manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic
Since 2002
Works in United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Belgrade artists Marija Vauda and Nikola Pilipovic have been
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.

Discussions (1017) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

KOSOVO-DON'T WORRY...BE HAPPY


=20

Eric wrote:

~well I think there is a deep history here, going back to the 50's, cold =
war and domain rights.

=20

I'll be happiest man if I could be so simpleminded in my nineties as =
Eric. Fact that somebody has over eighty doesn't mean that he can make =
so stupid texts. For Eric history begin with his puberty.I'm afraid that =
this history could be finished with his piss in pants which could be =
good sign that his enlighten is close. For comfort that's what we all =
going to 'experience'. So-"deep "history begin in 50's (?!?)IMHO this =
history is 'older', at least few hundred thousand years. But if we =
insist on history considered Kosovo that could be in =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#History

Which is not so bad source of facts considered this particularly =
area."Well" I must say history of Kosovo starts more before 50's! =20

~That same history of fear from the west shows up in all the actions =
taken by western ~governments to this day.

=20

Fear from West actions start far deeper than you say: so many colonial =
examples of west interference, exploitation and crime over large number =
of people in different countries all over the world lie deep in history, =
hundreds years deeper than Eric can show.

=20

~What began as a genuine fear of the east evolved, after many =
permutations, into the miasma we ~now find ourselves in?

=20

Who caused that 'miasma'-evolved of east? I don't understand that. Is =
that mean that fear start with showing east from nothing (ex nihilo) =
with weapon? It wasn't fear before that? Even in countries under 'West' =
colonial occupation?'Well? I didn't know that. But for help: =
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/rev-early.htm

~The west and those who make policy are genuine in their beliefs. But =
these beliefs are based on ~direct extrapolations from the cold war mind =
set. That mind set was probably right when they ~could see armed ICBM's =
aimed at this territories.

=20

When you said that west was genuine in their beliefs, I must ask you who =
wouldn't be in that circumstances where so many peoples life, material =
goods and other validity vere in game?'Cold War' =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War in Europe (that we can clearly see =
from your presentation) was somehow excuse with fact that other (East) =
side was armed (!)But, it was II World War several years before! All =
countries including former Yugoslavia were armed, even Russia was armed =
after defending Hitler with twenty billion victims (civils and =
soldiers).What did you wait Russian throw weapon in bushes and watch =
American fuck old Europe.No, you are stupid, but not so much. You are =
exponent of cold war ideology, you still cry in your rich home over that =
happy time. You know what? It's 'cold war' again.Don't wory, be happy. =
You could enjoy your last days in 'fucking living memories', as many of =
your like-minded friends.=20

~30-40 years later the same mind set is at the helm, yet the reason for =
the fear has long since ~faded. As the fear evolved it embraced =
anti-Cuban, anti-Cypriot, anti-Vietnamese, anti-Libyan, ~anti-Angolan, =
anti-Egyptian, anti-Chilean, anti-Sandista, anti-Palestinian, and =
eventually any ~voice that emmitted a complaint against the west.

=20

I don't understand how came together in one sentence =
Vietnam,Cuba,Chile,Libya.who were attacked by USA and =
Cyprus,Egipt,Palestin,Angola who were attacked by other forces. Are they =
all the same in crime. You try to present USA as one of many small world =
criminals who doing nasty thing in their area. But, no dude! USA is =
biggest murder in all fucking world and even you can't hide them behind =
your stupidity.=20

~As the sentiment evolved western corporate thinking embraced the tactic =
in order to further ~capital generating methods.

=20

Loki,loki! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=3DLoki-Loki

First 50 years, than nothing, than suddenly we are witnesses of so many =
antis.What's that? You have decided to become honest man. But what shall =
we doo with root of cold war? Who was in all those countries you =
list.Rusia?No,its despair after Berlin wall fal.So,USA was only one =
world power who caused all trouble in last 20 years.Why didn't you tell =
that laud and clear? Is that something you want to hide? Even if you =
wish you can't. It's too late. So(well)"Main Subject"(term by Habermas ) =
- USA, caused all wars, disasters, human catastrophe in whole world in =
last twenty years including civil war in former Yugoslavia. Dude!

And.Yes.Suddenly we are faced with corporate thinking. How's that? Your =
mind goes up and down, you are not careful with your expalanation, it =
doesn't concern you to much and you want to confuse people with few at =
random chosen facts, irrelevant for subject of examination, Just to say =
something, to look clever to crowd.How pathetic.Shame on you old man!=20

~So where are we today?

=20

Where are you today? I'm in prison. Your "West "put me in, with =
expensive visas inspire song about freedom and open world(only one from =
teen visas they approve, but we must pay 100$ doesn't meter we get one =
or not).I'm in country where group fault like stamp note every man, =
woman and child...Inspire Hague and *West* tirade about individual =
guilt.More than 85% prisoners in Hague are Serbs, and your 'west' kill =
them before verdict because I suppose west is in great fear to see his =
own guilt in case if they let them free. West caused death of my =
parents,friends,relative because all they do is under general idea about =
western supremacy, which is, that even you should know, was one of =
center of Nazi/Fascist ideology. It was too hard to stand for people in =
not so deep old but seek of injustice (mother and father were under =
70).West broke they harts, they couldn't stand injustice 'west'serv them =
every day. West is murder (I remember Paul Celan verses:"Death is Master =
from Germany.)

So, where-to-fuck are you?=20

=20

=20

~After years of this mind set evolving, America is at the brink of =
bankruptcy and still pondering ~whether to invade Iran. Corporations =
(western) who have a huge stokehold in continuing this ~mind set are =
selling the ideas on the street and in the marketplace.=20

=20

How touching!

~Kosovo is tragedy, as is Iraq and dozens of other states.

=20

No, Eric! Kosovo is specific tragedy, with its own history, reasons, =
people, and death and live. Kosovo is much more than tragedy for me, so =
please don't shit me about it. Iraq is mega tragedy concerning numbers =
of death, but both is under new order who was established in past twenty =
years under USA world monopol.Now is different and I personally even =
won't try to hide my pleasure with rising Russia and China power. In =
short USA is going to be propriety like before II World War (when you =
were young and your mind in one place, in your head I mean). =20

=20

~There isn't a good excuse for either. But given the toxic nature of the =
old style corporate ~environment don't expect too much. New technologies =
will render the old guard impotent ~eventually. See Toyota trumping GM =
and at least smile to yourself. Toyota, corporate Giant, ~could care =
less about the trials and tribulations of the US based Oil monopoly. =
They intend to ~outlive them all.

=20

BABBLING!

=20

~As China and India become economic powers things like Iraq and Serbia =
will fall into historic ~oblivion.

No shit!?For you and people like you they're already in oblivation.Don't =
try to hard to write about issue you don't understand. It's abusive for =
people who live in area you mentioned, and especially for people who =
know better about specific subject than you do.

And Serbia and Iraq are not things. Layers of terror and disaster lie =
under this"thing", my life's there. So don't shit me about my life.

"Ever philosophers think about death and how to die."I'm bit =
philosopher. Are you? =20

=20

~There is no Domain at stake for the new economic giants in these far =
flung provinces.=20
~Well, happy holidays.=20
~Don't worry..., be happy.

=20

Eat your turkey and try not to be so clever in every segment of life. =
You seem to me pretty in dementia? ;-)

=20

Happy holydays to people with good will and goodness in hart.

=20

MANIK=20


DISCUSSION

people who eat wrapping




We thought reminding on old joke in these circumstances could be useful:

Shrink draw circle and show this drawing to patient:"What's that?

"Pussy!" Answer patient.

After that shrink draw square.than triangle.and patient's answer was =
identical.

=20

Shrink:"I must say you are obsessed with sex!"

Patient:"Oh yea?!But who draw pussy? You or me?"

=20

So, MANIK's main problem's not question about art ontology =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology. MANIK work with concepts, indexes =
and operationalisation and , possible, re-valorasiaton =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valorisation )of term techne and its =
implementation techne in 'every-day-life'. *Than* we could talk about =
new approach to aesthetic, ethic, philosophy .etc. =20

, =
http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex/article/viewFi=
le/226/233 .

Our contributions on Rhizome are, actually, prolegomenon for possible =
new and contemporary implementation of term techne =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne ). Distinction between art and =
techne could be illustrate trough processes of transubstantiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

=20

MANIK, DECEMBER 2007.

Monday, December 17, 2007 5:45 PM

RHIZOME_RAW: trans=20

That's why we take Handke's text as example ("NEED FOR WARMTH AND =
HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH") =
----------------------------------------------------------

In one person(Wittgenstein)is illusory contradiction- 'warmth' could =
express need to be connected with other people and implicate inner =
existing of emotion and empathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy =
),but it's not necessary to be mixed with carne(meat),or =
body.Consequnces-it's not necessary to touch some *body*to feel =
something(if we may take liberty to simplify Handke-Wittgenstein's =
words).Or-it's not obligated to get certificate, or to be in gallery, =
or.to be "artist" . to experience adventure which you could named as =
'artistic'(to fell 'art')or,we suggest,~techne~.

People have computers and,so called New Media Art couldn't be properly =
observe without new grammar. As far as NMA 'artists' use old words(which =
actually mean old syntax, semantics, semiology.) for key area of their =
express they belong to old time, to art in colloquial sense of this term =
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colloquial ).That's why =
significant intuition, anticipation and apprehension formalized in words =
just like we have in Stockhausen's case we should put in entirely =
different context. Question's is there reason to be expressly against =
his opservation vs.9/11 in customary 'art' context, rather than question =
about consequences which bring accept of this event in 'art' context.In =
other words people who have all possible tools for understanding 'act' =
which belong to history of philosophy,or history of 'art', or aesthetic =
(we mean on Stockhausens words)act like people who eat wrapping instead =
content. And after that they ask them self's why they feel sick.

MANIK

,~,,,~,~,~~,,,,,,~~~~,,,,,~~,,,,,,~,,~,,~~~~~,,,~~~~~~~,~,~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,=
,,,,,~~,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,~,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~~~~=
~~~~~~~~~

=20

=20

=20

=20

I will address the ideas of Philip, Manik, Erika, and Nanny =
individually. First, five prefatory remarks and one question/tangent:=20

i. Let us not conflate "aesthetic" with "artistic." Aesthetic (fr. Gk. =
"aisth/" ("to perceive")) dimensions exist for anything: a dog, Russian =
Constructivism, the weather, my mother's absence, 9/11, a YouTube video =
of 9/11, etc. Conscious beings perceive lots of things in lots of ways, =
i.e., they have aesthetic experiences of them. We are discussing the =
possibility of ARTISTIC dimensions of 9/11. Which unfortunately triggers =
the NP-hard(est) question "What is art?" ;-)=20

ii. Again, colloquially, to say "X is art" is to praise X. We have been =
and will continue to avoid that colloquial usage in this thread. Hence =
as far as I can tell, none of us is praising 9/11 or bin Laden.=20

iii. That said I abhor the 9/11 attacks and do not sympathize with =
al-Qaeda. (This is not to charge any of you of charging me with the =
opposite; it's just that, as a brown man growing up in small Texas =
towns, I am used to being clear about it to an extent that northeastern =
Americans or Europeans may find strange.)=20

iv. Yet there are nontrivial moral implications of asking and answering =
the question "Is 9/11 art?" Thanks to Philip and Manik for bringing this =
up.=20

v. We have not answered the question itself yet. Everyone's arguments so =
far-confirming or denying "Is 9/11 art?"-including my own attempt-remain =
unconvincing. So let us not project positions onto people yet.=20

vi. (Should we avoid the 9/11-was-an-inside-job perspective on this =
question? I don't know anything about those theories, but if someone =
does and could bring them to bear on this question-which, in that case, =
becomes a different question-then I'd be much obliged.)=20

******************************=20

Philip:=20

"This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to=20
begin. I'll keep this short.=20

"(1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does=20
not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art=20
from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes=20
the artist has any say in such things."=20

(2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader=20
who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what=20
you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a=20
thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and=20
anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other=20
consideration."=20

Let us leave the "Barthes-on-steroids" stuff out of this. It has become =
fashionable in Rhizome to dismiss critical theory qua critical theory. =
That is sloppy. Talk about what ideas DENOTE over what they CONNOTE. =
Discuss the merits and flaws of ideas themselves, no matter where the =
pointy end of the cartoon dialogue bubble points. Anything else is =
either dodging the question or prejudice.=20

"Such a person is a slave to reductionism.=20

"Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider=20
little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue=20
of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish=20
approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that."=20

It remains for you to show how an artistic perspective on the world =
excludes other perspectives.=20

Some political acts have religious dimensions (e.g., the fight to ban =
abortion). Some religious acts have political dimensions (e.g., social =
networking in churches).=20

Likewise, just as some artistic acts have political dimensions, some =
political acts have artistic dimensions. The question we are wrestling =
with is whether 9/11 is such a political act.=20

To suggest a dimension for an act is not to reduce said act wholly to =
said dimension.=20

If I assert: "AN APPLE IS RED," does that imply "AN APPLE IS NOT ROUND"? =

Similarly, if I assert: "9/11 IS ART," it does not follow that "9/11 IS =
NOT [everything that we know it to be]." If it does follow, the burden =
of proof is Philip's.=20

"Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of=20
9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity."=20

It is inappropriate to call into question our humanity for probing a =
question.=20

*****************************=20

Erika:=20

"having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the =
second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that =
the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what =
the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably =
culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is =
from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the =
transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. =
Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane =
is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is =
referring to in Stockhausen's statement."=20

Yes.=20

But this implies the spectacle can be separated from the act. How and =
why?=20

If the agency behind the spectacle was cable news, why did the =
terrorists choose such an iconic place as the World Trade Center?=20

Terrorism is different from war in that terrorism aims to create, =
alongside violence, terror, spectacle.=20

******************************=20

Manik:=20

"NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"=20

"Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.=20

"If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =
Stockhausen=20
declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start =
with(maybe)key=20
question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this =
case=20
we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire=20
appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly=20
connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be =
useful=20
for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'."=20

Handke's statement, modulo your catachresis of it, is a =
compelling/visceral description of 9/11's aesthetic (and maybe artistic) =
effect.=20

Is art's role to provide this "warmth" and "description"? (does art have =
a role?)=20

****************************=20

Nanny:=20

"in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do =
with politics or political reductionists...people's lives are not their =
market....we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or =
art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep =
away from market!"=20

Nanny, I'd point you to what I wrote to Philip, above. These things are =
not so exclusive.=20

Of course culture and cultural studies have something to do with =
politics. That's why we're having the discussion that we're having right =
now! :-)=20

Thanks for putting up with such a long post!=20
-Vijay

Reply via:
http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/28008#addcommentanchor=20

=20

=20

=20

=20

I will address the ideas of Philip, Manik, Erika, and Nanny =
individually. First, five prefatory remarks and one question/tangent:=20

i. Let us not conflate "aesthetic" with "artistic." Aesthetic (fr. Gk. =
"aisth/" ("to perceive")) dimensions exist for anything: a dog, Russian =
Constructivism, the weather, my mother's absence, 9/11, a YouTube video =
of 9/11, etc. Conscious beings perceive lots of things in lots of ways, =
i.e., they have aesthetic experiences of them. We are discussing the =
possibility of ARTISTIC dimensions of 9/11. Which unfortunately triggers =
the NP-hard(est) question "What is art?" ;-)=20

ii. Again, colloquially, to say "X is art" is to praise X. We have been =
and will continue to avoid that colloquial usage in this thread. Hence =
as far as I can tell, none of us is praising 9/11 or bin Laden.=20

iii. That said I abhor the 9/11 attacks and do not sympathize with =
al-Qaeda. (This is not to charge any of you of charging me with the =
opposite; it's just that, as a brown man growing up in small Texas =
towns, I am used to being clear about it to an extent that northeastern =
Americans or Europeans may find strange.)=20

iv. Yet there are nontrivial moral implications of asking and answering =
the question "Is 9/11 art?" Thanks to Philip and Manik for bringing this =
up.=20

v. We have not answered the question itself yet. Everyone's arguments so =
far-confirming or denying "Is 9/11 art?"-including my own attempt-remain =
unconvincing. So let us not project positions onto people yet.=20

vi. (Should we avoid the 9/11-was-an-inside-job perspective on this =
question? I don't know anything about those theories, but if someone =
does and could bring them to bear on this question-which, in that case, =
becomes a different question-then I'd be much obliged.)=20

******************************=20

Philip:=20

"This is idiocy on so many levels that it's hard to know where to=20
begin. I'll keep this short.=20

"(1) bin Laden is not an artist. He has no artistic intent. He does=20
not work in an art context. His "creations" cannot be considered art=20
from that point of view. 9/11 is not a work of art if one believes=20
the artist has any say in such things."=20

(2) But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader=20
who determines whether something is art or not. Perhaps that is what=20
you have in mind here. But what kind of person would think such a=20
thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and=20
anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other=20
consideration."=20

Let us leave the "Barthes-on-steroids" stuff out of this. It has become =
fashionable in Rhizome to dismiss critical theory qua critical theory. =
That is sloppy. Talk about what ideas DENOTE over what they CONNOTE. =
Discuss the merits and flaws of ideas themselves, no matter where the =
pointy end of the cartoon dialogue bubble points. Anything else is =
either dodging the question or prejudice.=20

"Such a person is a slave to reductionism.=20

"Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider=20
little else. Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue=20
of dogma, and consider little else. Such reductionism is a foolish=20
approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that."=20

It remains for you to show how an artistic perspective on the world =
excludes other perspectives.=20

Some political acts have religious dimensions (e.g., the fight to ban =
abortion). Some religious acts have political dimensions (e.g., social =
networking in churches).=20

Likewise, just as some artistic acts have political dimensions, some =
political acts have artistic dimensions. The question we are wrestling =
with is whether 9/11 is such a political act.=20

To suggest a dimension for an act is not to reduce said act wholly to =
said dimension.=20

If I assert: "AN APPLE IS RED," does that imply "AN APPLE IS NOT ROUND"? =

Similarly, if I assert: "9/11 IS ART," it does not follow that "9/11 IS =
NOT [everything that we know it to be]." If it does follow, the burden =
of proof is Philip's.=20

"Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of=20
9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity."=20

It is inappropriate to call into question our humanity for probing a =
question.=20

*****************************=20

Erika:=20

"having watched the live TV feeds of second plane crashing into the =
second tower, then watching the buildings collapse. I have to say that =
the broadcast of the attacks were spectacular in the true sense of what =
the word means. I am separated geographically and maybe/probably =
culturally from the actual event, which means my frame of reference is =
from the transmitted event not the event itself. In describing the =
transmission/broadcast as spectacular or a specticle I think is true. =
Being on the ground in New York or at the Pentagon or in the third plane =
is something completely different. perhaps this is what Vijay is =
referring to in Stockhausen's statement."=20

Yes.=20

But this implies the spectacle can be separated from the act. How and =
why?=20

If the agency behind the spectacle was cable news, why did the =
terrorists choose such an iconic place as the World Trade Center?=20

Terrorism is different from war in that terrorism aims to create, =
alongside violence, terror, spectacle.=20

******************************=20

Manik:=20

"NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"=20

"Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.=20

"If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =
Stockhausen=20
declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start =
with(maybe)key=20
question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this =
case=20
we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire=20
appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly=20
connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be =
useful=20
for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'."=20

Handke's statement, modulo your catachresis of it, is a =
compelling/visceral description of 9/11's aesthetic (and maybe artistic) =
effect.=20

Is art's role to provide this "warmth" and "description"? (does art have =
a role?)=20

****************************=20

Nanny:=20

"in this reason, we say cultural studies especially have nothing to do =
with politics or political reductionists...people's lives are not their =
market....we, as a citizens we are not their object of mass media or =
art! we are trying to survive.. we have also lives that we want to keep =
away from market!"=20

Nanny, I'd point you to what I wrote to Philip, above. These things are =
not so exclusive.=20

Of course culture and cultural studies have something to do with =
politics. That's why we're having the discussion that we're having right =
now! :-)=20

Thanks for putting up with such a long post!=20
-Vijay

Reply via:
http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/28008#addcommentanchor=20

=20


DISCUSSION

Re: IF THERE'S DOUBLE IDIOT,THERE'S DOUBLE MAN


YOU ARE ONLY ONE IDIOT NOW

MANIK, DECEMBER 2007.=20

=20

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Philip Galanter=20
To: discuss@rhizome.org=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_DISCUSS: Re: IF THER'S DOUBLE IDIOT,THERE'S DOUBLE =
MAN

I only have time to respond to your strongest point. My response is =
this:=20

I've lost a lot of weight over the last year, so I don't think I'm =
properly called "fat" anymore.
Reply via:
http://rhizome.org/discuss/view/28080#addcommentanchor=20


DISCUSSION

IF THER'S DOUBLE IDIOT,THERE'S DOUBLE MAN


Philip Galanter <list@philipgalanter.com>wrote
~". This is idiocy .

"Whole civilizations were lost in translations" (Martin Heidegger =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger) so we must say that your =
usage of "idiocy"could be in best case questionable. =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

As you could see Greek root designate 'idiot' as "person lacking =
professional skill, "and consequence's that he couldn't participate in =
politics life of polis/city/ (it wasn't in that time in Greek society =
politics for *her*-woman, for slave also, which mean they were =
idiots???). But, "lacking professional skill "wasn't necessarily lacking =
of mental ability. For example we could say Bush is idiot but he's =
active in politics. In other hand you are idiot who maybe can't =
participate in politics.Are you double idiot than(?).It's like we say =
'double man', that's grammatically incorrect-you are just idiot .Also, =
causa (reason) was in Greek strength connected with term Aitia =
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/05mtg/abstracts/Mirhady.html

which designate moral responsibility for cause. In Latin =
http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/cause/

translation this moral aureole disappear. We could clearly see this =
shortage of moral in West (NATO) foreign affair which cause damage on =
more levels you even could imagine. Also ambivalence of moral attitude =
is clear in your first words: "This is idiocy."I could say you don't =
deserve proper answer after that but I'm compassionate toward =
semi-retard.

=20

~on so many levels that it's hard to know where to =20
~begin. I'll keep this short.

Man who can't see that he's already begin with his philosophize.Idiot?

=20

BECAUSE you continued with "lacking professional skill" (writing).

AND:

(1) ~ bin Laden is not an artist. =20

Realy? What's his acupation? Is he miner? Engineer?

=20

~He has no artistic intent.

=20

How can you be so sure in that? Is there any document where he asserts =
he has no artistic intention? Who are you to judge about somebody's =
latent intentions in art?

=20

~He does =20
~not work in an art context.

=20

Are you person who hawed license to define somebody's context? If is =
that truth, under whom authority you act. Under authority of UN? USA? =
You're personal? I don't give a shit for any of that protector. So.Is =
there any art context or not?=20

=20

~His "creations" cannot be considered art =20
~from that point of view.=20

You convince us that you can't have "point of view", (you don't =
understand that concept,other words you have point of view like every =
person have asshole)... so your conclusion's worthless.

=20

~9/11 is not a work of art if one believes =20
~ the artist has any say in such things.

=20

K.H. Stockhausen have right to say whatever he think is suitable because =
it could be seen as part of his poetic =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poietic and consequences which came from =
insignificant people like you are in best case use for laughing. But, we =
mustn't forget censorship and fascist methods of elimination of =
ideological anemy.I should be careful with you? Isn't it so? Stupid =
people often mix stupidity with evil:-/

In shortage of God artists like Stockhausen.Duchamp, Picasso.take his =
competence and play game we call art or techne - =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne ).

(2) ~But I suppose Barthes-on-steroids might argue that it's the reader =

~who determines whether something is art or not.

=20

There's much more for de Saussure =
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure ),or

Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy )and other =
distinguish grammarian because they take into consideration conditions =
in which some statement could be grammar valid (two or more different =
basic grammar school).Barthes is more about grammar application on =
certain ideology and consequences of this acts.

=20

~Perhaps that is what =20
~you have in mind here.

=20

I could talk only with one who's equal in his potential with me. So, you =
couldn't have even apprehension about what's in my mind. I doubt you =
even know what's that-mind?=20

=20

~But what kind of person would think such a =20
~thing when it comes to 9/11? Only someone who views everything and =20
~anything through an aesthetic prism to the exclusion of any other =20
~consideration.

=20

Any consistent method is good. =
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent

~Such a person is a slave to reductionism.

=20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

That's for our friends, you could be kind to put some link in your =
text.So"in short"-did you mean on linguistic reductionism ".Linguistic =
reductionism is the idea that everything can be described in a language =
with a limited number of core concepts, and combinations of those =
concepts. (See Basic English and the constructed language Toki Pona)."I =
doubt! Any other reductionism? Which one of those in link? Maybe you =
know some new? Tell us. Share your knowledge with us, be democratic.etc

=20

~Political pundents tend to reduce everything to politics, and consider =

~little else.

=20

Do I see any mental luxury and diversity in your approach to subject?

You criticize Osama bin Laden because he's not *artist*in his poor =
mental constitution, and now you ask from political to be =
interdisciplinary people!?! =20

=20

~Religious zealots tend to reduce everything to an issue =20
~of dogma, and consider little else.=20

=20

Yes, that's why people call them zealots =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry

.Other people with different philosophy have other names and methods for =
spreading their comprehend (stoics, scepticist, Gnostics.)=20

But is there some anti-Semitism in your anti-zealots attitude?

What's next? Mein Kampf? You wish to use 9/11 like Nazis use Reichstag! =
For clash with those who think different?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

=20

=20

~Such reductionism is a foolish =20
~approach to a multidimensional world. Most here understand that.

=20

"Multidimensional world "is bunch of crap, somewhere in the middle of =
quasi-science and preach of religious sect. =
http://www.earthethics.com/Facing%20Change.htm

~Well, aesthetic reductionism is equally foolish. And in the case of =20
~9/11, it is a foolishness that is disgusting in its lack of humanity.

=20

"Aesthetic reductionism "is tight connect with L.Witgenstein's theories =
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-aesthetics/

Wittgenstein said:"Ethic is aesthetic."In that case ethics reduce on =
aesthetic and vice versa.

How many aesthetic you need to avoid this "foolish reductionism". Is =
that something like:"There's nothing on Malevich's picture! It's just =
illusion for idiot!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich

And is that some question about quantitative (how many kilos of colors, =
minimalism or accumulation of goods and supplies? And is that truth that =
you measure humanity with aesthetic which is antinomy to=20

Aesthetic reductionism? If is that so, could you tell us what could that =
be

(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/antinome)

=20

MANIK

PS: Vijay we hope you don't mind we've wrote this answer.Actualy it's =
wasn't clear to whom this fat guy address his handicraft product.so we =
took liberty to answer ;-)

On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:01 PM, manik wrote:

> "NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"
>
> Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.
>
> If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H =20
> Stockhausen declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here =20
> start with(maybe)key question about relationship between reality/=20
> whatever it is, but in this case we suggest to take reality in =20
> colloquial sense/and culture/in entire appearance covered with this =20
> term/.Radical translation of possibly connections and mutual =20
> influences between those two totality could be useful for radical =20
> changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.
>
> Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute =20
> to D.Hirst
>
> http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html
>
> Cheers
>
> MANIK
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vijay Pattisapu" =
<lexicontrol@gmail.com=20
> >
> To: <handsproje@gmail.com>
> Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen
>
>
>> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the =20
>> Sept.
>> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a =20
>> news
>> conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
>> the hijackers had lived.
>>
>> "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
>> canceled performances of his works."
>>
>> In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
>> usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
>> from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
>> beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
>> confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
>> things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
>>
>> I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
>> "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
>> too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
>>
>> I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
>> insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
>> actual violence.
>>
>> It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
>> Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
>>
>> "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
>> only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
>> it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an =20
>> art
>> of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
>> mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
>> humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
>> that art."
>>
>> I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
>> understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8mWW6kRITEY
>>
>> Vijay
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <handsproje@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a =20
>>> performance and
>>> i don't think that he approves 11september
>>> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things =20
>>> 'performance'?
>>>
>>> Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>>> +
>>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>> -> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send instant messages to your online friends =
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> --=20
>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> 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
>>
>> __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/=20
> 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/=20
> 29.php

+
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> 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

__________ NOD32 2732 (20071219) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com


DISCUSSION

sad news - stockhausen


NEED FOR WARMTH AND HOSTILITY TOWARD TOUCH"

Peter Handke wrote that after read Witgenstein.

If that could help to understand all this controversy with K.H Stockhausen
declaration we'll be satisfied.Why?Because Vijay here start with(maybe)key
question about relationship between reality/whatever it is, but in this case
we suggest to take reality in colloquial sense/and culture/in entire
appearance covered with this term/.Radical translation of possibly
connections and mutual influences between those two totality could be useful
for radical changing this miserable situation in 'Western World Art'.

Strange thing's that similar words about 9/11 happening were impute to
D.Hirst

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,790058,00.html

Cheers

MANIK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <lexicontrol@gmail.com>
To: <handsproje@gmail.com>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: sad news - stockhausen

> "[Stockhausen] provoked controversy in 2001 after describing the Sept.
> 11 attacks as 'the greatest work of art one can imagine' during a news
> conference in the northern German city of Hamburger, where several of
> the hijackers had lived.
>
> "The composer later apologized for his remarks, but the city still
> canceled performances of his works."
>
> In so many languages to say that "x is a work of art" to praise x,
> usually for its beauty. In that bland idiom, "art" is a bit different
> from how we use the word in other contexts (like Rhizome), because
> beauty is just a subset of art. Maybe. Maybe in the demotion I'm
> confusing beauty with aesthetic pleasure, which are two different
> things. Maybe beauty is the end of art. Need help here.
>
> I can't get into Stockhausen's head, but I speculate he was using
> "art" in its more direct sense, viz., he posed a possibility, albeit
> too strongly, of taking 9/11 as a performance.
>
> I think you'd agree, Nanny, that terrorism is performance, at least
> insofar as spectacle is the terrorist's goal as much or more than the
> actual violence.
>
> It is interesting, though not terribly useful, to collate here 9/11,
> Stockhausen's statement about it, and Nietzsche's epigram:
>
> "One imposes far too narrow limitations on art when one demands that
> only well-ordered, morally balanced souls may express themselves in
> it. As in the plastic arts, so in music and poetry too there is an art
> of the ugly soul beside the art of the beautiful soul; and the
> mightiest effects of art, that which tames souls, moves stones, and
> humanizes the beast, have perhaps been mostly achieved by precisely
> that art."
>
> I don't know. I've never even been to New York City, so my
> understanding of 9/11 is cheap.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mWW6kRITEY
>
> Vijay
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2007, nannykitachen <handsproje@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i don't think that telling 11 september is an art work, is a performance
>> and
>> i don't think that he approves 11september
>> i didn't understand why they are saying all the things 'performance'?
>>
>> Vijay Pattisapu <lexicontrol@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Karlheinz Stockhausen and Pimp C died at the same time.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/12/2007, sachiko hayashi wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7135487,00.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cell: (469)877-9166
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> Send instant messages to your online friends
>> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
> --
> Cell: (469)877-9166
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> 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
>
> __________ NOD32 2731 (20071218) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>