A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism

Hello All!

I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the list
until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off regarding
the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since 2000-2004
and other topics. These are of course good topics but they won't always be
in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other topics.

I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we are
in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
"Networkism."

This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started in
1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
website.

If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e. the
Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.

The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't much
to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward silence
of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has people awkward
and worried.

In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of the
new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art. That
new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who wrote
about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to speak
into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity pull
affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
occurred.

(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter Stallybrass"
who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I was in
academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which as
you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le Lac
D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)

Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or the
Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the pursuit by
the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by James Mann
called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly causes more
danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more tense,
complicated, and risky.

My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the doubt
rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the key
goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about the
former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great move in
this direction and toward High Networkism.

And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period most
properly called Networkism or the Network Period.

Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to make
good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period, given its
character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the time."

I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not a
homogeneous gruel.

I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not going
to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious and you
might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such considerations are
very proper and amazingly right.

Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may be
related.

Best regards,

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
www.geocities.com/genius-2000

+++

Max,

Word.

Check out the assemblage of ads that Google spawned in the sidebar in
response to your post:

Free Menstrual Calendar<http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai

Hi Max:
Nice to see you back on the list. I cannot believe that geocities is still
around.

I don't think this Networkism thing is going to stick but go for it.
Isn't the whole ism thing is dead anyway. Maybe it should be Ismism if we
are to continue the nonsense. (see http://www.ismism.com/ ) But that was so
last century… right? I do think you are onto something though but I
believe it goes way beyond that. Humanity has entered into a new period in
history perhaps better defined by the term Meta. The key question in the art
sense anyway would be; Have we left modernism completely or is this just
stage two? Did postmodernism never brake free? Conceptual pullet-proof glass
ceiling scenario. Who needs bullets when we have consumer grade lasers.

The situation will always be different as long as time plays a part in the
equation.

I do like the fact that you are bold enough (as you have always been) to
throw something out there but the concept of a network is nothing new. Its
just getting a little bit more media hype these days. I mean the brain is a
network and scientist know that, but the fun part is that they don't
understand it completely YET….. Humanity/culture has just discovered a new
and interesting way to think about it. The computer and the recent
advent/inventions of new medias such as mobile phones, internet,
collaboration toolkits and web 2.0 social network portals basically just
speeds up the process for everyone from point a to point b. Connecting the
dots has never been easier. I still can't wait until they figure out this
whole real-time thing….

But since we are throwing ideas into the soup I have been a fan since the
late 90's of the basic concepts behind the term Meta. I think it qualifies
well by itself and does help define certain characteristics and traits of
the contemporary early 21 century (post 911 era) The year 2000 still sits on
the cusp, 911 and the terror war pushed/accelerated things over the edge and
forced the change upon the world. The convergence is here and we have no
choice but to deal with it. ***** See textbook definitions below *****

I can also get all hippy and say we have fully entered the Age of Aquarius,
the new 2000 year cycle. Which relates well with Meta too. The key phrase
for Aquarius is "I Know," but that knowledge is not a righteous, superior or
exclusionary knowledge. It's a sort of wisdom that draws people together,
for Aquarians are, above all else, social animals. They crave interaction
with large groups of people, thriving in humanitarian and social causes and
in any situation where collective thought, innovation and cooperation are
required. They tend to be eccentric and disdainful of tradition and – while
they love magic and believe in the esoteric arts – prefer to discover
knowledge through scientific experimentation and exploration.

……It is kind of magic that we can communicate through cell phones and
surf the web in the park. Something that we were only getting a small taste
of 10 years ago. I don't think culture will have a clear understanding of
what's really going on presently until around 2012 and 2025. It will be
interesting to see if some pr firm and a media savvy artist/critic/historian
will be able to secure the defining ism of the early 21st century. I guess
we have to wait and see. I think the best way would be to pay reasonable
sums of money to a small handful of art historians, academics, critics, and
curators to promote the idea in their books and public lectures. I hear they
are easier then the politicians to get on the payroll…….

In the words of the Dead Milkmen,
"Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !!"

Best of luck on your conference. Would love to hear what you have to think
about this Meta shit flying all over the place.
http://www.metashit.com/

Cheers,
Lee

—————

See below.
"Algorithmic Art & A.I." by Remko Scha
An introduction: Kant, Duchamp, Meta-Art

http://iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/meta.html

—————

Meta-Art and Further Elucidation
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~lfg210/web/meta.html

—————

meta |ˈmetə| noun short for meta key.
adjective (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of
its genre; self-referential. ORIGIN 1980s: from meta- in the sense [beyond].

—————

meta- (also met- before a vowel or h) combining form

1 denoting a change of position or condition : metamorphosis | metathesis.
2 denoting position behind, after, or beyond: metacarpus.
3 denoting something of a higher or second-order kind : metalanguage |
metonym.
4 Chemistry denoting substitution at two carbon atoms separated by one other
in a benzene ring, e.g., in 1,3 positions : metadichlorobenzene. Compare
with ortho- and para- 1 .
5 Chemistry denoting a compound formed by dehydration : metaphosphoric acid.

ORIGIN from Greek meta ‘with, across, or after.’

—————

Meta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up meta- in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
This article is about the word or prefix Meta. For other uses, see Meta
(disambiguation).


Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix used in
English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another
concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek meta is equivalent
to the Latin post.

In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category).
For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced it, when, what
format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology means
an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something
if they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in psychology
means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, or somebody
else's basic emotion.[citation needed].

Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, which is the theoretical
consideration of its foundations and methods.

Another, slightly different interpretation of this term is "about" but not
"on". For example, a grammar is considered as a metalanguage, a meta-answer
is not a real answer but a reply, such as: "this is not a good question", "I
suggest to ask your professor". Here, we have such concepts as
meta-reasoning and meta-knowledge.

[edit] Etymology

The prefix is derived by back-formation from the Greek preposition and
prefix meta- (μετά) which meant either "after", "beside" or "with". Meta- &
Meso- are thought to have come into Greek together from a mutual cognate,
which would further imply 'meta' to contain or be of the meaning "parallel".
[1]

[edit] Quine and Hofstadter

The OED cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as
meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these
formations are directly parallel to the original "metaphysics" and
"metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or
adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began to be used with specific
nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929. A notable
early citation is Quine's 1937 use of the word "metatheorem", where meta-
clearly has the modern meaning of "an X about X" (Note that earlier uses of
"meta-economics" and even "metaphysics" do not have this doubled conceptual
structure, they are about or beyond X but they do not constitute an X). Note
also that this modern meaning allows for self-reference, since if something
is about the category to which it belongs, it can be about itself; it is
therefore no coincidence that we find Quine, a mathemetician interested in
self-reference, using it.
An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).
An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).

Douglas Hofstadter, in his 1979 book Godel, Escher, Bach (and in the
less-popular sequel, Metamagical Themas), popularized this meaning of the
term. This book, which deals extensively with self-reference and touches on
Quine and his work, was influential in many computer-related subcultures,
and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of the prefix, for
its use as a solo term, and for the many recent coinages which use it.
Hofstadter uses the meta as a stand-alone word, both as an adjective and as
a directional preposition ("going meta", a term he coins for the old
rhetorical trick of taking a debate or analysis to another level of
abstraction, as in "This debate isn't going anywhere."). This book is also
probably responsible for the direct association of "meta" with
self-reference, as opposed to just abstraction. The sentence "This sentence
contains thirty six letters." along with the sentence it is embedded in are
examples of sentences that reference themselves in this way.

[edit] The Metacorder

The Metacorder is a theoretical device described in the short story of the
same name by Tristan Parker. As the story describes, the Metacorder is a
computational device which does nothing other than monitoring its own
activities. While in practice this would result in an endless loop similar
to the print "print" quine, the story takes this idea and gives it a sort of
intelligence which allows the Metacorder to consider and judge its own
actions.

This is an example of constrained writing, both in that the story describes
a single object over the course of several pages, and that it is done
entirely in the voice of such an object being described. This double rule
allows much playfulness, however, and the story ranges from realistic
technical descriptions to vague, poetic musings while still keeping the same
voice throughout.

——————-

Dead Milkmen 1985
Big Lizard in My Backyard
"Junkie"

My best friend is a junkie
He shoots up all day
Sometimes he even shits himself
What else can I say?

Shoot up or shut up [x4]

If his girl don't score
He beats her black and blue
He wears his track marks like tattoos

I love to hear his junkie talk
Whenever he talks on the sidewalk

My best friend is a junkie
It's sad but true
My best friend is a junkie
What does your best friend do?

My best friend is a junkie
He shoots up all day
Sometimes he even shits himself
What else can I say?

Shoot up or shut up [x4]

(see above)

–
Lee Wells

http://www.leewells.org
http://www.ifac-arts.org
http://www.perpetualartmachine.com

Brooklyn 11222
917 723 2524

The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any
attachments) is confidential information that may be covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be
privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify me and delete the original message. Thank you




> From: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:51:01 -0500
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>
>
> Hello All!
>
> I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the list
> until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off regarding
> the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since 2000-2004
> and other topics. These are of course good topics but they won't always be
> in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other topics.
>
> I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we are
> in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> "Networkism."
>
> This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started in
> 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
> Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> website.
>
> If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
> widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e. the
> Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
>
> The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't much
> to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward silence
> of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has people awkward
> and worried.
>
> In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of the
> new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art. That
> new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who wrote
> about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to speak
> into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity pull
> affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
> occurred.
>
> (Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter Stallybrass"
> who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I was in
> academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
> Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which as
> you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
> Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le Lac
> D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
>
> Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or the
> Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the pursuit by
> the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by James Mann
> called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly causes more
> danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more tense,
> complicated, and risky.
>
> My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the doubt
> rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the key
> goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about the
> former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great move in
> this direction and toward High Networkism.
>
> And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period most
> properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
>
> Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to make
> good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period, given its
> character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the time."
>
> I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
> that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
> still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not a
> homogeneous gruel.
>
> I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not going
> to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious and you
> might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such considerations are
> very proper and amazingly right.
>
> Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may be
> related.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Max Herman
> The Genius 2000 Network
> Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>
> +++
>
>
> +
> -> 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

I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we
must focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice
be TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some
notion of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art
ideas such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater
mouthful theory here and say something like "computationally mediated
social communicationism" or even just get it over with by using
"computationally mediated social sculpture". The latter two if only to
distinguish net art or networkism from mail art, which was really the
same kind of hierarchical addressing system art transporting
communications, but with a quite different transport layer.

But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing
the same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I
prefer to keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone
would seem to allow.
(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has been
called the N-state following the postmodern can be analyzed in an other
way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations and
material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the social
(Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?), leaving GUIism (or Pixelism
perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or maybe we will more or
less abandon these isms when it becomes clear that they were an
entertaining but increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact of the
abundant energy resources available during the cheap oil era. (In which
case a few special people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint
at the few remaining screens looking for news that rice is being
delivered to the neighborhood - after which the town crier will be
notified and the word spread…)

Max Herman wrote:
>
> Hello All!
>
> I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the
> list until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
> regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list
> since 2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but
> they won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to
> other topics.
>
> I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we
> are in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> "Networkism."
>
> This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
> in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
> Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> website.
>
> If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
> widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
> the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
>
> The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't
> much to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
> silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
> people awkward and worried.
>
> In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of
> the new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for
> art. That new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks
> are an aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from
> before who wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks
> backward so to speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly
> the escape-velocity pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind
> it is or when it has occurred.
>
> (Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
> Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when
> I was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is
> Julian Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno
> which as you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be
> more left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at
> the Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting
> Le Lac D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this
> year. Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
>
> Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
> the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
> pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by
> James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
> causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions
> more tense, complicated, and risky.
>
> My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the
> doubt rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think
> have superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and
> the key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather
> about the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a
> great move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
>
> And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period
> most properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
>
> Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
> make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
> given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the
> time."
>
> I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
> that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
> still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not
> a homogeneous gruel.
>
> I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
> going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious
> and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
> considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
>
> Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may
> be related.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Max Herman
> The Genius 2000 Network
> Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>
> +++
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

–
Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Department of Visual Arts
9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
La Jolla CA 92093-0084
http://www.c5corp.com
http://www.paintersflat.net

Hi Lee,

You bring up some interesting points and I will respond in detail later this
evening. At first glance I believe that Networkism properly understood
addresses all of the objections you cite below.

It also seems to me that Networkism will have to be created and developed
mainly outside the academy (like Wordsworth and Groote) and established art
circles for several reasons including inertia, time pressure, and
creativity. In this it will resemble Romanticism mainly and Modernism
somewhat less.

Therefore the work of defining the new Network Period is especially relevant
to Rhizome and Rhizome Raw and is in my view the true goal of the "social
sculpture" that Curt mentioned earlier viz. Mark Tribe and Joseph Beuys.

Best regards,

> > Max Herman
> > The Genius 2000 Network
> > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > www.geocities.com/genius-2000

+++

>From: Lee Wells <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>,Rhizome <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:36:39 -0400
>
>Hi Max:
>Nice to see you back on the list. I cannot believe that geocities is still
>around.
>
>I don't think this Networkism thing is going to stick but go for it.
>Isn't the whole ism thing is dead anyway. Maybe it should be Ismism if we
>are to continue the nonsense. (see http://www.ismism.com/ ) But that was so
>last century… right? I do think you are onto something though but I
>believe it goes way beyond that. Humanity has entered into a new period in
>history perhaps better defined by the term Meta. The key question in the
>art
>sense anyway would be; Have we left modernism completely or is this just
>stage two? Did postmodernism never brake free? Conceptual pullet-proof
>glass
>ceiling scenario. Who needs bullets when we have consumer grade lasers.
>
>The situation will always be different as long as time plays a part in the
>equation.
>
>I do like the fact that you are bold enough (as you have always been) to
>throw something out there but the concept of a network is nothing new. Its
>just getting a little bit more media hype these days. I mean the brain is a
>network and scientist know that, but the fun part is that they don't
>understand it completely YET….. Humanity/culture has just discovered a
>new
>and interesting way to think about it. The computer and the recent
>advent/inventions of new medias such as mobile phones, internet,
>collaboration toolkits and web 2.0 social network portals basically just
>speeds up the process for everyone from point a to point b. Connecting the
>dots has never been easier. I still can't wait until they figure out this
>whole real-time thing….
>
>But since we are throwing ideas into the soup I have been a fan since the
>late 90's of the basic concepts behind the term Meta. I think it qualifies
>well by itself and does help define certain characteristics and traits of
>the contemporary early 21 century (post 911 era) The year 2000 still sits
>on
>the cusp, 911 and the terror war pushed/accelerated things over the edge
>and
>forced the change upon the world. The convergence is here and we have no
>choice but to deal with it. ***** See textbook definitions below *****
>
>I can also get all hippy and say we have fully entered the Age of Aquarius,
>the new 2000 year cycle. Which relates well with Meta too. The key phrase
>for Aquarius is "I Know," but that knowledge is not a righteous, superior
>or
>exclusionary knowledge. It's a sort of wisdom that draws people together,
>for Aquarians are, above all else, social animals. They crave interaction
>with large groups of people, thriving in humanitarian and social causes and
>in any situation where collective thought, innovation and cooperation are
>required. They tend to be eccentric and disdainful of tradition and –
>while
>they love magic and believe in the esoteric arts – prefer to discover
>knowledge through scientific experimentation and exploration.
>
>……It is kind of magic that we can communicate through cell phones and
>surf the web in the park. Something that we were only getting a small taste
>of 10 years ago. I don't think culture will have a clear understanding of
>what's really going on presently until around 2012 and 2025. It will be
>interesting to see if some pr firm and a media savvy
>artist/critic/historian
>will be able to secure the defining ism of the early 21st century. I guess
>we have to wait and see. I think the best way would be to pay reasonable
>sums of money to a small handful of art historians, academics, critics, and
>curators to promote the idea in their books and public lectures. I hear
>they
>are easier then the politicians to get on the payroll…….
>
>In the words of the Dead Milkmen,
>"Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !!"
>
>Best of luck on your conference. Would love to hear what you have to think
>about this Meta shit flying all over the place.
>http://www.metashit.com/
>
>Cheers,
>Lee
>
>—————
>
>See below.
>"Algorithmic Art & A.I." by Remko Scha
>An introduction: Kant, Duchamp, Meta-Art
>
>http://iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/meta.html
>
>—————
>
>Meta-Art and Further Elucidation
>http://homepages.nyu.edu/~lfg210/web/meta.html
>
>—————
>
>meta |ˈmetə| noun short for meta key.
>adjective (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of
>its genre; self-referential. ORIGIN 1980s: from meta- in the sense
>[beyond].
>
>—————
>
>meta- (also met- before a vowel or h) combining form
>
>1 denoting a change of position or condition : metamorphosis | metathesis.
>2 denoting position behind, after, or beyond: metacarpus.
>3 denoting something of a higher or second-order kind : metalanguage |
>metonym.
>4 Chemistry denoting substitution at two carbon atoms separated by one
>other
>in a benzene ring, e.g., in 1,3 positions : metadichlorobenzene. Compare
>with ortho- and para- 1 .
>5 Chemistry denoting a compound formed by dehydration : metaphosphoric
>acid.
>
>ORIGIN from Greek meta ‘with, across, or after.’
>
>—————
>
>Meta
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •
>Jump to: navigation, search
>Look up meta- in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
>This article is about the word or prefix Meta. For other uses, see Meta
>(disambiguation).
>
>
>Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix used
>in
>English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another
>concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek meta is
>equivalent
>to the Latin post.
>
>In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category).
>For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced it, when, what
>format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology
>means
>an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember
>something
>if they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in
>psychology
>means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, or somebody
>else's basic emotion.[citation needed].
>
>Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, which is the theoretical
>consideration of its foundations and methods.
>
>Another, slightly different interpretation of this term is "about" but not
>"on". For example, a grammar is considered as a metalanguage, a meta-answer
>is not a real answer but a reply, such as: "this is not a good question",
>"I
>suggest to ask your professor". Here, we have such concepts as
>meta-reasoning and meta-knowledge.
>
>[edit] Etymology
>
>The prefix is derived by back-formation from the Greek preposition and
>prefix meta- (μετά) which meant either "after", "beside" or "with".
>Meta- &
>Meso- are thought to have come into Greek together from a mutual cognate,
>which would further imply 'meta' to contain or be of the meaning
>"parallel".
>[1]
>
>[edit] Quine and Hofstadter
>
>The OED cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as
>meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these
>formations are directly parallel to the original "metaphysics" and
>"metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or
>adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began to be used with specific
>nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929. A notable
>early citation is Quine's 1937 use of the word "metatheorem", where meta-
>clearly has the modern meaning of "an X about X" (Note that earlier uses of
>"meta-economics" and even "metaphysics" do not have this doubled conceptual
>structure, they are about or beyond X but they do not constitute an X).
>Note
>also that this modern meaning allows for self-reference, since if something
>is about the category to which it belongs, it can be about itself; it is
>therefore no coincidence that we find Quine, a mathemetician interested in
>self-reference, using it.
>An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).
>An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).
>
>Douglas Hofstadter, in his 1979 book Godel, Escher, Bach (and in the
>less-popular sequel, Metamagical Themas), popularized this meaning of the
>term. This book, which deals extensively with self-reference and touches on
>Quine and his work, was influential in many computer-related subcultures,
>and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of the prefix, for
>its use as a solo term, and for the many recent coinages which use it.
>Hofstadter uses the meta as a stand-alone word, both as an adjective and as
>a directional preposition ("going meta", a term he coins for the old
>rhetorical trick of taking a debate or analysis to another level of
>abstraction, as in "This debate isn't going anywhere."). This book is also
>probably responsible for the direct association of "meta" with
>self-reference, as opposed to just abstraction. The sentence "This sentence
>contains thirty six letters." along with the sentence it is embedded in are
>examples of sentences that reference themselves in this way.
>
>[edit] The Metacorder
>
>The Metacorder is a theoretical device described in the short story of the
>same name by Tristan Parker. As the story describes, the Metacorder is a
>computational device which does nothing other than monitoring its own
>activities. While in practice this would result in an endless loop similar
>to the print "print" quine, the story takes this idea and gives it a sort
>of
>intelligence which allows the Metacorder to consider and judge its own
>actions.
>
>This is an example of constrained writing, both in that the story describes
>a single object over the course of several pages, and that it is done
>entirely in the voice of such an object being described. This double rule
>allows much playfulness, however, and the story ranges from realistic
>technical descriptions to vague, poetic musings while still keeping the
>same
>voice throughout.
>
>——————-
>
>Dead Milkmen 1985
>Big Lizard in My Backyard
>"Junkie"
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>He shoots up all day
>Sometimes he even shits himself
>What else can I say?
>
>Shoot up or shut up [x4]
>
>If his girl don't score
>He beats her black and blue
>He wears his track marks like tattoos
>
>I love to hear his junkie talk
>Whenever he talks on the sidewalk
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>It's sad but true
>My best friend is a junkie
>What does your best friend do?
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>He shoots up all day
>Sometimes he even shits himself
>What else can I say?
>
>Shoot up or shut up [x4]
>
>(see above)
>
>–
>Lee Wells
>
>http://www.leewells.org
>http://www.ifac-arts.org
>http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>
>Brooklyn 11222
>917 723 2524
>
>The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any
>attachments) is confidential information that may be covered by the
>Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, intended
>only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be
>privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
>you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>immediately notify me and delete the original message. Thank you
>
>
>
>
> > From: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:51:01 -0500
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> >
> >
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the
>list
> > until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
>regarding
> > the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since
>2000-2004
> > and other topics. These are of course good topics but they won't always
>be
> > in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other topics.
> >
> > I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we
>are
> > in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> > networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> > "Networkism."
> >
> > This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
>in
> > 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
> > Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> > discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> > website.
> >
> > If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
> > widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
>the
> > Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
> >
> > The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't
>much
> > to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
>silence
> > of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has people
>awkward
> > and worried.
> >
> > In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of
>the
> > new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art.
>That
> > new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> > aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
>wrote
> > about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to
>speak
> > into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity
>pull
> > affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
> > occurred.
> >
> > (Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
>Stallybrass"
> > who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I was in
> > academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
> > Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which
>as
> > you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> > left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
> > Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le
>Lac
> > D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> > Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
> >
> > Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> > military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
>the
> > Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the pursuit
>by
> > the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by James Mann
> > called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly causes more
> > danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more tense,
> > complicated, and risky.
> >
> > My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> > difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the
>doubt
> > rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> > superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the
>key
> > goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about
>the
> > former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great move
>in
> > this direction and toward High Networkism.
> >
> > And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period
>most
> > properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
> >
> > Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
>make
> > good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period, given
>its
> > character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the time."
> >
> > I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
> > that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
> > still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> > structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not
>a
> > homogeneous gruel.
> >
> > I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
>going
> > to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious and
>you
> > might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such considerations are
> > very proper and amazingly right.
> >
> > Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may
>be
> > related.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Max Herman
> > The Genius 2000 Network
> > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> >
> > +++
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>
>

Awesome post Brett, I sure do miss these educational postings and replies.
I will also reply to this one in detail later if I can finish my laundry,
groceries, and homework.

Not sure if you are still in touch with Lisa Jevbratt but she had a diagram
which I think would be a major reference element in "my version" of
Networkism. She presented it at a SJSU talk I went to in 1999 or so. It
defined the author-text-reader process differently than the
poststructuralist/postmodern way, and in a way I thought agreed very
usefully with the more substantial literary implications and challenges of
the Network Period.

Recall "the Eternal Network" which was a mail-art project long before the PC
internet. Also the "Approaching Abstraction" theme of Ars this year shows I
think that the issue is the ideas or thinking (genius) and the techware, not
just the techware. If you have more info on Lev's panel that would interest
me re this too.

So I affirmatively agree–the network has many elements, ingredients,
factors, and a lot of history too, and one doesn't want to mangle any of the
evidence and thereby spite the investigation. Hence a big big
umbrella-period, Networkism.

Or by whatever name, the new period has a great lot of information,
currents, and material to address–much new, much old–which is why the
prior period is less suited (arguably). The new one is tasked notably or
even first with some level of integration,
making-sense-out-of-without-reducing, processing the material. I heard this
also relates to current business and science apps trying "to make all the
vast amount of data usable."

Best,

> > Max Herman
> > The Genius 2000 Network
> > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > www.geocities.com/genius-2000

+++


>From: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:15:32 -0700
>
>I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
>abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
>internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
>database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
>elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we must
>focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice be
>TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some notion
>of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
>communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
>consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art ideas
>such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater mouthful
>theory here and say something like "computationally mediated social
>communicationism" or even just get it over with by using "computationally
>mediated social sculpture". The latter two if only to distinguish net art
>or networkism from mail art, which was really the same kind of hierarchical
>addressing system art transporting communications, but with a quite
>different transport layer.
>
>But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing the
>same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I prefer to
>keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone would seem to
>allow.
>(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
>Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has been
>called the N-state following the postmodern can be analyzed in an other
>way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations and
>material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the social
>(Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?), leaving GUIism (or Pixelism
>perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or maybe we will more or less
>abandon these isms when it becomes clear that they were an entertaining but
>increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact of the abundant energy
>resources available during the cheap oil era. (In which case a few special
>people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint at the few remaining
>screens looking for news that rice is being delivered to the neighborhood -
>after which the town crier will be notified and the word spread…)
>
>Max Herman wrote:
>>
>>Hello All!
>>
>>I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the list
>>until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
>>regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since
>>2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but they
>>won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other
>>topics.
>>
>>I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we are
>>in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
>>networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
>>"Networkism."
>>
>>This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
>>in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
>>Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
>>discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
>>website.
>>
>>If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
>>widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
>>the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
>>
>>The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't much
>>to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
>>silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
>>people awkward and worried.
>>
>>In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of the
>>new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art. That
>>new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
>>aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
>>wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to
>>speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity
>>pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
>>occurred.
>>
>>(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
>>Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I
>>was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
>>Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which as
>>you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
>>left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
>>Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le Lac
>>D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
>>Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
>>
>>Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
>>military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
>>the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
>>pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by
>>James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
>>causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more
>>tense, complicated, and risky.
>>
>>My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
>>difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the doubt
>>rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
>>superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the
>>key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about
>>the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great
>>move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
>>
>>And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period most
>>properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
>>
>>Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
>>make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
>>given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the
>>time."
>>
>>I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
>>that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
>>still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
>>structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not a
>>homogeneous gruel.
>>
>>I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
>>going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious
>>and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
>>considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
>>
>>Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may be
>>related.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Max Herman
>>The Genius 2000 Network
>>Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
>>www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>>
>>+++
>>
>>
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>
>–
>Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
>Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
>Department of Visual Arts
>9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
>La Jolla CA 92093-0084
>http://www.c5corp.com
>http://www.paintersflat.net
>+
>-> 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

I don't think "Approaching Abstraction" is a theme for this year's Ars
Electronica. They wouldn't be caught dead using a theme like that.
You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
an art historical reference. You're not allowed to talk about isms
either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.

Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"

On 9/10/07, Max Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Awesome post Brett, I sure do miss these educational postings and replies.
> I will also reply to this one in detail later if I can finish my laundry,
> groceries, and homework.
>
> Not sure if you are still in touch with Lisa Jevbratt but she had a diagram
> which I think would be a major reference element in "my version" of
> Networkism. She presented it at a SJSU talk I went to in 1999 or so. It
> defined the author-text-reader process differently than the
> poststructuralist/postmodern way, and in a way I thought agreed very
> usefully with the more substantial literary implications and challenges of
> the Network Period.
>
> Recall "the Eternal Network" which was a mail-art project long before the PC
> internet. Also the "Approaching Abstraction" theme of Ars this year shows I
> think that the issue is the ideas or thinking (genius) and the techware, not
> just the techware. If you have more info on Lev's panel that would interest
> me re this too.
>
> So I affirmatively agree–the network has many elements, ingredients,
> factors, and a lot of history too, and one doesn't want to mangle any of the
> evidence and thereby spite the investigation. Hence a big big
> umbrella-period, Networkism.
>
> Or by whatever name, the new period has a great lot of information,
> currents, and material to address–much new, much old–which is why the
> prior period is less suited (arguably). The new one is tasked notably or
> even first with some level of integration,
> making-sense-out-of-without-reducing, processing the material. I heard this
> also relates to current business and science apps trying "to make all the
> vast amount of data usable."
>
> Best,
>
> > > Max Herman
> > > The Genius 2000 Network
> > > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > > www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>
> +++
>
>
> >From: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> >Reply-To: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:15:32 -0700
> >
> >I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
> >abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
> >internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
> >database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
> >elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we must
> >focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice be
> >TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some notion
> >of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
> >communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
> >consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art ideas
> >such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater mouthful
> >theory here and say something like "computationally mediated social
> >communicationism" or even just get it over with by using "computationally
> >mediated social sculpture". The latter two if only to distinguish net art
> >or networkism from mail art, which was really the same kind of hierarchical
> >addressing system art transporting communications, but with a quite
> >different transport layer.
> >
> >But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing the
> >same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I prefer to
> >keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone would seem to
> >allow.
> >(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
> >Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has been
> >called the N-state following the postmodern can be analyzed in an other
> >way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations and
> >material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the social
> >(Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?), leaving GUIism (or Pixelism
> >perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or maybe we will more or less
> >abandon these isms when it becomes clear that they were an entertaining but
> >increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact of the abundant energy
> >resources available during the cheap oil era. (In which case a few special
> >people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint at the few remaining
> >screens looking for news that rice is being delivered to the neighborhood -
> >after which the town crier will be notified and the word spread…)
> >
> >Max Herman wrote:
> >>
> >>Hello All!
> >>
> >>I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the list
> >>until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
> >>regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since
> >>2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but they
> >>won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other
> >>topics.
> >>
> >>I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we are
> >>in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> >>networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> >>"Networkism."
> >>
> >>This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
> >>in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
> >>Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> >>discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> >>website.
> >>
> >>If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
> >>widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
> >>the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
> >>
> >>The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't much
> >>to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
> >>silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
> >>people awkward and worried.
> >>
> >>In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of the
> >>new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art. That
> >>new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> >>aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
> >>wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to
> >>speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity
> >>pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
> >>occurred.
> >>
> >>(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
> >>Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I
> >>was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
> >>Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which as
> >>you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> >>left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
> >>Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le Lac
> >>D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> >>Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
> >>
> >>Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> >>military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
> >>the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
> >>pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by
> >>James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
> >>causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more
> >>tense, complicated, and risky.
> >>
> >>My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> >>difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the doubt
> >>rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> >>superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the
> >>key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about
> >>the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great
> >>move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
> >>
> >>And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period most
> >>properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
> >>
> >>Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
> >>make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
> >>given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the
> >>time."
> >>
> >>I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
> >>that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
> >>still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> >>structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not a
> >>homogeneous gruel.
> >>
> >>I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
> >>going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious
> >>and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
> >>considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
> >>
> >>Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may be
> >>related.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Max Herman
> >>The Genius 2000 Network
> >>Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> >>www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> >>
> >>+++
> >>
> >>
> >>+
> >>-> 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
> >>
> >
> >–
> >Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
> >Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
> >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
> >Department of Visual Arts
> >9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
> >La Jolla CA 92093-0084
> >http://www.c5corp.com
> >http://www.paintersflat.net
> >+
> >-> 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
>


–
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************

Hi Pall,

I saw that phrase in the Front Page area, is that called the Reblog area?
In any event "network" is both something concrete and an abstraction (an
idea, like "triangle" or "imaginary number") it seems. I thought the phrase
meant "we are moving toward the network as an idea whereas previously we
thought of it mainly as a concrete material." I'll check this some more,
and we can also ask the Reblogger!

So, it is definitely important to see how artists work with the "elements,
ingredients, factors and history" of networks and this "working with"
involves perforce ideas, thinking, approaching, and abstraction. Perhaps
I'm misusing the word abstraction but the dictionary says it means

abstraction definition
n.
1.
a. The act of abstracting or the state of having been abstracted.
b. An abstract concept, idea, or term.
c. An abstract quality.
2. Preoccupation; absent-mindedness.
3. An abstract work of art.
abstraction synonyms
noun
The condition of being so lost in solitary thought as to be unaware of one's
surroundings: absent-mindedness, bemusement, brown study, daydreaming,
muse2, reverie, study, trance. See awareness

Also by way of example, we can look at the new Viking excavation from 800
a.d. Looking at that we would look at the transportation network (the
boats) and then also the ideas and thoughts about their network existence
and their roles in it that the people using the boats had. In this manner
study of ancient and medieval times are completely relevant and very
valuable in how we think about networks today and for the future, danger and
opportunities, mundane work, beauty, virtue, etc.

Networkism also means looking at the past (such as Rembrandt's Lucretia or
paintings of St. Francis of Assisi by Caravaggio and Giotto) in a new way,
emphasizing different elements or factors, seeing and actively making
different organized associations on purpose.

Best regards,

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
www.geocities.com/genius-2000

+++


>From: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
>To: "Max Herman" <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:27 +0000
>
>I don't think "Approaching Abstraction" is a theme for this year's Ars
>Electronica. They wouldn't be caught dead using a theme like that.
>You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
>an art historical reference. You're not allowed to talk about isms
>either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.
>
>Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
>work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"
>
>On 9/10/07, Max Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Awesome post Brett, I sure do miss these educational postings and
>replies.
> > I will also reply to this one in detail later if I can finish my
>laundry,
> > groceries, and homework.
> >
> > Not sure if you are still in touch with Lisa Jevbratt but she had a
>diagram
> > which I think would be a major reference element in "my version" of
> > Networkism. She presented it at a SJSU talk I went to in 1999 or so.
>It
> > defined the author-text-reader process differently than the
> > poststructuralist/postmodern way, and in a way I thought agreed very
> > usefully with the more substantial literary implications and challenges
>of
> > the Network Period.
> >
> > Recall "the Eternal Network" which was a mail-art project long before
>the PC
> > internet. Also the "Approaching Abstraction" theme of Ars this year
>shows I
> > think that the issue is the ideas or thinking (genius) and the techware,
>not
> > just the techware. If you have more info on Lev's panel that would
>interest
> > me re this too.
> >
> > So I affirmatively agree–the network has many elements, ingredients,
> > factors, and a lot of history too, and one doesn't want to mangle any of
>the
> > evidence and thereby spite the investigation. Hence a big big
> > umbrella-period, Networkism.
> >
> > Or by whatever name, the new period has a great lot of information,
> > currents, and material to address–much new, much old–which is why the
> > prior period is less suited (arguably). The new one is tasked notably
>or
> > even first with some level of integration,
> > making-sense-out-of-without-reducing, processing the material. I heard
>this
> > also relates to current business and science apps trying "to make all
>the
> > vast amount of data usable."
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > > > Max Herman
> > > > The Genius 2000 Network
> > > > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > > > www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> >
> > +++
> >
> >
> > >From: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> > >Reply-To: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> > >To: [email protected]
> > >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> > >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:15:32 -0700
> > >
> > >I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
> > >abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
> > >internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
> > >database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
> > >elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we
>must
> > >focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice be
> > >TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some
>notion
> > >of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
> > >communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
> > >consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art
>ideas
> > >such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater mouthful
> > >theory here and say something like "computationally mediated social
> > >communicationism" or even just get it over with by using
>"computationally
> > >mediated social sculpture". The latter two if only to distinguish net
>art
> > >or networkism from mail art, which was really the same kind of
>hierarchical
> > >addressing system art transporting communications, but with a quite
> > >different transport layer.
> > >
> > >But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing
>the
> > >same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I prefer
>to
> > >keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone would seem to
> > >allow.
> >
> >(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
> > >Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has
>been
> > >called the N-state following the postmodern can be analyzed in an other
> > >way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations and
> > >material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the
>social
> > >(Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?), leaving GUIism (or Pixelism
> > >perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or maybe we will more or
>less
> > >abandon these isms when it becomes clear that they were an entertaining
>but
> > >increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact of the abundant energy
> > >resources available during the cheap oil era. (In which case a few
>special
> > >people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint at the few
>remaining
> > >screens looking for news that rice is being delivered to the
>neighborhood -
> > >after which the town crier will be notified and the word spread…)
> > >
> > >Max Herman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Hello All!
> > >>
> > >>I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the
>list
> > >>until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
> > >>regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list
>since
> > >>2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but they
> > >>won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to
>other
> > >>topics.
> > >>
> > >>I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we
>are
> > >>in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> > >>networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> > >>"Networkism."
> > >>
> > >>This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have
>started
> > >>in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of
>the
> > >>Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> > >>discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> > >>website.
> > >>
> > >>If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is
>not
> > >>widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism
>i.e.
> > >>the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
> > >>
> > >>The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't
>much
> > >>to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
> > >>silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
> > >>people awkward and worried.
> > >>
> > >>In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of
>the
> > >>new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art.
>That
> > >>new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> > >>aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
> > >>wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks backward
>so to
> > >>speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the
>escape-velocity
> > >>pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it
>has
> > >>occurred.
> > >>
> > >>(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
> > >>Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular
>when I
> > >>was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is
>Julian
> > >>Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which
>as
> > >>you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> > >>left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at
>the
> > >>Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le
>Lac
> > >>D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> > >>Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
> > >>
> > >>Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> > >>military-technological environment which could be called World War IV
>or
> > >>the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
> > >>pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book
>by
> > >>James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
> > >>causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions
>more
> > >>tense, complicated, and risky.
> > >>
> > >>My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> > >>difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the
>doubt
> > >>rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> > >>superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and
>the
> > >>key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather
>about
> > >>the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great
> > >>move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
> > >>
> > >>And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period
>most
> > >>properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
> > >>
> > >>Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
> > >>make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
> > >>given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of
>the
> > >>time."
> > >>
> > >>I would also think that to understand this period you have to
>understand
> > >>that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet,
>you
> > >>still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> > >>structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is
>not a
> > >>homogeneous gruel.
> > >>
> > >>I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
> > >>going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that
>obvious
> > >>and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
> > >>considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
> > >>
> > >>Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that
>may be
> > >>related.
> > >>
> > >>Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>Max Herman
> > >>The Genius 2000 Network
> > >>Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > >>www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> > >>
> > >>+++
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>+
> > >>-> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >–
> > >Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
> > >Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
> > >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
> > >Department of Visual Arts
> > >9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
> > >La Jolla CA 92093-0084
> > >http://www.c5corp.com
> > >http://www.paintersflat.net
> > >+
> > >-> 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
> >
>
>
>–
>*****************************
>Pall Thayer
>artist
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>*****************************

Also Pall, some places (like here) it seems just fine to talk about
abstraction. Those places where such things are allowed or disallowed are
much less creative and more hidebound. Not likely to define a new period by
any means, due to exactly that foolish kind of herd convention which is
itself a very mannered artificial activity.

As to "isms," that's a prejudicial term which suggests a paucity of decent
frameworks. The old frame is very tired and works poorly but it's the only
one so people prefer to avoid discussing it and are ashamed of it even
though they still use it like crazy. That's a good indicator a new frame is
needed, recommended, and desirable. It also explains the reluctance and
ossification, arguably.

Let's also remember that the nineteenth century ended in the Decadent
Period, exemplified by Oscar Wilde pand others, in which frames of thinking
were viewed very skeptically. It was kind of a fallow period after which
Modernism came up. I think there is an analogy here to the 1990's and the
first decade of the twenty-first century to the Decadent Period, i.e., it's
after Postmodernism (analogous to Neoclassicism and Victorianism) but before
Networkism (analogous to Romanticism and Modernism).

And not being "allowed" to talk about something quite harmless, that's just
kooky and definitely definitely why I left the academic world. It makes a
terrible setting for innovation.

Max

+++


>From: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "Pall Thayer" <[email protected]>
>To: "Max Herman" <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:27 +0000
>
>I don't think "Approaching Abstraction" is a theme for this year's Ars
>Electronica. They wouldn't be caught dead using a theme like that.
>You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
>an art historical reference. You're not allowed to talk about isms
>either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.
>
>Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
>work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"
>
>On 9/10/07, Max Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Awesome post Brett, I sure do miss these educational postings and
>replies.
> > I will also reply to this one in detail later if I can finish my
>laundry,
> > groceries, and homework.
> >
> > Not sure if you are still in touch with Lisa Jevbratt but she had a
>diagram
> > which I think would be a major reference element in "my version" of
> > Networkism. She presented it at a SJSU talk I went to in 1999 or so.
>It
> > defined the author-text-reader process differently than the
> > poststructuralist/postmodern way, and in a way I thought agreed very
> > usefully with the more substantial literary implications and challenges
>of
> > the Network Period.
> >
> > Recall "the Eternal Network" which was a mail-art project long before
>the PC
> > internet. Also the "Approaching Abstraction" theme of Ars this year
>shows I
> > think that the issue is the ideas or thinking (genius) and the techware,
>not
> > just the techware. If you have more info on Lev's panel that would
>interest
> > me re this too.
> >
> > So I affirmatively agree–the network has many elements, ingredients,
> > factors, and a lot of history too, and one doesn't want to mangle any of
>the
> > evidence and thereby spite the investigation. Hence a big big
> > umbrella-period, Networkism.
> >
> > Or by whatever name, the new period has a great lot of information,
> > currents, and material to address–much new, much old–which is why the
> > prior period is less suited (arguably). The new one is tasked notably
>or
> > even first with some level of integration,
> > making-sense-out-of-without-reducing, processing the material. I heard
>this
> > also relates to current business and science apps trying "to make all
>the
> > vast amount of data usable."
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > > > Max Herman
> > > > The Genius 2000 Network
> > > > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > > > www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> >
> > +++
> >
> >
> > >From: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> > >Reply-To: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
> > >To: [email protected]
> > >Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> > >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:15:32 -0700
> > >
> > >I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
> > >abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
> > >internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
> > >database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
> > >elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we
>must
> > >focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice be
> > >TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some
>notion
> > >of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
> > >communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
> > >consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art
>ideas
> > >such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater mouthful
> > >theory here and say something like "computationally mediated social
> > >communicationism" or even just get it over with by using
>"computationally
> > >mediated social sculpture". The latter two if only to distinguish net
>art
> > >or networkism from mail art, which was really the same kind of
>hierarchical
> > >addressing system art transporting communications, but with a quite
> > >different transport layer.
> > >
> > >But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing
>the
> > >same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I prefer
>to
> > >keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone would seem to
> > >allow.
> >
> >(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
> > >Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has
>been
> > >called the N-state following the postmodern can be analyzed in an other
> > >way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations and
> > >material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the
>social
> > >(Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?), leaving GUIism (or Pixelism
> > >perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or maybe we will more or
>less
> > >abandon these isms when it becomes clear that they were an entertaining
>but
> > >increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact of the abundant energy
> > >resources available during the cheap oil era. (In which case a few
>special
> > >people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint at the few
>remaining
> > >screens looking for news that rice is being delivered to the
>neighborhood -
> > >after which the town crier will be notified and the word spread…)
> > >
> > >Max Herman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Hello All!
> > >>
> > >>I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the
>list
> > >>until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
> > >>regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list
>since
> > >>2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but they
> > >>won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to
>other
> > >>topics.
> > >>
> > >>I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we
>are
> > >>in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> > >>networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> > >>"Networkism."
> > >>
> > >>This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have
>started
> > >>in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of
>the
> > >>Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> > >>discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> > >>website.
> > >>
> > >>If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is
>not
> > >>widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism
>i.e.
> > >>the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
> > >>
> > >>The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't
>much
> > >>to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
> > >>silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
> > >>people awkward and worried.
> > >>
> > >>In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of
>the
> > >>new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art.
>That
> > >>new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> > >>aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
> > >>wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks backward
>so to
> > >>speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the
>escape-velocity
> > >>pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it
>has
> > >>occurred.
> > >>
> > >>(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
> > >>Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular
>when I
> > >>was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is
>Julian
> > >>Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which
>as
> > >>you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> > >>left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at
>the
> > >>Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le
>Lac
> > >>D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> > >>Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
> > >>
> > >>Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> > >>military-technological environment which could be called World War IV
>or
> > >>the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
> > >>pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book
>by
> > >>James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
> > >>causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions
>more
> > >>tense, complicated, and risky.
> > >>
> > >>My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> > >>difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the
>doubt
> > >>rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> > >>superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and
>the
> > >>key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather
>about
> > >>the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great
> > >>move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
> > >>
> > >>And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period
>most
> > >>properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
> > >>
> > >>Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
> > >>make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
> > >>given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of
>the
> > >>time."
> > >>
> > >>I would also think that to understand this period you have to
>understand
> > >>that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet,
>you
> > >>still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> > >>structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is
>not a
> > >>homogeneous gruel.
> > >>
> > >>I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
> > >>going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that
>obvious
> > >>and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
> > >>considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
> > >>
> > >>Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that
>may be
> > >>related.
> > >>
> > >>Best regards,
> > >>
> > >>Max Herman
> > >>The Genius 2000 Network
> > >>Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > >>www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> > >>
> > >>+++
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>+
> > >>-> 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
> > >>
> > >
> > >–
> > >Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
> > >Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
> > >UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
> > >Department of Visual Arts
> > >9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
> > >La Jolla CA 92093-0084
> > >http://www.c5corp.com
> > >http://www.paintersflat.net
> > >+
> > >-> 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
> >
>
>
>–
>*****************************
>Pall Thayer
>artist
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>*****************************
>+
>-> 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 wrote:
> You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
> an art historical reference.

You're not? But what about the market? The market is a massive
abstraction, the economic-aesthetic equivalent of a hedge fund market.

> You're not allowed to talk about isms
> either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.

It's all neoconceptualism now.

> Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
> work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"

Ah, Relational Art (or managerialism as it's called outside of art).

- Cynical Rob.

Great post Rob–I mean it. I'm certain we are either making good progress
or are in a very promising position to do quite soon.

I can only hope we don't make too much good progress and upset the apple
cart! There's making a better mousetrap and upsetting the apple cart, and
never the twain shall meet. :)

>From: Rob Myers <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: Rob Myers <[email protected]>
>To: rhizome <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:36:01 +0100
>
>Pall Thayer wrote:
>>You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
>>an art historical reference.
>
>You're not? But what about the market? The market is a massive abstraction,
>the economic-aesthetic equivalent of a hedge fund market.
>
>>You're not allowed to talk about isms
>>either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.
>
>It's all neoconceptualism now.
>
>>Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
>>work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"
>
>Ah, Relational Art (or managerialism as it's called outside of art).
>
>- Cynical Rob.
>+
>-> 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

> > Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
> > work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"
>
> Ah, Relational Art (or managerialism as it's called outside of art).

Good thing you didn't call it "Relational-ISM." On a slightly more
serious note, what I was referring to was the methods used by artists
to work with the Internet's elements, ingredients, etc… i.e.
programming code.

But given that you have pointed out all of these isms, I suggest we
consider a combination of Brett's and your notions and go with
"neo-computationally mediated social conceptualism".

>
> - Cynical Rob.
> +
> -> 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
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************

Dear Anonymous,

I don't think it's half so cloak and dagger as you make it sound. Of course
there is a veritable ocean of poison and danger but everyone on the street
and their brother knows that. The goal is to keep making
aesthetic-evolutionary progress while keeping safe. This requires a proper
contemplation of the O.S.O. and its necessity as well as forgiveness, the
Eumenides, proper discretion, and many other serious issues.

If you want a concise summary of some of my views on this and how they
relate to Networkism please check
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/PoliticalAesthetics.html. In fact,
Networkism–high Networkism, not the claptrap kind–is exactly about how to
continue and preserve aesthetic evolution given the extreme, extreme dangers
facing everything in the Network Period. It's not "connect to X for instant
Utopia" or "a world without borders or boundaries."

>Don't forget the worms are possibly poisonous and your handing them out to
>everyone you meet on the street.
>
>
> > From: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:02:02 -0500
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> >
> >
> > Great post Rob–I mean it. I'm certain we are either making good
>progress
> > or are in a very promising position to do quite soon.
> >
> > I can only hope we don't make too much good progress and upset the apple
> > cart! There's making a better mousetrap and upsetting the apple cart,
>and
> > never the twain shall meet. :)
> >
> >> From: Rob Myers <[email protected]>
> >> Reply-To: Rob Myers <[email protected]>
> >> To: rhizome <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> >> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:36:01 +0100
> >>
> >> Pall Thayer wrote:
> >>> You're not allowed to talk about abstraction in art anymore, except as
> >>> an art historical reference.
> >>
> >> You're not? But what about the market? The market is a massive
>abstraction,
> >> the economic-aesthetic equivalent of a hedge fund market.
> >>
> >>> You're not allowed to talk about isms
> >>> either unless you're talking about the end of postmodernism.
> >>
> >> It's all neoconceptualism now.
> >>
> >>> Aside from all that, isn't it equally important to examine how artists
> >>> work with the network's "elements, ingredients, factors and history?"
> >>
> >> Ah, Relational Art (or managerialism as it's called outside of art).
> >>
> >> - Cynical Rob.
> >> +
> >> -> 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
>
>

Intermittent reply below:

>From: Lee Wells <[email protected]>
>To: Max Herman <[email protected]>,Rhizome <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:36:39 -0400
>
>Hi Max:
>Nice to see you back on the list. I cannot believe that geocities is still
>around.
>
>I don't think this Networkism thing is going to stick but go for it.
>Isn't the whole ism thing is dead anyway. Maybe it should be Ismism if we
>are to continue the nonsense. (see http://www.ismism.com/ ) But that was so
>last century… right?

Well, the "ism" problem is definitely a problem. However, you could of
course just say "the name of the new period is 'the Network Period' and it
has certain ideas, themes, priciples, &c. associated with it." So having
particular primary themes or ideas correlating to a period with particular
characteristics and problems, I don't see that as an arbitrary and hence
counterproductive "ism," empty ideological posturing, etc., necessarily.
Though it certainly could devolve into that. Perhaps using the suffix is a
respectable way to say "caveat emptor."

I do think you are onto something though but I
>believe it goes way beyond that. Humanity has entered into a new period in
>history perhaps better defined by the term Meta.

I'm not familiar with this term or its use regarding the current
art-historical period or art-history in general.

The key question in the art
>sense anyway would be; Have we left modernism completely or is this just
>stage two? Did postmodernism never brake free? Conceptual pullet-proof
>glass
>ceiling scenario. Who needs bullets when we have consumer grade lasers.

I don't think that the modern age, in the sense of ancient/medieval/modern,
is over yet. Some aspects of Modernism proper I think have been found
unworkable or improvable. Postmodernism is really just counter- or
end-modernism or the denouement of Modernism, so it could not break free of
Modernism by definition.

Modernism the art-historical period has ended, but the modern
(post-medieval) age is still going and Networkism is (I'm arguing) the next
logical and necessary art-historical period within it. The modern age won't
end I don't think until we get a "planetary civilization" to use Michio
Kaku's term. I think Networkism will help us to get there in the best
possible condition.

>
>The situation will always be different as long as time plays a part in the
>equation.
>
>I do like the fact that you are bold enough (as you have always been) to
>throw something out there but the concept of a network is nothing new. Its
>just getting a little bit more media hype these days. I mean the brain is a
>network and scientist know that, but the fun part is that they don't
>understand it completely YET….. Humanity/culture has just discovered a
>new
>and interesting way to think about it. The computer and the recent
>advent/inventions of new medias such as mobile phones, internet,
>collaboration toolkits and web 2.0 social network portals basically just
>speeds up the process for everyone from point a to point b. Connecting the
>dots has never been easier. I still can't wait until they figure out this
>whole real-time thing….

I think the fact that networks are not new, but are wreaking such havoc on
us now, is what makes them such fascinating subjects and ample material to
warrant a full one-century art-historical exploration. I think every past
society has had to address the issue of the network. Ideals of beauty and
virtue are interwoven with network ideas all the way back to cave-dwelling
times and even pre-human species. This universality makes networks far from
played out or trivial. It makes them the basis of "a new kind of art," to
paraphrase Stephen Wolfram's "a new kind of science."

>
>But since we are throwing ideas into the soup I have been a fan since the
>late 90's of the basic concepts behind the term Meta. I think it qualifies
>well by itself and does help define certain characteristics and traits of
>the contemporary early 21 century (post 911 era) The year 2000 still sits
>on
>the cusp, 911 and the terror war pushed/accelerated things over the edge
>and
>forced the change upon the world. The convergence is here and we have no
>choice but to deal with it. ***** See textbook definitions below *****

I'll have to note these as I refer to them below.

>
>I can also get all hippy and say we have fully entered the Age of Aquarius,
>the new 2000 year cycle.

The poet William Butler Yeats also saw history going in 2000-year cycles,
positing the Greek, the Christian, and the whatever-we're-in-now one. There
are lots of interesting historical-cycle theories and Networkism does not
preclude any of them a priori, because network phenomenon are in no way
exclusive of cyclical phenomena. On the contrary, networks are very
cyclical in their behavior over time.

Which relates well with Meta too. The key phrase
>for Aquarius is "I Know," but that knowledge is not a righteous, superior
>or
>exclusionary knowledge. It's a sort of wisdom that draws people together,
>for Aquarians are, above all else, social animals. They crave interaction
>with large groups of people, thriving in humanitarian and social causes and
>in any situation where collective thought, innovation and cooperation are
>required. They tend to be eccentric and disdainful of tradition and –
>while
>they love magic and believe in the esoteric arts – prefer to discover
>knowledge through scientific experimentation and exploration.

Sounds good! I'm not very knowledgeable about the Zodiac however. But it
definitely sounds like the Aquarians love networks.

>
>……It is kind of magic that we can communicate through cell phones and
>surf the web in the park.

I don't see it as that as magical. The meaning of technology depends upon
what you use it for.

Something that we were only getting a small taste
>of 10 years ago. I don't think culture will have a clear understanding of
>what's really going on presently until around 2012 and 2025. It will be
>interesting to see if some pr firm and a media savvy
>artist/critic/historian
>will be able to secure the defining ism of the early 21st century. I guess
>we have to wait and see.

To be sure history and later times will have their assessment to make. Yet
that does not mean we cannot propose things to do in the present or make art
in the present. After all, what will they have to look back on if no one
makes any art-choices on purpose now? And, how will they be able to propose
what something now means if they have no take of their own on what 2012 or
2025 means? I like how Shakespeare and Cezanne did take the guts to assert
what their presents meant. That's part of making art.

I think the best way would be to pay reasonable
>sums of money to a small handful of art historians, academics, critics, and
>curators to promote the idea in their books and public lectures. I hear
>they
>are easier then the politicians to get on the payroll…….

I don't have any extra money to hire people to work on Networkism, so I'm
just working on it myself. When a new art-historical period comes along
there's no money in it at first.

>
>In the words of the Dead Milkmen,
>"Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !! "Shoot up or Shut Up !!"

I don't see how this relates.

>
>Best of luck on your conference. Would love to hear what you have to think
>about this Meta shit flying all over the place.
>http://www.metashit.com/
>
>Cheers,
>Lee
>
>—————
>
>See below.
>"Algorithmic Art & A.I." by Remko Scha
>An introduction: Kant, Duchamp, Meta-Art
>
>http://iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/meta.html

I don't have the time tonight to read all of this, not sure how it relates.

>
>—————
>
>Meta-Art and Further Elucidation
>http://homepages.nyu.edu/~lfg210/web/meta.html

Scanning all the material on Meta I can't say I'd agree that Meta is a
better art-historical period-framework than Networkism. But you may be
completely right! Don't let my hypotheticals drag you down if that is the
direction of your aesthetic conviction. I used to believe in combatting
with ideas, people, institutions, what have you, but now my philosophy is
that of William Blake: "Bad art will cease to exist when people stop looking
at it." There's no need to "fight" or buck against art you think is bad.
Just make the art you think is truly truly good and let the chips fall where
they may.

Thanks for the post,

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Rolling Submissions OK until 9/15
www.geocities.com/genius-2000

+++


>
>—————
>
>meta |ˈmetə| noun short for meta key.
>adjective (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of
>its genre; self-referential. ORIGIN 1980s: from meta- in the sense
>[beyond].
>
>—————
>
>meta- (also met- before a vowel or h) combining form
>
>1 denoting a change of position or condition : metamorphosis | metathesis.
>2 denoting position behind, after, or beyond: metacarpus.
>3 denoting something of a higher or second-order kind : metalanguage |
>metonym.
>4 Chemistry denoting substitution at two carbon atoms separated by one
>other
>in a benzene ring, e.g., in 1,3 positions : metadichlorobenzene. Compare
>with ortho- and para- 1 .
>5 Chemistry denoting a compound formed by dehydration : metaphosphoric
>acid.
>
>ORIGIN from Greek meta ‘with, across, or after.’
>
>—————
>
>Meta
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>• Ten things you didn't know about images on Wikipedia •
>Jump to: navigation, search
>Look up meta- in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
>This article is about the word or prefix Meta. For other uses, see Meta
>(disambiguation).
>
>
>Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix used
>in
>English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another
>concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek meta is
>equivalent
>to the Latin post.
>
>In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category).
>For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced it, when, what
>format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology
>means
>an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember
>something
>if they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in
>psychology
>means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, or somebody
>else's basic emotion.[citation needed].
>
>Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, which is the theoretical
>consideration of its foundations and methods.
>
>Another, slightly different interpretation of this term is "about" but not
>"on". For example, a grammar is considered as a metalanguage, a meta-answer
>is not a real answer but a reply, such as: "this is not a good question",
>"I
>suggest to ask your professor". Here, we have such concepts as
>meta-reasoning and meta-knowledge.
>
>[edit] Etymology
>
>The prefix is derived by back-formation from the Greek preposition and
>prefix meta- (μετά) which meant either "after", "beside" or "with".
>Meta- &
>Meso- are thought to have come into Greek together from a mutual cognate,
>which would further imply 'meta' to contain or be of the meaning
>"parallel".
>[1]
>
>[edit] Quine and Hofstadter
>
>The OED cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as
>meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these
>formations are directly parallel to the original "metaphysics" and
>"metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or
>adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began to be used with specific
>nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929. A notable
>early citation is Quine's 1937 use of the word "metatheorem", where meta-
>clearly has the modern meaning of "an X about X" (Note that earlier uses of
>"meta-economics" and even "metaphysics" do not have this doubled conceptual
>structure, they are about or beyond X but they do not constitute an X).
>Note
>also that this modern meaning allows for self-reference, since if something
>is about the category to which it belongs, it can be about itself; it is
>therefore no coincidence that we find Quine, a mathemetician interested in
>self-reference, using it.
>An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).
>An encyclopedia article which discusses an encyclopedia article (itself).
>
>Douglas Hofstadter, in his 1979 book Godel, Escher, Bach (and in the
>less-popular sequel, Metamagical Themas), popularized this meaning of the
>term. This book, which deals extensively with self-reference and touches on
>Quine and his work, was influential in many computer-related subcultures,
>and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of the prefix, for
>its use as a solo term, and for the many recent coinages which use it.
>Hofstadter uses the meta as a stand-alone word, both as an adjective and as
>a directional preposition ("going meta", a term he coins for the old
>rhetorical trick of taking a debate or analysis to another level of
>abstraction, as in "This debate isn't going anywhere."). This book is also
>probably responsible for the direct association of "meta" with
>self-reference, as opposed to just abstraction. The sentence "This sentence
>contains thirty six letters." along with the sentence it is embedded in are
>examples of sentences that reference themselves in this way.
>
>[edit] The Metacorder
>
>The Metacorder is a theoretical device described in the short story of the
>same name by Tristan Parker. As the story describes, the Metacorder is a
>computational device which does nothing other than monitoring its own
>activities. While in practice this would result in an endless loop similar
>to the print "print" quine, the story takes this idea and gives it a sort
>of
>intelligence which allows the Metacorder to consider and judge its own
>actions.
>
>This is an example of constrained writing, both in that the story describes
>a single object over the course of several pages, and that it is done
>entirely in the voice of such an object being described. This double rule
>allows much playfulness, however, and the story ranges from realistic
>technical descriptions to vague, poetic musings while still keeping the
>same
>voice throughout.
>
>——————-
>
>Dead Milkmen 1985
>Big Lizard in My Backyard
>"Junkie"
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>He shoots up all day
>Sometimes he even shits himself
>What else can I say?
>
>Shoot up or shut up [x4]
>
>If his girl don't score
>He beats her black and blue
>He wears his track marks like tattoos
>
>I love to hear his junkie talk
>Whenever he talks on the sidewalk
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>It's sad but true
>My best friend is a junkie
>What does your best friend do?
>
>My best friend is a junkie
>He shoots up all day
>Sometimes he even shits himself
>What else can I say?
>
>Shoot up or shut up [x4]
>
>(see above)
>
>–
>Lee Wells
>
>http://www.leewells.org
>http://www.ifac-arts.org
>http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
>
>Brooklyn 11222
>917 723 2524
>
>The information contained in this electronic mail message (including any
>attachments) is confidential information that may be covered by the
>Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, intended
>only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be
>privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
>you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly
>prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>immediately notify me and delete the original message. Thank you
>
>
>
>
> > From: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: Max Herman <[email protected]>
> > Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:51:01 -0500
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
> >
> >
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the
>list
> > until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
>regarding
> > the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since
>2000-2004
> > and other topics. These are of course good topics but they won't always
>be
> > in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other topics.
> >
> > I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we
>are
> > in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
> > networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
> > "Networkism."
> >
> > This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
>in
> > 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
> > Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
> > discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
> > website.
> >
> > If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
> > widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
>the
> > Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
> >
> > The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't
>much
> > to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
>silence
> > of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has people
>awkward
> > and worried.
> >
> > In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of
>the
> > new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art.
>That
> > new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
> > aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
>wrote
> > about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to
>speak
> > into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity
>pull
> > affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
> > occurred.
> >
> > (Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
>Stallybrass"
> > who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I was in
> > academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
> > Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which
>as
> > you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
> > left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
> > Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le
>Lac
> > D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
> > Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
> >
> > Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
> > military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
>the
> > Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the pursuit
>by
> > the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by James Mann
> > called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly causes more
> > danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more tense,
> > complicated, and risky.
> >
> > My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
> > difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the
>doubt
> > rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
> > superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the
>key
> > goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about
>the
> > former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great move
>in
> > this direction and toward High Networkism.
> >
> > And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period
>most
> > properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
> >
> > Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
>make
> > good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period, given
>its
> > character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the time."
> >
> > I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
> > that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
> > still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
> > structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not
>a
> > homogeneous gruel.
> >
> > I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
>going
> > to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious and
>you
> > might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such considerations are
> > very proper and amazingly right.
> >
> > Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may
>be
> > related.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Max Herman
> > The Genius 2000 Network
> > Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
> > www.geocities.com/genius-2000
> >
> > +++
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>
>

Ran out of time to post this evening. To be brief, notations below:

>From: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: Brett Stalbaum <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:15:32 -0700
>
>I've always been curious about the assumptive privileging of one
>abstraction layer over another… What about databasism (after all, the
>internet is itself - the IP part of TCP-IP = a distributed hierarchical
>database, as is fundamentally the http protocol), or GUIism or (least
>elegantly) "business-logicism" or perhaps "algorithmicism"? Or if we must
>focus on the one layer, then would formalist network art practice be
>TCP-IPism, while in net art - which might most closely map to some notion
>of networkism - we can see that it at least once assumed that the
>communication layer of the newly available technology (well, new to the
>consumers) had unique and exploitable congruences with conceptual art ideas
>such as social sculpture? So I guess we could use the greater mouthful
>theory here and say something like "computationally mediated social
>communicationism" or even just get it over with by using "computationally
>mediated social sculpture".

I guess I'd have to say the big umbrella applies. Networks are
heterogeneous in space and time. They are neither all arborescent nor all
rhizomatic. They consist of populations of individuals, and take their
characteristics from both individual and population dynamics. I don't think
they necessarily have to involve computers or even wires. They can be (and
I think first started for humans as) eye and voice signals moving human to
human on the actual physical air, analog.

The latter two if only
>to distinguish net art or networkism from mail art, which was really the
>same kind of hierarchical addressing system art transporting
>communications, but with a quite different transport layer.

I could never get an understanding of what net art was, except that G2K
perhaps wasn't it. In any case, I'd say there are many genres of art within
the period of Networkism, including mail art, painting, lounge dancing, and
performance karate. Pre-computer societies are definitely relevant because
they had networks too. One of my favorite examples is the subscription and
delivery-by-horse-drawn-wagon network that carried the first novels as
"packets" to people distributed across the countryside. As to major
upheavals etc., that and newspapers caused a lot of issues as they were big
"jumps" in human network activity. Even the big old temples and pyramids
were a network–database heavy, slow, physically centralized and strict with
permissions.

>
>But all that said, as a materialist with some interest characterizing the
>same shift that Max senses (I strongly agree with him on this) I prefer to
>keep my analysis closer to the base than networkism alone would seem to
>allow.

I think that a very very wide diversity of work would be possible under
Networkism even if it was an enforcement concept, which it isn't. It's
really a hypothetical-directional concept i.e. a heuristic. That relates to
computers too I think and I bet even what Curt said about Venn. And, as a
full-scale art-historical period it would have to be explored as it relates
to business, psychotherapy, gardening, tourism, parenting, civic design, you
name it, just like Modernism and Romanticism were. Let us not forget either
that the U.S. military is pursuing a transformation (oft cited) to a network
model. Networks are "the primary given condition" of our new century and
art is bound to reflect that in one way or another, and by whatever name one
might choose. I find it interesting that former times were not by any means
devoid of network characteristics and are therefore far from useless or
unbeautiful from our vantage point today.

>(http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No4_freerad_afterlandart_stalbaum.htm)
>Maybe all of this semanticism trying to describe what elsewhere has been
>called the N-state

I'm quite interested in this idea of the N-state. Do you know of a URL
reference?

following the postmodern can be analyzed in
>an other way, as in, databasism as interested in the material foundations
>and material consequences of the medium, networkism interested in the
>social (Web 2.0 and "social software", anyone?),

This is one area I personally wish to clarify in my own work and am working
on currently. Networkism is not a glorification of "connectedness" per se.
It's just as much about being on the lookout for tawdry or superficial or
even sociopathic network behavior. By my sense of it Networkism would also
comprehend (or certainly should) databasism and material questions. Hence
the distinction between High and Low Networkism is quite necessary, though
kitschphobia is far from desirable.

>leaving GUIism (or Pixelism perhaps?) for the aesthetes to argue about? Or
>maybe we will more or less abandon these isms when it becomes clear that
>they were an entertaining but increasingly irrelevant intellectual artifact
>of the abundant energy resources available during the cheap oil era.

Culture is far from irrelevant and will not be irrelevant in the future.
"Culture" is the contemporary or modern counterpart of the polis. It's what
people live in. But yes we may all be headed on the fast track to Soylent
Green. Have you read Das Glasperlenspiel? NN used to mention it all the
time. The main character was gradually convinced he had to leave the ivory
tower and engage the outside world because of massive military meltdown.
Kind of like little Frodo Baggins and many other heroes of fairylands far
away.

Yet schadenfreude is not necessarily the most virtuous task to set one's
self. I think Networkism can help to fix some of the big problems you
allude to if done right. Or to put it another way, any art-historical
period which did happen to help the big problems out there by means of
aesthetic evolution would have to deal primarily with "the problem of the
network," and the most responsible thing to do now is to focus and that and
get to work. Without upsetting the apple cart.

Best regards again,

Max

+++



(In which case a few special
>people will still plunk away at keyboards and squint at the few remaining
>screens looking for news that rice is being delivered to the neighborhood -
>after which the town crier will be notified and the word spread…)
>
>Max Herman wrote:
>>
>>Hello All!
>>
>>I have just gotten back from a vacation and wanted to get back on the list
>>until the end of the conference. I am not sure where we left off
>>regarding the less discussion-oriented state of the rhizome raw list since
>>2000-2004 and other topics. These are of course good topics but they
>>won't always be in the foreground. Oftentimes it's OK to switch to other
>>topics.
>>
>>I believe that one explanation of many of the recent topics is that we are
>>in a new art-historical period as of, say, 1998 because of computer
>>networks. This period I would propose to be most properly called
>>"Networkism."
>>
>>This would be analogous to "Modernism" which can be said to have started
>>in 1898 or Romanticism which started in 1798 with the publication of the
>>Preface to the Lyrical Ballads by William Wordsworth. The Preface is
>>discussed in my project for this year's Genius 2000 Conference at my
>>website.
>>
>>If the above is true, we are in a new art-historical period which is not
>>widely acknowledged. Most people say we are still in Postmodernism i.e.
>>the Postmodern period. So, people disagree on that.
>>
>>The disagreement on this can be because people sense that there isn't much
>>to say about the prior period, and it's getting awkward–an awkward
>>silence of sorts–but there's no defined new period and that also has
>>people awkward and worried.
>>
>>In addition, there are all these new computer networks. Regardless of the
>>new-period question and related tension, they are a problem for art. That
>>new item in the blog about the center in Linz shows networks are an
>>aesthetic issue. But if Stallabrass is the one I knew from before who
>>wrote about "transgression," they might define the networks backward so to
>>speak into the Postmodernism setup. This is certainly the escape-velocity
>>pull affecting a new period regardless of what kind it is or when it has
>>occurred.
>>
>>(Since typing the above I can confirm that he is not the "Peter
>>Stallybrass" who wrote about transgression. That was very popular when I
>>was in academics and I thought that it was overrated. Rather he is Julian
>>Stallabrass, who states online that he likes Benjamin and Adorno which as
>>you can see are often quoted in Genius 2000. However he may be more
>>left-leaning than myself, I can't say for sure. Lastly he works at the
>>Courtauld Institute, the collection of which includes the painting Le Lac
>>D'Annecy, which I also cited in my essay for the conference this year.
>>Therefore I am not necessarily against this new center in Linz.)
>>
>>Finally, a big new change has occurred in the military-industrial or
>>military-technological environment which could be called World War IV or
>>the Second Cold War. This can be said to be be oriented around the
>>pursuit by the U.S. of a "one superpower option" as per the 2004 book by
>>James Mann called "Rise of the Vulcans." Such a development certainly
>>causes more danger and stress and makes even art-historical questions more
>>tense, complicated, and risky.
>>
>>My personal take on all of this is that the O.S.O. is the best of many
>>difficult options. Therefore it should be given the benefit of the doubt
>>rather than rejected in a reckless way. The computers I think have
>>superficial impacts on art history but also substantive impacts and the
>>key goal is to have a good effect on the latter rather than blather about
>>the former. Mr. Stallabrass and the new center in Linz may be a great
>>move in this direction and toward High Networkism.
>>
>>And, due to all of this we are in fact in a new art-historical period most
>>properly called Networkism or the Network Period.
>>
>>Branching off from this would be many worthwhile topics such as how to
>>make good art or engage in good aesthetic behavior during the period,
>>given its character or as Shakespeare said "the form and pressure of the
>>time."
>>
>>I would also think that to understand this period you have to understand
>>that not everything becomes a rhizome just because of the internet, you
>>still have arborescent structures which in fact make the rhizomatic
>>structures possible (to hearken back to a prior topic). I.e. it is not a
>>homogeneous gruel.
>>
>>I accept however that this is by far the minority opinion and I'm not
>>going to blame Rhizome Raw or the government or whoever for that obvious
>>and you might say inevitable fact. Indeed you might say such
>>considerations are very proper and amazingly right.
>>
>>Therefore I would propose to discuss the above or other issues that may be
>>related.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Max Herman
>>The Genius 2000 Network
>>Rolling submissions OK through Sept. 15
>>www.geocities.com/genius-2000
>>
>>+++
>>
>>
>>+
>>-> 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
>>
>
>–
>Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
>Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
>Department of Visual Arts
>9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
>La Jolla CA 92093-0084
>http://www.c5corp.com
>http://www.paintersflat.net
>+
>-> 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

Cannot 'concede' to G2K recent paper that body cannot be modified:
the opposite, connections both paternal and maternal ( fleish & blood )
DNA are actually alterable by higher meditation techniques esp. as body
progresses thru lunar-earth-solarl-polar meditations.


o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

That doesn't seem impossible given some of the weird DNA research I've seen
lately. However my main hope was not to rule that out but to point out the
somewhat obvious, but often seemingly overlooked, idea that a person and
populations (humanity) can evolve and develop along exosomatic lines as
expressed by P.B. Medawar in "The Future of Man" at

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/future-of-man.html

I think his idea of aesthetic evolution within the culture or tradition is
important to my concept of how art and society can function and develop over
time. At the very least I'd want to believe that it is at least an
important part of the picture of human evolution.

Also on a separate topic, I wanted to mention that I do plan to stop posting
to the list punctually after September 15. I definitely appreciate and
value the discussion but I've found that I have to set rules for myself or
else I get sidetracked.


>From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: A New Art-Historical Period: Networkism
>Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Cannot 'concede' to G2K recent paper that body cannot be modified:
>the opposite, connections both paternal and maternal ( fleish & blood )
>DNA are actually alterable by higher meditation techniques esp. as body
>progresses thru lunar-earth-solarl-polar meditations.
>
>
> o
> [ + ]
>
> + + +
>
>
>| '|' |
>_________________________________________
>`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>+
>-> 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