this duality doesn't exist. we're not in a pint glass. more
    conceptual or gallery or museum oriented work doesn't mean less
    cool-ass design/visual/punk-tude (or whatev you wanna call it) work
    that can fit, it's an ever expanding sphere of stuff.

    but, curt's args have worked on me a bit. i really want to bring this
    stuff all together, hopefully MTAA will be bringing some projects out
    soon that can combine visual concerns with a conceptual framework.

    it can be brought together (as i think curt does in practice, but his
    rhetoric seems to be different).
    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Liza Sabater | Fri May 9th 2003 4:16 p.m.
    gosh, i am such a dingbat --talking about flash, "Website Unseen"
    is one of my favorite flash projects and i am so sorry for the factual
    error of your press release. i have jonzed for years for one of those.

    actually, just so the world knows it, i am going to say it again:

    i am a huge fan of MTAA.

    i know you don't call yourselves flash artists but as far as flash art
    goes, i
    likes what i sees --ferociously witty yet completely unpretentious.
    real craft,
    not just academic showing-off. hard to find art like that these days.

    cheers,
    l i z a

    On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 13:29 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:

    > i'll dis flash in Toto.
    >
    > Toto should not eat flash :-)
    >
    >> On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:46 America/New_York, curt cloninger
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> To dis Flash en toto seems too tool-specific a critique.
    >>
    >> just a quick reply:
    >>
    >> NONONONONONONONONONO!
    >>
    >
  • Michael Szpakowski | Fri May 9th 2003 4:52 p.m.
    <and I'm known to
    quote Steely Dan in serious conversation.>
    Nothing at all amiss there.
    I've been listening to 'Two Against Nature' again
    continually this week - its the only
    getting-togther-after-twenty-five -years album I've
    ever heard that isn't plain depressing.
    'Almost Gothic' reduces me to near tears every time -
    both deeply moving and technically unbelievable.
    best
    michael

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • curt cloninger | Fri May 9th 2003 5:47 p.m.
    t:
    more conceptual or gallery or museum oriented work doesn't mean less cool-ass design/visual/punk-tude (or whatev you wanna call it) work that can fit, it's an ever expanding sphere of stuff.

    c:
    I totally agree.

    t:
    but, curt's args have worked on me a bit. i really want to bring this stuff all together, hopefully MTAA will be bringing some projects out soon that can combine visual concerns with a conceptual framework.

    c:
    cool. y'all's White Stripes piece has a dear place in my heart. As I wrote to m. river, Jack White's Lesley amp tone on Hello Operator is so discrete and unsustained, it's the perfect audio source for y'all's particuar hack.

    t:
    it can be brought together (as i think curt does in practice, but his rhetoric seems to be different).

    c:
    my rhetoric is rhetorical. we aim above the mark in order to hit the mark. I preach conceptual awareness/intention to the eye candy ds9r doodz crowd. And we will all gloriously collide in the wilderness of shining rocks.

    http://www.lab404.com/plotfracture/sop/
  • marc garrett | Sun May 11th 2003 11:54 a.m.
    Hi Liz,

    Regarding pretentiousness - I find it quite tough to define what is these
    days, not that I am saying that everything is pretentious, cuz it isn't. Yet
    a lot of what I define as pretentious, is not necessarily the net art itself
    but much more with the claims by some writers via their revisionist bias.

    I am looking forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy
    with net art comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of lip
    service) using quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at the
    Tate this weekend for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their own
    theme in actuality & when one observes the function of the conference a
    realization clouts one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is merely
    an excuse for an institutional 'get together'.

    Thus the Tate have lost the chance to get in the real dudes who are doing it
    for real and are giving a platform to the usual suspects - great! Nothing
    new there...now that is pretentious.

    marc

    > gosh, i am such a dingbat --talking about flash, "Website Unseen"
    > is one of my favorite flash projects and i am so sorry for the factual
    > error of your press release. i have jonzed for years for one of those.
    >
    > actually, just so the world knows it, i am going to say it again:
    >
    > i am a huge fan of MTAA.
    >
    > i know you don't call yourselves flash artists but as far as flash art
    > goes, i
    > likes what i sees --ferociously witty yet completely unpretentious.
    > real craft,
    > not just academic showing-off. hard to find art like that these days.
    >
    > cheers,
    > l i z a
    >
    >
    > On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 13:29 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:
    >
    > > i'll dis flash in Toto.
    > >
    > > Toto should not eat flash :-)
    > >
    > >> On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 12:46 America/New_York, curt cloninger
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> To dis Flash en toto seems too tool-specific a critique.
    > >>
    > >> just a quick reply:
    > >>
    > >> NONONONONONONONONONO!
    > >>
    > >
    >
    > + 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
    >
  • Jess Loseby | Sun May 11th 2003 5:58 p.m.
    <?xml version="1.0" ?>
    <html>
    <head>
    <title></title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <div align="left"><br/></div>
    <p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Absolutely marc, </span></font></p>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">participants for user-mode include
    Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
    for emotion and 'reality' content, Len </span></font><a href="participants/lev.html"><font face="Arial">
    Manovich</font></a><font face="Arial">
    &#160;and David Ross whose
    talks and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and
    emotional catharsis&#160; - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and
    graphics guys, all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in
    interactive art' (the promoted theme) is just </font><font face="Arial">
    <i>primary</i> to their practise:-)</font></div>
    <p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.</span></font></p>
    <p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">jess.</span></font></p>
    <div align="left"><br/></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; I am looking
    forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; with net art
    comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of lip</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; service) using
    quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at the</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; Tate this weekend
    for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their own</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; theme in actuality
    &amp; when one observes the function of the conference a</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; realization clouts
    one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is merely</span></font></div>
    <p><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; an excuse for an institutional
    'get together'.</span></font></p>
    <div align="left"><br/></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
    </body>
    </html>
  • Charlotte Frost | Sun May 11th 2003 6:54 p.m.
    The User_Mode symposium consisted of several artists who were some how
    embarrassed to call them selves artists; some who seemed to think that a
    good command of power point made them artists; and many who had totally
    forgotten that emotion and interactivity were the remit! - and made excuses
    for this by saying 'all art is emotional and everything is interactive'
    giving them carte blanche to talk about anything.

    And a pair working in scented fashion design pretty much stole the show when
    they gave us sex pheromones to smell!

    On the plus side, I am slightly addicted to symposiums because of all the
    bonding you can do with the rest of the audience when you 'critique'
    everything! ;-)

    I also found Honor Harger (webcasting curator) and Jemima Rellie (Head of
    Digital Programmes) very generous and accessible, so not all was lost!

    Charlotte

    PS Very nice shortbread on the tea breaks too!
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
    Jess Loseby
    Sent: 11 May 2003 21:59
    To: marc.garrett; list@rhizome.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece

    Absolutely marc,

    participants for user-mode include Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
    for emotion and 'reality' content, Len Manovich and David Ross whose talks
    and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and emotional
    catharsis - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and graphics guys,
    all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in interactive art' (the
    promoted theme) is just primary to their practise:-)
    bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.

    jess.

    > I am looking forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy
    > with net art comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of
    lip
    > service) using quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at
    the
    > Tate this weekend for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their
    own
    > theme in actuality & when one observes the function of the conference a
    > realization clouts one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is
    merely
    > an excuse for an institutional 'get together'.

    o
    /^ rssgallery.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
  • Jess Loseby | Sun May 11th 2003 8:16 p.m.
    Hi Charlotte,
    great you were there keeping check - give 'em hell;-)

    I was going to be there but I didn't think my currently vomiting toddler would go down
    well with the panel (although his response would have some interesting interactivity)
    cheers,
    jess.
    (ps pinch me a biscuit - I always wanted something stolen from the Tate!!!)

    Date sent: Sun, 11 May 2003 22:59:40 +0100
    Send reply to: "Charlotte Frost" <charlotte.frost@talk21.com>

    > The User_Mode symposium consisted of several artists who were some how
    > embarrassed to call them selves artists; some who seemed to think that a
    > good command of power point made them artists; and many who had totally
    > forgotten that emotion and interactivity were the remit! - and made excuses
    > for this by saying 'all art is emotional and everything is interactive'
    > giving them carte blanche to talk about anything.
    >
    > And a pair working in scented fashion design pretty much stole the show when
    > they gave us sex pheromones to smell!
    >
    > On the plus side, I am slightly addicted to symposiums because of all the
    > bonding you can do with the rest of the audience when you 'critique'
    > everything! ;-)
    >
    > I also found Honor Harger (webcasting curator) and Jemima Rellie (Head of
    > Digital Programmes) very generous and accessible, so not all was lost!
    >
    > Charlotte
    >
    > PS Very nice shortbread on the tea breaks too!
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
    > Jess Loseby
    > Sent: 11 May 2003 21:59
    > To: marc.garrett; list@rhizome.org
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: dream7 piece
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Absolutely marc,
    >
    > participants for user-mode include Joshua Davis - that internet crusader
    > for emotion and 'reality' content, Len Manovich and David Ross whose talks
    > and writing SO frequently explores artists using emotion and emotional
    > catharsis - ooh an lots of designers, games developers and graphics guys,
    > all whose battle to establish 'emotional engagement in interactive art' (the
    > promoted theme) is just primary to their practise:-)
    > bloody hell, I am jack's wasted life.
    >
    > jess.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I am looking forward to the day (some hope) when 'real' global democracy
    > > with net art comes about. Meaning that there is a lot of talk (a lot of
    > lip
    > > service) using quite interesting themes - the 'user mode' conference at
    > the
    > > Tate this weekend for instance. Yet it does not actually explore their
    > own
    > > theme in actuality & when one observes the function of the conference a
    > > realization clouts one on the head that a 'theme' in this respect is
    > merely
    > > an excuse for an institutional 'get together'.
    >
    >
    >
    > o
    > /^ rssgallery.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
    >

    o
    /^ rssgallery.com
    ][
  • Lewis LaCook | Sun May 11th 2003 10:50 p.m.
    i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just okay---nothing fabulous----

    it's a bit simple and predictable, and the flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic flash, but this is like flash 101 when it comes to animation and code...and conceptually, it treads the same very tired track...

    great discussion arising out of it, though...

    bliss

    l

    > Yes it's a nice piece.
    > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but without
    > recourse to having the viewer click for the sake of
    > it.
    > There is a kind of genre of
    > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
    > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
    > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
    > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
    > consistently exciting and interesting and which I
    > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
    > have rather more importance than they are accorded
    > now.
    > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
    > -obviously thought and care went into them.
    > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds anything
    > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
    > orthodoxy.
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
    > >
    > >
    > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned here, dream7
    > > and fakeshop.
    > >
    > > -e.
    > >
    >
    >
    > =====
    > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
    > of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
    > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
    > We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
    > that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
    > email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
    > medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
    > Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > http://search.yahoo.com
  • Lewis LaCook | Sun May 11th 2003 10:52 p.m.
    >
    > You've been reading too much Rhizome, Michael, don't let them fool
    > you-
    > dream7 and fakeshop *are* the "big hitters." :)

    hierarchy!=heroic.
    period

    >
    > -e.
    >

    >
    >=-=-=-=-=-L
    >
  • Lewis LaCook | Sun May 11th 2003 10:57 p.m.
    >>
    > oh but au contraire my friend, when it comes to what is considered
    > netart these days, movies are all the rage. i am sorry, no offense
    > intended to the the people behind dream7, fakeshop or even the
    > grand
    > daddy of the form, josh davis, but the problem with flash is that
    > it
    > has made everybody assume that what is happening on the screen is
    > an
    > extension of video or movies; when in truth, for most 'heavy
    > hitters'
    > it is an extension of painting, writing, adventures in bad coding
    > and
    > video games. but does most of the artworld know that? nope.

    this, liz, is because there's a lot of bad flash out there!!!

    and i think you're right---for me, it's all an extension of writing and music, not video////and normally i'm horridly bored by non-interactive movies on the net---WHY are they on the net? WHY are they not on film? are they using anything native to the netork? are they using anything native to the computer? these questions plague me when i come across noninteractive movies/////

    and i love flash----it's so strange that among much of the net art community it's known as a "multimedia" tool, when actionscript is such a rich and strange scripting language///i think this is because, relatively, flash is still young....

    bliss
    l
  • Michael Szpakowski | Mon May 12th 2003 5:59 a.m.
    Hi Lewis
    < i hate to disagree here,>
    Why!? Disagreement, preferably friendly disagreement,
    is the life blood of something like this list.
    As to the dream7 piece -I like it -I don't use flash
    so I'm very outside of the technical discussion,
    but anyway sometimes, often, technical skill is not
    the key question, just part of the equation. In the
    case of individual works like this I guess it does
    come down to taste but I tried to list some of the
    stuff that made me warm to it.
    As for interactivity -I'm neither "for" nor "against"
    it per se.
    What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
    do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
    particular work but which measures things against a
    particular technical or conceptual yardstick,
    especially when this orthodoxy is the one that is used
    to measure funding for new work.
    (as clearly *does* happen in the official art bodies
    here in the UK; I'm happy to be be instructed on the
    situation in the US ) If "noninteractive " ,
    "nonconceptual " or anything else felt like the
    orthodoxy I'd be inclined to have a tilt at *that*.
    I think the questions you raise about what is net
    idiomatic are good ones. its just that I find the
    answers "network" and "interactive" a bit glib as
    answers.
    I agree that this engendered a good discussion and I
    think it's interesting that the best ones recently
    have been spawned by posts on particular works.
    I would encourage people to post their reasoned
    reactions to particular pieces. It seems to me that
    its in the detailed, concrete examination of specific
    works that masses of very pertinent general issues
    arise in a natural way.
    best
    michael

    =====
    *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • marc garrett | Mon May 12th 2003 7:46 a.m.
    I have no issue with the medium used really, each to their own creative
    process - yet I have a problem much more with the clich'e Baudrillard
    references.

    Using such references instantly declares an almost illustrational intellect,
    using ideas/notions handed down via educational protocol is not necessarily
    an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to show more what one has been
    informed of by other people, rather than what one carries as a creative
    entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated and displayed as art/design
    = information.

    What I also find is interesting is what is not being communicated in their
    work. The function or act of their 'Exformation', what they are not saying
    or doing. For therin lies a more interesting set of ideas and 'embodied'
    experience that connects them, their true essence.

    marc

    > i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just okay---nothing
    fabulous----
    >
    > it's a bit simple and predictable, and the flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not
    usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic flash, but this is like flash
    101 when it comes to animation and code...and conceptually, it treads the
    same very tired track...
    >
    >
    > great discussion arising out of it, though...
    >
    > bliss
    >
    >
    >
    > l
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Yes it's a nice piece.
    > > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but without
    > > recourse to having the viewer click for the sake of
    > > it.
    > > There is a kind of genre of
    > > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
    > > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
    > > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
    > > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
    > > consistently exciting and interesting and which I
    > > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
    > > have rather more importance than they are accorded
    > > now.
    > > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
    > > -obviously thought and care went into them.
    > > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds anything
    > > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
    > > orthodoxy.
    > > best
    > > michael
    > >
    > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    > > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned here, dream7
    > > > and fakeshop.
    > > >
    > > > -e.
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > =====
    > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
    > > of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
    > > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
    > > We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
    > > that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
    > > email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
    > > medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
    > > Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > >
    > > __________________________________
    > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > > http://search.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
    >
  • Jess Loseby | Mon May 12th 2003 8:19 a.m.
    As much as I have enjoyed reading the discussion too, I have to agree
    with Lewis that this piece is 'ok' but little more.
    My natural response is to defend Flash as aggressively as possible (as
    I primarily think much the usual criticism of its use in artwork comes
    form a technological snobbery rather than criticism of the form and
    content of the work in question) but I'd don't think this work is a great
    advocate for it.
    I use the word hesitantly (as there is some really original work coming
    out of many colleges at the moment) but does no-one else think it feels
    a little 'studenty'? By this I mean, I feel the piece is trying to put a lot of
    ticks in a lot of boxes in terms of how it functions and it's thematics (and
    perhaps, in what is felt it 'should' be doing) but doesn't really quite
    reach any of them....???
    jess.

    Date sent: Mon, 12 May 2003 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
    To: Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com>,
    list@rhizome.org
    Send reply to: Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com>

    > Hi Lewis
    > < i hate to disagree here,>
    > Why!? Disagreement, preferably friendly disagreement,
    > is the life blood of something like this list.
    > As to the dream7 piece -I like it -I don't use flash
    > so I'm very outside of the technical discussion,
    > but anyway sometimes, often, technical skill is not
    > the key question, just part of the equation. In the
    > case of individual works like this I guess it does
    > come down to taste but I tried to list some of the
    > stuff that made me warm to it.
    > As for interactivity -I'm neither "for" nor "against"
    > it per se.
    > What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
    > do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
    > particular work but which measures things against a
    > particular technical or conceptual yardstick,
    > especially when this orthodoxy is the one that is used
    > to measure funding for new work.
    > (as clearly *does* happen in the official art bodies
    > here in the UK; I'm happy to be be instructed on the
    > situation in the US ) If "noninteractive " ,
    > "nonconceptual " or anything else felt like the
    > orthodoxy I'd be inclined to have a tilt at *that*.
    > I think the questions you raise about what is net
    > idiomatic are good ones. its just that I find the
    > answers "network" and "interactive" a bit glib as
    > answers.
    > I agree that this engendered a good discussion and I
    > think it's interesting that the best ones recently
    > have been spawned by posts on particular works.
    > I would encourage people to post their reasoned
    > reactions to particular pieces. It seems to me that
    > its in the detailed, concrete examination of specific
    > works that masses of very pertinent general issues
    > arise in a natural way.
    > best
    > michael
    o
    /^ rssgallery.com
    ][
  • curt cloninger | Mon May 12th 2003 12:03 p.m.
    > What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
    > do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
    > particular work but which measures things against a
    > particular technical or conceptual yardstick

    I totally agree. This type of formalist critique (is it net-centric? what expected statements does it make [man/machine, telepresence, surveilance, political protest]? is it reactive, autogenerative, non-linear?) is like connect the dots for lazy art critics. Props to marc garrettt for posting what I'm reading as the only truly incisive crit of this piece thus far. Everybody is talking about their own grids and filters and agendas, and nobody is engaging with the piece to see the terms on which it attempts to communicate itself. Is it lack of ability to engage with an art object as anything other than a conceptual signifier? Is it a dearth of vocabulary with which to describe an appropriately concise aesthetic reaction?

    It's like critiquing Monet's water lily pond painting and saying, "well, it's a bit blurry. You can't really see the objects clearly. Perhaps he should better acquaint himself with Photoshop's 'unsharp mask' filter."

    This particular dream7 piece may well suck, but pointing out how it doesn't fit through your genre grid is a shorthand way of telling me nothing much.
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon May 12th 2003 1:01 p.m.
    I don't understand?

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>

    > hierarchy!=heroic.
    > period
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon May 12th 2003 1:01 p.m.
    Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references have been the same if
    they piece had included references to something like Lewis Carrol or TS
    Eliot? Granted they are literary examples and Beadrillard resides in the
    area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the Tao Te Ching or
    Revelations?

    I'm not entirely sure that quoting Beaudrillard actually is designed to
    "illustrate intellect". For many people, quoting philosophers is done for
    reasons aside from simply proving that one can quote a philosopher. How much
    stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the artist and isn't "handed
    down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not much.

    A lot of art is a conduit for ideas or an interaction with ideas. You can
    quote the source directly, or create a mishmash of ideas and call it
    "independant creative energy." I don't mean to say independant creative
    energy does not exist, but jamming a series of philosophies together isn't
    it. A common problem with the artist these days is that in the rejection of
    "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we can "pick and choose"
    from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we "like". It's not true.
    If an actually powerful system of thought is designed from scratch it
    requires paying attention to its totality- progress happens in the bits and
    pieces we don't "like." You should not change your therapist when they say
    some of the blame lies with the patient. It's not an excuse for dogma or
    fundamentalism, either, but rather, it's humility. If your "truth" about the
    system is there it will become apparent and changes can take place. I just
    worry that a lot of faux "independant thought" is precisely the opposite,
    it's a total choosing of the easiest elements of various philosophies which
    contributes to diluting the potency of all of them.

    If this seems like rambling, it's not, in in regards to the "chinese
    whispers" effect that you talk about. I think that what you call the
    "regurgitation" of ideas can really be called a distortion of mediation, in
    this regard the words are presented in thier totality, so there is no
    distortion of information by the medium it is departed in. Had they
    presented ideas as thier own which were half imagined and half "simulation
    and simulacra" by Jean Beaudrillard then you might have a case for
    distortion, but what's interesting is that this would usually pass for
    "independant creative thought" whereas adding color/art to a text which
    serves as a distinct and seperate *interpretation* is written off as
    pretentious.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    To: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:46 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece

    > I have no issue with the medium used really, each to their own creative
    > process - yet I have a problem much more with the clich'e Baudrillard
    > references.
    >
    > Using such references instantly declares an almost illustrational
    intellect,
    > using ideas/notions handed down via educational protocol is not
    necessarily
    > an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to show more what one has
    been
    > informed of by other people, rather than what one carries as a creative
    > entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated and displayed as
    art/design
    > = information.
    >
    > What I also find is interesting is what is not being communicated in their
    > work. The function or act of their 'Exformation', what they are not saying
    > or doing. For therin lies a more interesting set of ideas and 'embodied'
    > experience that connects them, their true essence.
    >
    > marc
    >
    >
    >
    > > i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just okay---nothing
    > fabulous----
    > >
    > > it's a bit simple and predictable, and the flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not
    > usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic flash, but this is like flash
    > 101 when it comes to animation and code...and conceptually, it treads the
    > same very tired track...
    > >
    > >
    > > great discussion arising out of it, though...
    > >
    > > bliss
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > l
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > Yes it's a nice piece.
    > > > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but without
    > > > recourse to having the viewer click for the sake of
    > > > it.
    > > > There is a kind of genre of
    > > > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which don't seem
    > > > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of things
    > > > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the like
    > > > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which I find
    > > > consistently exciting and interesting and which I
    > > > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of things to
    > > > have rather more importance than they are accorded
    > > > now.
    > > > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
    > > > -obviously thought and care went into them.
    > > > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds anything
    > > > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
    > > > orthodoxy.
    > > > best
    > > > michael
    > > >
    > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    > > > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned here, dream7
    > > > > and fakeshop.
    > > > >
    > > > > -e.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > =====
    > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that
    > > > of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority
    > > > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email.
    > > > We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise
    > > > that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
    > > > email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication
    > > > medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District
    > > > Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > > >
    > > > __________________________________
    > > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > > > http://search.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
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    > + 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
    >
  • Lewis LaCook | Mon May 12th 2003 1:04 p.m.
    Using such references instantly declares an almost
    > illustrational intellect,
    > using ideas/notions handed down via educational
    > protocol is not necessarily
    > an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to
    > show more what one has been
    > informed of by other people, rather than what one
    > carries as a creative
    > entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated and
    > displayed as art/design
    > = information.
    >

    EXACTLY! it says: i am a good student, i've read mt
    baudrillard---but does nothing really to make these
    ideas concrete, to CONVINCE the user, to EMBODY the
    ideas---the ideas float above the piece, and we're
    supposed to quiver in awe at them, i suppose---

    i would have respected the work more if it had veered
    away from this---if it had instead given me some sort
    of glimpse into what it's like to be a human being in
    the 21st century...i don't want academic dogma...i
    want human concerns...

    bliss
    l

    =====

    NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows

    http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe

    http://www.lewislacook.com/

    tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • Lewis LaCook | Mon May 12th 2003 1:12 p.m.
    Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references
    > have been the same if
    > they piece had included references to something like
    > Lewis Carrol or TS
    > Eliot?

    yes! "Lewis Carrol" and "T.S. Eliot" are words...

    Granted they are literary examples and
    > Beadrillard resides in the
    > area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
    > Tao Te Ching or
    > Revelations?

    1) I'm not so sure there's that big a gulf between
    literature and philosophy---hasn't been since
    nietszche--

    2) I would still have had problems with the
    piece--regurgitation is regurgitation---and my
    problems with the work involve the work as a whole,
    anyway---like i said, it's just OK---

    How much
    > stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
    > artist and isn't "handed
    > down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
    > much.

    --i would say nothing at all, really///but the
    exciting stuff happens in the mix...and there's no mix
    here, no new angle from which to see it///it's like
    reading "Baudrillard for Dummies"...

    A common problem with the artist these days is
    > that in the rejection of
    > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
    > can "pick and choose"
    > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
    > "like". It's not true.
    > If an actually powerful system of thought is
    > designed from scratch it
    > requires paying attention to its totality- progress
    > happens in the bits and
    > pieces we don't "like."

    bullshit--part of the freedom of being human is being
    able to synthesize, which means that i can take what i
    like and i can discard the rest//what i like will
    collidge with other things i like, and eventually a
    "system" of thought will be born (i dislike that,
    actually...and i would stand behind what kierkegarrd
    said about systems and their insufficiency---ack, here
    i am referencing kierkegaard! )

    it's not an easy way out either////the work comes in
    making those bits and pieces you've gathered fit
    together in some meaningful way into your life, into
    your daily practice...we don't really need a "system"
    of thought---systems of thought have gotten us nothing
    but war and genocide///

    bliss
    l

    --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    > Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references
    > have been the same if
    > they piece had included references to something like
    > Lewis Carrol or TS
    > Eliot? Granted they are literary examples and
    > Beadrillard resides in the
    > area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
    > Tao Te Ching or
    > Revelations?
    >
    > I'm not entirely sure that quoting Beaudrillard
    > actually is designed to
    > "illustrate intellect". For many people, quoting
    > philosophers is done for
    > reasons aside from simply proving that one can quote
    > a philosopher. How much
    > stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
    > artist and isn't "handed
    > down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
    > much.
    >
    > A lot of art is a conduit for ideas or an
    > interaction with ideas. You can
    > quote the source directly, or create a mishmash of
    > ideas and call it
    > "independant creative energy." I don't mean to say
    > independant creative
    > energy does not exist, but jamming a series of
    > philosophies together isn't
    > it. A common problem with the artist these days is
    > that in the rejection of
    > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
    > can "pick and choose"
    > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
    > "like". It's not true.
    > If an actually powerful system of thought is
    > designed from scratch it
    > requires paying attention to its totality- progress
    > happens in the bits and
    > pieces we don't "like." You should not change your
    > therapist when they say
    > some of the blame lies with the patient. It's not an
    > excuse for dogma or
    > fundamentalism, either, but rather, it's humility.
    > If your "truth" about the
    > system is there it will become apparent and changes
    > can take place. I just
    > worry that a lot of faux "independant thought" is
    > precisely the opposite,
    > it's a total choosing of the easiest elements of
    > various philosophies which
    > contributes to diluting the potency of all of them.
    >
    > If this seems like rambling, it's not, in in regards
    > to the "chinese
    > whispers" effect that you talk about. I think that
    > what you call the
    > "regurgitation" of ideas can really be called a
    > distortion of mediation, in
    > this regard the words are presented in thier
    > totality, so there is no
    > distortion of information by the medium it is
    > departed in. Had they
    > presented ideas as thier own which were half
    > imagined and half "simulation
    > and simulacra" by Jean Beaudrillard then you might
    > have a case for
    > distortion, but what's interesting is that this
    > would usually pass for
    > "independant creative thought" whereas adding
    > color/art to a text which
    > serves as a distinct and seperate *interpretation*
    > is written off as
    > pretentious.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
    > To: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>;
    > <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:46 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
    >
    >
    > > I have no issue with the medium used really, each
    > to their own creative
    > > process - yet I have a problem much more with the
    > clich'e Baudrillard
    > > references.
    > >
    > > Using such references instantly declares an almost
    > illustrational
    > intellect,
    > > using ideas/notions handed down via educational
    > protocol is not
    > necessarily
    > > an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to
    > show more what one has
    > been
    > > informed of by other people, rather than what one
    > carries as a creative
    > > entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated
    > and displayed as
    > art/design
    > > = information.
    > >
    > > What I also find is interesting is what is not
    > being communicated in their
    > > work. The function or act of their 'Exformation',
    > what they are not saying
    > > or doing. For therin lies a more interesting set
    > of ideas and 'embodied'
    > > experience that connects them, their true essence.
    > >
    > > marc
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just
    > okay---nothing
    > > fabulous----
    > > >
    > > > it's a bit simple and predictable, and the
    > flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not
    > > usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic
    > flash, but this is like flash
    > > 101 when it comes to animation and code...and
    > conceptually, it treads the
    > > same very tired track...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > great discussion arising out of it, though...
    > > >
    > > > bliss
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > l
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Yes it's a nice piece.
    > > > > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but
    > without
    > > > > recourse to having the viewer click for the
    > sake of
    > > > > it.
    > > > > There is a kind of genre of
    > > > > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which
    > don't seem
    > > > > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of
    > things
    > > > > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the
    > like
    > > > > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which
    > I find
    > > > > consistently exciting and interesting and
    > which I
    > > > > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of
    > things to
    > > > > have rather more importance than they are
    > accorded
    > > > > now.
    > > > > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
    > > > > -obviously thought and care went into them.
    > > > > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds
    > anything
    > > > > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
    > > > > orthodoxy.
    > > > > best
    > > > > michael
    > > > >
    > > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    > > > > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned
    > here, dream7
    > > > > > and fakeshop.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > -e.
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > =====
    > > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains
    > is for the use is that
    > > > > of the sender and does not bind the
    > precautions to minimise authority
    > > > > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by
    > software viruses email.
    > > > > We have taken the risk of transmitting
    > software viruses, but we advise
    > > > > that you carry out your own virus attachment
    > to this message. Internet
    > > > > email that you observe this lack is not a
    > secure communication
    > > > > medium, and we advise of security when
    > emailing us. District
    > > > > Postmaster.
    > http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
    > > > >
    > > > > __________________________________
    > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
    > > > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    > > > > http://search.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
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > + 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
    > >
    >

    =====

    NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows

    http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe

    http://www.lewislacook.com/

    tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • Lewis LaCook | Mon May 12th 2003 1:15 p.m.
    point well taken!
    bliss
    l

    > > What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
    > > do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
    > > particular work but which measures things against a
    > > particular technical or conceptual yardstick
    >
    > I totally agree. This type of formalist critique (is it net-centric?
    > what expected statements does it make [man/machine, telepresence,
    > surveilance, political protest]? is it reactive, autogenerative,
    > non-linear?) is like connect the dots for lazy art critics. Props to
    > marc garrettt for posting what I'm reading as the only truly incisive
    > crit of this piece thus far. Everybody is talking about their own
    > grids and filters and agendas, and nobody is engaging with the piece
    > to see the terms on which it attempts to communicate itself. Is it
    > lack of ability to engage with an art object as anything other than a
    > conceptual signifier? Is it a dearth of vocabulary with which to
    > describe an appropriately concise aesthetic reaction?
    >
    > It's like critiquing Monet's water lily pond painting and saying,
    > "well, it's a bit blurry. You can't really see the objects clearly.
    > Perhaps he should better acquaint himself with Photoshop's 'unsharp
    > mask' filter."
    >
    > This particular dream7 piece may well suck, but pointing out how it
    > doesn't fit through your genre grid is a shorthand way of telling me
    > nothing much.
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon May 12th 2003 2:02 p.m.
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>

    > 1) I'm not so sure there's that big a gulf between
    > literature and philosophy---hasn't been since
    > nietszche--

    That was my point.

    > --i would say nothing at all, really///but the
    > exciting stuff happens in the mix...and there's no mix
    > here, no new angle from which to see it///it's like
    > reading "Baudrillard for Dummies"...

    Is "excitement" the measuring stick for the quality of an idea? Because if
    it was, pornography and NASCAR are clearly ideological powerhouses and
    Deleuze, Beaudrillard and even old poetry like Rilke and TS Eliot are
    nothing.

    > bullshit--part of the freedom of being human is being
    > able to synthesize, which means that i can take what i
    > like and i can discard the rest//

    Precisely the attitude I question. This is a sort of "new age" philosophy
    which at its core value is "if it feels good, do it." Artists hate
    discipline- it's too "fascist" to be "disciplined" in order to actually gain
    an understanding of an idea or set of ideas. Instead, we want to start
    smearing shit all over the place and we are in a hurry to do it. How we ever
    got to the notion that humans could progress through the comfort of choosing
    seems to be a distinctly post modern idea that reaks of the worst elements
    of consumerism, which equates choice with a choice between products on a
    supermarket shelf, and freedom with the ability to go to another store.
    Freedom and choice go way beyond this. Yes, you have the "freedom" to take
    what you want of your medicine until you "feel better" and discard the rest,
    but now we have strains of virii which have grown beyond the ability of
    traditional antibiotics to stop them. Ideas are viral replicators and I
    think a very similar phenomenon could take place and has taken place, just
    look at what has happened to religion.

    what i like will
    > collidge with other things i like, and eventually a
    > "system" of thought will be born

    A system of thought born out of what is the equivilent of "yes-men." But
    instead they are "yes-ideas." To say "This idea makes me feel good, I will
    listen to it and use it" and "This idea makes me feel bad, I will reject it"
    is not progress and neither is it enlightened [in any sense of the word.] I
    don't think you can build up a reservoir of "yes" to draw from when you need
    empowering, I think empowerment comes from being able to generate "yes" when
    you need it, and some of the "boring ideas" are about precisely this, and
    usually being able to generate that "yes" means dealing with all of your own
    "no."

    > (i dislike that,
    > actually...and i would stand behind what kierkegarrd
    > said about systems and their insufficiency---ack, here
    > i am referencing kierkegaard! )

    And that's precisely the point.

    >
    > it's not an easy way out either////the work comes in
    > making those bits and pieces you've gathered fit
    > together in some meaningful way into your life, into
    > your daily practice...

    That's not hard, that's what humans are wired to do. They are constantly
    generating meaning when there is none, and they are constantly creating
    interpretations based on emotions they can't control.

    > we don't really need a "system"
    > of thought---systems of thought have gotten us nothing
    > but war and genocide///

    Well then, that's your system of thought. It is not "thought" but
    "thoughtlessness" that gives humans war and genocide, it is the desire for a
    system of thought to be "right" and another one to be "wrong" which are both
    imaginary unless you have some other [also imaginary] "goal" in mind. In
    this same sense we can reject "wrong" thoughts and accept "right" ones as
    you stated you do, and I do not see how that eliminates the right/wrong
    mechanism for filing order into the world which is central to wars and mass
    exterminations of people who do the "wrong" thing?

    -e.
  • Lewis LaCook | Mon May 12th 2003 3:38 p.m.
    --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>
    >
    >
    > > this is a bit shortsighted, and horribly untrue...
    > > how could an artist create ANYTHING without a
    > certain
    > > amount of discipline? you have to actually sit
    > down
    > > and do it day by day, and still feel enthusiastic
    > > enough about it to sustain projects...you have to
    > have
    > > the discipline to do it over and over again until
    > you
    > > develop the muscles every good artist
    > has...musicians
    > > have to rehearse, poets have to write and write
    > and
    > > write before they can finally write poetry in a
    > way
    > > that combines what they've read with what they
    > feel
    > > and know...
    >
    > And so far throughout this entire process you have
    > not once mentioned the
    > discipline required to *think*.

    because thinking is plural, eryk...it's not as simple
    as what you're laying out...otherwise, we REALLY would
    have been able to design a machine that
    thinks...instead, all we can do is design machines
    that make decisions...which is not really thinking...

    there's visual thought and sonic thought and
    linguistic thought and mathematical thought and
    algorithmic thought and...

    so...disciplines...

    >
    >
    > > but it's not all about feeling good...not at
    > > all...what appeals to me does not neccessarily
    > "feel
    > > good"---i love atonal music, and atonal music
    > doesn't
    > > always feel good---i love aleatory process, but
    > > sometimes the results of that process don't feel
    > > good...pleasure, strangely, doesn't always feel
    > > good...
    >
    >
    > I was talking about the pleasure that comes from a
    > "pleasing" idea and the
    > rejection of the ones that are not.

    but why then would these arts have been made? why
    atonality? it's a rejection of something
    pleasing--classical harmony, functional
    tonality...just as aleatoric art is a rejection in
    some ways of a way of seeing an artwork as a
    totality////

    see, this is all too general...what do you mean by
    "idea?" what do you mean by "thought?"

    >
    >
    > > to be a yes-man in net art i would have to, for
    > > example, salivate whenever i heard vuk cosic's
    > name,
    > > or admire any number of works simply because they
    > are
    > > canonical---the same is true for poetry...i'd have
    > to
    > > love shakespeare because i was told that
    > shakespeare
    > > is great...but what if i start asking questions?
    > what
    > > if i ask what is it about vuk cosic or shakespeare
    > > that makes their work great? then i'm getting
    > > somewhere---and my answers may vary considerably
    > from
    > > yours---which is good...
    >
    >
    > Yes that's fine, but that is not what I am talking
    > about. I am talking abour
    > accepting or rejecting philosophies based on a
    > yes-man attitude for your own
    > self. One who salivates at any idea which he/she
    > deems as "good" and
    > tyrannically rejects any idea that he/she deems as
    > "bad."

    but you yourself, by authoring rules for net art
    (unless these are as tongue-in-cheek as i actually
    believe they are), have "tyrannically rejected" ideas
    you deem as "bad." it's the same thing. in the end,
    one does take positions, which involves
    discrimination...the struggle is to remain open, to
    watch the ideas you rejected and respect them...

    >
    >
    >
    > > kierkegarrd basically wrote that systems are
    > > impossible...because life isn't closed, it's not
    > > over...and systems encapsulate dead
    > things...things
    > > that are no longer growing---
    >
    > Precisely, and a system could we build to maintain a
    > constant awareness of
    > those types of things?

    not sure what you're getting at here...(and my am i
    full of typos today)---but would that be a system?

    >
    >
    > > but it is thought that leads to war...thought and
    > the
    > > manipulation of thought---would we have had hitler
    > if
    > > we hadn't had hegel?
    >
    > We had Hegel without Hitler. You are refferring
    > again not to intellectual
    > thought but to intellectual thoughtlessness. I'm not
    > really talking about
    > intellect, I am talking about observation.
    > -e.
    >

    but we didn't have hitler without hegel, and that's
    the unfortunate thing...

    bliss
    l

    >

    =====

    NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows

    http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe

    http://www.lewislacook.com/

    tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
    http://search.yahoo.com
  • Liza Sabater | Tue May 13th 2003 2:23 a.m.
    On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 12:02 America/New_York, Lewis LaCook wrote:

    > EXACTLY! it says: i am a good student, i've read mt
    > baudrillard---but does nothing really to make these
    > ideas concrete, to CONVINCE the user, to EMBODY the
    > ideas---the ideas float above the piece, and we're
    > supposed to quiver in awe at them, i suppose---

    you know, and the thing is that other people did this WAAAAAAAAAAY
    better before them, in books nonetheless --think of Julio Cortazar's
    Rayuela (Hopscotch).

    there is something about having aha! moments where your laughter or
    intrigue or shock eventually makes you aware of where lies the possible
    inspiration for a piece. or even if you err in that assumption, at
    least you come into the work as a space for 'reading'; meaning, as a
    space open to the creativity of interpretation. it's for this reason
    that still to this day i am consistently amazed (as far as use of flash
    goes, if we are going to stick to a medium) at how much i like MTAAs
    work.

    they do their work and leave you be with the art.

    best,
    l i z a
  • marc garrett | Wed May 14th 2003 8:36 a.m.
    Hi Eryk,

    I see that you have left some cranium-based reflections below for the
    chewing.

    > Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references have been the same if
    > they piece had included references to something like Lewis Carrol or TS
    > Eliot?

    Not really - Lewis Carrol or TS Eliot, are not an accepted common currency
    in respect of net language-mixed with jargon declarations in the art-void.

    Granted they are literary examples and Beadrillard resides in the
    > area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the Tao Te Ching or
    > Revelations?
    >I'm not entirely sure that quoting Beaudrillard actually is designed to
    > "illustrate intellect". For many people, quoting philosophers is done for
    > reasons aside from simply proving that one can quote a philosopher.

    Whether it was a conscious act to 'illustrate intellect', misses the point,
    for I do not feel it was informed enough to do such a thing, more an act of
    tradition. For when one observes the function of the text-based, visual work
    and its habitual acceptance of using such references to back up the work;
    you get the sense that without it, it is nothing but design. A technically
    well produced web site, but just like when one plays the guitar and wishes
    to play the blues with a wholesome sense of depth, one has gotta put a
    little bit of soul also into it, reasonings and the 'in between things'.

    I am very much into people using and learning from
    ideas/theory/literature/history (to a point) but not necessarily for
    peer-wise comfort.
    References sooner or later become symbols, signifiers and insipid catch
    phrases.

    One has to go through the process of defining what really works
    conceptually, emotionally, intellectually on par with whatever skill one
    possesses and communicating further than (respected & accepted) standardized
    maxims. Inserted words by someone famous & mixing design into it, is not
    gonna provoke anything
    revelatory or forward thinking. Reliance on using such references could be
    seen as an easy way out of actually really going through the process of
    thinking for one's self.

    Potential variations/suggestions, choices and motivations on how to produce
    such a piece practically - referencing Baudrillard. (examples)

    1- What did he mean? Is he just talking opinionated crap?

    2- If I do find out what he means, is my own work going to put it
    across into a different light?

    3- Am I just producing work to an already converted audience that feels
    comfortable with discussing the same accepted ideologoes (txt - based
    signifiers) amongst themselves? Am I just using the usual jargon so to feel
    more comfortable?

    3(a)- Am I using someone else's words that do not specifically relate to my
    own personal life other than via the context of art-speak?

    4- If so, how can I make the writing be more relevant to other people?

    5- Do I really agree with him? If I don't, can I successfuly challenge these
    ideas and
    words?

    6- Can I say it better?

    7- If so, how can I say it better? Also, in what way can I say it better? Do
    I use real-life experience to give it a rooted substance?

    8- Are there any other people out there writing or creating in a similar
    vein? What can they introduce to my work?

    Of course, the above is just an example of how to think around using
    reference/ideas and always changing due to circumsatnce, influences and
    situation.

    > How much stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the artist and
    isn't "handed
    > down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not much.

    This question begins with the presumption that everyone copies by default to
    a large degree - I do not believe that this is a realistic position. Yes, I
    know that in various degrees (large or small) that everyone is influenced,
    but if we are talking about the Dream 7 piece and the txt and the
    illustrative work that accompanies it - it is a Baudrillard piece, he did
    it. Even though someone built a site for it...

    Using an accepted currency, specifically Braudrillard; puts forward the
    delusory notion that the creative individual(s) is/are informed. I am
    personally more interested in a more intuitively informed act of
    communication -
    whatever the medium.

    This duality of inserting someone else's snippets of theory-txt juxtaposed
    with design, a
    collection of moving illustrations representing someone else's ideas are not
    forward thinking by any stretch of the imagination. If they were asked to
    illustrate various 'soundbites' from the philosopher's own text by his own
    suggestion, as part of a project to encourage budding thinkers, critics,
    artists etc; then it is successful within that action alone.

    I personally have no axe to grind in respect of reference perse, whether it
    be literary, cartoon strips or science. It just so happens to be the case
    that Braudrillard is used like some kind of passport for post-modern
    acceptance in the clich'e ridden art world, under the guise of cutting edge.
    Once, it could have been an Ace card, but now, it has been overplayed.

    Of course, to presume that any artist intellectually is an island unto
    themselves is a foolhardy place to hide one's mind. Yet, your presumption
    can only be viewed as a stance of not recognizing the potential of people
    understanding things on their own terms also. Life's a mixed bag and
    academic reference is not the be all and end all as far creative function is
    concerned. Although, it is true that many artists feel more secure and
    comfortable using other people's ideas to back up their own.

    > A lot of art is a conduit for ideas or an interaction with ideas. You can
    > quote the source directly, or create a mishmash of ideas and call it
    > "independant creative energy." I don't mean to say independant creative
    > energy does not exist, but jamming a series of philosophies together isn't
    > it.

    If you advocate singular methodology, surely this stubborn stance would (and
    usually does) box one's creative growth into a corner of puritanical
    ghetto-mentality - a neurosis led escape route. To limit options is to close
    potential realizations. Besides, this subjective fear regarding the jamming
    of philosophies is not real, just a presumption and reflection of 9possibly)
    your own disquiet with others being flexible in their approaches towards
    their own decided processes of intutitive learning and discovering.

    >A common problem with the artist these days is that in the rejection of
    > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we can "pick and choose"
    > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we "like". It's not
    true.

    Who cares? Are you my dad or something? People will find their direction
    whatever they feel will guide them closer to making good work. We are not
    all clones waiting for the right references to 'open sesame'. Not yet -
    Click!
    Not yet - Click!
    Not yet - Click!
    Not yet - Click!
    Not yet - Click!

    > If an actually powerful system of thought is designed from scratch it
    > requires paying attention to its totality- progress happens in the bits
    and
    > pieces we don't "like." You should not change your therapist when they say
    > some of the blame lies with the patient.

    Well that depends on whether you view theory of thought as therapy - I
    don't.

    It's not an excuse for dogma or
    > fundamentalism, either, but rather, it's humility. If your "truth" about
    the
    > system is there it will become apparent and changes can take place. I just
    > worry that a lot of faux "independant thought" is precisely the opposite,
    > it's a total choosing of the easiest elements of various philosophies
    which
    > contributes to diluting the potency of all of them.

    Yes, I agree choosing the easiest way is a docile 'sleepwalking' action
    triggered by unrealized behaviour patterns.

    There are some people who are actually making a change, and it is not as
    negative as you would like to paint it.

    >
    > If this seems like rambling, it's not, in in regards to the "chinese
    > whispers" effect that you talk about. I think that what you call the
    > "regurgitation" of ideas can really be called a distortion of mediation,
    in
    > this regard the words are presented in thier totality, so there is no
    > distortion of information by the medium it is departed in. Had they
    > presented ideas as thier own which were half imagined and half "simulation
    > and simulacra" by Jean Beaudrillard then you might have a case for
    > distortion, but what's interesting is that this would usually pass for
    > "independant creative thought" whereas adding color/art to a text which
    > serves as a distinct and seperate *interpretation* is written off as
    > pretentious.
    >
    > -e.
    >

    So, are you saying that we are not allowed to have our own ideas unless we
    can have them as referential currency - ie that of which is issued by the
    establishment that produces the references in the first place? Sounds
    rather frightening...

    marc
  • Lewis LaCook | Wed May 14th 2003 2:11 p.m.
    References sooner or later become symbols, signifiers and insipid
    > catch
    > phrases.

    EXACTLY! and this was really the source of my disappointment with this piece...

    >A common problem with the artist these days is that in the rejection
    > of
    > > "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we can "pick and
    > choose"
    > > from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we "like". It's
    > not
    > true.
    >
    > Who cares? Are you my dad or something?

    who's my daddy?

    bliss
    l
Your Reply