"Exclusive"
http://www.salsabomb.com/exclusive/
I checked my email one day and discovered what I thought was an amazing,
gorgeous image of a dog on the front page of the news. When I followed
the link, it was explained that CNN had obtained exclusive rights to
video tapes made by terrorists; one- the one with the dog- which may
have proven that they had the ability to produce fatal chemical weapons.
The footage was promoted on Netscape and in the New York Times- as
"exclusive to CNN". Apparently CNN wanted to let people know that they
should tune in to their network if they wanted to see this footage. But
I was wondering why anyone would want to see this footage.
A few days before I had listened to Ira Glass's news reports from Israel
on "This American Life." The hour long show seemed to point to one
thing- that the longer the people of Israel were at war- that is, the
longer they were the victims of Suicide Bombings, the more blood thirsty
they became, and so the more difficult it was for peace to seem
reasonable. The media, the bumper stickers- everything, perhaps
understandably- became more aggressive. People talked about "getting
tougher." They talked about how that wasn't something they wanted. The
peaceniks were defined as the ones who talked about why the Palestinians
were animals, instead of merely describing how. But now Americans are
expected to tune in to watch five minutes of video where a dog is
painfully executed. We're expected to want to see something die in an
excruciating manner. As if it's okay because it's a dog.
I made this piece and I don't like it, I mean it is not pretty. I mean
this is the other side of it. It's simple and it's really intended as a
print more than it is as "net.art" [if you need a distinction]. I mean
there's plenty of levels to the image I think, besides just the one I am
talking about; maybe no one else will get why this felt so fucked up to
me, maybe the dog had to be shown getting tortured so that we could
understand nerve gas. But it's scary to me how quickly we show footage
like this when it helps to demonize the enemy and doesn't do anything to
expose the real truth about our part in war, either. "Exclusive."
"Exclusive" to CNN so you can buy more soap that is advertised when the
commercials come up. But also that the enemy are the exclusive murderers
of puppies. The bombings of the weddings in Afghanistan didn't have the
privilege of being video taped, so we won't be disgusted by our own
actions, by the actions that are, really, you know, "just a part of war."
The ridiculousness of promoting this footage, covering it with the word
"exclusive" as a ratings ploy, was nauseating. These images might be the
most nauseating to come out of this war since the original attacks.
Probably not a lot to say about it. I feel like it is propaganda-
propaganda by the terrorists against us, used as propaganda by the USA
against the terrorists; and I just want to invert that whole process and
shove it back at both of them somehow. But the dog is beautiful. I tried
to catch the one moment where there is still defiance to the inevitable,
and I want to think it's a portrait of all of humanity right now. I mean
people are losing hope all over the world and maybe things are doomed.
The dog in the green ribbon is still standing up; it's in the early
stages of nausea and dizziness, and so am I. I was thinking about a
direct quote from Osama Bin Laden: "I tell you, freedom and human rights
in America are doomed. The U.S. Government will lead the American
people- and the West in general- into an unberable hell and choking
life." So that is what we're choking on- the west in general is choking
on. I don't know, maybe it is a hopeless image, given that we know the
outcome for the dog in the green ribbon, but that isn't what's important
to me, what is important is the last minutes of fight against what seems
to be the inevitable, and hopefully something can come of that.
I know political art can be hard to deal with; because by it's own
nature it is a David against a Goliath. It's not changing anything and I
know that. I'm not exploring new forms or building an immersive
environment, it's just an expression of my mixed state of hope,
hopelessness, nausea, and outrage, and all I can do is hope it resonates.
Cheers,
-e.
"Exclusive"
-
Type: discussion
Comments
>
this is beautiful, eryk (the piece, not the dog's execution, nor what its exclusivity intends….)
i agree with you….what has saddened me in the post-9/11 world is just this characterization….the terrorists were exclusively murderers, we had no blame, despite a blighted social policy in afghanistan and our own murders there…
=====i recently heard a newscast in which an opium farmer in afghanistan thanked the us govt for ridding the region of the taliban…apparently, the taliban did not look kindly on opium cultivation…now that they were gone, the farmers were free to produce and export as much as they want!
=====not to excuse the taliban, or bin laden=====or israel===or palestine====you would think that in the 21st century we would have figured some way out of violence by now….
bliss
l
Lewis LaCook wrote:
> i agree with you….what has saddened me in the post-9/11 world is just this characterization….the terrorists were exclusively murderers, we had no blame, despite a blighted social policy in afghanistan and our own murders there…
depressing indeed .. I read this while listening to a debate on the radio..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206629.stm
"Afghan asylum seekers in the UK are to be given up to
"Exclusive"
http://www.salsabomb.com/exclusive/
Eryk et al,
Maybe because its because I live in Britain, but when I saw that piece of=
video I thought the message was: 'Look, we told you what sort of crazy kil=
lers these people are, but even we didn't believe they would actually KILL =
DOGS. Now you've seen it with your own eyes, nothing can stand between the =
nation and TOTAL WAR.' That said, I do believe that the US recently raised =
hundreds of thousands of dollars to rescue one dog from a sinking ship, and=
didn't someone to go jail for throwing someone's dog into the path of an o=
ncoming vehicle? So maybe you are as insane as we are on this subject.
It's like our recent case here of Doctor Shipman who killed over 200, may=
be 400 of his patients. I mean, he just killed them with injections in his =
surgery or their houses. No-one batted an eyelid until he FORGED A WILL to =
inherit one womans estate. I wrote a letter to the press: 'It's ok to kill =
our parents willy nilly, but by god, trying to steal our inheritance, that =
really is beyond the pale.' So he got busted.
That's how I felt about the dog thing.
Ivan
In a message dated 8/21/2002 8:52:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> That's how I felt about the dog thing.
Coolio Julio. I am constantly told I'm nuts and evil, but I never did the
torturing animals (except burning ants I guess). Once I saw a very drunk man
kill a small cat who had eaten his steak or burgerscheize off his grill. The
man was a monster. He saw the gone beef, the lithe black cat eating it
behind a bush, and kicked/choked/punched (!!!!!) the cat and slammed it to
the ground.
I was only a hundred yards away, I should have sprinted and tackled the
savage but it happened fairly fast. I didn't call no cops either. Plus he
was midwestern beefy-brawny and "raging." I would have needed a garbage can
lid.
++
Shouldn't matter much, but your decision to do create it in ascii does have
at least one person wondering. You are free to decide whether you want to
answer their question or, if your not interested, perhaps let someone else
answer it. You've obviously chosen not to answer it so..
…to answer his question, I say that he is not necessarily "cheating" but
rather generating a differnt type of art, this HTML Art is defined in this
ASCII-ART F.A.Q. as, "in the 'pure' sense", NOT ASCII art:
(**snip**)
http://www.ludd.luth.se/~vk/pics/ascii/junkyard/techstuff/FAQ/FAQ_Matthew_Th
omas.html)
2. What isn't ASCII art?
The following specialized artforms are not ASCII art in the `pure' sense,
and are not welcome in the ASCII art Usenet groups.
[…]
* HTML art. HTML, the language used in Web pages, can be used to add
special effects such as colours, font size, and (ugh) blinking text to ascii
art, and HTML can be read by some newsreaders. However, the key word here is
`some'. To many newsreaders, HTML art will just appear as a jumble of <TAGS>
and will be totally unrecognizable.
(**end snip**)
"cheating" should better be applied to the fact that he is using, and I am
assuming, an ASCII generator. Since people of the ascii-art news group
generally don't like application generated ascii-art they might also
consider it "cheating".
—
Was Warhol a "cheater" for making silkscreen paintings you might ask? Maybe,
he did take short cuts, and so did Rembrandt when he signed his own students
works.
I meant to comment more about this (Exclusive) piece's dangerously "POP"
statement, hence the reference to Andy Warhol, but I do believe I've run out
or breath, and so I should begin another thread with that topic when I do
regain it.
good bye,
muserna `"",
'<'7
(- j "Oh goody, he end his post
.~~, with real ASCII-art!!"
|
| >>|>
|// |
{V ))
| ||
| || Mr. Muserna
| || Dictator
(_}} Moderna Museet Muserna
c__)) http://www.muserna.org
on 8/22/02 8:35 PM, Eryk Salvaggio [email protected] ecrit :
> I don't know. It's not like the piece is about the medium it is in, so I
> don't see whether it is a "purist ascii art" or a "new wave ascii art"
> should matter much?
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> Keith Sanborn wrote:
>
>> It's a lovely piece, but isn't using tonal values cheating in ascii art?
>>
>>
>> Keith Sanborn
>>
>>
>>> The ASCII is only really suitable for a 20 X 16 print. I don't like
>>> stretching the ascii for prints because it distorts the characters,
>>> which changes the whole display.
>>>
>>> -e.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Roberto Cabot wrote:
>>>
>>>> strong piece, eryk.
>>>> how big would you print it?
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>>
>>>> r
>>>>
>>>> Am 21.08.02 11:16:13, schrieb Eryk Salvaggio <[email protected]>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Datum: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 05:16:13 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> Von: Eryk Salvaggio<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> An: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> ,[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>> Betreff:[thingist] "Exclusive"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Exclusive"
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.salsabomb.com/exclusive/
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ——————————————————————–
>>>> t h i n g i s t
>>>> message by Roberto Cabot <[email protected]>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> archive athttp://bbs.thing.net
>>>> info: send email [email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> and write "info thingist" in the message body
>>>> ——————————————————————–
>>>
>>
>
>