How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich/
"… This page gives you the HTML code to "… make a perfect Malevich painting…". It's a basic HTML code. Everyone can have a Malevich, you can see it on your computer screen or print it. This is the POWER of net.art, you can't do this with old art! …"
"… Source Code ("this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is")
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Malevich</TITLE>
<!– this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is –>
<!– http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich –> …"
Credits
"How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code" by
LUNK & guddene
How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Hi Lunk,
It is very interesting but I prefer this "new" Malevich:
http://arteonline.arq.br/
This below is very important:
"This is the POWER of net.art, you can't do this with old (and wonderful)
art! …"
Thanks for let me know this HTML code,
Regina Celia Pinto
http://arteonline.arq.br/
http://arteonline.arq.br/library.htm
New Works:
http://arteonline.arq.br/magic_walls/
http://arteonline.arq.br/eva/
http://arteonline.arq.br/ducks/
http://arteonline.arq.br/ecologia/
—– Original Message —–
From: "LUNK" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only
basic HTML code
> How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
> http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich/
>
> "… This page gives you the HTML code to "… make a perfect Malevich
> painting…". It's a basic HTML code. Everyone can have a Malevich, you
> can see it on your computer screen or print it. This is the POWER of
> net.art, you can't do this with old art! …"
>
> "… Source Code ("this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it
> is")
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML>
> <HEAD>
> <TITLE>Malevich</TITLE>
> <!– this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is –>
> <!– http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich –> …"
>
> Credits
> "How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code" by
> LUNK & guddene
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
trashconnection suprematism:
http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/suprematism
> <!– this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is –>
> <!– http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich –> …"
I disagree. It's a copy of a Malevich-ish idea. Not even a copy of a
Malevich painting. However, whatever you do with this is a Sol Lewitt
drawing:
Six-part drawing. The wall is divided horizontally and vertically
into six equal parts. 1st part: On red, blue horizontal parallel
lines, and in the center, a circle within which are yellow vertical
parallel lines; 2nd part: On yellow, red horizontal parallel lines,
and in the center, a square within which are blue vertical parallel
lines; 3rd part: On blue, yellow horizontal parallel lines, and in
the center, a triangle within which are red vertical parallel lines;
4th part: On red, yellow horizontal parallel lines, and in the
center, a rectangle within which are blue vertical parallel lines;
5th part: On yellow, blue horizontal parallel lines, and in the
center, a trapezoid within which are red vertical parallel lines; 6th
part: On blue, red horizontal parallel lines, and in the center, a
parallelogram within which are yellow vertical parallel lines. The
horizontal lines do not enter the figures.
>
> Credits
> "How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML
> code" by
> LUNK & guddene
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>
–
Pall Thayer
[email protected]
http://www.this.is/pallit
—– Original Message —–
From: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
To: "listserv Rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only
basic HTML code
>
>> <!– this is a Malevich painting, it seems strange but it is –>
>> <!– http://lunk.altervista.org/malevich –> …"
>
> I disagree. It's a copy of a Malevich-ish idea. Not even a copy of a
> Malevich painting. >
Yes, you are completely right, we can't do perfect paintings with
computers. (up to now, perhaps in the future?)
When painting there is a tangible medium - paint, which makes a sloppy mess
in cyan, yellow and magenta. In the case of computers, what we have is light
and pixels, and red, green, blue, a clean art and.a certain limitation due
to the software.
What I think that is important is to explore in digital mediums all the
possibilities of recognized Works of Art, it is a way of continue creating
with that work. It means that the work continues alive. Exactely for this
Creative Commons and Free Art are so important.
Regina
But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
Now, then I'd be impressed.
Eric
Dear Eric,
That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are completely
right, the skills and tools are completely different, paintings are
paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very interesting in their own
ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is possible, but they would be
only simulacra of sites because they would not be on the web and they will
not be interactive. Maybe in the future all of this will be possible! We
never know how technology will devellop.
However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win paintings:
the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive today, but I am
almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in 2600. Last Sunday for
example, I was searching for some photos I took at the start of 80's and I
found them, but they were completely ancient, impossible to use. If they
were paintings, it would not occur.
Bye, have a good day,
Regina
—– Original Message —–
From: "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using
only basic HTML code
> But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
> Now, then I'd be impressed.
>
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
Hi Regina & Eric,
I found this Malevich piece pretty interesting…
I think that trying to pretend that one can have their own copy of a
Malevich on the Internet is admirable in one sense, yet these 'many
steps' removed HTML versions offer no context in respect of the artworks
source. And this was definately not the point of it either. Malevich's
dynamic and Suprematist paintings were for instance influenced by the
three different phases of cubism, Facet Cubism, Analytic Cubism and
Synthetic Cubism. Which of course ware, if our history books are true
(they must always be re-evaluated), spawned by the intensive work of
Picasso and Braque who initiated the cubist movement- they followed the
work of Paul Cezanne.
Paintings are not just about what one sees, they are very much about the
real experience and trhe scale, presence and viscosity, in a formal
sense. If you look at an art image in a book it can inspire you but
nothing beats experiencing a painting in real life, that's when they
really live. Copies are no way as stimulating or interesting in
photographic or Internet format.
I feel that what these new distributable (HTML) Malevich's comment on
our contemporary way of engaging in art in a more conceptual way.
Perhaps it is linking or referencing to how see and experince art now.
It certainly is not about the authenticity of the artwork itself or the
original artist 'Malevich', who painted it. Malevich and the item/object
chosen, both equally respected art icons in their own right, are much
more used as famous architypes, a bit like drawing a moustache on the
Mona Lisa.
Exploiting the context of art declaring that function is now part of the
art as well, and the technology used. That redistribution and
appropriation of it, of famous works, such as this piece, can also be
perceived as re-claiming/claiming an art territory, that traditionally
has been owned by a certain group of high art institutions. This
questions that authority, not by saying this is ART but by saying this
can now be yours and anyone's. Claim it, it yours, do what you will with
it…
I like it :-)
marc
Dear Eric,
That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are
completely right, the skills and tools are completely different,
paintings are paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very
interesting in their own ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is
possible, but they would be only simulacra of sites because they would
not be on the web and they will not be interactive. Maybe in the future
all of this will be possible! We never know how technology will devellop.
However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win
paintings: the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive today,
but I am almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in 2600. Last
Sunday for example, I was searching for some photos I took at the start
of 80's and I found them, but they were completely ancient, impossible
to use. If they were paintings, it would not occur.
Bye, have a good day,
Regina
—– Original Message —– From: "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting
using only basic HTML code
> But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
> Now, then I'd be impressed.
>
> Eric
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> Dear Eric,
>
> That is it! Of course we can't. The reciprocal is true. You are
> completely right, the skills and tools are completely different,
> paintings are paintings and web.art is web.art, both are very
> interesting in their own ways. To make sites with brushes on canvas is
> possible, but they would be only simulacra of sites because they would
> not be on the web and they will not be interactive. Maybe in the
> future all of this will be possible! We never know how technology will
> devellop.
>
> However, nowadays, there is one aspect where web.art does not win
> paintings: the time of duration. Paintings made in 1400 are alive
> today, but I am almost sure that our web.art will not be alive in
> 2600. Last Sunday for example, I was searching for some photos I took
> at the start of 80's and I found them, but they were completely
> ancient, impossible to use. If they were paintings, it would not occur.
>
> Bye, have a good day,
>
> Regina
>
>
> —– Original Message —– From: "Eric Dymond" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:43 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting
> using only basic HTML code
>
>
>> But can we make web sites with brushes, paints and solvents?
>> Now, then I'd be impressed.
>>
>> Eric
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>>
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
no kids, you don't get it.
I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.
What I am saying here is that here and now…, everything is good, in fact it's very good.
we are not connected to those old school characters, we are new and on our own…, thank God.
i don't need verity from history, i don't need acceptance from the gurus who specialize in the dusty past.
I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD, the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and will be available in 2600 ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
Eric
let it go
Eric
Quoting Eric Dymond <[email protected]>:
> I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
> They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to
> targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.
Art's target market is humanity.
> What I am saying here is that here and now…, everything is good, in
> fact it's very good.
Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.
> I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly
> nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD,
> the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and
> will be available in 2600
It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to run code
written for the 2600.
> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
I do. I like humans.
- Rob.
Rob Myers wrote:
Eric Dymond added:
> Art's target market is humanity.
That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
> Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.
why? I don't see that.
Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable illness.
> It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
> run code
> written for the 2600.
The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.
>
> > ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
>
> I do. I like humans.
I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.
We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.
It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs carbon argument?
And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)
Eric
>
> - Rob.
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> Eric Dymond added:
>> Art's target market is humanity.
> That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus groups and
> specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic practice a long time ago.
> It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
It all depends on which art world you want to speak to. Its one thing to
make art for the gallery, the museum, the biennial, the neighborhood, the
community center, or for just someone or some place.
What about the need to just create? What about the self? The personal need
to make art, although a modernist concept still has validity today.
Painting will never die but my g4 has been on the fritz lately, tomorrow I
am backing up my drive. Cant wait till I can get my Bluetooth chip in my
head to do it for me.
–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222
http://www.leewells.org
917 723 2524
Hi Lee,
I must admit I was being pretty pointed in my response.
Art , as you point out is made honestly in some contexts.
For most of the discussion though, we were talking about Malevich in the context of "Official Art".
He won't be showing up at any community center, and was making art for a well-defined audience, and with an eye on the future.
Art has many sides, but I believe we were talking about "Professional Art" the art that has only one context, and that is the context of Art History as written by Art Gallerists and Vested Curators.
I hope that helps the understanding here,
and I still say…, that venue is dead.
Eric
On 29 Jan 2006, at 04:15, Eric Dymond wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
> Eric Dymond added:
>> Art's target market is humanity.
> That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus
> groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic
> practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
You have to wait a lot of tables to get to your first audition. At no
point in history has art been free of patronage and its distortions.
If capitalism imploded tomorrow, in a thousand years time art of some
kind would still exist and some contemporary art would still be of
interest.
Capitalism would prefer an art free of (any sign of) patronage as it
prefers isolated, self-contained products that can be freely
exchanged. Capitalism's patronage of the arts (or the fact that art
is a tool of capitalist recreation, which amounts to the same thing)
makes art unclean and problematic *for capitalism*. This irony of its
production gives art critical potential.
> Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred
> sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the
> accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily
> commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to
> us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable
> illness.
I personally am on the other side of a fracture from the fracture. It
is an uncertain place, but I have Vermeer, Michaelangelo, the artists
of Lascaux and Art & Language for company.
>> It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
>> run code
>> written for the 2600.
> The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup
> according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that
> there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers
> and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They
> didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.
That is a good point.
>>> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
>>
>> I do. I like humans.
> I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will
> not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.
We cannot predict how, or whether, future humans will be. One of my
fondest hopes is for a feminist SF future of changed social
individuals rather than a mausculinist SF future of kewl gadgets
provided by the wonders of capital.
> We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including
> Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has
> little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like
> Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on
> medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.
I believe that we are. Duchamp described art as "a game played
between all people of all times". Reconnecting with the historical
traditions (and disruptions!) that capitalism wishes us to forget so
that we can forever be resold (and reselling) a "new" that isn't
would be a form of resistance (or whatever).
> It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the
> end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
> And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone
> replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs
> carbon argument?
> And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple
> announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)
Capitalism provides us with many distractions and false promises. All
of which it profits from.
- Rob.
i didn't know SUPREMATISM by trashconnection, it's very cool.
can i add it to my gallery "net.art LOVES old.art" http://lunk.altervista.org/naloa/ ?
("… Net art loves old art is a page collecting
digital simulations of ‘old’ art…")
i've also made this some years ago: "tribute to fontana - click on the cut" http://lunk.altervista.org/fontana/ ……..L
—
LUNK: http://lunk.altervista.org
MAIS: http://mais.altervista.org
<embed src=0.avi autostart=true> Roman Minaev wrote:
> trashconnection suprematism:
> http://www.artknowledge.net/trashconnection/suprematism