Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

'Some thoughts regarding Cory Archangel's
Data Diaries & established culturalization'.

In the western world, technologies are now so much a part of the everyday,

the use of it has become habitual. You turn the computer on, it loads up,

you click a couple of tabs and then you are away, reading, sending emails or

creating an artwork via given applications. Cory seems to be moving towards

transcending such presumed habits, very much like those electronic geeks

'Kraftwerk', diverting the program. Rebuilding and reworking perceived

notions of what programs and hardware is used for. Coming up with alternate

shifts that do not necessarily infuse collective or world issues but it is

very much part of a digital genre that deconstructs the medium itself.

Cory's (what might seem flippant) use of data, as virtual substance, filler;

reevaluating the computer with a conduit sensibility. Whilst actively

diverting programs and the hardware 'uses', and re-inventing via method and

conceptual poetics. You get the impression of a kind of innocence at play,

this is of course a self-conscious decision, and all part of the small

scheme of things. When I say small scheme, I mean that work itself does

not wish to enter a dialogue with the user or viewer. What you see is what

you get. Therefore the communication is functional, not emotional. To expect

emotion from this work is like expecting figurative painting or emotional

content or narrative from a 'sixty's' 'frank Stella' painting. You just
ain't

gonna get any, and that's fair enough.


'Data Diaries' is primarily a formal piece, sitting (surprisingly) well with

modernist principles of abstraction, is Cory Archangel a contemporary

American 'Computer Abstractionist'? This work is Art as Art, not reflecting

global or emotional issues, politics about our lives in any way, in fact it

declares quite clearly an anti narrative. The work relies heavily on

'exformation', 'exformation is everything we do not actually say but have in

our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the

measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with'. [Tor

Norretranders, The User Illusion (1998)]


So what arrives is function rather than narrative, thus you witness the raw

object as it is, no obvious space for intuitive interpretation in respect of

relational or lateral dialogue. This means that the work is for hanging on

your wall, it is a picture, not a message. It can only be a message in the

context of what is attached to it, via labeling, as Art given context. And

this is how its meaning is determined. So therefore we end up dealing with

constructed references around it, to support its essence. If it did not have

the support of an art institutional background to relate to it, where would

it go, who would look at it?


To answer this question one has to look at examples that others have

willingly referred; giving it art-clout. This means that much of the

discourse that surrounds it is via a culturalized art and language mind-set,

which may not necessarily contribute to its (supposed) punk essence. The

work itself may not warrant such interest, when compared to artists such as

Picasso, or even Heath Bunting. Ah but that has also been taken care of, due

to what we all now know as the 'Heroic Period'. So here comes along the

issue of who gets known by whom and why? And it could be construed that

Cory is at the tail end of the political and 'divisionist' term 'Heroic

Period'. Not by his own making but by others who wish to place him in an art

context that the artworld can understand. A product, a brand and an

aesthetic nuance that can be appreciated by an educated audience, but not to

a generation of people who wish for such barriers to be broken down.


What we have learnt here is, that Internet art has to be more
institutionally

friendly, more referenced based to be acknowledged by the establishment. So

you get artists who are still experimenting trying to break the rule of code

which will be a 'no no', unless supported by certain structures. Everything

gets pulled back into the black hole of controlled representation. What

could begin to happen (may be it already has), is that certain people will

be ignored because they have chosen to believe that they could break the

rules in a relational way, not an aesthetic way. So those who thought that

the walls had suddenly crashed down for them; and thought that they were

part of something special; are finding the walls rising back up again. In

fact, they were not ever in the story in the first place.


So if we bypass whether narrative is important or not and cut to the chase

of how things work. Radical becomes product, not as a physical object you

can hold but as a currency, a sale's pitch. You'll get the 'Heroic Period'

gang, being shunted to exhibition to exhibition by the funding elite, over

and over again. Then you'll get the next generation who advocate them as

influential to their own work. Therefore falling into the same culturalized

trappings, running the art arena gauntlet, thus using the same tactics as

many others have done before, and millions are now. 'Pissing' up the wall as

others watch them mark out there 'canonized territory. This activity,

usually male in motion (now a unisex activity), is a very traditional

stance.


So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to certain agendas, just like

what was perceived as traditional before the Internet age. Making work that

does not question institutional remits because it would be foolhardy to do

so. Work that is radical in its 'soul' can now only be considered as myth

and delusory. It will be left out, ignored by those who can gain more

mileage out of the invented terminology's and written histories that have

now been tagged, like a stamp of official acceptance that these one's are

ok. 'You can touch these dudes they have been affiliated'.


Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in

the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism.

But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged

and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it

advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk

fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it

certainly ain't Punk.


I personally enjoy Cory's work but I do not like what comes with it, the

background noise is far too loud for me and it gets in the way of the work

itself.

marc garrett


http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.furthernoise.org
http://www.dido.uk.net
We Can Make Our Own World.
http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.furthernoise.org
http://www.dido.uk.net
We Can Make Our Own World.

(rtf version)

Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.

'Some thoughts regarding Cory Archangel's Data Diaries & established
culturalization'.

In the western world, technologies are now so much a part of the everyday,
the use of it has become habitual. You turn the computer on, it loads up,
you click a couple of tabs and then you are away, reading, sending emails or
creating an artwork via given applications. Cory seems to be moving towards
transcending such presumed habits, very much like those electronic geeks
'Kraftwerk', diverting the program. Rebuilding and reworking perceived
notions of what programs and hardware is used for. Coming up with alternate
shifts that do not necessarily infuse collecitve or world issues but it is
very much part of a digital genre that deconstructs the medium itself.

Cory's (what might seem flippant) use of data, as virtual substance, filler;
reevaluating the computer with a conduit sensibility. Whilst actively
diverting programs and the hardware 'uses', and re-inventing via method and
conceptual poetics. You get the impression of a kind of innocence at play,
this is of course a self-conscious decision, and all part of the small
scheme of things. When I say small scheme, I mean that that work itself does
not wish to enter a dialogue with the user or viewer. What you see is what
you get. Therefore the communication is functional, not emotional. To expect
emotion from this work is like expecting figurative painting or emotional
content or narative from a 'sixty's' 'frank Stella' painting. You just ain't
gonna get any, and that's fair enough.

'Data Diaries' is primarily a formal piece, sitting (surprisingly) well with
modernist principles of abstraction, is Cory Archangel a contemporary
American 'Computer Abstractionist'? This work is Art as Art, not reflecting
global or emotional issues, politics about our lives in any way, in fact it
declares quite clearly an anti narrative. The work relies heavily on
'exformation', 'exformation is everything we do not actually say but have in
our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the
measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with'. [Tor
Norretranders, The User Illusion (1998)]

So what arrives is function rather than narrative, thus you witness the raw
object as it is, no obvious space for intuitive interpretation in respect of
relational or lateral dialogue. This means that the work is for hanging on
your wall, it is a picture, not a message. It can only be a message in the
context of what is attached to it, via labeling, as Art given context. And
this is how its meaning is determined. So therefore we end up dealing with
constructed references around it, to support its essence. If it did not have
the support of an art insitutional background to relate to it, where would
it go, who would look at it?

To answer this question one has to look at examples that others have
willingly refered; giving it art-clout. This means that much of the
discourse that surrounds it is via a culturalized art and language mind-set,
which may not necessarily contribute to its (supposed) punk essence. The
work itself may not warrant such interest, when compared to artists such as
Picasso, or even Heath Bunting. Ah but that has also been taken care of, due
to what we all now know as the 'Heroic Period'. So here comes along the
issue of who gets known by whom and why? And it could be construded that
Cory is at the tail end of the political and 'divisionist' term 'Heroic
Period'. Not by his own making but by others who wish to palce him in an art
context that the artworld can understand. A product, a brand and an
aesthetic nuance that can be appreciated by an educated audience, but not to
a generation of people who wish for such barriers to be broken down.

What we have learnt here is, that Internet art has to be more insitutionally
friendly, more referenced based to be acknowledged by the establishment. So
you get artists who are still experimenting trying to break the rule of code
which will be a 'no no', unless supported by certain structures. Everything
gets pulled back into the black hole of controlled representation. What
could begin to happen (may be it already has), is that certain people will
be ignored because they have chosen to believe that they could break the
rules in a relational way, not an easthetic way. So those who thought that
the walls had suddenly crashed down for them; and thought that they were
part of something special; are finding the walls rising back up again. In
fact, they were not ever in the story in the first place.

So if we bypass whether narrative is important or not and cut to the chase
of how things work. Radical becomes product, not as a physical object you
can hold but as a currency, a sale's pitch. You'll get the 'Heroic Period'
gang, being shunted to exhibition to exhibition by the funding elite, over
and over again. Then you'll get the next generation who advocate them as
influential to their own work. Therfore falling into the same culturalized
trappings, running the art arena gauntlet, thus using the same tactics as
many others have done before, and millions are now. 'Pissing' up the wall as
others watch them mark out there 'cannonized' territory. This activity,
usually male in motion (now a unisex activity), is a very traditional
stance.

So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to certain agendas, just like
what was percieved as traditional before the Internet age. Making work that
does not question institutional remits because it would be foolhardy to do
so. Work that is radical in its 'soul' can now only be considered as myth
and delusory. It will be left out, ignored by those who can gain more
mileage out of the invented terminologies and written histories that have
now been tagged, like a stamp of official acceptance that these one's are
ok. 'You can touch these dudes they have been affiliated'.

Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in
the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism.
But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged
and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk
fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it
certainly ain't Punk.

I personally enjoy Cory's work but I do not like what comes with it, the
background noise is far too loud for me and it gets in the way of the work
itself.

marc garrett


http://www.furtherfield.org
http://www.furthernoise.org
http://www.dido.uk.net
We Can Make Our Own World.

Hi Marc,

It is an interesting essay in many ways. Let me start a discussion here.

I must assume that your use of the term "deconstruct" is not Derridean. You
are using it to mean "destruct," "undermine", or "subvert." You are not
using it to mean "decenter," for otherwise it would not make sense. So
assuming this is what you mean. I continue.

The central criticism of your essay is towards the structure of the art
world; institutions such as museums, galleries, artistic funds, and online
venues (such as turbulence.org) as structural centers and artists as their
elements. Here you are proposing to decenter (or deconstruct) this structure
(though you do not use the term "deconstruct" in this context.). My first
question is that in our past discussion, you have stated:

"Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving it
to fall apart, like an old car body part."

But in your latest essay, you are suggesting to deconstruct the structure of
the art world (in Derridean sense of the term).

However, a deeper reading of your essay reveals that what you are suggesting
may not be deconstruction of the art world at all. What you are suggesting
towards the end of your essay is not to deconstruct, but simply to use the
same structure, but in what you perceive to be a better (or fairer) way of
using the structure. What you criticize is not the structure of the center,
say "A", determining the worth of the artist, "B", but "A" deciding the
worth of "B" to be more than "C". In this sense, you are not deconstructing
at all. You are simply frustrated that certain works of art you deem to be
better are being ignored by the structure. And, your criteria for making any
piece of art better is the existence of "narrative", or discourse with the
audience. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

I liked Cory's work very much. I do not think it is groundbreaking, but it
is fun to watch. Conceptually speaking there is nothing new here. Many
artists of the past have done the same thing. One of the most prominent
artists to repurpose medium is John Cage. His "William Mix" is almost
identical in concept. To use any medium outside of its intended purpose is a
concept that has been done to death. Combine that with aleatory twist of
I-Ching, what you get is the school of John Cage. Cory's work certainly
belongs in this category. Conceptually, I'm not impressed at all with his
work, but I do not believe that he himself meant it to have any historical
significance. It appears that he was just having fun. I myself have done a
project of this spirit.

The issue that you seem to have is why something that was simply done for
fun gets a funding. I'd say, why not? If someone likes it enough to give
money. I'm sure if you were in a position to give funds to artists, many
people would probably have issues with your choice of artists too. (In fact,
aren't you already in that position with furtherfield.org ?)

If your criticism is towards the very structure of the art world, it would
be more constructive, but since you are just as much dependent on the very
structure you criticize (in order to support your own idealized vision), it
turns into an expression of your frustration on which we cannot build
anything constructive. In other words, you are yourself complicit in this
structure that you criticize. As long as there are forces and desires to
rank and measure the worth of art, there will be a central structure such as
museums. Assuming that there is no mathematical formula to determine the
absolute worth of art, there will always be those who are dissatisfied with
the evaluations of others. And, critical theories to substantiate or
unsubstantiate art are not particularly useful or productive (though I must
admit that I'm guilty of it myself.).

Dyske

–
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

hi marc,

> Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
> advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not
> fill the void that punk
> fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to
> justify its being, it
> certainly ain't Punk.

my vote for "most accurate bit of criticism of the
year"

ryan


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

I've added cory's piece to this exhibit:
http://www.deepyoung.org/current/hardwired/ (scroll down some), Deep linking it past the artist statement, and [re/de]-contexualizing it according to the Young method.

had you first come upon it this way, would it qualify as punk?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
marc wrote:
Perhaps it is wrong for me to use Cory as a virtual hammer to pick holes in the obvious failings of contemporary net/web art, and isolationist snobbism. But, there are many questions still not answered, that have to be challenged and reevaluated genuinely and not by protocol. Cory's art is not 'Punk', it advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not fill the void that punk fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to justify its being, it certainly ain't Punk.

Glad someone could read it without a set of references behind them…

it's good to not rely on support structures emotionally sometimes, in fact
it is healthy.

respect - marc


> hi marc,
>
> > Cory's art is not 'Punk', it
> > advocates the style of it, but it certainly does not
> > fill the void that punk
> > fills for me. if you have to pin an art reference to
> > justify its being, it
> > certainly ain't Punk.
>
> my vote for "most accurate bit of criticism of the
> year"
>
> ryan
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Hi Dyske,

Thank you for responding…
I find your questions challenging and it helps to me keep on my toes.

Here's a reference:

'Virtually all organizations known to you work largely by means of your
greed. They attract you because what they say or do appeals to your
greed. This is concealed only by their appearance. If you stop listening
to their words and look at the effect, you will soon see it'.
Idris Shah. Learning how to Learn.

> It is an interesting essay in many ways. Let me start a discussion here.
> I must assume that your use of the term "deconstruct" is not Derridean.
You
> are using it to mean "destruct," "undermine", or "subvert." You are not
> using it to mean "decenter," for otherwise it would not make sense. So
> assuming this is what you mean. I continue.

Your definition of deconstruction is a literary one, not one that relates to
being
conscious. Meaning that language has nuances that fit into many cavities,
not
necessarily txt book based representations.


I feel that the way that you see things, is not specifically fully informed
regarding
your own mind. Now, this is not to say that you do not know what you are
saying
- you do. But a lot of what you say is backed up by reference, it does not
seem to
be coming from your own the heart. I also feel that we will probably not
meet on a
middle ground - for where I am coming from there are not many accepted
writers
like Derrida, to help me out of a fix. But for this txt, I am going to
question my own
method and use references, thus enhancing our complex communication. For it
is complexities that form energy, and realization occurs once we see
something
clearly once we emerge out of complexity.

> The central criticism of your essay is towards the structure of the art
> world; institutions such as museums, galleries, artistic funds, and online
> venues (such as turbulence.org) as structural centers and artists as their
> elements. Here you are proposing to decenter (or deconstruct) this
structure
> (though you do not use the term "deconstruct" in this context.). My first
> question is that in our past discussion, you have stated:
>
> "Deconstruction is such a bad doctor, as a tool it slices through the body
> to reveal guts and then cannot put the body back together again, leaving
it
> to fall apart, like an old car body part."
>
> But in your latest essay, you are suggesting to deconstruct the structure
of
> the art world (in Derridean sense of the term).

No way am I dissing anyone - and especially not Turbulence.org or Alex - in
fact I have been visiting their site quite a lot, its kool.

You need to remember here Dyske, that one might be in the Army because you
love certain things about it, but this does not mean that you have to agree
with all
its rules or ideas. We are all in the human race together, the same goes for
the
art arena to some degree, just because I have questions about it does not
mean
that I do wish to be part of it - that kind of simplistic 'side-taking' is
not appropriate.
I am on everybody's side here really and wish everyone well, I bear no
malice
against them, I am not like that.

Life's full of shadows and perspectives, it's not about sitting on one side
of the
fence, the kind of 'You are either with us or against us' nonsense. I am
here to
change things but I am also here to be changed. And you may contribute in
that
factor…

We are all hypocrites to a point, who isn't? For me, life is not about
picking a team
and saying I'm on their side. We are all dealing with various tugging
dichotomies
or multi-chotomies, which ask very strong questions in relation to our
actions and
motives. I cannot get by in the world on my own, I need you to reflect back
to me
my failings and successes, so I can grow. And this goes the same for
everyone
who frequents this list, some may admit, some may not. I admit it…

The problem with Art becoming official - is that it always has to have a
reason,
it can't just be there like having a piss. It's like this has got to fit
there, and that has
to fit here. Too much time is spent on space filling. Sometimes it's ok to
leave things
unsure till something comes along that seems appropriate.

>
> However, a deeper reading of your essay reveals that what you are
suggesting
> may not be deconstruction of the art world at all. What you are suggesting
> towards the end of your essay is not to deconstruct, but simply to use the
> same structure, but in what you perceive to be a better (or fairer) way of
> using the structure. What you criticize is not the structure of the
center,
> say "A", determining the worth of the artist, "B", but "A" deciding the
> worth of "B" to be more than "C". In this sense, you are not
deconstructing
> at all. You are simply frustrated that certain works of art you deem to be
> better are being ignored by the structure. And, your criteria for making
any
> piece of art better is the existence of "narrative", or discourse with the
> audience. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Now, here you are closer - but also further away at the same time. Your use
of the accepted notion of deconstruction, thus literary; skews my reasoning.

My standards inform me that I must adapt accordingly via intuitive process.
Perhaps, some institutional dudes will see me via cliche protocols as a
whining artist'. That presumption will deny them the ability to understand
the
real essence of where I am coming from, as an artist and a human being. By
being openly vulnerable - I declare my ideas and thoughts around a subject
as best I can, hopefully with mutual sensibilities.

I remember hearing about a woman on the radio and her husband who used t
o beat her. The authorities asked her 'why did he beat you?' She said 'he
said
that he hated me nagging him all the time'. They said 'did you nag him? hum
all
of the time?' The woman was probably questioning her spouse or husband on
why does he always spend all the families money at the pub, so he hit her.

In a sense I ma asking people to suggest alternative vistas on how we could
operate. No way do I have even 10% of the answers but I know that we can do
better and others can do better.

I also have nothing against applying for funding. Although 'furtherfield',
did it
the other way round first. We did not apply for funding because we got a lot
of
negative responses due to us harboring transgressive art on the site with
too
much sex on it, and at the time - funding bodies were obsessed with
workshops
and children being apart of them. So we were seen as offensive. So instead,
we
started a web design business, and offered educational resources to teach
web
stuff using a business name, this got us cash to do what we wanted to do.
After
getting staff who had not had experience of web design but a passion to
explore
working with 'strange' people like ourselves, we then paid wages once they
started
building and designing web sites and teaching themselves. To this day we
have
one paid member of furtherfield, and it is not us, it is Matt, who we love
dearly.

I used to earn money by working in homeless hostels, then working in
computer
resource center's for the homeless, teaching them all kinds of applications.
Plus
applying for funding - getting them paid intern situations in working
environments
of their choice. I did this for about 9 years, and learnt an amazing amount
about
humans, and how vulnerable we all really are. And that institutions do not
cater
for people's emotional needs. Now I teach dissertation to students, and
still do not
earn anything from furtherfield, and neither does Ruth. And we vowed years
ago,
if anyone wanted to have work furtherfield on who did not know how to make a
web
site that we would either show them how to, or do it for them. Also, Our
policy of
choosing, has consciously been from an angle of not creating competitions.
We
invite people on to furtherfield mainly, look at people's work. They do not
need a CV,
or had to have gone to college, or have references, if we like the work,
then that'll
do. It's not perfect but it works for us and those who use furtherfield,
only had one
complaint, and that was because I said I would get someone an interview and
I took
too long getting it arranged for them.

We've always tried to work our way around brick walls, now we collaborate
with
other artists/people and apply for funding but on our terms. What I am
asking for,
is something that is actually much more of an attitude shift regarding art
and its
communication. Forget about looking at language, look at ways around
problems.
That creates change…


best - marc

Hi Marc,

What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of questions,
within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was "Deconstruct
the Narrative…" I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers to
entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
"deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.

In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from my
own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original you
might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not make
any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.

If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word it
was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
"modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
"conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of art
and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality of
my ideas.

Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove (and
neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it may.

"Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
creates change…"

Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use of
language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget about
looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.

Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language all
their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
deconstruct such violent claims.

Regards,
Dyske

HI Dyske,

Thanx again - interesting points, will try to answer within the next couple
of days…

marc


> Hi Marc,
>
> What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
questions,
> within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
> Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
"Deconstruct
> the Narrative…" I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
to
> entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
> deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
> title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
> "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
>
> In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
> not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
my
> own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
> in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
> is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
you
> might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
> Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
make
> any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
> obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
> authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
> nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
>
> If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
> entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
it
> was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
> "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
> "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
> fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
> of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
> avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
art
> and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
of
> my ideas.
>
> Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
> get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
> nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
(and
> neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
> constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
may.
>
> "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
> creates change…"
>
> Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
of
> language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
> visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
> something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
> language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
about
> looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
>
> Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
> are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
> that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
> work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
> aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
> contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
> Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
all
> their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
> not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
> world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
> to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
> George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
> deconstruct such violent claims.
>
> Regards,
> Dyske
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
>

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Dyske Suematsu wrote:

> There is no discourse, especially in the West, that is independent of
> the history of thoughts.

Simplement untrue.

> In fact, that is what discourse is; to participate in history.

Negative nein.

> If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
> entire history of that word.

We write without history.
http://punkassbitch.org/t=0/

> The word "art" you use, is not the same word it was a hundred years ago.

A majorly fraudulent assumption, even within cultural-programmatic
networks.

> Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
> get into.

> Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use of
> language.

The idolatry introduced by Gutenberg.

> And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
> visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
> something for real.

And so does technologie. Culture. Art. Food. Air.

> Also, there are different kinds of change as well.

Rzp.

So, did you get the meaniing of what I wrote or was you distracted by
language?

marc


>
> Hi Marc,
>
> What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
questions,
> within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
> Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
"Deconstruct
> the Narrative…" I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
to
> entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
> deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
> title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
> "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
>
> In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
> not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
my
> own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
> in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
> is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
you
> might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
> Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
make
> any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
> obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
> authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
> nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
>
> If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
> entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
it
> was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
> "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
> "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
> fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
> of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
> avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
art
> and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
of
> my ideas.
>
> Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
> get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
> nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
(and
> neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
> constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
may.
>
> "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
> creates change…"
>
> Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
of
> language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
> visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
> something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
> language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
about
> looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
>
> Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
> are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
> that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
> work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
> aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
> contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
> Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
all
> their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
> not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
> world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
> to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
> George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
> deconstruct such violent claims.
>
> Regards,
> Dyske
>

> So, did you get the meaniing of what I wrote or was you distracted by
> language?

I'm not sure what you mean. Did you post something before this one?

-Dyske

Hi Dyske,

You are right - 'sincerity is not something that I can logically prove'.

But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about productive
change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
development of humanity.

marc

Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove (and
neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it may.


>
> Hi Marc,
>
> What I tried to do in my last post was simply to pose a series of
questions,
> within your own logic and arguments. The only reason why I brought up
> Derrida in my last post was because the title of your essay was
"Deconstruct
> the Narrative…" I think it would be unreasonable to expect your readers
to
> entirely dismiss the possibility that you might be referring to Derrida's
> deconstruction. Now, if I substitute it with "destruct" or "negate", your
> title makes sense with what you are saying in your essay. If your use of
> "deconstruct" is none of these, then tell me what it is.
>
> In my writings, I do try to keep references to a minimum, however, this is
> not so that they all sound like my original ideas that came straight from
my
> own "heart". That would be unreasonable. There is no discourse, especially
> in the West, that is independent of the history of thoughts. In fact, that
> is what discourse is; to participate in history. No matter how original
you
> might think your thoughts are, they are built on the entire history of the
> Western thoughts. Refraining from making ostensive references does not
make
> any ideas original, nor does it make them sincere. I sometimes feel
> obligated to make references (or give credits) in order to respect the
> authorship of others. To claim that my ideas come from my own heart and
> nowhere else would be delusional and arrogant.
>
> If you use any word in English language, you are making a reference to the
> entire history of that word. The word "art" you use, is not the same word
it
> was a hundred years ago. "Narrative" is a loaded word as well. So are
> "modernist", "abstraction", "dialogue", "poetics", "figurative",
> "conceptual", "exformation", "divisionist", "isolationist", etc., etc.. In
> fact, the only thing that you do not do is to give credits to the thinkers
> of the past who established these concepts in our culture. There is no
> avoiding this, nor should you avoid it. I enjoy the Western discourse of
art
> and philosophy, and I make no pretense about or claim to the originality
of
> my ideas.
>
> Whether my writings are sincere or not, is not a discussion that I want to
> get into. (The last time I discussed my "willingness" with Joseph, it went
> nowhere.) My own sincerity is not something that I can logically prove
(and
> neither can you of your own sincerity), and it will not amount to anything
> constructive. If you feel my writings are insincere, then be that as it
may.
>
> "Forget about looking at language, look at ways around problems. That
> creates change…"
>
> Many problems can be solved and clarified if we carefully look at our use
of
> language. And, that in turn can create change. Language tends to cloud our
> visions. It distorts our experience. It gets in a way of understanding
> something for real. I'm not saying that all problems are because of our
> language, but many of them are. To simply ignore it by saying "forget
about
> looking at language", would be a narrow minded approach.
>
> Also, there are different kinds of change as well. There are changes that
> are dramatic but only on the surface or temporary, and there are changes
> that are not so obvious but fundamental. Rousseau, for instance, did not
> work as a social worker to literally save starving people (unless I'm not
> aware of his second job), but did disseminate his concept called "social
> contract" which had a significant influence on the generations after him.
> Just because Derrida or Wittgenstein, who focused on the use of language
all
> their lives, did not address the issues of starving people directly, does
> not mean that their efforts made no contributions to create change in the
> world. In fact, the multiplicity of truth that Derrida professes does much
> to counter the violence of absolutism and "conviction" that Tony Blair and
> George Bush are so fond of wielding. What Derrida's philosophy does is to
> deconstruct such violent claims.
>
> Regards,
> Dyske
>

> But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
> To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
productive
> change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
> development of humanity.

Hi Marc,

I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of how
many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..

What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not an
appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.

If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of others,
the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
"masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a great
person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me. In
this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who do.

-Dyske

Hi Dyske,




> > But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
> > To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
> productive
> > change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
> > development of humanity.

>
> Hi Marc,
>
> I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
> people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of
how
> many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
> productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..

Yet if we include emotion in that equation - Desire is a precursor to logic.

>
> What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
> sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
> inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not
an
> appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
> entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.

Ah, yes I agree - I would never wish to dismiss logic at all. What I am
trying
to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the hierarchical
positioning
of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness. A mixture, and more as
far
as I am concerned, would be more oppropriate when dealing with humane
situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this, even the realm of
science…


>
> If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of
others,
> the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
> "masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a
great
> person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
> life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me.
In
> this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
> for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
> actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who
do.

I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
to them
and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is missing
in logic,
it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively…

much respect - marc


>
> -Dyske
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

Hi Marc,

<quote>
What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness.
A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate when
dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this,
even the realm of science…
I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively…
</quote>

I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much credit.
Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
reverse what you said, this is what you get:

"This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
problems."

Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."

The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?

You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
problems.

You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with your
logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why do
you think that it could do much to control the world?

The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own logical
prowess.

Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
"willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive or
academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy of
your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read it
(fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
might even say it after reading just the title "Established
culturalization."

If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
"Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
involved philosophers around.

I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't feel
that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction is
in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It is
not your enemy.

On a more personal note:

I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I understand
your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what I
try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things in
appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of me
being like Spock.

Best Regards,
Dyske

dyske wrote:
>This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
>an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.

hi dyske,

your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
http://www.playdamage.org/23.html

i find that words shared in this medium
http://www.playdamage.org/37.html

can have extraordinary emotional effect
http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm

especially when specifically referencing
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/

other media
http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov

I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional literature as rock + roll:
http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html

everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.

hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
curt

Hi Curt,

I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.

When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
medium.

Regards,
Dyske


> dyske wrote:
> >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
> >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
>
> hi dyske,
>
> your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
> http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
>
> i find that words shared in this medium
> http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
>
> can have extraordinary emotional effect
> http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
>
> especially when specifically referencing
> http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
>
> other media
> http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
>
> I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
literature as rock + roll:
> http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
>
> everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
>
> hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
> curt
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Hi Dyske,

If I want to convince you of something (particularly if it's
something about art), I can appeal to your emotions as well as your
intellect. There is a type of critical prose that does both (I need
not resort to poety nor flaming).

Lev Manovich and Marshall McCluhan are both sharp fellas, but
McCluhan is infinitely more appealing, simply because he is the
better writer. There is a craftiness to his critical prose that
qualifies it as art. His form often carries his argument. You dig
what he's saying well before you intellectually "get it." McCluhan
once said of his own method, "I have no theories whatever about
anything. I make observations by way of discovering contours, lines
of force, and pressures. I satirize at all times, and my hyperboles
are as nothing compared to the events to which they refer."

This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.

it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,
curt



At 12:41 AM -0500 2/23/03, Dyske Suematsu wrote:
>Hi Curt,
>
>I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
>simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
>commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
>lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
>respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
>practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
>forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
>bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.
>
>When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
>powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
>him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
>medium.
>
>Regards,
>Dyske
>
>
> > dyske wrote:
> > >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
> > >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
> >
> > hi dyske,
> >
> > your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
> > http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
> >
> > i find that words shared in this medium
> > http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
> >
> > can have extraordinary emotional effect
> > http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
> >
> > especially when specifically referencing
> > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
> >
> > other media
> > http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
> >
> > I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
>philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
>ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
>confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
>literature as rock + roll:
> > http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
> >
> > everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
> >
> > hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
> > curt
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >

Hi Fee,

<quote>
Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing as
an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic affect
each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.

Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they figure
out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
approach…lol
</quote>

Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing of
logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You are
certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if someone
gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
not going to argue.

-Dyske

Hi Curt,

> This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
> intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
>
> it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,

I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.

Best,
Dyske

Hi Dyske,

You are so missing the point - I just do not know how to deconstruct your
deconstructive attitude, which sadly, is the only way to get into your
cranium. Go ahead - play games with my txt…

I am talking from real experience, furtherfield, insitutions, net art, art
etc but you are just playing about with language which is fine, but when you
feel able to let people be who they are - I would be interested in having a
real discussion with you.

Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there…

best - marc




> Hi Marc,
>
> <quote>
> What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
> hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and
intuitiveness.
> A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate
when
> dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate
this,
> even the realm of science…
> I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I
listen
> to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
> missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively…
> </quote>
>
> I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much
credit.
> Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
> reverse what you said, this is what you get:
>
> "This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
> problems."
>
> Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
> respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
> mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."
>
> The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
> human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?
>
> You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
> image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
> that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
> appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
> much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
> problems.
>
> You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
> academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
> control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with
your
> logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
> trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why
do
> you think that it could do much to control the world?
>
> The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
> it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own
logical
> prowess.
>
> Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
> argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
> naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
> "willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
> anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive
or
> academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy
of
> your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read
it
> (fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
> attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
> almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
> might even say it after reading just the title "Established
> culturalization."
>
> If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
> forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
> "Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
> world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
> these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
> penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
> various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
> involved philosophers around.
>
> I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't
feel
> that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
> being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
> you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
> what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction
is
> in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
> Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
> way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It
is
> not your enemy.
>
> On a more personal note:
>
> I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I
understand
> your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
> for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
> is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is
not
> an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what
I
> try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
> as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
> the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things
in
> appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
> know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of
me
> being like Spock.
>
> Best Regards,
> Dyske
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there…

Marc,

I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting. So,
it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.

Regards,
Dyske

This net.art work makes me feel happy.
Or rather "happy."
That is to say :-)

This net.art work makes me feel sad.
Or rather "sad."
That is to say :-(

Art criticism as emoticon: it's the emotional state of the art.

-af

Ok - Dyske,

Fair enough,

Sorry for getting moody - I bet your cute really..

marc


> > Until then - stay in denial, I hope its warm in there…
>
> Marc,
>
> I'm sorry, but it's not warm here. It's raining, and dirty snow melting.
So,
> it makes it very difficult to stay in denial.
>
> Regards,
> Dyske
>
>

emoticon as Art criticism: the state of the art it's emotional.

respect -marc


> This net.art work makes me feel happy.
> Or rather "happy."
> That is to say :-)
>
> This net.art work makes me feel sad.
> Or rather "sad."
> That is to say :-(
>
> Art criticism as emoticon: it's the emotional state of the art.
>
> -af
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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
>
>

Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford dictiona=
ry and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and art suppl=
ies shop ( only the French would combine the two…)
yours awaiting enlightenment
cheers,
fee
—– Original Message —–
From: Dyske Suematsu
To: feedickson ; [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian posit=
ioning.


Hi Fee,

<quote>
Jumping in the middle here - is there really such a thing as a logical
decision arrived at without emotional input? is there really such a thing=
as
an emotional state unaffected by logic? I suspect not, and that you are
polarising each unneccessarily. Marc, your proletisysing of intuition and
emotion is not neccessary - it is everpresent even if not always readily
admitted to. If one can bring oneself to admit that emotion and logic aff=
ect
each other endlessly, neither are actually in opposition or bound by the
limits you both seem to have ascribed to them.

Oh, and of course men try to pick up girls in bars using logic - they fig=
ure
out the problems involved, try and identify possible solutions and
empirically work through them. very few men I've ever met use an illogical
approach…lol
</quote>

Very nice. You have deconstructed my text, in particular, my rigid fixing=
of
logic versus emotion, where one cannot be defined without the other. You =
are
certainly right, so I must leave my previous post as a bricolage; if some=
one
gets something out of it, then that is fine, if not that is fine too. I'm
not going to argue.

-Dyske

c:
> > This difference in critical approach (dry vs. fly / allusive vs.
> > intuitive) is why I prefer rhizome to thingist.
> >
> > it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing,

d:
>I see what you mean. Sounds like I need to switch to thingist.
>
>Best,
>Dyske

c:
doh! Please don't switch (or at least continue posting to both).
I'm not trying to silence you. I'm not even trying to undermine your
approach. I'm just arguing for the simultaneous legitimacy of a less
than detatched dialectic style.

[although from the passive/agressive vibes emanating from your terse
response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]


rock on,
curt

Hi Fee,

<quote>
"Showing my ignorance - what is a bricolage? it ain't in the oxford
dictionary and here in France Monsieur Bricolage is our favourite DIY and
art supplies shop ( only the French would combine the two…)"
</quote>

That's interesting that it's not in the Oxford Dictionary, because it is in
my measly Microsoft Encarta Dictionary.
English not being my first language, I have to say that I'm not in a
position to be explaining to you what it means, but:
bri

> [although from the passive/aggressive vibes emanating from your terse
> response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]

True. I guess I secretly enjoy being passive-aggressive. That's my style, I
guess.

But the reason why it comes across that way is because I'm actually a very
aggressive person who is trying hard not to give into my aggression. I guess
that is the definition of "passive/aggressive".

Regards,
Dyske