Re:'Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art'- Reconsidered

Hi Eryk,

I Just want to say first of all, that the text 'Six Rules Towards A New Int=
ernet Art' - Reconsidered, was an explorative piece of writing to observe (=
the in's and out's) of what the text was communicating to me as an individu=
al as well as an artist. It probably means something completely different t=
o each individual, pending their present situation and circumstance within =
a net art context.
> I don't see there being a flash / ascii binary or crew war. I mean I
> don't think you should look at what I am doing as a template for the
> work I think everyone else should be doing.

I am not necessarily looking at it as a template, but as a text that deserv=
es to be taken seriously and considered as a valid net art contribution. I =
know that putting the future of net art on your shoulders is silly and is n=
ot necessary, so I hope that I am not doing this simply by discussing its i=
deas. The influence of the rules has incurred much debate and has a permana=
nt place in the Rhizome database, the 'Text Object section'. An idea that h=
as presence. And ideas, once they leave the fold have a life of their own.=


>
> The rules are meant to say that net.art is not dead and that software
> art was not the future of the medium. It's a response to people who say=

> "You can't really do anything interesting on a web page anymore." I'm
> just trying to say "Hey guys, it's fine not to use flash; and you don't=

> have to fall for all the same line of stuff that is supposed to 'be what=

> net.art is about.'"

I agree with your statement above but do not see it written in your actual =
text, although I am the first to admit that one cannot say everything withi=
n one piece of text. All that constant re-editing, and when I have finished=
the bloody thing - I look at it and it still needs to be rewritten. You ha=
ve to stop somewhere. I would like to know what other, more incidental infl=
uences helped in making the text come about - perhaps activities from this =
list even. I remember at the time, lots of sites were going through the mot=
ions of 'acting out' art, net art whilst using Flash. Yet among the Flash u=
sers there were also legitimate makers of net art who were declaring their =
intentions creatively whilst offering content and potential meaning.

>
> You mention that I contradict myself by defining my statement against
> flash as being beyond "corporate / anti corporate." But let's face it,
> everything is beyond corporate / anti-corporate! 98% of the world can be=

> turned into a sneaker advertisement; I mean really.

Yeah, it does my head in when there is a piece of music which I once felt w=
as important to me emotionally, then I hear it as a soundtrack on televisio=
n advertising for some shite car. This kind of emotional manipulation is cy=
nical and I do not see it ever coming to an end, unless the world ends that=
is. Of course there are those who do not mind having their history reconte=
xtualized via assimilation and simulation. I believe that it is time for pe=
ople to reclaim back what they feel has meaning - not just in an art contex=
t but for survival and to somehow bring back meaning. Give us back our soul=
s…

I distrust images,
> but at this stage in human history I'm even starting to distrust
> surfaces. Flash is an advertisement tool developed to deliver
> advertisements and promotional materials over the web.

I understand your distrust of surfaces and moving (potentially) towards see=
ing the intention behind such surfaces. In a sense you could be referring t=
o the 'shadow', that ever hidden depth that the world generally denies touc=
hing upon; due to a lack of self questioning, which could also be very much=
an issue in net art as well - everywhere in fact. Bush is a good example o=
f this, in respect of how simple minded he his, yet backed by clever, greed=
y shadows from behind.

I remember as a kid watching 'The Man With the X-Ray Eyes', it had a tremen=
dous effect on me psychologically, I am that man.

Diane Fairfax: Dr. Xavier, I've read your report…

Xavier: Yes, but do you understand it? Have you any idea what I'm trying to=
accomplish here? I'm developing a way to sensitize the human eye so that i=
t sees radiation up to and including the gamma rays….

So Xavier's quest is to break out of the narrow spectral band that forms th=
e current visual reality and expand his consciousness to the atomic limits =
of light. The first half of the movie shows his conflict with the hospital =
and contains the tacky drama and crude humor that relegates Corman's work t=
o the youth market and the late-night substance abuse crowd, best represent=
ed in 'X' by the party scene (Xavier, wired on his eye-compound, sees the i=
nterns dancing naked). When he accidentally kills a colleague by knocking h=
im through an upper-story window during a dispute, the real film begins.

"If the man was real, he wouldn't be here"

Diane: What do you see?

X: The city… as if it were unborn, rising into the sky with fingers of me=
tal… limbs without flesh, girders without stone… signs hanging without =
supports, wires dipping and swaying without poles… the city unborn, flesh=
dissolved in an acid of light… a City of the Dead.

What is interesting is that others can feel the effect of one's various sha=
dows, because they are externalized in many ways but are not seen by anyone=
that clearly. This can cause immense confusion for all involved. Shadows o=
f the self are not negative space but the make up of who we really are, thi=
s could be misconstrude as negative space. This is assumption is not accura=
te, for there is nothing more solid than the shadow within.

I just think that
> artists are limiting themselves by choosing to work with a program that=

> is designed to create advertising. This is not true of all flash art;
> and my rules aren't for people who are comfortable with their own
> medium. If you are happy doing flash, great! But why are you looking at=

> the six rules, you know? Flash is automatically going to apply the rules=

> of other mediums, such as film and animation, to your work. It's not a
> medium that is exclusive to the web.
>
> Concerning my commitment to ascii, I'm not sure if you've read "Zen and=

> the Art of ASCII", which is linked under "texts" at
> http://www.salsabomb.com; but some of the same ideas were being
> formulated in that article which I wrote almost four years ago. The flip=

> side to what you wrote, though, is that it does not shift the focus of
> image to word. What I like about ASCII art is that it decimates the
> concept of the word and the image at the same time. It uses fragments of=

> written communication- "MHHM$$". There are usually no words involved,
> just these broken bits and pieces of language, and there are only the
> evocations of images.

kool ;-)

>
> As it relates the six rules; ASCII was something I have used before in a=

> lot of projects, but by looking at work through the lens of 6R
> Compliance I was able to see it as something that has a massive amount
> of potential. It's extremely modern, besides the technology but also to,=

> as you pointed out beautifully, a distrust of signifiers, the break up
> of meaning. I never really like representation. People have recently
> remarked that it was shocking to see people apply the idea of Pop, the
> Post Modern, and really probe it, really use it as if it there was
> something beyond prettiness in the world and something more like beauty.=

> I think as someone who grew up in the post-pop, post modern world, there=

> is a level to meaning superimposed over the prettiness of things, that
> constantly claims it is not there. In Zen + Ascii I call it by zen
> terms, satori, literally nothing, emptiness, "whatever." As part of a
> generation that grew up after the "death of meaning" I want to explore
> that kind of emptiness in order to find something really meaningful in it.

I think that you have found an imaginative and fluid framework in creating =
net art - no question at all in relation to that. It works.

>
> I always preferred photography because it was a straightforward
> documentary, until someone told me that you could look around and see
> pretty things if you wanted to, and that painting not only showed you
> pretty things but also how the artist saw them. So I guess ASCII is my
> way of seeing it. Images hovering on the border of meaning; language
> breaking up into nothing but still something.

Psychologiaclly
>
> Does this mean that the six rules were a battle cry for everyone to
> start making ascii art? God, no. I'm just thinking there's plenty of
> room that is left to be explored in html, and if you really want a bold=

> style you can still find one. That doesn't mean that the substance of
> your work is instantly going to be impressive, or that what you are
> saying is interesting. Like McElroy saying that he's bored of ascii, I
> think this is the major philosophy that is ruining net.art for everyone,=

> this idea that style supersedes content. I don't want to be mistaken for=

> one of those people. The six rules weren't a cure all prescription, they=

> were written to address the issue of aesthetics only. The ascii World
> Trade Center and the ascii Nudes and the ascii Hearts are all ascii but=

> they're all extremely different pieces linked by a common style. It's my=

> style; maybe you don't like that I am applying it to hearts right now
> but maybe you like the nudes but you're indifferent to the world trade
> center piece. The idea of art is just as much what you show people as it=

> is how you show it; this is not going to change, whether you are using
> ascii or flash or pasta glued to cardboard. All of it is capable of
> producing great art; none of it produces great art instantly; and now
> that the heroic exploration phase of net.art is over- now that we know
> our language- we can start thinking about what we're going to say. That=

> would be the one rule for the 6RC New Testament that supersedes all six.=

> Say something!

Thanx Eryk - I'm all worn out now…
marc :-)


>
> marc.garrett wrote:
>
> > Eryk's Salvaggio 'Six Rules Towards A New Internet Art'- Reconsidered
> >
> >
> > "Image is nothing. Thirst is everything. Obey your thirst." - Sprite
> > Soft Drink Advertisement.
> >
> >
> > 'I think Net Art will be more interesting and challenging when
> > artists/creators begin to get used to defying the medium itself. As in=

> > not doing what one is supposed to do in accordance to the medium's
> > demands. This of course will take time because a plateau has not yet
> > been reached by any stretch of the imagination. Once the distraction
> > of [medium] wars are left behind; in respect of whether one should use=

> > Flash or ASCII, or any other form of computer technology function.
> > Then the sky really is the limit'.
> >
> > Eryk's Salvaggio rules, I believe are a personal idea and not a
> > manifesto and Eyrk seems to have an agenda behind his 'Six Rules
> > Towards A New Internet Art' that has not yet been coherently declared.=

> > His take sits well next to Baudrillard's conception that in late
> > capitalist consumer society there has been a shift in which images and=

> > signs have increasingly become commodities. Even though in his text he=

> > places a disclaimer contradicting this 'This has nothing to do with
> > corporate/anti-corporate; and should not be mistaken as the most
> > radical rule'. Yet when looking at Salvaggio's work, he does on the
> > whole tend to try to eradicate references to image, his recent works
> > are an accumulation of texts forming a larger image, thus still
> > showing his distrust of images and their possible connotations.
> >
> > After Sept 11th, one thing we can be sure about is, that we [the
> > world] were submitted repeated images of the terrorist attack and we
> > did not believe it was happening. The broadcasting of the incident
> > served more to desensitize the world from the realness of what
> > actually happened. Of course, the viewing of a mass of people, another=

> > culture's pain is nothing new, but in reflection America is not in the=

> > habit of being the victim itself. In reflection, it seems that the
> > only resource that America had when displaying its national sense
> > grief was via its own terrestrial media, yet the rest of the world was=

> > tired of seeing the images repeated over and over again. It was like
> > watching another American blockbuster, people could not quite believe=

> > their own eyes. And who could blame them? Infotainment is America's
> > greatest asset, and its allegiance to corporate domination over its
> > people's lives is paramount. Because we are all used to viewing
> > advertisements repeatedly, propaganda imposed upon our tired eyes non=

> > stop above social interest. The inherent isolation that mediation
> > gives, caused confusion and a recognition of a spiritual vacuum in
> > America, as well as everywhere else in the Western dominated zones.
> >
> > Eryk's piece September 11th, 2001 <http://cybrport.com/E/ryk/2/>
> > consisted of motion footage of United Airlines Flight 175 striking the=

> > South Tower of the World Trade Center. Declared his distrust of
> > televised images 'When I started seeing images of people leaping from=

> > the towers in magazines and newspapers, it left me feeling like we had=

> > missed the real essence of what had happened, that these lives had
> > become images, tape loops, and symbols'.
> >
> > So the image had finally been fully realized in the ultimate sense, it=

> > offered no recourse or definition or communication, when the news
> > channels tried to put across the feeling of death and pain. America
> > was eaten by its own myth making, the media had finally ate itself.
> > Part of the issue is that denial seems such an intrinsic part of
> > America's psyche. As a modern nation movies and advertisements are
> > part of its own history, even when films are made as a historical
> > reference to its own culture and world events that actually happened.=

> > Events have been altered, changed so things are much more palatable
> > for the consumer. There are no factual references to real-life
> > situations that the viewer can rely on and trust anymore. A truly
> > mediated culture that has been traveling in Hyper - Reality. It seems=

> > real but is not quite real. A consumer culture is a mediated culture,=

> > defined by culturalized existence - via information via external
> > sources. Infotainment is a product and it constantly produces
> > misinformation for commercial gain. Therefore realism is not of
> > interest, yet that is where many truth's and hard facts do rest, even=

> > if it is balancing on a knife edge.
> >
> > 'WWII seems to have been the last "real" war. Hyperreal war began in
> > Vietnam, with the involvement of television, and recently reached full=

> > obscene revelation in the "Gulf War" of 1991. Hyperreal war is no
> > longer "economic", no longer "the health of the state". The Ritual
> > Brawl is voluntary and hon-hierarchic (war chiefs are always
> > temporary); real war is compulsory and hierarchic; hyperreal war is
> > imagistic and psychologically interiorized ("Pure War"). In the first=

> > the body is risked; in the second, the body is sacrificed; in the
> > third, the body has disappeared'. Hakim Bey.
> >
> > We all know how popular Flash was during the (so called) dot com
> > revolution in displaying corporate web sites, terrestrial advertising=

> > and of course, many films. Flash use has come a long way since the
> > corporate 'show off' days - when one used to visit business sites and=

> > flash noise/visuals exploding before your eyes with a funky beat,
> > imposing a maelstrom of nonsense graphics. Now, artists who use flash=

> > themselves are pushing things by using the medium for their own terms.=

> > What I find interesting, or contradictory to the shortly experienced,=

> > net art tradition; a good lesson for all to learn. Is that many Flash=

> > artists are managing to declare human emotion in their work
> > successfully. An emotional visceralness communicating to a larger
> > audience outside the traditional [in house] art-speak.
> >
> > Eryk Salvaggio's distrust for the generalized image and its potential=

> > hypereality and blanketing effect on art are worth acknowledging. But=

> > first, one must consider the 'word' and its own role historically and=

> > its function in the 'misinformation age'. Text is seen as the more
> > intellectual form of communicatory functions. And ownership of the
> > written word has of course been an issue for many years. If one was to=

> > immediately accept an idea, without first considering one's own
> > 'embodied' grounded beliefs. Then jumping onto someone else's
> > conceptualized notion would and can only be considered as
> > bandwagoning. Text has been the more traditional cannon for archiving=

> > information, issuing news and of course, rules. Text tells lies just
> > as much as images. altering subconscience, perceptions and socially
> > constructed craniums. Images traditionally have been more to do with
> > symbols and metaphors, signifiers.
> >
> > 'didacticism often plays fast and loose with the truth'. N.Chomsky.
> >
> >
> > If an institution claims an idea, then removes the author who
> > originated its idea, then that institution can claim leverage by using=

> > that idea; thus gain control and pushing its originator aside. M.Garret=
t.
> >
> > The selection process of what is seen and read, declares who is
> > judging what is allowed to be read and seen, a problem that is
> > timeless. Whoever controls language controls us, and language comes in=

> > many forms. It can come in the form of a critical text supported by an=

> > institution and promoted by the media because it latches onto their
> > own assumptions at that time. Or it can be promoted using terrestrial=

> > outlets where people who are not less to read due to de-education, are=

> > more reliant on visual information. So text or the use of an image can=

> > both be a lie, or messenger of mythologies. What really matters is the=

> > source, where the information has come from and why. The itemizing of=

> > Flash as inferior to other forms of creative functions, does not take=

> > into account the context of an artists' own personal reasons and
> > purpose for using such a medium.
> >
> >
> > I am sure Eryk himself would love it if someone offered an equivalent=

> > example, contrary to his notion. An alternative set of rules. The
> > positive thing that has come about out of this, is that people are
> > asked why are they using the medium? Once the individual concerned has=

> > conceptually and intuitively reevaluated the use of a medium of
> > whether it is appropriate in reference to their idea(s). A more
> > truthful outcome can be realized, in why they are using their chosen
> > medium. Let's face it, we are all using a corporate medium - its
> > called a computer.
> >
> > Making art on the net is a craft, it still involves transmuting a
> > concept. And the last thing we all want (I hope) is to get trapped in=

> > isolating artists. If that happens, then we might as well become
> > modernists, and start arguing and putting up fences, using
> > Greenbergian terms (which is a 20th century issue) defining the good
> > from the bad. When you define or create rules you create borders,
> > fences that people feel hesitant to cross because they feel victimized=

> > for doing so. This creates a virtual 'art school' comparison that as
> > far as I am concerned should be questioned. Inside, outside, bad,
> > good; is not the best way for artists when they should be given the
> > chance to explore any medium they choose for their own reasons. By
> > adhering to the process of determining what medium one should use, one=

> > creates a 'policed' aesthetic which is qualitative. Aesthetic value is=

> > ultimately created by taste. The cultivation of taste usually occurs
> > via culturalization, "cultivated" taste. Rules are good to break and I=

> > suggest breaking the rules.
> >
> > Eryk says 'Boundaries are what inspired the "heroic period" of early
> > net.art– boundaries such as bandwidth, browser design limits, etc.
> > Ironically; as bandwidth has expanded and browers more flexible, we
> > have also seen a homoginization of net.art. A design aesthetic
> > prevails; as we see slicker and slicker "art" sites with no message or=

> > point or content'. I would have to disagree here, for now we are
> > witnessing new artists exploring emotion/ideas that do declare real
> > content and message such as Jess Loseby. And actually does go further=

> > than a lot of 'cyber art', implying that if the artist is good enough=

> > the communication and meaning goes beyond the medium itself. So
> > perhaps Eryk's excellent and thought provoking manifesto needs to be
> > updated.
> >
> > marc garrett
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> + vs. every art school ever…
> -> 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.php3
>