why so little discussion?

This question has been asked over and over on this list.

I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.

Good luck.


On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
> rhizome? a
> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements
> of
> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
> net.work
> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

The issue being not asking "why there is so little discussion?", but
actually going ahead and starting a discussion.

Geert
(http://nznl.com)

On 19-nov-04, at 20:36, Jim Andrews wrote:

> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
> rhizome? a
> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements
> of
> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
> net.work
> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

This is a timely post t.whid. I was going to drop a line to the list
this weekend to let everybody know I was planning on formally
introducing a guest blogger in the indirect form of the Rhizome Raw
Robot to list the data of this Rhizome list onto the Julia Set blog
<http://a.parsons.edu/%7Ejuliaset> (the Parsons School of Design and
Tech blog) for exactly one week starting this Monday. Each day, I would
"reblog" the Rhizome Raw list, especially listing all of the great
opportunities and showings around the world.

I don't know if this breaks any Rhizome rules or would upset any of you.
I was planning on looking into all the fine print first, though perhaps
it would be okay for this one instance.

The reasoning was that this is one of my top two favorite email lists
and I believe it is the most valuable locale (physical or otherwise) to
be for whats going on with the arts online and also off (at least that I
know of). Every single day I think there should be a campaign at Parsons
to get all of the students on the list, even if for the digest version.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED.

I have thought briefly about filtering some of the comments for the
week, or maybe not. If anyone has any ideas with regard to this
question, please let me know, otherwise I would probably just play it by
ear.

Again, I certainly don't want to do it if people would be upset but I
think it only stand to help the cause.

Andrew

t.whid wrote:

> This question has been asked over and over on this list.
>
> I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
>> rhizome? a
>> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements of
>> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
>> net.work
>> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>>
>> ja
>> http://vispo.com
>>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> 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

ps, sorry I felt like I didnt do very well in articulating the
connection. . .I think the Rhizome list, EVEN WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION, is
priceless for the artist. I find the discussion that IS here, to be very
enjoyable. T.Whind, I dont know you at all beyond this list but you are
a daily character in my life now. I love Rhizome Raw but I don't want to
get an e-mail every 5 seconds.

Cheers,
Andrew
t.whid wrote:

> This question has been asked over and over on this list.
>
> I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.
>
> Good luck.
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
>> rhizome? a
>> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements of
>> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
>> net.work
>> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>>
>> ja
>> http://vispo.com
>>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> 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

hi t.whid!

Yeah.

(By the way - your Turbulence commission is really super, I have been enjoying it, a lot - I have been trying to find the time to write more about it - until then…)

t.whid> This question has been asked over and over on this list.
t.whid>I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.

It's comforting to see someone else asking this question. It makes me feel like I have been promoted to the next level.

I suggest you check out this long thread I initiated based upon a similar observation: http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread777&text&247 .

Discussion ebbs and flows. If you think about it, this is not such a bad thing. We are a bunch of artists for goodness sake - if we spent all of our time discussing stuff who would make all of the art? Rest assured, you are in the right place. It's up to you to spark a discussion. From my experience, a long bit of silence makes the meaty discussions that much more scrumptious.

Jason Van Anden
www.smileproject.com

It's knocking on the open door.
Why don't we discuss about Rhizome_ Raw politic of
punishment,censure,inconsequence…
How do you imagine that;discussion about something unnamed,something "in
general",not specific case,no name…
After more than hundred Maniks IMAGES,suddenly Rhizome_Raw refuse to publish
them further.
Is that way to show us power?Or teaching us democracy?
It's not important what you talk,power which allows you to talk is
determinate by institution,economic,weapon…
Talk means to be able to talk,to have power to talk.And that's privilege of
"Main Subject"(U.S-J.Habermas)
That's opposite of rhizomatic way of communication,far from
Delleuse&Guattari(they are open for new interpretations).But Rhizome_Raw
became more and more conservative,
academic,boring,…Strange,it was few years ago interesting place.
So tell us(toMANIK)why don't you refuse our kind of discussion,our
images?Open and honest.

MANIK


—– Original Message —–
From: "andrew michael baron" <[email protected]>
To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
Cc: "rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?


> ps, sorry I felt like I didnt do very well in articulating the
> connection. . .I think the Rhizome list, EVEN WITHOUT THE DISCUSSION, is
> priceless for the artist. I find the discussion that IS here, to be very
> enjoyable. T.Whind, I dont know you at all beyond this list but you are
> a daily character in my life now. I love Rhizome Raw but I don't want to
> get an e-mail every 5 seconds.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
> t.whid wrote:
>
> > This question has been asked over and over on this list.
> >
> > I think most recently by Jason Van Anden.
> >
> > Good luck.
> >
> >
> > On Nov 19, 2004, at 2:36 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to
> >> rhizome? a
> >> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements
of
> >> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning
> >> net.work
> >> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
> >>
> >> ja
> >> http://vispo.com
> >>
> >
> > ===
> > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> > ===
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

I'm just lurking around waiting for all the preaching-to-the-choir / pissing-in-the-wind political venting to ebb.

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue@45

why don't more people make one of these?:
http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/

It seems that HTML posting capabilities are turned on there. You might could hack your own exhibit via CSS a la http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261

blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay.

_

jim asked:

why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to rhizome? a
lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements of
installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning net.work
that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.

ja
http://vispo.com

I'm just lurking around waiting for all the preaching-to-the-choir /
pissing-in-the-wind political venting to ebb.

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue@45

Who care about that shit anymore?
—– Original Message —–
From: "Archive Registrar" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:13 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?


> I'm just lurking around waiting for all the preaching-to-the-choir /
pissing-in-the-wind political venting to ebb.
>
> http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue@45
>
> why don't more people make one of these?:
> http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/
>
> It seems that HTML posting capabilities are turned on there. You might
could hack your own exhibit via CSS a la http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?2261
>
> blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay.
>
> _
>
> jim asked:
>
> why is it that there is so little discussion of net.art posted to rhizome?
a
> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable, ie, announcements of
> installation projects and whatnot, but there are posts concerning net.work
> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
> +
> -> 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
>

—– Original Message —–
From: "Jason Van Anden" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 10:53 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?


>We are a bunch of artists for goodness sake - if we spent all of our time
discussing stuff who would make all of the art?

We will.
MANIK
> +
> -> 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
>

Hi Jim, all
I'm replying to your original post although I read the
others.
I don't know what the answer is; I certainly enjoy it
when a topic catches fire -in general that doesn't
seem to happen with discussions of specific pieces,
which is a shame because this requires a more subtle
approach than some of the polarised *in-general*
positions often argued here.
So I'm going to post some stuff about a recent piece
in the hope someone will respond.
I meant to post awhile back to say how much I'd liked
the MTAA "Five Small Videos About Interruption and
Disappearing"

http://mteww.com.twhid.com/five_small_videos/

Like them very much I do; but they also intrigue me.
The blurb says they are inspired by early performance
videos - a genre and a period which I enjoy a lot.
There was a marvellous exhibition at the ICA here
about a year ago of single channel video works - lots
of Acconci, Baldessari and also early Nauman
-wonderful stuff.

One thing that occurs to me about the MTAA response is
firstly how *elegant* it is - & this is a quality of
all their work - elegance and thoroughness, or perhaps
elegance due to thoroughness - one could never accuse
them of a lack of craft.
This is in stark contrast to the sheer edginess and
sense of ( often literal!) danger in much of that
early video work. Doing my sums I can't put this down
to the newness of video as a medium - actually I
suspect that the technologies used by MTAA are newer
relative to them.

There's a temptation to see this piece ( and others
such as the one year performance piece) as a sort of
conceptual post modernist whimsy, beautifully made but
essentially a clever formal exercise.
I think this would be wrong - actually there seems to
me to be a feel of "classicism" about this work - the
elegance seems not a symptom or a bolt on but a very
much integral part of the work.
I see this happening quite a lot -its as if in the
shadow of high modernism it wasn't quite respectable
to use the methods and the language of the past
without being *ironic* or having a high concept.
Now all those barriers have long been broken we can
simply move on to using a good move no matter when or
where we saw it.
SO specifically here it's as if the artists of the
seventies having blazed a trail, created edgy stuff in
a kind of white heat, MTAA are examining the language
and the practice with the benefit of a couple of
decades of hindsight and appropriating *what fits*,
*what works* into their own practice.
And the resultant work for me isn't simply clever or
knowing but actually quite touching - I'm quite moved
by these two characters in the videos ( and there are
longer backward shadows cast here - Laurel and Hardy,
Abbott and Costello, the *comic film duo* , spring to
mind).
Certainly the piece feels to me to have many
resonances that go beyond the intellectual, the
clever, the knowing and enter the world of the
affective.
I'd be interested to know what you or others think.
best
michael



— Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:

> why is it that there is so little discussion of
> net.art posted to rhizome? a
> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable,
> ie, announcements of
> installation projects and whatnot, but there are
> posts concerning net.work
> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi Michael,

I think the Laurel and Hardy insight is a useful one, and I'll touch
on that later. I don't see the pieces in "five small videos"
primarily in relationship to experimental video, although they
technichally contain aspects of video media, and the title of the
series is "five small videos". I see them primarily in relationship
to interface design culture. MTAA are applying their
conceptual/performance art insights to expose the absurdities of the
Human Computer Interface. The pieces are actually explicitly
post-video, which is what makes them so compelling.

There was a lot of "sick" (in the positive sense) abstract work in
lingo/director emerging around 1998 on the web ( http://turux.org
being the classic example). The code was trigonometric functions
tweaking little 2X2 pixel colored triangles with the "trace" effect
turned on, and it functioned like a kind of reactive abstract digital
painting process. Which was cool and still is cool, and I'm not
knocking that.

Then people started to map that same kind reactive/generative code
onto images of physical bodies. A great example is
http://lecielestbleu.com/html/main_zoo2.htm . Yugo Nakamura has some
amazing stuff along the same lines:
http://yugop.com/ver3/index.asp?id$
http://yugop.com/ver3/index.asp?id=3
http://yugop.com/ver3/index.asp?id)
http://yugop.com/ver3/index.asp?id&
http://yugop.com/ver2/works/typospace3.html

So now instead of being able to control abstract shapes (or watch the
computer auto-control abstract shapes), I'm able as a user to control
human or animal forms (or watch the computer auto-control them).
This is a lot more conceptually promising, since we're humans. But
who of the Flash/Director script kiddies was exploring the
implications of these concepts? Few.

I position http://mteww.com.twhid.com/five_small_videos/ in this same
genre (interactive body stuff), but with a greater focus on the
conceptual, human implications. For instance, in "sliding
compression," by mapping the slider resolution to their own faces,
the artists raise all sorts of intriguing issues. The two artists
are part of a collaborate partnership, but does one grow in fame at
the expense of the other? I love the minimalistic terseness of this
piece. It doesn't need an expanded artist statement. It doesn't
even need the word "fame" in the title of the piece. The
simultaneous crisping and blurring of the respective artist faces
says it all. By naming the piece after its mere technical interface
mechanism ("sliding compression"), the artists foreground the fact
that there is always more ethically implicit in our technology than
what it is merely technichally doing. Why does tech always have
ethical implications? Because our technology is not just "operating"
on dots or lines or data structures. Ultlimately, it's "operating"
on us. (And McLuhan said so.)

If the images of the artists were mere cartoons (as in the MTAA
avatar logos), the piece would be schlocky and feel like so many
Flash animation gag reels (cf: http://www.jibjab.com ). If the
images were static jpgs, they would still feel like mere simulacra
[note to academics: used trendy critical term]. I propose that even
if the clips were live-action filmed in front of a realistic
background the profundity of the piece would be greatly decreased
(cf: http://subservientchicken.com ). By the way, I think subservient
chicken is actually brialliant conceptual net art, but it will never
make it into the canon because it's a burger king marketing campaign.
Too bad for the canon. Anway, the fact that the artists are
silhoutted on white yet still moving makes them seem like little tiny
people inside the screen ( cf:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:H6jOp1QtRHIJ:userwww.sfsu.edu/~nathangr/wonka/mikemini.jpg
). Issues of perpetual stuckness, looping, and time are raised.
Similar issues are raised in MTAA's "One Year Performance" piece, but
to less effect. With "Five Small Videos," I don't need to know the
esoteric history of performance art to immediately get the full
impact of the piece. But then I like stereolab better than Ornette
Coleman, so sue me.

Back to the Laurel and Hardy insight, which brings up the topic of
physical comedy, which leads to the topic of the human body. There
was a big push early on for we humans to insert our "selves" into a
virtual world, with all the utopianism and man-as-his-own-god
promises which that implied. We would leave our old bodies and get
new bodies inside the machine. But who wants to live inside a
freaking machine? If macmall.com can't even hook me up with the
right USB male/female cable adaptor, what does this bode for my
virtual sex life? "Five Small Videos" successfully lampoons the
promise of VR by inserting the non-stylized, non-abstracted,
"real/normal" bodies of the"tired old" artists (not that they are
actually tired or old; it's "acting!") into the contemporary,
non-utopian, "real" machine – subjecting them to all the bland,
inane, dehumanizing restrictions of contemporary
usability-influenced, dont-make-me-think web design best practices.
t. whid himself knows web development and is all too familiar with
its interface design conventions. So much so, that this piece
"presses the buttons" (pun overintented) of non-artsy, "normal" web
users everywhere; they relate to it intuitively; and it wins a
"macromedia site of the day" award (how gauchely populist!) And
well it should. The best art is able to dialogue on an allusive art
history level without that aspect being strictly requisite to its
appreciation.

It's cool that Mathew Barney uses his body as a prop. Along similar
lines (but in graphic design rather than art) Stefan Sagmeister uses
his body as a prop to powerful effect (
http://www.sagmeister.com/work5.html ,
http://journal.aiga.org/resources/file/1/8/2/3/SVA_exhibition.jpg ,
http://journal.aiga.org/resources/file/1/8/2/2/Sagmeister%20Inc.-Zurich1.jpg
). It's lame and desparate when Genesis P. Orridge maimes his body
as a prop, or when that one armed guy nailed his one arm to the wall
and called it art, or when that other guy got shot in the arm as art.
Spectacle, spectacle! [note use of trendy critical term #2] It's not
just that an artist uses his body; it's how he does it (hubba hubba).
What Barney and Sagmeister and Laurel and Hardy all have in common is
that their bodies are tools of imprinture into archived media.
Whereas Genesis P. Orridge rolling around in glass is live. His body
isn't just the brush, it's the canvas.

Is Beuys body his own canvas in "I love America and America loves
me?" Not really. He's more like an actor in a drama. Put a camera
in there with him and the coyote and release the footage on double
DVD – have you captured the import of the performance? Not at all.
Because the medium of video inserts a linear rigor into the mix that
removes some of the most interesting elements of the performance,
namely – is the coyote going to bite him? The video can be an
archive of the outcome of the performance, but nothing more.

What's cool about "Five Small Videos" is that they aren't videos. In
our post-film, "interactive" era, MTAA are able to insert
non-linearity back into the performative process, yet they still
maintail all the "archival/removed/time-shifted" nature of film. In
"One Year Performance," they don't have to really be in the rooms for
a year. You do that work for them (or the loop code of the machine
does, and you agree to suspend your disbelief). Just like the three
stooges didn't have to go around from vaudeville show to vaudeville
show forever poking each other in the eye. Record once; play
anywhere. But add interactivity to video, and it feels like the
actors are "actually there," because they are responding to my
real-time imput. But really the machine is responding to my
real-time input. But since the behavior of the machine is now mapped
onto their "bodies," they become my puppets (with all the strangeness
and awkwardness that such control implies). In "lights on, lights
off," I can't wake M. River up too many times without feeling a
little sadistic. Best leave sleeping dogs lie.

"Five Small Videos" is actually very potent in a way that most cyborg
extropian art (and most of the didactically reflexive/self-aware cary
peppermint stuff) never is for me. It hits the mark because it
succinctly foregrounds the absurdities of the medium, it steps back,
and it allows these absurdities to trip over themselves for my own
amusement/contemplation without a whole lot of didactic moralizing
from the artists themselves. All it lacks is a generative ragtime
piano soundtrack.

peace,
curt "i've got your discussion hanging" cloninger

_



At 6:22 AM -0800 11/20/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Hi Jim, all
>I'm replying to your original post although I read the
>others.
>I don't know what the answer is; I certainly enjoy it
>when a topic catches fire -in general that doesn't
>seem to happen with discussions of specific pieces,
>which is a shame because this requires a more subtle
>approach than some of the polarised *in-general*
>positions often argued here.
>So I'm going to post some stuff about a recent piece
>in the hope someone will respond.
>I meant to post awhile back to say how much I'd liked
>the MTAA "Five Small Videos About Interruption and
>Disappearing"
>
>http://mteww.com.twhid.com/five_small_videos/
>
>Like them very much I do; but they also intrigue me.
>The blurb says they are inspired by early performance
>videos - a genre and a period which I enjoy a lot.
>There was a marvellous exhibition at the ICA here
>about a year ago of single channel video works - lots
>of Acconci, Baldessari and also early Nauman
>-wonderful stuff.
>
>One thing that occurs to me about the MTAA response is
>firstly how *elegant* it is - & this is a quality of
>all their work - elegance and thoroughness, or perhaps
>elegance due to thoroughness - one could never accuse
>them of a lack of craft.
>This is in stark contrast to the sheer edginess and
>sense of ( often literal!) danger in much of that
>early video work. Doing my sums I can't put this down
>to the newness of video as a medium - actually I
>suspect that the technologies used by MTAA are newer
>relative to them.
>
>There's a temptation to see this piece ( and others
>such as the one year performance piece) as a sort of
>conceptual post modernist whimsy, beautifully made but
>essentially a clever formal exercise.
>I think this would be wrong - actually there seems to
>me to be a feel of "classicism" about this work - the
>elegance seems not a symptom or a bolt on but a very
>much integral part of the work.
>I see this happening quite a lot -its as if in the
>shadow of high modernism it wasn't quite respectable
>to use the methods and the language of the past
>without being *ironic* or having a high concept.
>Now all those barriers have long been broken we can
>simply move on to using a good move no matter when or
>where we saw it.
>SO specifically here it's as if the artists of the
>seventies having blazed a trail, created edgy stuff in
>a kind of white heat, MTAA are examining the language
>and the practice with the benefit of a couple of
>decades of hindsight and appropriating *what fits*,
>*what works* into their own practice.
>And the resultant work for me isn't simply clever or
>knowing but actually quite touching - I'm quite moved
>by these two characters in the videos ( and there are
>longer backward shadows cast here - Laurel and Hardy,
>Abbott and Costello, the *comic film duo* , spring to
>mind).
>Certainly the piece feels to me to have many
>resonances that go beyond the intellectual, the
>clever, the knowing and enter the world of the
>affective.
>I'd be interested to know what you or others think.
>best
>michael
>
>
>
>— Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> why is it that there is so little discussion of
>> net.art posted to rhizome? a
>> lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable,
>> ie, announcements of
>> installation projects and whatnot, but there are
>> posts concerning net.work
>> that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
>>
>> ja
>> http://vispo.com
>>
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
>http://my.yahoo.com
>

TWITTERING MACHINE

I certainly enjoy
how much I'd liked
Like them very much
I do
I enjoy a lot.
a marvellous exhibition
& this is a quality
elegance and thoroughness
beautifully made
quite touching
I'm quite moved

Selected by MANIK

—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>
To: "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: "Mark River" <[email protected]>; "t whid" <[email protected]>; "Archive
Registrar" <[email protected]>; "Jason Van Anden"
<[email protected]>; "andrew michael baron" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?


> Hi Jim, all
> I'm replying to your original post although I read the
> others.
> I don't know what the answer is; I certainly enjoy it
> when a topic catches fire -in general that doesn't
> seem to happen with discussions of specific pieces,
> which is a shame because this requires a more subtle
> approach than some of the polarised *in-general*
> positions often argued here.
> So I'm going to post some stuff about a recent piece
> in the hope someone will respond.
> I meant to post awhile back to say how much I'd liked
> the MTAA "Five Small Videos About Interruption and
> Disappearing"
>
> http://mteww.com.twhid.com/five_small_videos/
>
> Like them very much I do; but they also intrigue me.
> The blurb says they are inspired by early performance
> videos - a genre and a period which I enjoy a lot.
> There was a marvellous exhibition at the ICA here
> about a year ago of single channel video works - lots
> of Acconci, Baldessari and also early Nauman
> -wonderful stuff.
>
> One thing that occurs to me about the MTAA response is
> firstly how *elegant* it is - & this is a quality of
> all their work - elegance and thoroughness, or perhaps
> elegance due to thoroughness - one could never accuse
> them of a lack of craft.
> This is in stark contrast to the sheer edginess and
> sense of ( often literal!) danger in much of that
> early video work. Doing my sums I can't put this down
> to the newness of video as a medium - actually I
> suspect that the technologies used by MTAA are newer
> relative to them.
>
> There's a temptation to see this piece ( and others
> such as the one year performance piece) as a sort of
> conceptual post modernist whimsy, beautifully made but
> essentially a clever formal exercise.
> I think this would be wrong - actually there seems to
> me to be a feel of "classicism" about this work - the
> elegance seems not a symptom or a bolt on but a very
> much integral part of the work.
> I see this happening quite a lot -its as if in the
> shadow of high modernism it wasn't quite respectable
> to use the methods and the language of the past
> without being *ironic* or having a high concept.
> Now all those barriers have long been broken we can
> simply move on to using a good move no matter when or
> where we saw it.
> SO specifically here it's as if the artists of the
> seventies having blazed a trail, created edgy stuff in
> a kind of white heat, MTAA are examining the language
> and the practice with the benefit of a couple of
> decades of hindsight and appropriating *what fits*,
> *what works* into their own practice.
> And the resultant work for me isn't simply clever or
> knowing but actually quite touching - I'm quite moved
> by these two characters in the videos ( and there are
> longer backward shadows cast here - Laurel and Hardy,
> Abbott and Costello, the *comic film duo* , spring to
> mind).
> Certainly the piece feels to me to have many
> resonances that go beyond the intellectual, the
> clever, the knowing and enter the world of the
> affective.
> I'd be interested to know what you or others think.
> best
> michael
>
>
>
> — Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > why is it that there is so little discussion of
> > net.art posted to rhizome? a
> > lot of the posts announce work that isn't viewable,
> > ie, announcements of
> > installation projects and whatnot, but there are
> > posts concerning net.work
> > that is viewable online, and it is rarely discussed.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

I encourage everyone to keep talking about me & mriver ;-)

Can't get enough of me & mriver? Go here:
http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969

I know, I know. I talk about about me & mriver a lot, but here's my
response to tom moody's post:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/tom\_moody\_does\_1ypv.html

I'll quote bits, then comment (read the entire post
(http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969), I can't figure out
if it's positive or negative, but it's thoughtful and honest so you
can't ask for more than that).

Tom Moody:
> Pieces that refer so specifically to known, past artworks, satirically
> or otherwise, are problematic

What i want to know is, when is someone going to try to break the
virtual twhid + mriver out of those cells?
Free MTAA!
But really, another interesting question would be, "who could afford to
stay in a cell for a year anyway?" The transference of privilege into
the "freedom" to be visually "unproductive" for the span of a year is
an interesting, problematic proposition. Imagine if there was a
paypal-like system that forced people to "deposit" 25 cents in order to
see a segment of the video…
My other reactions to this work (both the 1YPV and the 5 short videos)
was to see it as a continuation of Dan Graham's (who i think must have
been a Laurel & Hardy fan) examination of media devices via
performance, updated to interface/database design (as Curt pointed
out). Not that a particular history should be prioritized, but hey,
that history is part of my vocabulary like it or not. And the austere
"elegance" is riffing on Apple/GAP seamless PR to me, as well as white
cubes.
just dumb thoughts on smart work.
ryan

> t.whid:
> We received the same criticism from Kevin McCoy (discussions with
> Kevin during the building of the piece were invaluable). The crit
> being that by making it simply an

TWI(RD)TTERING MACHINE
manik :-)
—– Original Message —–
From: "twhid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: why so little discussion?


> I encourage everyone to keep talking about me & mriver ;-)
>
> Can't get enough of me & mriver? Go here:
> http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969
>
> I know, I know. I talk about about me & mriver a lot, but here's my
> response to tom moody's post:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/tom\_moody\_does\_1ypv.html
>
> I'll quote bits, then comment (read the entire post
> (http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969), I can't figure out
> if it's positive or negative, but it's thoughtful and honest so you
> can't ask for more than that).
>
> Tom Moody:
> > Pieces that refer so specifically to known, past artworks, satirically
> > or otherwise, are problematic

I've really enjoyed the work you posted to Rhizome, Manik. Please post more.
It's great stuff.

ja

ryan griffis wrote:
>"who could afford to
> stay in a cell for a year anyway?"

Pillar Saints or Stylites. A class of ascetics, chiefly of Syria, who took
up their abode on the top of a pillar, from which they never descended. (See
Stylites .)
St.Danilo spend 50 years on pillar,St.Alimpye about 30.St.Simeon….etc.

Ryan question is paradigmatic for contemporary state of mind.
People believe that they can compress experience.Virtual!?!
This "Project" with cell is fanny and sad.And hopeless…

www.thebookofdays.com/months/jan/5.htm -
www.stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id551.htm

MANIK


> -> 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
>

I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.

MANIK

——-Original Message——-

From: Jim Andrews
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:22:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?

I've really enjoyed the work you posted to Rhizome, Manik. Please post more=
.
It's great stuff.

ja


+
-> 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

.

TWHI(D)TTERING MACHINE
sorry,I miss one letter,my apologies to Mr.President…
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "manik" <[email protected]>
To: "twhid" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: why so little discussion?


> TWI(RD)TTERING MACHINE
> manik :-)
> —– Original Message —–
> From: "twhid" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: why so little discussion?
>
>
> > I encourage everyone to keep talking about me & mriver ;-)
> >
> > Can't get enough of me & mriver? Go here:
> > http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969
> >
> > I know, I know. I talk about about me & mriver a lot, but here's my
> > response to tom moody's post:
> >
> > http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/tom\_moody\_does\_1ypv.html
> >
> > I'll quote bits, then comment (read the entire post
> > (http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/?29969), I can't figure out
> > if it's positive or negative, but it's thoughtful and honest so you
> > can't ask for more than that).
> >
> > Tom Moody:
> > > Pieces that refer so specifically to known, past artworks, satirically
> > > or otherwise, are problematic

> ryan griffis wrote:
>> "who could afford to
>> stay in a cell for a year anyway?"
>
> Pillar Saints or Stylites. A class of ascetics, chiefly of Syria, who
> took
> up their abode on the top of a pillar, from which they never
> descended. (See
> Stylites .)
> St.Danilo spend 50 years on pillar,St.Alimpye about
> 30.St.Simeon….etc.

Sure, if you call that "affording it." But it demands someone else to
grow, produce and distribute food to the ascetic - they didn't live 30+
years on birdshit. Someone else is affording it for him.
Perhaps an analysis of the subsidization of ascetics is a useful
comparison for artists.
>
> Ryan question is paradigmatic for contemporary state of mind.
> People believe that they can compress experience.Virtual!?!
> This "Project" with cell is fanny and sad.And hopeless…

Maybe my question if paradigmatic, i don't know. But i think your
critique assumes my use of the word "virtual" means "compressed." i'm
certainly not speaking to any notion of experiential compression…
maybe an expansion. It's just another form of experience to deal with
critically, not a paradigmatic shift for me.
An elaboration of the "fanniness," "sadness" and "hopelessness" might
help me understand what you're reacting against, if that's of any
concern to you.
ryan

I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.

MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "ryan griffis" <[email protected]>
To: "manik" <[email protected]>
Cc: "rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?


>
> > ryan griffis wrote:
> >> "who could afford to
> >> stay in a cell for a year anyway?"
> >
> > Pillar Saints or Stylites. A class of ascetics, chiefly of Syria, who
> > took
> > up their abode on the top of a pillar, from which they never
> > descended. (See
> > Stylites .)
> > St.Danilo spend 50 years on pillar,St.Alimpye about
> > 30.St.Simeon….etc.
>
> Sure, if you call that "affording it." But it demands someone else to
> grow, produce and distribute food to the ascetic - they didn't live 30+
> years on birdshit. Someone else is affording it for him.
> Perhaps an analysis of the subsidization of ascetics is a useful
> comparison for artists.
> >
> > Ryan question is paradigmatic for contemporary state of mind.
> > People believe that they can compress experience.Virtual!?!
> > This "Project" with cell is fanny and sad.And hopeless…
>
> Maybe my question if paradigmatic, i don't know. But i think your
> critique assumes my use of the word "virtual" means "compressed." i'm
> certainly not speaking to any notion of experiential compression…
> maybe an expansion. It's just another form of experience to deal with
> critically, not a paradigmatic shift for me.
> An elaboration of the "fanniness," "sadness" and "hopelessness" might
> help me understand what you're reacting against, if that's of any
> concern to you.
> ryan
>

Man(ik), your understanding of us US Americans is right on.
Let me hear it again! You know what i like!
thanks,
ryan

On Nov 20, 2004, at 3:30 PM, manik wrote:

> I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.

I think that in many cases, there hasn't been that much to discuss.
There's been a lull in good work, or at least meaty thought on the
subject.
I think a new wave is coming with the consideration of the historical,
but I got a note for a new book on the history of new media from
1715-1914?

Ok, I'm going to get this volume, but this seems like a book that is
constructing a historical context that may or may not be there. What I
call a, "Tactical Reality" to validate New Media.

Under my criteria, New media really has to do with electronic
computation as one of its core components. Therefore, I really doubt
that anyone's going to make a good argument for what we conceive as new
media art before the 60's.

Back to the discussion topic.

I for one have been swamped. I'm entering academia at the moment, and I
had no idea what demands they were going to impose. Also, I've been
putting together ideas for larger texts, which is another matter
entirely.

And of course, IA & the Yes Men (when I have something to do for them)
keep me hopping.

The entire agrarian community collectively brought the food and left it there at the base of the pillar every morning. It was good karma for them to do so. "Growth, production, distribution" are all anachronistic Marxist ways of thinking about it. They pulled the carrots and taters from the ground, walked to the base of the pillar, and placed the carrots and taters in the basket for hoisting. They ate the maggots that fell from the flesh of the ascetics.

I think the comparison is telling. There was a "performance" that consumed the life of the
"artist," and not just for a year. But it wasn't a stunt or a clever conceptual angle; it was an act of worship. Furthermomre, it totally captured the imagination of the entire community, so much so that they financially supported its perpetuation of their own free will.

To me, a lot of performance art pales as contrivance compared to actual devotional living. Which may be why Beuys described his teaching career as his best piece.

I'm reminded of a Lydia Lunch quote which goes something like, "What would be better than to die for your art? To die for my art. Yeah, that'd be great."

_


ryan wrote:
Sure, if you call that "affording it." But it demands someone else to
grow, produce and distribute food to the ascetic - they didn't live 30+
years on birdshit. Someone else is affording it for him.
Perhaps an analysis of the subsidization of ascetics is a useful
comparison for artists.

MACHINE SONG FOR IRON EAR
I think
but I got
I think
but I got
I'm going
What I
I really
for
I'm
and I
I've

Selected by MANIK


—– Original Message —–
From: "patrick lichty" <[email protected]>
To: "'manik'" <[email protected]>; "'ryan griffis'" <[email protected]>
Cc: "'rhizome'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?


> I think that in many cases, there hasn't been that much to discuss.
> There's been a lull in good work, or at least meaty thought on the
> subject.
> I think a new wave is coming with the consideration of the historical,
> but I got a note for a new book on the history of new media from
> 1715-1914?
>
> Ok, I'm going to get this volume, but this seems like a book that is
> constructing a historical context that may or may not be there. What I
> call a, "Tactical Reality" to validate New Media.
>
> Under my criteria, New media really has to do with electronic
> computation as one of its core components. Therefore, I really doubt
> that anyone's going to make a good argument for what we conceive as new
> media art before the 60's.
>
> Back to the discussion topic.
>
> I for one have been swamped. I'm entering academia at the moment, and I
> had no idea what demands they were going to impose. Also, I've been
> putting together ideas for larger texts, which is another matter
> entirely.
>
> And of course, IA & the Yes Men (when I have something to do for them)
> keep me hopping.
>
>
>
>
>
>

> The entire agrarian community collectively brought the food and left
> it there at the base of the pillar every morning. It was good karma
> for them to do so. "Growth, production, distribution" are all
> anachronistic Marxist ways of thinking about it. They pulled the
> carrots and taters from the ground, walked to the base of the pillar,
> and placed the carrots and taters in the basket for hoisting. They
> ate the maggots that fell from the flesh of the ascetics.
>
> I think the comparison is telling. There was a "performance" that
> consumed the life of the
> "artist," and not just for a year. But it wasn't a stunt or a clever
> conceptual angle; it was an act of worship. Furthermomre, it totally
> captured the imagination of the entire community, so much so that they
> financially supported its perpetuation of their own free will.

Yeah, lots of things capture the imagination of an entire community.
genocidal acts take lots of willing participants, for example. So did
the civil rights movements. What doesn't? Just because lots of people
are compelled to support someone/something doesn't make it great or
heroic, anymore than it makes it "groupthink" or fascist. And anyway,
my point was that the ascetics couldn't afford it - their community
could. big difference. i didn't realize that economics was
anachronistic. someone should tell all those people losing their
welfare checks to cheer up and find a pillar.
>
> To me, a lot of performance art pales as contrivance compared to
> actual devotional living. Which may be why Beuys described his
> teaching career as his best piece.

whatever - performance art isn't "devotional living." whatever that
means. it's art - a contrived activity designed to be seen as art. i
don't understand the comparison. a "performance artist" could make bad
art and live a devotional life.
>
> I'm reminded of a Lydia Lunch quote which goes something like, "What
> would be better than to die for your art? To die for my art. Yeah,
> that'd be great."

How heroic. Too bad all those non-artists just have to die for someone
else's art.
ryan

ryan:
Yeah, lots of things capture the imagination of an entire community.
genocidal acts take lots of willing participants, for example. So did
the civil rights movements. What doesn't?

curt:
contemporary performance art.

ryan:
i didn't realize that economics was
anachronistic.

curt:
not economics, just marxist economics.

ryan:
whatever - performance art isn't "devotional living." whatever that
means. it's art - a contrived activity designed to be seen as art. i
don't understand the comparison. a "performance artist" could make bad
art and live a devotional life.

curt:
devotional living is moment-by-moment living devoted to someone or something. the ascetic on the pole suggests to me that one's art (even one's performance art) could be more holistically bound up in / derived from one's personal inner life. It could be more idiosyncratically passionate and less tactically contrived:
http://www.narrowlarry.com/page1.html
http://www.interestingideas.com/roadside/artenvi.htm
http://cgee.hamline.edu/see/goldsworthy/see_an_andy.html

is this approach "artist-as-hero"? is it "modern" (the scarlet "m")? i think such dismissals are too convenient. maybe it's pre-pre-pre-modern. Maybe it's more punk and less poser. Maybe it's just generally more interesting. maybe it's just me.

HI Curt, Ryan

Curt - erecting straw men is an entirely
uncharacteristic method for you, so it's a shame to
see you doing it with "Marxist economics" -
<"Growth, production, distribution" are all
anachronistic
Marxist ways of thinking about it.>
How are Ryan's 'growth, production and distribution'
specifically Marxist concepts? -you can find these
concepts in *any* account of economics.
How does anyone eat, without production? - or, as soon
as society reaches any level of complexity, without
distribution? How can a society that grows in numbers
( & hence mouths needing to be fed) therefore ignore
the concept of "growth"?
Far from being anachronistic, production, distribution
and exchange (to use the more common Marxian triad)
are actually *universal* questions in any society
other that Robinson Crusoe's.
Of course I'm sure you'd disagree cogently with where
Marx takes us from those premises but your original
point is both mistaken and unworthy of your normal
level of debate.
I suspect what you have encountered is several doses
of the particularly poisoned marxism of the academy -
I recommend reading some of the original stuff, you
wouldn't agree with it, but the man is an invigorating
read & not at all the dullard of myth.

Ryan - although I agree with your general point, I can
hear the sound of baby and bath water here:
< performance art isn't "devotional living." whatever
that
means. it's art - a contrived activity designed to be
seen as art. >
This does rather tend to write off the roots of art as
a practice in religious ritual ( often designed
precisely to *do* something) and its development along
those lines for thousands of years ( and not only in
Western culture).
This therefore:
< it's art - a contrived activity designed to be seen
as art>
does seem to me to be demonstrably an anachronism.
And personally speaking, though I don't have a shred
of religious belief, my life would be a much poorer
experience without, say, Monteverdi's Vespers.
best
michael
— curt cloninger <[email protected]> wrote:

> ryan:
> Yeah, lots of things capture the imagination of an
> entire community.
> genocidal acts take lots of willing participants,
> for example. So did
> the civil rights movements. What doesn't?
>
> curt:
> contemporary performance art.
>
> ryan:
> i didn't realize that economics was
> anachronistic.
>
> curt:
> not economics, just marxist economics.
>
> ryan:
> whatever - performance art isn't "devotional
> living." whatever that
> means. it's art - a contrived activity designed to
> be seen as art. i
> don't understand the comparison. a "performance
> artist" could make bad
> art and live a devotional life.
>
> curt:
> devotional living is moment-by-moment living devoted
> to someone or something. the ascetic on the pole
> suggests to me that one's art (even one's
> performance art) could be more holistically bound up
> in / derived from one's personal inner life. It
> could be more idiosyncratically passionate and less
> tactically contrived:
> http://www.narrowlarry.com/page1.html
> http://www.interestingideas.com/roadside/artenvi.htm
>
http://cgee.hamline.edu/see/goldsworthy/see_an_andy.html
>
> is this approach "artist-as-hero"? is it "modern"
> (the scarlet "m")? i think such dismissals are too
> convenient. maybe it's pre-pre-pre-modern. Maybe
> it's more punk and less poser. Maybe it's just
> generally more interesting. maybe it's just me.
> +
> -> 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
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

At 3:31 AM -0800 11/22/04, Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> How are Ryan's 'growth, production and distribution'
>specifically Marxist concepts? -you can find these
>concepts in *any* account of economics.
>How does anyone eat, without production? - or, as soon
>as society reaches any level of complexity, without
>distribution? How can a society that grows in numbers
>( & hence mouths needing to be fed) therefore ignore
>the concept of "growth"?
>Far from being anachronistic, production, distribution
>and exchange (to use the more common Marxian triad)
>are actually *universal* questions in any society
>other that Robinson Crusoe's.


Hi Michael (and Ryan),
I'm just saying that most of these pillar-donating instances occurred
in self-sustaining local agrarian economies, so all of that
theoretical economic infrastructure (and the cultural relationships
it implies) are overkill. To focus on the economic aspects of this
situation is to apply one's pat contemporary grid backwards. It's to
focus on something that these people weren't focusing on. Since the
time of Moses, 11 tribes supported a 12th tribe of priests with their
tithes and offerings. Call it specialization of spiritual services
if you like. But these pillar ascetics weren't even priests. These
were freewill offerings above and beyond the tithe.

My family grow some of our own food here and we are surrounded by
farmers. It's nothing for our back neighbor to bring by five bushels
of corn and give it to us on a whim. These townspeope were giving
the pillar ascetics the leavings/gleanings of their crop. It doesn't
take much "capital" to live on top of a pole. The townspeople just
had to be intentional enough to bring the food daily, which they were.

Just like the MTAA year in a room project (getting back to it). It
was more an issue of "mindshare" than of "growth, production,
distribution."

peace,
curt

One small thing to add to this discussion:

On Nov 19, 2004, at 6:32 PM, manik wrote:

> After more than hundred Maniks IMAGES,suddenly Rhizome_Raw refuse to
> publish
> them further.
> Is that way to show us power?Or teaching us democracy?

If you're talking about no longer being able to send along attachments
through [email protected], that's an anti-spam measure. Now,
theoretically I could go to heroic measures to configure sendmail to
try to distinguish between good attachments (manik's images) and bad
attachments (Outlook virii), and then make sure those configurations
are kept up to date as a new Windows virus comes out every fucking
week. But just imagine, I actually have better things to do, so goodbye
attachments.

Also, I think MTAA's piece is cool too.

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

HI Curt
I don't particularly want to have a big ding dong back
and forth about this so these few observations will be
my last on this sub thread, by way of which I'll try &
return my contribution to the topic of art. I'll leave
you or Ryan the last word , should you want it.

(1)
<so all
of that
theoretical economic infrastructure (and the
cultural relationships
it implies) are overkill>
I disagree - trying to understand things is never
overkill.( and whether people are aware that what they
are doing conforms to our description or not is a red
herring -the question is, does our description lay
bare the mechanics of what is occurring? - I like to
think that you uncovered things as a critic in your
bravura contribution here on "five small videos" the
other day, that could well be news to MTAA).
Furthermore you're actually a lot closer in what you
concede here to a classically Marxist position than
you might think.
The key is
<Since the
time of Moses, 11 tribes supported a 12th tribe of
priests with their
tithes and offerings>
and this is *precisely* Marx and Engels account of the
beginnings of classes & the state: a separate caste of
people, living off the surplus created by others and
dedicated to ruling or ritual or religion.
( although they would date this substantially before
the time of Moses I think)
Prior to this although I've no doubt that people
worshipped, or attempted to placate, Gods or spirits
or whatever there was no separate body of people
devoted to this function simply because no society's
productive forces were developed enough to create a
surplus. Everyones labour: hunting, gathering, was
needed in order to guarantee everyones mere survival.

What would of course be totally ahistorical is to
speak of "capital" in any of this - capital and
capitalist are not terms of abuse but precise
technical descriptions of phenomena within
*capitalism*, something that has been with us for only
a few hundred years.

And of course you're right about people making gifts
to these ascetics of their own free will. They still
had to *produce* it though; their gifts still formed
part of a pattern of *distribution*.
I don't wish at all to deny or disparage the
contemporary description you give of simple good
neighbourliness -I experienced enough of that in my
fathers recent last months to both be very aware of
its reality and be profoundly grateful for it -indeed
it seems to me that in that sort of human decency, not
driven by need or greed, lies quite a lot of hope for
the future.

Where is the art in this?
Well, I suppose where I agree with Ryan is that on the
whole I feel the folk who gave up their dinners to
suport the guys on the pole got the rough end of the
deal.
Having said that though, I'm aware that my disapproval
or approval isn't going to alter the fact that it
happened and that I *do* think it has some bearing on
art, for reasons I explained in the post before this.
And coming almost full circle back to 1970s video I'm
struck by how much of it does seem to be involved with
an almost mystical strain of mortification of the
flesh - you can certainly see this in Acconci, but
there's also a pair of artists from what was then
Yugoslavia, whose names escape me, who did the most
alarming things to each other.
I'm absolutely not going to confine my notion of what
constitutes either great or interesting art ( or its
precursors and paraphenomena) to what pleases me
politically (in the narrow sense of the word).
best
michael



>
>
> Hi Michael (and Ryan),
> I'm just saying that most of these pillar-donating
> instances occurred
> in self-sustaining local agrarian economies, so all
> of that
> theoretical economic infrastructure (and the
> cultural relationships
> it implies) are overkill. To focus on the economic
> aspects of this
> situation is to apply one's pat contemporary grid
> backwards. It's to
> focus on something that these people weren't
> focusing on. Since the
> time of Moses, 11 tribes supported a 12th tribe of
> priests with their
> tithes and offerings. Call it specialization of
> spiritual services
> if you like. But these pillar ascetics weren't even
> priests. These
> were freewill offerings above and beyond the tithe.
>
> My family grow some of our own food here and we are
> surrounded by
> farmers. It's nothing for our back neighbor to
> bring by five bushels
> of corn and give it to us on a whim. These
> townspeope were giving
> the pillar ascetics the leavings/gleanings of their
> crop. It doesn't
> take much "capital" to live on top of a pole. The
> townspeople just
> had to be intentional enough to bring the food
> daily, which they were.
>
> Just like the MTAA year in a room project (getting
> back to it). It
> was more an issue of "mindshare" than of "growth,
> production,
> distribution."
>
> peace,
> curt
> +
> -> 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
>




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi Michael,

Well said.

Not by way of argument, but just riffing:

There's a contemporary genre of gallery artwork that foregrounds
value exchange systems in relation to art, relativism, and the art
market. Whereas here we've been hinting at something which to me is
much more interesting – an earlier, less convoluted, more primordial
art/value/exchange system.

And it makes me think of this wonderful project:
http://www.dream-dollars.com
I dote on this project. It works for me on about 20 different
levels. It is gradually becoming one of my favorite pieces of net
art.

Just to whet your appetite, the following passage is from the
biography of Samuel Brundt, co-founder of the utopian Colony of
Nadiria, for whom the antarctic dream dollars were currency:


+++++++++

"Life is an exchange," Samuel Brundt was wont to say. "An exchange of
heat, energy, force, love, hate, art. There are spiritual and
material transactions occurring every minute. Our monetary system is
a microcosm of this." (Excerpt from, The Great Transaction, by Samuel
Brundt, New York 1843) The Church of Spiritual Commerce grew out of
the philosophy and teachings of Samuel and Constance Brundt. It
officially formed in New York City on January 1, 1838 as a
metaphysical society of like-minded thinkers, and had an initial
membership of 16 people…

++++++++

It goes on and on and just gets weirder and weirder. Brilliant and
highly recommended.

peace,
curt


_


Michael Wrote:

>And of course you're right about people making gifts
>to these ascetics of their own free will. They still
>had to *produce* it though; their gifts still formed
part of a pattern of *distribution*.

Jim Andrews wrote:

>i'm not sure if it also means that images cannot be included, not as
>attachments, but as visible in emails?

MANIK wrote:
We NEVER send attachments to Rhizome_Raw.
It's just Mr.Hwang hallucination.

MANIK

——-Original Message——-

From: Francis Hwang
Date: Monday, November 22, 2004 05:02:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion?

One small thing to add to this discussion:

On Nov 19, 2004, at 6:32 PM, manik wrote:

> After more than hundred Maniks IMAGES,suddenly Rhizome_Raw refuse to
> publish
> them further.
> Is that way to show us power?Or teaching us democracy?

If you're talking about no longer being able to send along attachments
through [email protected], that's an anti-spam measure. Now,
theoretically I could go to heroic measures to configure sendmail to
try to distinguish between good attachments (manik's images) and bad
attachments (Outlook virii), and then make sure those configurations
are kept up to date as a new Windows virus comes out every fucking
week. But just imagine, I actually have better things to do, so goodbye
attachments.

Also, I think MTAA's piece is cool too.

Francis Hwang
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: 212-219-1288x202
AIM: francisrhizome
+ + +

+
-> 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

.

On Nov 22, 2004, at 3:31 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> This therefore:
> < it's art - a contrived activity designed to be seen
> as art>
> does seem to me to be demonstrably an anachronism.
> And personally speaking, though I don't have a shred
> of religious belief, my life would be a much poorer
> experience without, say, Monteverdi's Vespers.

point taken Michael,
i actually am a religious person and believe in many of the tenets of
Marxism simultaneously (even the Althusserian depiction of religious
institutions as part of a superstructure). my statement was a bit hasty
and reactionary, but was meant merely to suggest that perhaps the
judgment of one's art and the judgment of one's life may not be the
same, and that to compare the practice of ascetics to contemporary
performance artists is absurd to me.
but i feel this may be getting into an argument with no resolution and
little at stake.
take care,
ryan