[0100101110110101.ORG] FOR SALE

it's "work" like this that makes me proud to call myself a net artiste. Near-hidden moments of such mind-numbing scatalogical irrelevance so derivatively context-dependent that the in-joke almost slips past those on the inside. Shazam! I can't wait for the thrilling coverage in net art news in which the commercial recontextualizers get a taste of their own recontextualizin' medicine as pointed out by some terribly insightful scene-aware scoop hound!

Ah, bartleby! Ah, humanity!

Whatever we do, PLEASE don't let this be the last post on the topic. As always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread it 'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which would be a darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to waste)!

beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
curt

_

k-hello.org wrote:

> The "art" website is HTTP://0100101110101101.ORG and it works,
> the "false" website is HTTP://0100101110110101.ORG
>
> You can see that the two urls are different.

> As always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread it
'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which would be a
darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to waste)!
>
> beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
> curt

Not to bring an old dialogue back to life, but I find your above statement
to be in contradiction with your stance against priveleging conceptual
oriented art over more process oriented material… I like the work for its
conceptual grounding – but you know very well where I stand on conceptual
art, as we already discussed this. Great stuff it is – really good
conceptual art.

Best,

Eduardo Navas
;)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony

on an entirely unrelated topic,your work just came up in my pleasure reading:
http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/12.228.185.206/html/wordsinimages/unstablerels.html

rock & roll ain't no pollution,
curt

_



Eduardo Navas wrote:

> > As always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread
> it
> 'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which
> would be a
> darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to waste)!
> >
> > beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
> > curt
>
> Not to bring an old dialogue back to life, but I find your above
> statement
> to be in contradiction with your stance against priveleging conceptual
> oriented art over more process oriented material… I like the work
> for its
> conceptual grounding – but you know very well where I stand on
> conceptual
> art, as we already discussed this. Great stuff it is – really good
> conceptual art.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
> ;)
>
>

Don't dismiss it out of hand, Curt. Conceptual art, when made on such a
challenging concept as this, can be mind expanding and eye opening. This
piece is actually quite a brilliant examination on how domain names, when
long and unwieldy, can often be mistaken for other, quite similar domain
names. Hopefully this gets into the Whitney Biennial this year. Because if
there has been a theme that no one has had the audacity to explore through
internet art; it is the understanding of how very long number sequences can
be mistaken for other very long number sequences with similar numbers and
only slightly varied placement. It is similar to the brilliant conceptual
piece where someone writes, "What is wrong with this this statement?" but
"this" is written once on the top line and then there is a break, and then
"this" appears again at the bottom. Just as that piece shook the art world
with its examination of visual distortion of signs and symbols when
repeated, I expect a similar reaction, because this one does as well-

But in the context of cyberspace! Which makes it important because the
internet is about half as old as punk music is, and we all know punk music
continues to be a revolutionary, driving force in expanding global awareness
of power structures for 010101, particularly fueled by the release of Avril
Lavignes punk anthem, "sk8ter boi":

He was a boy
She was a girl
Can I make it any more obvious?
He was a punk
She did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her
She'd never tell
Secretly she wanted him as well
But all of her friends
Stuck up their nose
They had a problem
with his baggy clothes.

Indeed!

Because in the end, who really needs to work on actually presenting issues
to people- or revealing people's psychology, if any artist is careful and
talented enough to do so, when you can get institutional funding (and,
miraculously, simultaneous "anarchist" credibility) with projects such as
running an open FTP client on a museum line to a computer (which has no
connection to other museum computers)? It used to be that anarchists raised
real questions about power, capitalism, government, totalitarianism,
self-elected fascism, and the like. Now, just as Avril moves punk rock into
TRL, 01010101 are bringing "anarchy" to an institutional power desperate to
encapsulate any viable means of asking questions and subverting the methods
to do so. Perhaps anarchism is dead; but maybe it died in 1968; and the
corpse just took 35 years to get to the morgue? At least this piece
convinces me completely that anarchy has been institutionalized and raped of
all life. Hopefully another idea comes along and gets people into
alternative frameworks- if there has been a time in history that we've
needed it, it would certainly be now.

PS: Some actual anarchists and what anarchy meant when it was actually a
revolution:

http://www.anatomyofhope.net/saccoandvanzetti/

Taken from FBI files by way of the FOIA.

-e.






—– Original Message —–
From: "Eduardo Navas" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: [0100101110110101.ORG] FOR SALE


> > As always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread it
> 'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which would be
a
> darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to waste)!
> >
> > beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
> > curt
>
> Not to bring an old dialogue back to life, but I find your above statement
> to be in contradiction with your stance against priveleging conceptual
> oriented art over more process oriented material… I like the work for
its
> conceptual grounding – but you know very well where I stand on conceptual
> art, as we already discussed this. Great stuff it is – really good
> conceptual art.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
> ;)
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Simply: deconstructing data delusions as practice

–

From: curt cloninger

it's "work" like this that makes me proud to call myself a net artiste.
Near-hidden moments of such mind-numbing scatalogical irrelevance so
derivatively context-dependent that the in-joke almost slips past those
on the inside. Shazam! I can't wait for the thrilling coverage in net
art news in which the commercial recontextualizers get a taste of their
own recontextualizin' medicine as pointed out by some terribly
insightful scene-aware scoop hound!

Ah, bartleby! Ah, humanity!

Whatever we do, PLEASE don't let this be the last post on the topic. As
always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread it
'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which would
be a darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to waste)!

beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
curt

_

k-hello.org wrote:

> The "art" website is HTTP://0100101110101101.ORG and it works, the
> "false" website is HTTP://0100101110110101.ORG
>
> You can see that the two urls are different.
+

I'm just glad to be able to do my part in helping this thread get really long. It's already been linked twice from the front page. Let's go for three times, and then the thread itself could constitute a sort of performative meta-criticism (provided we spoof its URL). Zounds!

At least duchamp's readymades got press because people were outraged by them. In this case, the work gets my press because of its monumental banality. The medium is the valium.

http://www.acne.se/film/showreel/SoNetFeaver_QT04.mov

there, that's better.

_


yasir husain wrote:

>
>
> Simply: deconstructing data delusions as practice
>
> –
>
> From: curt cloninger
>
> it's "work" like this that makes me proud to call myself a net
> artiste.
> Near-hidden moments of such mind-numbing scatalogical irrelevance so
> derivatively context-dependent that the in-joke almost slips past
> those
> on the inside. Shazam! I can't wait for the thrilling coverage in
> net
> art news in which the commercial recontextualizers get a taste of
> their
> own recontextualizin' medicine as pointed out by some terribly
> insightful scene-aware scoop hound!
>
> Ah, bartleby! Ah, humanity!
>
> Whatever we do, PLEASE don't let this be the last post on the topic.
> As
> always, with back-slappin' "work" like this, if we don't spread it
> 'round the water cooler, it just as soon not have happened (which
> would
> be a darned shame since a klever.koncept is a terrible thing to
> waste)!
>
> beat-the-knave-into-a-twiggen-bottle,
> curt
>
> _
>
> k-hello.org wrote:
>
> > The "art" website is HTTP://0100101110101101.ORG and it works,
> the
> > "false" website is HTTP://0100101110110101.ORG
> >
> > You can see that the two urls are different.
> +
>

hi curt,
just adding to the not so exquisite corpse.

>The medium is the valium.
it always was the "massage" …
http://www.t0.or.at/dery/wired.htm
ryan

Much as it galls me to come out of sarcastic character and be earnest (because in doing so I risk imbuing this piece with more portent than it's due), I probably should clarify.

In dissing net art news' potential coverage of this piece, I am dissing the propensity of every contemporary net art curator, critic, pundit, and theorist (myself included) to promote a piece simply because "it makes good copy."

As I explained offlist:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Promoters and marketers package their promotions in byte-size, news-friendly happenings. The product need not be good. The promotion need not even be particularly clever. It just has to "fit" the news media. Something about the nature of the promotion has to cause some newsman to have the pavlovian response, "that'd make great copy!" and the news media will cover the event simply because it fits.

There is a type of net art that works the same way. It has to be encoded just enough for someone (the whitney, neural, mute, rhizome, whomever) to think, "ah hah! I get it, it fits the genre, and I can explain it with a bit of theoretical insight!" and down the pipe it travels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

I admit that there is a type of skill involved in conceiving a press-worthy gimick, but that type of skill has little to do with anything I value. It's the same skill that Nike's marketers use to brand their products. The fact that 0101 uses a similar marketing approach to brand their piece to the net art world undermines the critical value of their piece. They're less interested in demoting Nike and more interested in promoting their demotion of Nike.

Then somebody (themselves probably) spoofs their domain name and markets that prank to the net art world. And the sound byte fits, so we pass it on. And all this tail chasing reminds me of the newsmen in the gulf war doing reports on the news coverage of the gulf war. Zzzzzzzz.

Does the fact that I'm thinking about these issues make these work(s) successful?
Does the fact that I'm forced to dig a grave for a dead dog make the dog successful?

churn on, ye merry clowns,
curt

_

k-hello.org wrote:

> The "art" website is HTTP://0100101110101101.ORG and it works,
> the "false" website is HTTP://0100101110110101.ORG
>
> You can see that the two urls are different.
>
>
> THE REAL BUSINESS IS WHEN THERE IS NO BUSINESS.
>
> www.k-hello.org
> digital solutions to everyday-life problems.

Thought this would be interesting to entertain in relation to Kurt's
appraisal of the conceptual masterpiece…

Best,

Eduardo Navas

—– Original Message —–
From: <[email protected]>
To: "nettime" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:35 PM
Subject: <nettime> Re: [0100101110110101.ORG] FOR SALE


> This news is very funny… but fake! Check the 0s and 1s:
>
> The "art" website is "http://www.0100101110101101.org" and it works,
>
> the "fake" website is "http://www.0100101110110101.org" and is
> apparently for sale, but don't have anything to do with the known
0100101110101101.ORG.
>
>
> "[email protected]" wrote:
>
> >
> > As of today, 0100101110110101.ORG gives up control over its own
> Internet
> > domain name and associated website and E-Mail addresses.
>
>
> ciao!
>
> N.
>
>
> btw, the fake one is owned by Florian Cramer :-p
>
>
>
>
> ——————————
> N u r i a O l i v e r
> [email protected]
> ——————————
>
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
>

Its just a xeroxing error. Only deliberate. I agree, how stupid. A
flashlight in the dark but no key there either. Argument for content
rather than just medium. A dread a third front page item.

>y

–
From: curt cloninger

At least duchamp's readymades got press because people were outraged by
them. In this case, the work gets my press because of its monumental
banality. The medium is the valium.

For what it's worth, I love this piece by Florian Cramer:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~cantsin/permutations/index.cgi

But Babe Ruth struck out a lot too, or so they tell me.

_


Eduardo Navas wrote:

> Thought this would be interesting to entertain in relation to Kurt's
> appraisal of the conceptual masterpiece…
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: "nettime" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:35 PM
> Subject: <nettime> Re: [0100101110110101.ORG] FOR SALE
>
>
> > btw, the fake one is owned by Florian Cramer :-p