Michael Szpakowski
Since the beginning
Works in Harlow United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

PORTFOLIO (1)
Discussions (995) Opportunities (3) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Easy Like Sunday Morning


This is absurd.
< No, you're a simpleton, and a coward.>

I like most but not all of Eryk's art.
I don't always agree with his opinions, but he has
made an honest and lucid attempt to address many of
the issues that concern most of us here.
What have you done 'death'?

=====
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


Ivan et al.
this a bit late because I've been up to my neck, but I
have been following the discussion.
(1)
I think in my heart of hearts I've probably always
wanted someone to describe something I wrote as
< both beautiful and pathetic
in the original sense> so I experienced a feeling of
deep joy on reading that.
(2) Ivan -you should consider the possibility that the
world is simpler than you think.
I'm quite happy to stick with the slogans from the
seventies.
If anything they seem to me to becoming more
demonstrably true.
( I found myself chanting the sublime
"Unemployment and inflation are not caused by
immigration- bullshit, come off it, the enemy is
profit", a slogan of mid seventies vintage, only the
other week alongside a load of people who looked about
16)
The truth is that capital cannot deliver a decent
life, never mind a rich culture, for the majority
citizens of even the wealthiest nation in the world.
Why? - because profit, the bottom line, is all. So of
course individual members of the bourgeoisie can
appreciate art ( and often because of their
educational privileges are well placed to do so) and
can often make or sponsor great art. Nevertheless
commerce ,which reduces everything down to 'Will it
sell? What's my slice?' and genuine art, which
celebrates what it is to be a human being in it's
broadest sense, are ultimately antithetical.
So at one end of the spectrum Curt gets hassled about
the nature image and at the other children in Africa
starve whilst shipments of grain rot on docksides.
It's not that there is not enough food in the world
but the world's poor don't have the cash to buy it at
the market determined rate.
As for existentialism ,well in its 1950's incarnation
it seems to me to have been a retreat into
individualism by people who once had believed that
collective action could change the world but who
lacked the political analysis to cope with the
beginnings of the long boom and the horrors of Hitler
and Stalin and got frightened.
( and it had an artistic analogue in the retreat from
politics of Pollock ,Guston, Rothko etc)
It depresses me a little when someone who obviously
and rightly is enraged big time by many of the things
that deface our world ends up muttering in a corner
'that's the way it is ...you can't change things
....&c.'
warmest wishes
michael

--- Ivan Pope <ivan@ivanpope.com> wrote:
> > yes.
> > absolutely.
>
> > I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
> > piece is a sound one - if some money making
> machine
> > can't understand the difference between art and
> > commerce then that just illustrates beautifully
> the
> > vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart
> of
> > capital.
>
>
> Well, not absolute at all actually. I mean, I know
> its lovely and easy
> response. All personal human activity is more or
> less not for profit. And we
> do want a world in which the give and take of human
> experience exists. But
> it does. My point is that there is more to it than
> 'you're a fat pig
> corporation and I'm not making any money out of
> this, therefore I'm right
> and you have no case'. I might have bought that line
> around 1977, but I have
> tried to bring a little, ahem, layering to my
> worldview since then.
>
> I find your line above both beautiful and pathetic
> in an original sense. I
> mean, surely a money making machine de facto exists
> to practise commerce, I
> don't see why you think this means it can't
> recognise art. Just that it
> doesn't practise it.
>
> Cor, its a bit tricky, innit? Cheers, Ivan
>
> + i am not my favorite person
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> 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.php3

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: the struggle continues


yes.
absolutely.
It's not that the problem is acknowledging or even
requesting permission to use another individual's
work.
It's the cash pert of the equation and the fact that
some fat cat (or their gofer) is purring 'defence of
the artists' interests' when of course what they mean
is defence of their slice of the action.
The argument that 20 years ago home taping or nowadays
peer to peer was and is 'killing music' was and is
bullshit and hypocrisy.
What it did do was to nibble at the outrageous profits
of the corporations.
I think Curt's defence that it's a not for profit
piece is a sound one - if some money making machine
can't understand the difference between art and
commerce then that just illustrates beautifully the
vacuum of feeling that is necessarily at the heart of
capital.
best
Michael

--- "Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e
[Per]form[ance] Art[ist]" <joseph@electrichands.com>
wrote:
> You guys are making the same logical dollars/sense
> arguments that allowing
> corporations to fine individuals service charges
> while not allowing individuals
> to charge the corporations for wasting their time.
>
> It is not such a simple little world. Yet
> republicans and children want it to
> be. Corporations use A LOT of public resources -
> yet have very little
> expectation of delivering public good (other than
> supposed economic engine -
> jobs) The Getty uses A LOT of public resources - to
> have little bit syphoned
> off for fair use purposes is a gray area I would
> like to see approved,
> applauded, and no longer an argument for repression.
>
>
> And BTW - an artist created the image...a
> businessperson gave control to the
> Getty. Two seperate activities.
>
> --
> Joseph Franklyn McElroy
> Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: hektor


Hi Nathaniel
All I was really doing was making a point about the
stripping of Benjamin's political context which seems
to be a feature of so much academic work about him.
He then appears as a sort of free floating intellect
whose rather gnomic style lends itself to
appropriation in a vast number of usually fairly
arcane directions.( Gramsci's treatment is another
example of this in my view rather dishonest process)
Of course acknowledging his politics doesn't make him
simple or straightforward but it does make him make a
lot more sense.
Then the 'Theses..' become a profoundly strange and
wonderful but nontheless comprehensible account of the
moment of social revolution filtered through the
imagery of Jewish messianism and written by someone
who despite his long term fellow travelling with the
communist party cannot honestly stomach Stalinism.
Anyway, thanks for taking the trouble to reply to the
original post.
best
michael
best
michael
--- nathaniel stern <nes212@nyu.edu> wrote:
> Max, Michael, et al.
> Sorry not to get back to you sooner on this "hektor"
> thread (it

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: word source (pinker, chomsky, etc...)


Hi Lewis
I thought a little about a similar problem a while
back -
I kind of had in mind the idea of a 'Shakespeare
Machine' which would spew out endless tracts of
wierdly almost shakespeare like stuff. A bit like the
infinite number of monkeys with typewriters.
It struck me that it might be quite fruitful to adopt
a statistical approach, that is to analyze a block of
text in a particular language formally simply ( or
perhaps not so simply) in terms of the frequency of
occurence of symbols and of prohibited and permitted
symbol combinations .I believe this is how textual
analysis by computer is conducted for literary
purposes.
( the basic symbol for our purposes being either the
letter or the word - the question of the actual
pronounciation of words in real life is of a massively
higher degree of complexity)
I think that this approach would then be much more
amenable to coding ( of course this wouldn't actually
produce english or italian or whatever if you were
working at the level of the letter, but something
hopefully disturbingly like it and the bigger your
original corpus and the more succint your statistical
distillation the nearer in kind to the original any
result)
If you were analyzing with the word as the basic unit
you'd get nonsense but interesting and evocative
nonsense.
I never did anything about it because life's too short
in my view and it would require serious amounts of
time and commitment to do properly.
It would be interesting to see someone give it a go.
regards
michael
--- Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> um, yes...
> i agree, actually===of course, i could hide behind
> the idea that this is nothing like a finished
> work===whatever a finished work is===but i simply
> must confess that i could not even BEGIN to code in
> a way that would make the computer recognize
> grammatical rules, much less phonetic
> custom===though someday i'd love to do it===
> i definitely agree w/ your comment on "more than the
> demo features"===at times i feel stuck in that mode,
> and i'm still relatively new to much of this (i've
> only been writing code for little over a year, been
> working in flash and actionscript less...)...
> hmmm...i'll have to reply to this when i'm in a more
> serious mode...this is thought-provoking!
> bliss
> l
>
> + your mama don't dance and your daddy don't rock &
> roll
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> 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.php3

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com