Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs

Nov. 8, 2002

Type: discussion

At 03:30 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium…i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself…

lewis,

….u persist in isolating + ignoring n.stances of epigenetically-produced
dataFlow [net.wurks]+ the qualities that this [potential 4 wunder.barrish]
psychasthenia produces: i'm replying with.in the boundaries of how u d.fine
[w].here. i really wish u'd wurk on X.pansion rather than re[N]duction.

–dis.[UR]Locata

> >hi marisa…
> >
> >i agree that "digital poetry" is often a romantic term…
> >
> >what i'm looking for is perhaps this…i've been thinking lately
> >about the distinction between functional and decorative, and how
> it >applies to art on the web…a lot of the "digital poetry" crowd is
> >comprised of artists who make animations of words–at best, the
> >reactivity and interaction required of the user is touching rollover
> >buttons===which in flash, we know, takes almost no knowledge of code
> >at all…these works seem to me to be remaking cinema, which, as you
> >and i know, we already have…
> >
> >i guess it boils down to this: what's the difference between say, a
> >piece by mez and the recent gogolchat by jimpunk and christophe
> >bruno? because it's here i see the distinction most
> >clearly…gogolchat is highly functional:::it explores
> >user-interaction…it requires the network in order to manifest
> >itself (that being for me one of the true signs of a pure net
> >work…mez's connection to the network, at least in regards to her
> >multimedia works, is less tangible////the work does require the
> >! network, but in a passive way, that is, it requires email list-servs
> >for distribution, and takes much of its language from a kind of
> >pantomime of code itself…///it's more interactive than digital
> >cinema, but less so than a work like gogolchat (or chris fahey's
> >ada1852)—-
> >
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium…i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself…
> >
> >bliss
> >
> >l
> >
> >
> >
> > "Marisa S. Olson" wrote:
> >
> > >Are "digital poetry" and net art two distinct genres? And, perhaps
> > >more importantly, should they be?
> >
> >lewis,
> >
> >an interesting question, though i do wonder if "digital poetry" isn't
> >a romanticization of work (text-based or otherwise) constructed
> >and/or experienced in/with digital media.
> >
> >! of course you know that your question involves defining the
> >"products" of two practices that tend to defy
> >definition–particularly among these object-oriented lines. however,
> >i would most certainly say that there is a "poetics" of "net art," in
> >the sense that there are specific rhetorical, narratological,
> >structural conditions under which the work is made, represented,
> >distributed, accessed, interpreted, etc.. the means, modes, and
> >vehicles by which it signifies….
> >
> >marisa

. . …. …..
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf

…. . .??? …….