> > What is "Flash formalism"? > > > > Has this been described anywhere? > > yeah, on RHIZOME_RAW circa two days ago when I coined it…
I have been scanning the posts, and saw the term, and yes, it seemed like a term you cooked up between you, but it wasn't quite clear what it was supposed to mean.
> > What is "Flash formalism"? > > > > Has this been described anywhere? > > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out > > http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc
Yes, I've scanned that before. But it doesn't mention "Flash formalism".
'Flash' and 'formalism' seem like an odd mix to me. Or remix, as the case may be. Most of the Flash work one encounters does not seem particularly 'formal', so I'm curious about the way that the word is being used and what work they are thinking of.
There is quite a range to work done in Flash. Sometimes people do not distinguish between work done in Flash and work in Shockwave, which is done in Director (and can import SWF), and so 'Flash work' is implicitly assumed to encompass Shockwave work also. And then the similarities between Shockwave and Java work makes one wonder if the abstract critical category of 'Flash work' includes work in Java also.
If it is difficult to pin the term down simply in the technology it references, it is harder to get much of a sense of the intended critical meaning concerning artistic matters.
When I think of 'formalism' in art, the term 'austerity' comes to mind. This is typically more an approach in Shockwave and Java work rather than Flash work, though it is not unknown in Flash work. And forms of 'formalism' are usually associated with some sort of intellectual program which informs the world view of the art that arises from the scene. 'Program' would be literal, in the case of 'Flash formalism' rather than figurative? And 'formalism' is usually associated with a 'scene'. Whereas Flash and Director and Java are used around the world, the work is not containable within a scene. Also, 'formalism' generally conjures associations of work where the 'content' is emphasized less than the 'form'. But Flash work, at least somewhat naive Flash work, of which there is lots, given that it is often a popular culture tool, typically emphasizes content, not form.
So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash formalism'.
Doh! It's not my term. Let Ben defend it. I just work here.
Calling out Flash has always seemed a bit overly simplistic to me, what with action scripting and lingo and java all being languages that cause things to move. The relationship between the corporate ownerships of these languages/scripts and the effect that has on their artistic merits seems even more tenuous.
carry on…
Jim wrote: >So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash >formalism'.
<?xml version="1.0" ?><html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring that reactionary, presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual* snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays, books , conference, papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, but please not that *essay*</span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">please no, i beg</span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich mythology!!!</b></span></font></div> <div align="left"><br/></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out</span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc</span></font></div> <div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div> <div align="left"><br/> </div> <div align="left"><br/> </div> <div align="left"><br/> </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>
Also, as a piece of writing, even the spelling and grammar indicates it was thrown together quickly and without further consideration. Why this sort of sloppy work is taken seriously is beyond me. Who's agenda is it serving?
in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring that reactionary, presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual* snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays, books , conference, papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, but please not that *essay* please no, i beg nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich mythology!!!
yeah, i've often thought that about the texts manovich offers online–i think he saves his best shit for books–perhaps an indication of bad faith—perhaps projection
> Also, as a piece of writing, even the spelling and > grammar indicates it was > thrown together quickly and without further > consideration. Why this sort of > sloppy work is taken seriously is beyond me. Who's > agenda is it serving? > > ja > —–Original Message—– > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Jess Loseby > Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Flash formalism? > > > in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels > PLEASE lets not bring > that reactionary, presumptive exercise in > patronizing, *intellectual* > snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays, > books , conference, > papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, > but please not that > *essay* > please no, i beg > nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation > flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich > mythology!!! > > > > > > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might > want to check out > > > > http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc > > >
> > On Oct 7, 2004, at 10:34 PM, Jim Andrews wrote: > > > What is "Flash formalism"? > > > > Has this been described anywhere? > > yeah, on RHIZOME_RAW circa two days ago when I > coined it… > > ;) > > distracted, but still working on a response for > curt, > > - ben > > + > -> 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 >
Comments
On Oct 7, 2004, at 10:34 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> What is "Flash formalism"?
>
> Has this been described anywhere?
yeah, on RHIZOME_RAW circa two days ago when I coined it…
;)
distracted, but still working on a response for curt,
- ben
> > What is "Flash formalism"?
> >
> > Has this been described anywhere?
>
> yeah, on RHIZOME_RAW circa two days ago when I coined it…
I have been scanning the posts, and saw the term, and yes, it seemed like a
term you cooked up between you, but it wasn't quite clear what it was
supposed to mean.
ja
does anyone remember this piece posted on rhizome raw in 2003? :
X?H3?}?|? Q???y?? |
>?'???? ?"
> What is "Flash formalism"?
>
> Has this been described anywhere?
lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out
http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc
> > What is "Flash formalism"?
> >
> > Has this been described anywhere?
>
> lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out
>
> http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc
Yes, I've scanned that before. But it doesn't mention "Flash formalism".
'Flash' and 'formalism' seem like an odd mix to me. Or remix, as the case
may be. Most of the Flash work one encounters does not seem particularly
'formal', so I'm curious about the way that the word is being used and what
work they are thinking of.
There is quite a range to work done in Flash. Sometimes people do not
distinguish between work done in Flash and work in Shockwave, which is done
in Director (and can import SWF), and so 'Flash work' is implicitly assumed
to encompass Shockwave work also. And then the similarities between
Shockwave and Java work makes one wonder if the abstract critical category
of 'Flash work' includes work in Java also.
If it is difficult to pin the term down simply in the technology it
references, it is harder to get much of a sense of the intended critical
meaning concerning artistic matters.
When I think of 'formalism' in art, the term 'austerity' comes to mind. This
is typically more an approach in Shockwave and Java work rather than Flash
work, though it is not unknown in Flash work. And forms of 'formalism' are
usually associated with some sort of intellectual program which informs the
world view of the art that arises from the scene. 'Program' would be
literal, in the case of 'Flash formalism' rather than figurative? And
'formalism' is usually associated with a 'scene'. Whereas Flash and Director
and Java are used around the world, the work is not containable within a
scene. Also, 'formalism' generally conjures associations of work where the
'content' is emphasized less than the 'form'. But Flash work, at least
somewhat naive Flash work, of which there is lots, given that it is often a
popular culture tool, typically emphasizes content, not form.
So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash
formalism'.
ja
Doh! It's not my term. Let Ben defend it. I just work here.
Calling out Flash has always seemed a bit overly simplistic to me, what with action scripting and lingo and java all being languages that cause things to move. The relationship between the corporate ownerships of these languages/scripts and the effect that has on their artistic merits seems even more tenuous.
carry on…
Jim wrote:
>So I'm curious about the intended meaning of Ben and Curt's term 'Flash
>formalism'.
<?xml version="1.0" ?><html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring that reactionary,
presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual* snobbery back in to play. Any other of
his essays, books , conference, papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, but
please not that *essay*</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">please no, i beg</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich
mythology!!!</b></span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">> </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</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>
Also, as a piece of writing, even the spelling and grammar indicates it was
thrown together quickly and without further consideration. Why this sort of
sloppy work is taken seriously is beyond me. Who's agenda is it serving?
ja
—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Jess Loseby
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Flash formalism?
in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels PLEASE lets not bring
that reactionary, presumptive exercise in patronizing, *intellectual*
snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays, books , conference,
papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even, but please not that
*essay*
please no, i beg
nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich
mythology!!!
>
> lev manovich has an essay on flash you might want to check out
>
> http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc
>
yeah, i've often thought that about the texts manovich
offers online–i think he saves his best shit for
books–perhaps an indication of bad faith—perhaps
projection
lol
l
— Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> Also, as a piece of writing, even the spelling and
> grammar indicates it was
> thrown together quickly and without further
> consideration. Why this sort of
> sloppy work is taken seriously is beyond me. Who's
> agenda is it serving?
>
> ja
> —–Original Message—–
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Jess Loseby
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:22 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Flash formalism?
>
>
> in the name of sonny j and all his fluffy angels
> PLEASE lets not bring
> that reactionary, presumptive exercise in
> patronizing, *intellectual*
> snobbery back in to play. Any other of his essays,
> books , conference,
> papers, transcripts of his phone conversation even,
> but please not that
> *essay*
> please no, i beg
> nooooooooooooooo!!!! There IS NO generation
> flash!!!!!!! It's a manovich
> mythology!!!
>
>
> >
> > lev manovich has an essay on flash you might
> want to check out
> >
> > http://manovich.net/DOCS/generation_flash.doc
> >
>
=====
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
flash is still too new, and still taking real baby
steps toward an actual networked art, to have accrued
a formalism just yet…
i would save the fomalism for C++ work, some Java…
bliss
l
— bensyverson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2004, at 10:34 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > What is "Flash formalism"?
> >
> > Has this been described anywhere?
>
> yeah, on RHIZOME_RAW circa two days ago when I
> coined it…
>
> ;)
>
> distracted, but still working on a response for
> curt,
>
> - ben
>
> +
> -> 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
>
=====
***************************************************************************
Lewis LaCook –>http://www.lewislacook.com/
XanaxPop:Mobile Poem Blog-> http://www.lewislacook.com/xanaxpop/
Collective Writing Projects–> The Wiki–> http://www.lewislacook.com/wiki/ Appendix M ->http://www.lewislacook.com/AppendixM/
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com