Eryk Salvaggio
Since the beginning
Works in Ogunquit, Massachusetts United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The Harry Potter of the Digital Avant Garde." - Pieter van Bogaert, of the Belgian Newspaper "TIJD", 09/03/02.

Discussions (384) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: All Net Artists should have blogs


Hi Liza;

There is a lot to be said about blogging, but there's a lot of stupid shit =
as well. I'm decked out with a comment system et al, and I have to say as f=
ar as distributed networks go I was not entirely interested in the networki=
ng elements of it until everyone seemed to think I should be, now I feel li=
ke that's what most bloggers want, is links. I never really understood that=
philosophy.

I have trackback functioning by way of blogger (and keep my own URL) but I'=
d have to pay for the RSS feed or whatever it is.

It's a thankless job, I think.

-eryk

----- Original Message -----
From: liza sabater
To: Eryk Salvaggio ; list@rhizome.org
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 11:00 PM
Subject: All Net Artists should have blogs

On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 02:17 AM, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

Curt;

I blog now, (http://www.one38.org) and this was an interesting article I
came across during my research period a few days ago. (A note on bloggi=
ng:
it's good food for thought, especially because following my "gut" in
politics changes when I see it in print. I realized, politically speaki=
ng,
there's a ton of stuff I have to learn in order to crack into full fled=
ged
"observer" status, more or less right now I'm a liberal propagandist an=
d I'm
working on that.)

Eryk,

I'm barely following the thread here Eryk, but I have to say MORE POWER T=
O YOU! I am a woman with a mission trying to encourage people to create blo=
gs for their site. I even know of a blog that is art:

http:/glowlab.blogs.com/blogart/

For 2004 I'll be working on setting up potatoland with a blog. I think it=
is absolutely fundamental that anybody calling themselves NET ARTISTS have=
sites that have open content. Meaning, that they have "broadcastable" cont=
ent through RDF/RSS/XML feeds. That the sites include comments as part of t=
heir content and that they are not just linked by others but "trackbacked" =
to specific pages (a better deep-linking) creating a context to the links.=

It is not a perfect solution ---there's the reality of spammers using blo=
gs in a myriad ways for their dastardly deeds. But if there is one thing ne=
t artists can learn from net writers / bloggers is that this is the best te=
chnology for successfully and effectively creating the nodal relationships =
needed for supporting each other. Than in the real world of the semantic we=
b, the real communities are the ones that grow out of people interacting th=
rough each other sites and in effect, distributing the creativity freely, n=
aturally.

Given that potatoland is mostly about distributed creativity, the next lo=
gical step is to blog it.

/ l i z a, nyc
=========================
====
http://culturekitchen.com
http://blogundanga.com
http://typepadistas.com

and contributing to

http://radiofreeblogistan.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Distributed creativity


----- Original Message -----
From: "yasir" <husain@cyber.net.pk>

> The senders name is not appearing when the DC-3 message comes thru Raw,
> as you might have noticed. You can't tell who's saying what. Can this be
> remedied? Thx.

Otherwise we may be forced to read and agree with people we never read and
but know we don't agree with.

-e.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Digital Karma generation (almost OT)


I think Zen would say technology is.

-e.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
To: <mailinglists@switchstance.com>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Digital Karma generation (almost OT)

> On Friday, November 28, 2003, at 05:24AM, <mailinglists@switchstance.com>
wrote:
>
> >I can't imagine, though, that Buddhism would
> >find technology to be anything other than
> >irrelevant at best, a distraction at worst.
> >Buddhism is an attempt to transcend the
> >physical!
>
> Zen Buddhism is an attempt to reach an undifferentiated state. This can be
achieved ironically using money (see Japanese conumerism) or the internet
(everything's a URL).
>
> I like the idea of prayer wheels on HDs.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn


Curt;

I blog now, (http://www.one38.org) and this was an interesting article I
came across during my research period a few days ago. (A note on blogging:
it's good food for thought, especially because following my "gut" in
politics changes when I see it in print. I realized, politically speaking,
there's a ton of stuff I have to learn in order to crack into full fledged
"observer" status, more or less right now I'm a liberal propagandist and I'm
working on that.)

But anyway. You said you were curious as to why I posted it here. It's
mostly because Zinn articulates one end of my art-making spectrum when he
says, "There are artists who really don't
have a social consciousness, who don't see that there's a connection between
art and life in a way that compels the artist to look around the world and
see what is wrong and try to use his or her art to change that."

Then Yorke articulates the other end: "It is difficult to make political art
work. If all it does is exist in the realms of political discussion, it's
using that language, and generally, it's an ugly language. It is very dead,
definitely not a thing of beauty."

I feel like I agree with both of them. My own art has taken a sidestep for
politics, and I wonder about beautiful political art. I think there is some-
Godspeed You Black Emperor is beautiful political music (but probably
because it has no words), or Stereolab... But I can't think of many
beautiful political artists- most political artists are agitpropagandists.
I'd like to see beautiful art made about stuff like rational idealism,
measured hope, strategic optimism, aggressive truth, that sort of thing,
those sort of concepts, and see it in a way that was beautiful and not
cliche or boring and actually held some power. I probably do see it, I just
don't see it often and I can't articulate it.

I find I distrust entertainment. I feel like if something is going to make
me think I can trust it and evaluate it, if something is trying to make me
laugh or feel something then it's tricking me. I realized this most acutely
after seeing "Dancer In The Dark," which, at the end of it, I felt
manipulated and tricked, because the movie made me feel like I was looking
at "the harsh real world" when the real world is nothing like it.

I also feel like a lot of artists are soulless by intent. I think we need
one.

So, I had no agenda in generating the discussion, except to see what people
had to say. I still have no idea what people have to say about it, though.

-e.

----- Original Message -----
From: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 9:19 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn

> Hi Eduardo,
>
> You really took the Crown Victoria analogy and ran with it. Earlier, Ryan
took the surgeon/mechanic analogy and ran with it. All analogies fall apart
upon close inspection. They are meant to illustrate their initially stated
points of similitude, no more.
>
> I've been "vague" about my opinion of conceptual art on this particular
thread because it's tangential to the topic of the thread. I mentioned it
only in passing. I've been more specific about it in the past. cf:
> http://www.spark-online.com/issue24/cloninger.html
> http://rhizome.org/query.rhiz?words=conceptual+cloninger
>
> I would be curious to have Ryan pick up the thread here:
> http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread256&text!640#21655
>
> I would be curious to hear what Eryk had in mind by starting the thread
(although I have a guess).
>
> peace,
> curt
>
> --
>
>
>
> Eduardo Navas wrote:
>
> > Hello Curt and All Rhizomers.
> >
> > I would like to note, for technical sake, that I did not receive this
> > message as part of the thread in my e-mailbox. I only found out about
> > it after browsing through the rhizome website; hence my late reply to
> > Curt.
> >
> > This glitch actually happened before, when Francis had replied to me
> > and I thought he never did until I checked the site. This glitch of
> > not always getting thread messages in our e-mail boxes should be
> > looked into. In any case, My response to Curt is below:
> >
> > curt cloninger wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Eduardo,
> > >
> > > We all live in society, but that doesn't mean we all share the same
> > > humanistic understanding of social interaction and power. That
> > would
> > > be like saying we all drive a car, so we all drive a 1985 Crown
> > > Victoria. You take for granted some things that I don't. No
> > surprise
> > > there.
> >
> > The main thing is to understand that we drive a car. What one drives
> > is not the same as how one drives or how one thinks of driving. The
> > style of the car is not important, because the function of the car is
> > what really matters. I think what you are getting at is that you rely
> > on a particular way of looking at power structures that is not
> > materialist. We already discussed this, in the end you have "faith,"
> > and that is that. I am not saying that I do or do not, that is a
> > private matter, but what I would like to make clear is that one should
> > be able to use different methods of thinking to better understand
> > society.
> >
> > I do not take anything for granted. But you do by stating that I do
> > and not explaining why you think I do. It is always easier to tell
> > someone that she/he essentialises or generalizes without explaining
> > the reasons behind such criticism. This is because the criticism in
> > the end is on false ground. This is exactly why I prefer to be
> > specific about anything that I discusss, and at least give names and
> > particular methods of thinking to look through things.
> >
> > >
> > > Having said that, it's exhausting to have to return to your academic
> > > square one every time, particularly since I don't necessarily
> > > subscribe to it. This is public listserv dialogue, not a doctoral
> > > thesis. I've explained my position on hardcore conceptual art ad
> > > nauseum in previous threads. This thread seemed to be more about
> > the
> > > pros and cons of didactic artmaking.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. However, bringing up "academia" is irrelevant here. If
> > I keep asking you about your position on Conceptual art it is because
> > in the past you never really explain it, but rather otherized it based
> > on labels that were created by yourself in order to try to escape art
> > history. And I already explained that creating different labels does
> > not change much. In the end we are still driving cars, some go faster
> > than others, some are Porsches, some are Buicks; eventually, they all
> > get on the highway and need to deal with each other by crashing or
> > respecting the rules of the road. (the cars here would be labels; you
> > are still using labels based on a priori of art practice.) Using a
> > different term does not change much -- you still need to drive on the
> > road. So forget academia. Just drive the car, and always be clear
> > about where you are going. Giving general directions will only get
> > people lost.
> >
> > siUSoon,
> >
> > Eduardo Navas
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Thom Yorke / Howard Zinn


What's wrong with reality shows, exactly?

-e.