fresh air & real soul...

Posted by marc garrett | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 5:37 p.m.

Hi Jess,

After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration grace,
this blows it all away.

I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is not
pretentious or self-conscious.

Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.

marc

> the word ''work'' used in the broadest possible sense of the word.
> ...what can I say my internet connection was down and I had (literally)
far too much time
> on my hands this morning. (and I thought it was funny)
>
> lapdance
> http://www.rssgallery.com/lapdance.htm
> flash 6 + sound
>
> (rough on a dial-up, sorry)
>
> jess.
>
> o
> /^ rssgallery.com
> ][
>

>
  • Lewis LaCook | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 6:11 p.m.
    better than anything i could ever do---

    (which is probably why i'm thinking about quitting...)

    bliss
    l

    marc garrett wrote:

    > Hi Jess,
    >
    > After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration
    > grace,
    > this blows it all away.
    >
    > I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is
    > not
    > pretentious or self-conscious.
    >
    > Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
    >
    > marc
    >
    >
    >
    > > the word ''work'' used in the broadest possible sense of the word.
    > > ...what can I say my internet connection was down and I had
    > (literally)
    > far too much time
    > > on my hands this morning. (and I thought it was funny)
    > >
    > > lapdance
    > > http://www.rssgallery.com/lapdance.htm
    > > flash 6 + sound
    > >
    > > (rough on a dial-up, sorry)
    > >
    > > jess.
    > >
    > > o
    > > /^ rssgallery.com
    > > ][
    > >
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • MTAA | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 6:37 p.m.
    I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit the critics.

    It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping copied below is
    all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and 'sunday painters',
    but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more than a mutual
    applause society. We should strive for professional level of
    critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some quick praise for
    a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend into a perpetual
    'i'm ok, you're ok' session.

    Of course, artists are the worst critics there are. jealousy and/or
    one's own blinders get in the way more often than not. It would be
    nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on thingist

    Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially helpful to an
    artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much better. I would
    rather have no 'social integration' with pithy remarks eviscerating a
    piece of mine than all the good natured cheers combined.

    What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    definitely doesn't need her head patted.

    At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    >
    >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration grace,
    >this blows it all away.
    >
    >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is not
    >pretentious or self-conscious.
    >
    >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.

    At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    >I love this piece of work!
    >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing long?

    At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    >fantastic jess..
    >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    >creating a 'fingermouse' remix

    At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    >moving.
    > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence about
    >the piece.
    >I think you've done something that has way more
    >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start with.

    At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    >better than anything i could ever do---
    >
    >(which is probably why i'm thinking about quitting...)
    >
    >bliss
    >l
    >

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
  • Jess Loseby | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 6:39 p.m.
    <?xml version="1.0" ?>
    <html>
    <head>
    <title></title>
    </head>
    <body>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">you <b><i>are </i></b>joking...!!!!
    please?</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; (which is probably
    why i'm thinking about quitting...)</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; bliss</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; l</span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
    <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
    <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>
  • Michael Szpakowski | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 7:08 p.m.
    I can't speak for the others but in my case perhaps I
    wrote what I wrote because I *meant* it in exactly the
    same way that I *meant* the critical things that I
    wrote about the Arcangel piece awhile back.
    I *actually think* this particular piece by Jess is
    worth a 1000 Data Diaries. That is my *opinion*. It
    may or may not be justified in the long run - I don't
    know at the moment and neither do you.
    I don't say what I don't mean or believe.
    best
    michael

    --- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
    > I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit
    > the critics.
    >
    > It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping
    > copied below is
    > all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and
    > 'sunday painters',
    > but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more
    > than a mutual
    > applause society. We should strive for professional
    > level of
    > critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some
    > quick praise for
    > a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend
    > into a perpetual
    > 'i'm ok, you're ok' session.
    >
    > Of course, artists are the worst critics there are.
    > jealousy and/or
    > one's own blinders get in the way more often than
    > not. It would be
    > nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on
    > thingist
    >
    > Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially
    > helpful to an
    > artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much
    > better. I would
    > rather have no 'social integration' with pithy
    > remarks eviscerating a
    > piece of mine than all the good natured cheers
    > combined.
    >
    > What gets me about this praise, which may be my
    > inference totally, is
    > that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting.
    > I've met Jess, she
    > definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    >
    >
    > At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    > >
    > >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of
    > social intigration grace,
    > >this blows it all away.
    > >
    > >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with
    > you, its real & is not
    > >pretentious or self-conscious.
    > >
    > >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
    >
    >
    > At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    > >I love this piece of work!
    > >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing
    > long?
    >
    > At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    > >fantastic jess..
    > >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    > >creating a 'fingermouse' remix
    >
    >
    > At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    > >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    > >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    > >moving.
    > > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence
    > about
    > >the piece.
    > >I think you've done something that has way more
    > >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start
    > with.
    >
    >
    > At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    > >better than anything i could ever do---
    > >
    > >(which is probably why i'm thinking about
    > quitting...)
    > >
    > >bliss
    > >l
    > >
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + 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!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com
  • Jess Loseby | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 7:18 p.m.
    without getting into this (which is a weird position) marc knows me well
    enough to know if he were to pat my head I would take out his ankles...
    j.

    >
    > What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    > that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    > definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    o
    /^ rssgallery.com
    ][
  • Charlotte Frost | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 7:28 p.m.
    Thank god the image I sent of a 'thumbs up' got lost in cyberspace and never
    made the Rhizome list, because no doubt I would be added to your list below.
    Therefore I am justifying myself early on (which I will surely regret):

    I find it interesting that here we all are, typing away at each other, using
    our fingers, and there Jess was in internet down time, using her fingers to
    create art - specifically to make a performance piece of art that alludes to
    the movements of what, in computer culture, become our most important
    appendages. In fact, appendages raised to the status of limbs. She has shown
    how fingers to a computer artist are like legs to a dancer, the very
    essence, control and tempo of the work.

    Much Net Art is described and critiqued in terms of performance, and perhaps
    like Jonah Brucker-Cohen's Mouse Miles, Jess chose to show us the other
    movements of the tools she works with. When she clicks her mouse or taps her
    keyboard she is making choreographed movements, albeit ones that are traced
    or viewed in a totally different way.

    She also has done this with humour. A lack of internet connection and 'time
    on her hands' ;-) and hey presto, a touch of comedy, although I watched it
    and totally forgot it was her fingers!

    Jess will be one of the first artists on Furtherfield's Furtherstudio this
    summer, where she will openly show the choreography that forms her work, and
    I hope that when we all get to watch her again, some of the comments made
    today of how beautiful the work is, are still made, as it would be a
    terrible shame if we could just stop once in a while and clap the
    performance!

    Charlotte

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]On Behalf Of
    t.whid
    Sent: 02 June 2003 22:31
    To: Lewis LaCook; list@rhizome.org
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit the critics.

    It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping copied below is
    all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and 'sunday painters',
    but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more than a mutual
    applause society. We should strive for professional level of
    critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some quick praise for
    a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend into a perpetual
    'i'm ok, you're ok' session.

    Of course, artists are the worst critics there are. jealousy and/or
    one's own blinders get in the way more often than not. It would be
    nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on thingist

    Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially helpful to an
    artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much better. I would
    rather have no 'social integration' with pithy remarks eviscerating a
    piece of mine than all the good natured cheers combined.

    What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    definitely doesn't need her head patted.

    At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    >
    >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration
    grace,
    >this blows it all away.
    >
    >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is not
    >pretentious or self-conscious.
    >
    >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.

    At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    >I love this piece of work!
    >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing long?

    At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    >fantastic jess..
    >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    >creating a 'fingermouse' remix

    At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    >moving.
    > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence about
    >the piece.
    >I think you've done something that has way more
    >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start with.

    At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    >better than anything i could ever do---
    >
    >(which is probably why i'm thinking about quitting...)
    >
    >bliss
    >l
    >

    --
    <twhid>
    http://www.mteww.com
    </twhid>
    + 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
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 7:37 p.m.
    When I talk about community, I am really looking for the support of the
    community. A community is a support group- when I feel like my art doesn't
    make any sense to anyone else, or is aesthetically bland, my community is
    there to remind me that these things don't matter, and may in fact be a
    strength. Brilliance and Genius is rarely understood exept by those who
    posess it. The only thing that matters, in the end, is the context it was
    created in, and what the community gets out of it. Without community, an
    artist never has to waste his time coming face to face with any doubts or
    insecurities imposed by the world outside of the understanding nature of the
    community. If his self selected community supports him, then the work can
    safely be called valid and is, in fact, even an _important_ work of art.
    Context is everything!

    In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or bad art.
    These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as I've
    explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is united
    primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what
    happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this agreement,
    it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no matter who
    makes it or what it is, or how it is received.

    When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous, trying to
    rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to the
    irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as "important."
    Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who don't
    understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases that
    the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions that
    violate the space of understanding that is created within a community. In
    these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    reaffirmation of the goals of our community."

    -Oro Bouros, Net.Art Outsider

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
    To: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 5:31 PM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    > I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit the critics.
    >
    > It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping copied below is
    > all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and 'sunday painters',
    > but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more than a mutual
    > applause society. We should strive for professional level of
    > critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some quick praise for
    > a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend into a perpetual
    > 'i'm ok, you're ok' session.
    >
    > Of course, artists are the worst critics there are. jealousy and/or
    > one's own blinders get in the way more often than not. It would be
    > nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on thingist
    >
    > Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially helpful to an
    > artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much better. I would
    > rather have no 'social integration' with pithy remarks eviscerating a
    > piece of mine than all the good natured cheers combined.
    >
    > What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    > that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    > definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    >
    >
    > At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    > >
    > >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration
    grace,
    > >this blows it all away.
    > >
    > >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is not
    > >pretentious or self-conscious.
    > >
    > >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
    >
    >
    > At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    > >I love this piece of work!
    > >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing long?
    >
    > At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    > >fantastic jess..
    > >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    > >creating a 'fingermouse' remix
    >
    >
    > At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    > >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    > >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    > >moving.
    > > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence about
    > >the piece.
    > >I think you've done something that has way more
    > >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start with.
    >
    >
    > At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    > >better than anything i could ever do---
    > >
    > >(which is probably why i'm thinking about quitting...)
    > >
    > >bliss
    > >l
    > >
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + 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 Jun 2nd 2003 7:51 p.m.
    i wasn't offering my own dissatisfaction as a crit to
    Jess' work, btw---only feeling tired,
    cranky---questioning why i do it (is it ego? or do i
    really *need* to make art? would i make art if no-one
    were paying attention?)

    (i *was* making art when no-one was paying
    attention)--

    as for t's crit--it's a great point, but i think most
    of these entries *were* quick replies...& yeah, i
    often wish we could have blackhawk here (though
    blackhawk and i have had rabid disagreements in the
    past...i still think he's got a keen mind for this
    sort of thing, and admire and respect him)...

    i too, michael, meant my comic in much the same way as
    you meant yours---i get boggled down in all this code,
    all these special-effects, the 'demo' view of net.art,
    much maligned deservedly by many--and what i think all
    of us meant was that it was great to see this simple
    and quite funny piece---it refreshed me...and prodded
    me into asking myself the right questions...

    bliss
    l

    --- Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I can't speak for the others but in my case perhaps
    > I
    > wrote what I wrote because I *meant* it in exactly
    > the
    > same way that I *meant* the critical things that I
    > wrote about the Arcangel piece awhile back.
    > I *actually think* this particular piece by Jess is
    > worth a 1000 Data Diaries. That is my *opinion*. It
    > may or may not be justified in the long run - I
    > don't
    > know at the moment and neither do you.
    > I don't say what I don't mean or believe.
    > best
    > michael
    >
    > --- "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com> wrote:
    > > I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit
    > > the critics.
    > >
    > > It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping
    > > copied below is
    > > all fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and
    > > 'sunday painters',
    > > but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more
    > > than a mutual
    > > applause society. We should strive for
    > professional
    > > level of
    > > critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off
    > some
    > > quick praise for
    > > a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend
    > > into a perpetual
    > > 'i'm ok, you're ok' session.
    > >
    > > Of course, artists are the worst critics there
    > are.
    > > jealousy and/or
    > > one's own blinders get in the way more often than
    > > not. It would be
    > > nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over
    > on
    > > thingist
    > >
    > > Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially
    > > helpful to an
    > > artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels
    > much
    > > better. I would
    > > rather have no 'social integration' with pithy
    > > remarks eviscerating a
    > > piece of mine than all the good natured cheers
    > > combined.
    > >
    > > What gets me about this praise, which may be my
    > > inference totally, is
    > > that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting.
    > > I've met Jess, she
    > > definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    > >
    > >
    > > At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    > > >
    > > >After all the continual cynicism on here & lack
    > of
    > > social intigration grace,
    > > >this blows it all away.
    > > >
    > > >I love the soul here - it communicates, its with
    > > you, its real & is not
    > > >pretentious or self-conscious.
    > > >
    > > >Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
    > >
    > >
    > > At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    > > >I love this piece of work!
    > > >beautiful choreography- have they been dancing
    > > long?
    > >
    > > At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    > > >fantastic jess..
    > > >if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    > > >creating a 'fingermouse' remix
    > >
    > >
    > > At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    > > >I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    > > >It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    > > >moving.
    > > > You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence
    > > about
    > > >the piece.
    > > >I think you've done something that has way more
    > > >resonance than maybe you thought it had to start
    > > with.
    > >
    > >
    > > At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    > > >better than anything i could ever do---
    > > >
    > > >(which is probably why i'm thinking about
    > > quitting...)
    > > >
    > > >bliss
    > > >l
    > > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > <twhid>
    > > http://www.mteww.com
    > > </twhid>
    > > + 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!?
    > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to
    > Outlook(TM).
    > http://calendar.yahoo.com

    =====

    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!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 8:05 p.m.
    that's well said, t.whid.

    when i viewed Jess's piece, i got quite a few chuckles out of it. it is an amusing piece. and
    jess knows this, to judge from her intro. and it is fresh and has soul. that this is somewhat
    unusual is unfortunate. and it might earn an interesting place in discussions of the
    presence/absence of the hand in digital art for the Web.

    to be more ambitious is itself becoming a little bit preposterous. but then art is
    preposterously improbable. what makes art so improbable in a particular place or environment is
    part of the edge of what makes it possible, in going beyond the impediments to it.

    >why has it been that ever since 9/11 I've felt like I've been living in a bad dystopian sci-fi
    novel?

    hang in there, t.whid. if it's bad enough, it'll have a happy ending.

    you might bring back bill and monica or something.

    art dystopia is when nothing but sunday painting is possible and joy, emotion and pain are
    simply technologically unreachable or merely inappropriate.

    one of your country's dudes, walt whitman, said that "great poetry demands a great audience."
    that they arise together, can't exist without one another. a great audience not necessarily
    being one that claps loud, but one for whom there is something important at stake in the art. an
    audience that won't live without it, demands it, must have it, settles for nothing less. and
    gets it.

    so i'd say the discussion is healthy.

    what do you think, jess?

    ja
  • neil jenkins | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 8:10 p.m.
    On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 10:31 pm, t.whid wrote:

    > I'll withhold my opinion of Jess's piece and crit the critics.

    i'd sure like to know what you thought about it if you are willing to
    comment

    > It seems to me that the good-natured back-slapping copied below is all
    > fine and good for dilettantes, amateurs and 'sunday painters',

    happy with being a dilettante.. painting never was my forte, i'll stick
    to 'dabbling'

    > but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more than a mutual
    > applause society. We should strive for professional level of critique.
    > I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some quick praise for a piece,
    > but I would hate to see Rhizome descend into a perpetual 'i'm ok,
    > you're ok' session.

    sure, but then rhizome has always been open.. from karei's rants to
    manik's beginners; sometimes an immediate piece of work initiates
    nothing, sometimes an immediate reaction; a piece posted with a
    humourous nudge and wink or a cynical dig often draws more reaction
    than the originator had thought..

    > Of course, artists are the worst critics there are.

    its a wonder anyone listens to this stuff then...

    > jealousy and/or one's own blinders get in the way more often than not.
    > It would be nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on
    > thingist
    >
    > Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially helpful to an artist
    > than vague insults, tho the praise feels much better. I would rather
    > have no 'social integration' with pithy remarks eviscerating a piece
    > of mine than all the good natured cheers combined.

    damn, cos i really like 5 short videos.. please don't be insulted..

    > What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    > that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    > definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    >
    >
    > At 21:37 +0100 6/2/03, furtherfield wrote:
    >>
    >> After all the continual cynicism on here & lack of social intigration
    >> grace,
    >> this blows it all away.
    >>
    >> I love the soul here - it communicates, its with you, its real & is
    >> not
    >> pretentious or self-conscious.
    >>
    >> Thanx Jess - breath of fresh air...beautiful.
    >
    >
    > At 18:35 +0100 6/2/03, ruth catlow wrote:
    >> I love this piece of work!
    >> beautiful choreography- have they been dancing long?
    >
    > At 18:57 +0100 6/2/03, neil jenkins wrote:
    >> fantastic jess..
    >> if only my video camera were working, I'd be
    >> creating a 'fingermouse' remix
    >
    >
    > At 12:09 -0700 6/2/03, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
    >> I totally agree with all the acclaim.
    >> It's a beautiful piece of work - both funny and
    >> moving.
    >> You do yourself a disservice by your diffidence about
    >> the piece.
    >> I think you've done something that has way more
    >> resonance than maybe you thought it had to start with.
    >
    >
    > At 17:11 -0400 6/2/03, Lewis LaCook wrote:
    >> better than anything i could ever do---
    >>
    >> (which is probably why i'm thinking about quitting...)
    >>
    >> bliss
    >> l
    >>
    >
    > --
    > <twhid>
    > http://www.mteww.com
    > </twhid>
    > + 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
  • MTAA | Mon Jun 2nd 2003 9:27 p.m.
    On Monday, June 2, 2003, at 07:08 PM, neil jenkins wrote:
    >
    >
    >> but I've always felt that Rhizome should be more than a mutual
    >> applause society. We should strive for professional level of
    >> critique. I'm not saying it's wrong to toss off some quick praise for
    >> a piece, but I would hate to see Rhizome descend into a perpetual
    >> 'i'm ok, you're ok' session.
    >
    > sure, but then rhizome has always been open.. from karei's rants to
    > manik's beginners; sometimes an immediate piece of work initiates
    > nothing, sometimes an immediate reaction; a piece posted with a
    > humourous nudge and wink or a cynical dig often draws more reaction
    > than the originator had thought..

    i like that Rhiz is open, just my opinion regarding the way-to-many,
    'hey! it's great' posts carrying no substance. luckily we have
    Charlotte Frost to give us some insight into the piece in her post :-)

    >
    >> Of course, artists are the worst critics there are.
    >
    > its a wonder anyone listens to this stuff then...
    >
    >> jealousy and/or one's own blinders get in the way more often than
    >> not. It would be nice if we had a house critic like Blackhawk over on
    >> thingist
    >>
    >> Vague sentiments of praise are no more materially helpful to an
    >> artist than vague insults, tho the praise feels much better. I would
    >> rather have no 'social integration' with pithy remarks eviscerating a
    >> piece of mine than all the good natured cheers combined.
    >
    > damn, cos i really like 5 short videos.. please don't be insulted..

    WHY I AUGHTA... see, I was right, the praise, tho it's without
    substance, feels much better than if you had said, "damn, cos i really
    hate 5 short videos." my whole post regarding this all was just an
    obtuse attempt at working up some praise for my own work anyway, thanks
    for playing along
    :-)

    >
    >> What gets me about this praise, which may be my inference totally, is
    >> that it goes beyond back-slapping to head-patting. I've met Jess, she
    >> definitely doesn't need her head patted.
    --
    <t.whid>
    www.mteww.com
    </t.whid>
  • Eduardo Navas | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 2:31 a.m.
    My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:

    In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or bad art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as I've explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is united primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this agreement, it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no matter who makes it or what it is, or how it is received.

    When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous, trying to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to the irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as "important." Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who don't understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases that the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions that violate the space of understanding that is created within a community. In these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    ----------------------
    My response:

    Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to close examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and the betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by Edward Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a direct quote:

    "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither a pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is staked on a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas, or ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations of what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not just passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."

    -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23

    If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre art -- especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while also understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be done with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the whole artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal vendetta towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the critical eye of the 'intellectual.'

    A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit it to its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of outproduction. And therein lies the real enemy.

    Eduardo Navas
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 3:32 a.m.
    They're intended as satire. I think if you read all three of the "quotes" it
    gets more obvious. The fact that people take it seriously certainly says
    something about the place rhizome is at. Orobouros is the snake that eats
    his own tail. All of the quotes from Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist, do the
    same thing. They create a problem and solve it by perpetuating it. It's
    something that seems to happen a lot.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    To: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:31 AM
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    > My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:
    >
    > In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or bad
    art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as I've
    explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is united
    primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what
    happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this agreement,
    it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no matter who
    makes it or what it is, or how it is received.
    >
    > When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    > insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous, trying
    to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to the
    irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as "important."
    Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who don't
    understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases that
    the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions that
    violate the space of understanding that is created within a community. In
    these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    > reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    > ----------------------
    > My response:
    >
    > Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to close
    examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and the
    betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be
    reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by Edward
    Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a direct
    quote:
    >
    > "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither a
    pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is staked on
    a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas, or
    ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations of
    what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not just
    passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."
    >
    > -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23
    >
    >
    > If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre art --
    especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while also
    understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be done
    with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the whole
    artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal vendetta
    towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the
    critical eye of the 'intellectual.'
    >
    > A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit it to
    its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of outproduction. And
    therein lies the real enemy.
    >
    > Eduardo Navas
    >
    > + 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
    >
  • Eduardo Navas | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 3:55 a.m.
    A satire is most effective when it exudes excessive meaning. This is
    exactly why jokes are funny (at least the good ones).

    I did read the whole thread, and I think it is one of the better ones on
    Rhizome so far (Charlotte's analysis is one of the best informal reviews I
    have read so far). I have been a steady Rhizome supporter, even through the
    rainy days of paid membership conversion -- and one thing it has always
    lacked is serious criticism. I do think, as T. Whid stated earlier in the
    thread, that criticism is necessary -- even when it may get ugly -- hence
    why I used Said's quote. As to seriousness, I do not write or share a thing
    unless I am serious about it -- especially when I crack a joke!

    Peace,

    Eduardo Navas

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:32 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    >
    > They're intended as satire. I think if you read all three of the "quotes"
    it
    > gets more obvious. The fact that people take it seriously certainly says
    > something about the place rhizome is at. Orobouros is the snake that eats
    > his own tail. All of the quotes from Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist, do
    the
    > same thing. They create a problem and solve it by perpetuating it. It's
    > something that seems to happen a lot.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:31 AM
    > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    >
    >
    > > My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:
    > >
    > > In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or bad
    > art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as
    I've
    > explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is
    united
    > primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what
    > happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this
    agreement,
    > it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no matter
    who
    > makes it or what it is, or how it is received.
    > >
    > > When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    > > insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous,
    trying
    > to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to the
    > irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as
    "important."
    > Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who don't
    > understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases that
    > the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions that
    > violate the space of understanding that is created within a community. In
    > these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    > > reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    > > ----------------------
    > > My response:
    > >
    > > Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to close
    > examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and the
    > betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be
    > reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by Edward
    > Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a direct
    > quote:
    > >
    > > "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither a
    > pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is staked
    on
    > a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas, or
    > ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations of
    > what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not just
    > passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."
    > >
    > > -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23
    > >
    > >
    > > If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre art --
    > especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while also
    > understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be done
    > with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the whole
    > artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal vendetta
    > towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the
    > critical eye of the 'intellectual.'
    > >
    > > A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit it to
    > its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of outproduction.
    And
    > therein lies the real enemy.
    > >
    > > Eduardo Navas
    > >
    > > + 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
    > >
    >
    >
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 4 a.m.
    I didn't say that what I wrote "wasn't serious". I pointed out that you were
    taking satire at face value.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:03 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    > A satire is most effective when it exudes excessive meaning. This is
    > exactly why jokes are funny (at least the good ones).
    >
    > I did read the whole thread, and I think it is one of the better ones on
    > Rhizome so far (Charlotte's analysis is one of the best informal reviews I
    > have read so far). I have been a steady Rhizome supporter, even through
    the
    > rainy days of paid membership conversion -- and one thing it has always
    > lacked is serious criticism. I do think, as T. Whid stated earlier in the
    > thread, that criticism is necessary -- even when it may get ugly -- hence
    > why I used Said's quote. As to seriousness, I do not write or share a
    thing
    > unless I am serious about it -- especially when I crack a joke!
    >
    > Peace,
    >
    > Eduardo Navas
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:32 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    >
    >
    > >
    > > They're intended as satire. I think if you read all three of the
    "quotes"
    > it
    > > gets more obvious. The fact that people take it seriously certainly says
    > > something about the place rhizome is at. Orobouros is the snake that
    eats
    > > his own tail. All of the quotes from Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist, do
    > the
    > > same thing. They create a problem and solve it by perpetuating it. It's
    > > something that seems to happen a lot.
    > >
    > > -e.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:31 AM
    > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > >
    > >
    > > > My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:
    > > >
    > > > In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or
    bad
    > > art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as
    > I've
    > > explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is
    > united
    > > primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what
    > > happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this
    > agreement,
    > > it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no matter
    > who
    > > makes it or what it is, or how it is received.
    > > >
    > > > When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    > > > insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous,
    > trying
    > > to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to
    the
    > > irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as
    > "important."
    > > Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who
    don't
    > > understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases
    that
    > > the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions
    that
    > > violate the space of understanding that is created within a community.
    In
    > > these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    > > > reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    > > > ----------------------
    > > > My response:
    > > >
    > > > Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to close
    > > examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and the
    > > betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be
    > > reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by
    Edward
    > > Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a direct
    > > quote:
    > > >
    > > > "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither a
    > > pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is
    staked
    > on
    > > a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas, or
    > > ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations
    of
    > > what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not
    just
    > > passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."
    > > >
    > > > -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre
    art --
    > > especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while also
    > > understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be done
    > > with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the whole
    > > artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal vendetta
    > > towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the
    > > critical eye of the 'intellectual.'
    > > >
    > > > A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit it
    to
    > > its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of outproduction.
    > And
    > > therein lies the real enemy.
    > > >
    > > > Eduardo Navas
    > > >
    > > > + 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
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • Eduardo Navas | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 4:24 a.m.
    We are now shifting from the discourse itself (the role of criticism) to the
    actual players the "I" and "You."
    Discourse is sure to die this way -- what was the use of Said's quote, then?
    Please do not personalize the rhetoric. It only leads to pointing fingers.
    I think my response was clear and respectful of your thoughts -- though a
    bit playful because I sensed a minor waterdowned comment on the
    "seriousness" of my response -- whatever happened to satire? But please
    keep it within the discourse. I should point out that I do not post on the
    list often, mainly because as much as I do enjoy reading it, I do not have
    things to contribute that are not better said by others. Your comment did
    not receive any direct feedback and hence I decided to post a comment.
    Let's not get personal. This is not about you and me, but about the lack of
    criticism on the list...

    Peace,

    Eduardo Navas

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:59 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    >
    > I didn't say that what I wrote "wasn't serious". I pointed out that you
    were
    > taking satire at face value.
    >
    > -e.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:03 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    >
    >
    > > A satire is most effective when it exudes excessive meaning. This is
    > > exactly why jokes are funny (at least the good ones).
    > >
    > > I did read the whole thread, and I think it is one of the better ones on
    > > Rhizome so far (Charlotte's analysis is one of the best informal reviews
    I
    > > have read so far). I have been a steady Rhizome supporter, even through
    > the
    > > rainy days of paid membership conversion -- and one thing it has always
    > > lacked is serious criticism. I do think, as T. Whid stated earlier in
    the
    > > thread, that criticism is necessary -- even when it may get ugly --
    hence
    > > why I used Said's quote. As to seriousness, I do not write or share a
    > thing
    > > unless I am serious about it -- especially when I crack a joke!
    > >
    > > Peace,
    > >
    > > Eduardo Navas
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > > To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:32 AM
    > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > They're intended as satire. I think if you read all three of the
    > "quotes"
    > > it
    > > > gets more obvious. The fact that people take it seriously certainly
    says
    > > > something about the place rhizome is at. Orobouros is the snake that
    > eats
    > > > his own tail. All of the quotes from Oro Bouros, Outsider Net.Artist,
    do
    > > the
    > > > same thing. They create a problem and solve it by perpetuating it.
    It's
    > > > something that seems to happen a lot.
    > > >
    > > > -e.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:31 AM
    > > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art, or
    > bad
    > > > art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are, as
    > > I've
    > > > explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is
    > > united
    > > > primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand what
    > > > happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this
    > > agreement,
    > > > it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no
    matter
    > > who
    > > > makes it or what it is, or how it is received.
    > > > >
    > > > > When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    > > > > insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous,
    > > trying
    > > > to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance to
    > the
    > > > irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as
    > > "important."
    > > > Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who
    > don't
    > > > understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases
    > that
    > > > the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask questions
    > that
    > > > violate the space of understanding that is created within a community.
    > In
    > > > these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    > > > > reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    > > > > ----------------------
    > > > > My response:
    > > > >
    > > > > Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to
    close
    > > > examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and the
    > > > betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be
    > > > reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by
    > Edward
    > > > Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a
    direct
    > > > quote:
    > > > >
    > > > > "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither a
    > > > pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is
    > staked
    > > on
    > > > a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy formulas,
    or
    > > > ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating confirmations
    > of
    > > > what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do. Not
    > just
    > > > passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."
    > > > >
    > > > > -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre
    > art --
    > > > especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while also
    > > > understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be
    done
    > > > with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the
    whole
    > > > artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal
    vendetta
    > > > towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the
    > > > critical eye of the 'intellectual.'
    > > > >
    > > > > A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit it
    > to
    > > > its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of outproduction.
    > > And
    > > > therein lies the real enemy.
    > > > >
    > > > > Eduardo Navas
    > > > >
    > > > > + 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 | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 5:09 a.m.
    >
    > what do you think, jess?
    >
    > ja
    >
    hi,

    not sure which part you're asking me to comment on but looking wider
    on 'something becoming more than it is..' - that's half the fun of art isn't
    it? Particularly net.art. We send it out, other people talk about it, love it ,
    hate it, pinch it, change it and there's nothing you can do. Its not 'yours'
    anymore. I've always liked that. If people don't have enough baggage
    to put on the work I have more than enough to go around that they can
    borrow to 'see' it.

    In a 'community' like rhizome I think a little back-slapping (rather than
    head patting;-) should be ok for a brief time. If it's real and if it is
    genuine it does encourage you to continue - particularly (as I said
    before) one of the things you can't see in net.art is actually seeing and
    knowing peoples reaction to the work. You hope, but (unless you track
    your sites) who knows what people think - its not yours anymore. It's
    great when someone cares enough about a work to write fully and
    critically but which pieces get weighed and measured in this way, who
    chooses and why? Its a lot to ask a 'community' to take sole
    responsibilty for.

    For me, an occasional 'like it' or 'cool' is a green light to help carry on
    with what I do. I also like to get my teeth into critical writing, to argue
    and debate the merits of a piece.
    Generally, on rhizome there is both.

    j o
    /^ rssgallery.com
    ][
  • Eryk Salvaggio | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 2:04 p.m.
    I wasn't pointing fingers. I was pointing out that you were taking satire at
    face value.

    -e.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:32 AM
    Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...

    > We are now shifting from the discourse itself (the role of criticism) to
    the
    > actual players the "I" and "You."
    > Discourse is sure to die this way -- what was the use of Said's quote,
    then?
    > Please do not personalize the rhetoric. It only leads to pointing
    fingers.
    > I think my response was clear and respectful of your thoughts -- though a
    > bit playful because I sensed a minor waterdowned comment on the
    > "seriousness" of my response -- whatever happened to satire? But please
    > keep it within the discourse. I should point out that I do not post on
    the
    > list often, mainly because as much as I do enjoy reading it, I do not have
    > things to contribute that are not better said by others. Your comment did
    > not receive any direct feedback and hence I decided to post a comment.
    > Let's not get personal. This is not about you and me, but about the lack
    of
    > criticism on the list...
    >
    > Peace,
    >
    > Eduardo Navas
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:59 AM
    > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    >
    >
    > >
    > > I didn't say that what I wrote "wasn't serious". I pointed out that you
    > were
    > > taking satire at face value.
    > >
    > > -e.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > > To: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > > Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:03 AM
    > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > >
    > >
    > > > A satire is most effective when it exudes excessive meaning. This is
    > > > exactly why jokes are funny (at least the good ones).
    > > >
    > > > I did read the whole thread, and I think it is one of the better ones
    on
    > > > Rhizome so far (Charlotte's analysis is one of the best informal
    reviews
    > I
    > > > have read so far). I have been a steady Rhizome supporter, even
    through
    > > the
    > > > rainy days of paid membership conversion -- and one thing it has
    always
    > > > lacked is serious criticism. I do think, as T. Whid stated earlier in
    > the
    > > > thread, that criticism is necessary -- even when it may get ugly --
    > hence
    > > > why I used Said's quote. As to seriousness, I do not write or share a
    > > thing
    > > > unless I am serious about it -- especially when I crack a joke!
    > > >
    > > > Peace,
    > > >
    > > > Eduardo Navas
    > > >
    > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk@maine.rr.com>
    > > > To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
    > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:32 AM
    > > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > They're intended as satire. I think if you read all three of the
    > > "quotes"
    > > > it
    > > > > gets more obvious. The fact that people take it seriously certainly
    > says
    > > > > something about the place rhizome is at. Orobouros is the snake that
    > > eats
    > > > > his own tail. All of the quotes from Oro Bouros, Outsider
    Net.Artist,
    > do
    > > > the
    > > > > same thing. They create a problem and solve it by perpetuating it.
    > It's
    > > > > something that seems to happen a lot.
    > > > >
    > > > > -e.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
    > > > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
    > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:31 AM
    > > > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: fresh air & real soul...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > My response to Eryk's quote follows, but first, Erik Wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > In the best communities, there is no such thing as mediocre art,
    or
    > > bad
    > > > > art. These are simply assertions made by the outside world and are,
    as
    > > > I've
    > > > > explained, irrelevant to art's actual social value. The community is
    > > > united
    > > > > primarily by one thing- that the outside world doesn't understand
    what
    > > > > happens inside of our community. When the community accepts this
    > > > agreement,
    > > > > it accepts that all the art being made is of vital importance, no
    > matter
    > > > who
    > > > > makes it or what it is, or how it is received.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > When an artist breaks this agreement, he breaks the safety of our
    > > > > > insulation. Mostly, an artist who breaks the agreement is jealous,
    > > > trying
    > > > > to rise to the top of the community totem pole by giving importance
    to
    > > the
    > > > > irrationality of insider points of view and presenting them as
    > > > "important."
    > > > > Or else they are a type of spy, sent in from those on the inside who
    > > don't
    > > > > understand us, trying to get us to conform. It is clear in all cases
    > > that
    > > > > the artist is trying to destroy the community when they ask
    questions
    > > that
    > > > > violate the space of understanding that is created within a
    community.
    > > In
    > > > > these cases, the insider from outside is best served with dramatic
    > > > > > reaffirmation of the goals of our community."
    > > > > > ----------------------
    > > > > > My response:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Criticism is often misunderstood by those who are vulnerable to
    > close
    > > > > examination. The insulation that Erik Salvaggio writes about and
    the
    > > > > betrayal that can be considered to be coming from the inside can be
    > > > > reconsidered under the realm of the "intellectual" as discussed by
    > > Edward
    > > > > Said in his book REPRESENTATIONS OF THE INTELLECTUAL. Here is a
    > direct
    > > > > quote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > "At bottom, the intellectual, in my sense of the word, is neither
    a
    > > > > pacifier nor a consensus-builder, but someone whose whole being is
    > > staked
    > > > on
    > > > > a critical sense, a sense of being unwilling to accept easy
    formulas,
    > or
    > > > > ready-made cliches, or the smooth, ever-so-accommodating
    confirmations
    > > of
    > > > > what the powerful or conventional have to say, and what they do.
    Not
    > > just
    > > > > passively unwillingly, but actively willing to say so in public."
    > > > > >
    > > > > > -- Edward Said from Representations of the Intellectual. p. 23
    > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > If one follows the above model, there is such a thing as mediocre
    > > art --
    > > > > especially bad art. It takes a critical mind to state so, while
    also
    > > > > understanding the strengths of the art work. This should always be
    > done
    > > > > with respect towards the colleague. If one dismisses part or the
    > whole
    > > > > artwork, it does not mean that one necessarily holds a personal
    > vendetta
    > > > > towards the artist, but rather that the work does not hold up to the
    > > > > critical eye of the 'intellectual.'
    > > > > >
    > > > > > A community can always claim insularity, but this will only limit
    it
    > > to
    > > > > its own redefinitions as opposed to a constant state of
    outproduction.
    > > > And
    > > > > therein lies the real enemy.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Eduardo Navas
    > > > > >
    > > > > > + 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
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
  • joseph mcelroy | Tue Jun 3rd 2003 2:48 p.m.
    Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

    >
    > "When I talk about community, ...
    >
    > -Oro Bouros, Net.Art Outsider
    >

    THOUGHTS
    by David Kelley, Cowboy Poet

    Some matters a cowboy ponders, are
    not often shared with another,
    Though that saddle pal, or bunkmate, might
    just be closer than a brother.
    To hear a sweetheart say I love you, a
    wrangler never would admit,
    Yet most cowboys dream everyday dreams,
    I would most humbly submit.

    He'll spend a good deal of time alone, it seems,
    when thoughts often run wild,
    'Bout good horses, mother, and innocent
    times when he was a child.
    He'll remember the struggles with others or
    battles had all alone.
    The secret times he'll cry silently, while hurting
    clean to the bone.

    He might see the sky as a canvas, daily painted
    by the hand of God,
    Or a vast journal with messages and hints about
    the life he'll trod.
    It's the massive ceiling for that open air arbor
    he call's his Church,
    Where the Lord rides 'with' him, as opposed
    to judging from a lofty perch.

    Looking toward a bluff, puts him in mind of
    that fortress from the past,
    And those who gave the ultimate, in order that
    our freedoms might last.
    He sees the land as both a loving parent and
    an innocent child,
    Clearly able to feed the earth, ever ready to
    return to the wild.

    Many times his only confidant is the good horse
    he sits astride.
    Folks may come and go, but that's always one
    pard he'll never set aside.
    The mare, the gelding, the stud, from their
    starting to the eventual end,
    In spirit they are one, an equal relationship,
    amigo, friend.

    He'll ride to the east side of a ridge, for the
    proclamation of the morn,
    While carefully being ever thankful for those
    things which seem inborn.
    The newly rising sun brings thoughts of
    moving afar from errant ways,
    But evening reminds him, an end must come
    to even the best of days.

    His inner thoughts may be hard to behold
    amongst the bold bravado,
    They're the secret ingredients of one
    possessing his own El Dorado.
Your Reply