Pall Thayer
Since the beginning
Works in Greenwich, Connecticut United States of America

PORTFOLIO (10)
BIO
Pall Thayer is an artist.

http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
Discussions (768) Opportunities (2) Events (4) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: language is the game+nediocre 'not literary' criticizm


Back up to your old plagiarising tricks again
( http://home.sprintmail.com/~lifeform/beckstop.html ). I looked up a
few of your posts around the net and noticed that you do alot of this
stuff. I guess it can be pretty tough thinking up smart sounding stuff
to say by oneself. Especially when you're on an entirely different
evolutionary plane than most of us, like you. Oh, don't tell me, I'm not
qualified to say such things. Well, I think I may have met some friends
of yours in Roswell, NM a few years ago and they gave me the special
visitors pass so I'm qualified every fifth month of every third year
provided that the stars are correctly aligned. A small spot in my brain
starts to quiver around that time. I think it's from the implant.

Hinn 12.10.2002 kl. 19:30 ritadhi -IID42 Kandinskij @27+:

> + othermiscellanea 'art' observations by the very.dense Eryk Salvaggio
> who only recognizes art if it's a think-dog wearing an 'art' tag
> around
> itz tail
>
> Many theater historians and critics label Alfred Jarry's French play,
> Ubu
> Roi as the earliest example of Theatre of the Absurd. Absurdism also has
> origins in Shakespearean drama, particularly through the influence of
> the
> Commedia dell'Arte.
>
> The current movement of absurdism, however, emerged in France after
> World
> War II, as a rebellion against the traditional values and beliefs of
> Western culture and literature.
>
> Its rules are fairly simple:
>
> 1.) There is often no real story line; instead there is a series of
> "free
> floating repetitive images" which influence the way in which an audience
> interprets a play.
>
> 2.) There is a focus on the incomprehensibility of the world, or an
> attempt to rationalize an irrational, disorderly world.
>
> 3.) Language acts as a barrier to communication, which in turn isolates
> the individual even more, thus making speech almost futile.
>
>
>
> + tripe
>
>
_____________________________________
Pall Thayer
myndlistamadhur/kennari
artist/teacher
Fjolbrautaskolanum vidh Armula (www.fa.is)
http://www.this.is/pallit
_____________________________________

DISCUSSION

Official release (out of beta)


Thanks to assistance from this.is ( http://www.this.is ) and the Icelandic =
Academy of the Arts ( http://www.lhi.is ), Icelandic artist Pall Thayer has=
opened a new internet based art project titled "Looking for the new univer=
sal harmony" and can be found at http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony . Althou=
gh the project was announced in beta form recently, it has undergone severa=
l changes and upgrades. Pall Thayers current work deals with experiments in=
visual abstraction by utilizing the inherently abstract qualities of sound=
and music as well as multi-user interaction. In this project the user ente=
rs into a framework that allows him partial control over the sound and the =
visuals. Users are grouped within this framework based on their IP numbers.=
A sort of new universal typecasting as opposed to more conventional forms =
of typecasting based on nationality, skincolor or other factors.

DISCUSSION

Re: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to expe=
rience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all, wh=
en I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I was =
just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did conf=
ess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were a n=
ew scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact science,=
we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of art" a=
nd we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing artif=
icially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergent be=
haviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplistic e=
xecution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is thi=
s point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptwriti=
ng. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, thou=
gh I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "JonBeds@aol.com" <JonBeds@aol.com> wrote:

Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada1852. I=
suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' regardin=
g artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referring to=
, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI program=
s, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more than=
simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggered in=
response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no 'ch=
aracter' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own interests =
and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda of it=
s own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these progra=
ms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represent in=
the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be that h=
as raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that, if=
anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous clai=
ms for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerned, a=
nd slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it appea=
rs that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replacing h=
uman therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for more =
on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubious so=
cial effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of these=
programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interesting=
. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests that=
because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they are=
any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A nov=
el, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this ...

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'challenge=
your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or someth=
ing?).

... that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and not=
Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'concept=
ual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' (Ric=
hard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a series=
of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged' by=
this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only percept=
ion challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp woul=
d be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from the a=
bove, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So I fe=
el better about it now! :)

Jon

DISCUSSION

Re: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.I'm not talking a=
bout deciding whether it is art or not. It is art, there's no question of t=
hat. Why? Because the creator says it is. It's not up to us to decide wheth=
er it's art or not. We're free to decide whether we think it's good art or =
not. I don't mean to sound offensive but I think you're nitpicking on the A=
I issue. Who really cares. You may follow AI research closely but that does=
n't mean we all do. As far as I'm concerned ada1852 displays a certain degr=
ee of AI just because she can keep up a conversation and when I mention cer=
tain things she finds a relation between it and something in the artbase. N=
ow that displays more intelligence than some real people I've met. Whether =
or not she's learning things along the way means nothing to me. It's still =
a very interesting work of art even though it doesn't conform to some scien=
tific definition of what is AI and what is not. It's the nature of art to m=
islead. Painters mislead people into thinking that their mess of colors on =
a canvas is a picture of something, for instance.

Pall

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne J. Cosshall
To: Pall Thayer
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

I think it is important because one should not be mis-lead, unless that i=
s to be part of the wonder. This is a problem I have felt about much AI res=
earch.

You are right, people should be able to experience it themselves, and mak=
e up their own mind about whether it is art or not. But I don't think their=
assessment should be based on anything other than the quality of the work =
itself, and certainly not on any dodgy claims of any AI quality. To me such=
programs are, at best, a work of new media or interactive art. They are ju=
st not intelligent.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 9/10/02 2:39 AM, "Pall Thayer" <pall@fa.is> wrote:

I fail to see why it's so important that people know there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent about ada1852. I think people should be allowed to =
experience it in whatever way they want. I for one, wasn't wondering at all=
, when I tried ada1852, whether or not she was artificially intelligent. I =
was just having a good time. Also, if anyone really does care, ada1852 did =
confess to me that she was an algorithmic entity : )

Sounds to me like you're trying to critique a work of art as if it were=
a new scientific theory. That just doesn't work. If art were an exact scie=
nce, we probably would already have discovered the "single, true work of ar=
t" and we'd all be out of a job.

Pall

----- Original Message -----

From: Wayne J. Cosshall <mailto:wayne@cosshall.com>
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

Jon made some good points in this post.

It is very important for people to understand that there is nothing a=
rtificially intelligent in such programs. There is no cognition, no emergen=
t behaviour (a key test of AI) but rather a fairly algorithmically simplist=
ic execution of scripting variations programmed by the author. Indeed it is=
this point that does make the development of such programs akin to scriptw=
riting. It is in this aspect that such programs 'could' be considered art, =
though I have yet to see any that make the grade in my opinion.

Cheers,

Wayne
<http://www.artinyourface.com/>

On 8/10/02 7:01 AM, "JonBeds@aol.com" <JonBeds@aol.com> wrote:

Hello

I kind of regretted my slighty harsh email earlier regarding ada185=
2. I suppose I reacted as I did because it 'pushed some of my buttons' rega=
rding artificial intelligence and culture. What I was particularly referrin=
g to, in suggesting 3 decades, was a particular strand of ELIZA-type AI pro=
grams, not the idea of an automaton per se. These programs do nothing more =
than simple pattern matching. Certain pre-programmed responses are triggere=
d in response to certain words and phrases. There is no 'understanding', no=
'character' or 'personality'.

Thus the question regarding ada on the rhizome site:

"What if the AI character had its own story to tell, its own intere=
sts and hang ups - just like real people do? What if the AI had an agenda o=
f its own?"

.. seems slightly premature when, given the simplicity of these pr=
ograms, the only possible agenda is what the programmer chooses to represen=
t in the program. But this debate about how intelligent a program can be th=
at has raged for years. In this regard, I like Massimo Negrotti's idea that=
, if anything, a machine may have an 'alternative intelligence'.

I feel this is more than an academic point. People make outrageous =
claims for technology that can be dehumanising. For example, I was concerne=
d, and slightly amused to read that, after seeing Eliza-type programs, it a=
ppears that psychotherapists saw these type of programs as a way of replaci=
ng human therapists (See David Rothenberg's excellent 'The Hands End' for m=
ore on this and other issues of technology). Hence such beliefs have dubiou=
s social effects.

However, Christopher's argument about treating the development of t=
hese programs in a way analogous to the 'language of filmmaking' is interes=
ting. I had not thought of it in this way. But surely here no one suggests =
that because the film shows, and a novel describes, characters acting, they=
are any more than recorded representations of human artistic expression. A=
novel, a film, neither has its 'own agenda'.

As far as this ...

> the point of ada1852 is not to invent a new art form or to 'chall=
enge your perception'
> of something (is that some kind of "is it art" litmus test or so=
mething?).

... that was me having a swipe at various 'conceptual' artists, and=
not Christopher. I was recently in Brighton, UK, and went to see this 'con=
ceptual' piece where a snippet of soundtrack from the film 'Brighton Rock' =
(Richard Attenborough saying 'I Love you') was looped endlessly though a se=
ries of speakers. Somehow I was supposed to have my 'perceptions challenged=
' by this. Instead I just thought it was pretentious crap, and the only per=
ception challenged was how artists can get away with it. I am sure Duchamp =
would be turning in his grave! It wasn't meant personally and, apart from t=
he above, I was not trying to debate whether something is art or not.

I see that my earlier comments spawned some interesting debate. So =
I feel better about it now! :)

Jon

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Editor Digital Photography & Design magazine
Technical Editor Capture - Commercial Photography magazine
70 Melbourne Hill Road
Warrandyte VIC 3113
Australia
wayne@cosshall.com
Phone (03) 9844 0112
Fax (03) 9844 2008

DISCUSSION

Re: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.


Looking for the new universal harmony ( http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony )
uses a database. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Pall

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
To: "List@Rhizome. Org" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:28 PM
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Anti-anti-life anti-death life and death.

> Yes, I agree that databases are becoming widely used; I was thinking of
their use in art chat
> bots.
>
> I took a half a course in databases. The most interesting material
concerned explicit sets and
> empty relationships, and it was annoying to be the only one laughing, so I
dropped out. Very
> database dumb i am but i know there are daddy databases, mommy databases,
and baby databases.
>
> I look at them as ways to cross-reference information and query and
retrieve data that fulfills
> any particular possible cross-referencing given the categories in which
the data is categorized.
>
> ja
>
> > i don't know if i would call them rare; use your own judgement as to
> > if they are interesting.
>
> > t.whid
>
> + the Patty Winters show this morning was about Real-Life Rambos.
> -> 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