Re: [thingist] Jodi and Mouchette

First, my congratulations to jodi, eyebeam, and the curators. There is not
very much that I wish to disagree with t.whid on here. But I think it is a
(small to medium) mistake to underplay the conceptualism in jodi's work,
because artists raising the question 'what is a browser?' is not too far
from raising questions about what art is. Maybe that is not the tightest
argument, but in any case, I think it is clear that they helped project the
definition of art in a direction that includes the performance of code in a
browser. This notion was not a broad assumption in the institutional art
world during middle 1990's as it is today. Thus I argue that 'conceptualism'
is an appropriate term, even if not a strong one.

In 1998 (the date indicates something about why I focus on 'the browser'
over jodi's game work…), I wrote the following in switch, the journal at
cadre/sjsu, where jodi was in residency in 1994, btw.
(http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/brett/index.html)

"jodi, for its part, is perhaps the best known accomplishment of the
international net.art movement. In their site, Heemskerk and Paesmans have
collaborated on a formal exploration of the visual implications and
possibilities of web browsing software. Unlike e13, jodi is not merely an
image and design delivery system, even if it does primarily focus on the
visual aspects of net as media. The visuals presented by jodi don't only
make reference to computer code and the visual detritus of computer
systems, but employs such code in an experimental fashion in its
implementation of a highly complex HTML hyperspace. So instead of a
presentational graphic design style of beautiful images delivered by the
net, we find that the surface of the browser has been reconsidered as
having its own reflexive qualities as a medium, and it is the implications
of these features of the browser that are explored in jodi. jodi treats
the browser as an agent or systematic process, and let the browser "have
it's say" as the conceptual foundation for their work. This includes the
use of bad code, or the implementation of code in a manner in which was
not intended by the engineers who designed the browsers or the language
specifications. jodi is in no way a merely superficial art proposition
which only concerns the visual play it ultimately presents, but is in fact
a significant proposition about the codes which lie under the surface and
mediate how we see and navigate."


On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:

> xposting to rhiz, bah
>
> +++
> hi Keith,
>
> I feel the projections showed Jodi's (or at least Dirk's) primary
> motivations more than any of their other works.
>
> IMO Jodi is primarily interested in aesthetics. Jodi are primarily
> visual. They are very formal and not interested in conceptualism
> really. Their MO is recycling or misusing technology to create what
> is a fairly conservative (read modern) aesthetic whose focus is
> visual. The 'desktop improvisation' projections showed this very
> clearly.
>
> Also, if one gets beyond the visual/aural assault of the projections
> one starts to see a very human activity. It shows a whole new side of
> Jodi, it makes them human. Watch the cursor, you can see the thought
> patterns of the person behind it, searching, improvising, making
> decisions. It's fun to watch someone who obviously loves to tinker
> take the o-so-common computer desktop and make it do surprising
> things. The simple fact that he surprised me with what he could do
> with the Mac Classic Desktop (an environment i'm very intimate with)
> I found very interesting.
>
> Jodi has never been about interaction. I don't think Jodi has ever
> wanted to be scary either. They're kind of like a big monster who
> wants to play but squishs their playmate because they don't know
> their own strength.
>
> >Sorry for the lack of clarity:
> >
> >I meant the jodi projections. Not exactly interactive. Why reprise
> >as a dvd something you did in a more way several years before? What
> >had previously been a kinda scarey pseudo-assault on your desktop
> >was reduced to a kind of formalist doodling. Not so interesting,
> >except it was big and loud and in a trendy space.
> >
> >Keith Sanborn
> >
> >>about the urls or the jodi projections?
> >>
> >>the url comment was a joke.
> >>
> >>the comment regarding jodi's work is not a joke.
> >>
> >>>You must be joking.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>do urls in general just keep getting longer and longer?)
> >>>>
> >>>>I was really impressed with the large Jodi projections, liked
> >>>>those quite a bit.
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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.php
>

Hi Brett,

You've convinced me. The distinctions you draw btw Jodi and other
purely visual artists of the net makes the point compellingly that
Jodi has a conceptual basis to their work.

But that doesn't make them conceptualists (as I think you would
agree). The point being that they would never create a system for
system's sake. If their systems don't result in interesting visuals I
don't think the public sees them. This is opposed to artists like..
well, like MTAA in some work, where the system is paramount–damn the
visuals if they don't result.

take care,

At 11:06 -0700 4/23/03, Brett Stalbaum wrote:
>First, my congratulations to jodi, eyebeam, and the curators. There is not
>very much that I wish to disagree with t.whid on here. But I think it is a
>(small to medium) mistake to underplay the conceptualism in jodi's work,
>because artists raising the question 'what is a browser?' is not too far
>from raising questions about what art is. Maybe that is not the tightest
>argument, but in any case, I think it is clear that they helped project the
>definition of art in a direction that includes the performance of code in a
>browser. This notion was not a broad assumption in the institutional art
>world during middle 1990's as it is today. Thus I argue that 'conceptualism'
>is an appropriate term, even if not a strong one.
>
>In 1998 (the date indicates something about why I focus on 'the browser'
>over jodi's game work…), I wrote the following in switch, the journal at
>cadre/sjsu, where jodi was in residency in 1994, btw.
>(http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/brett/index.html)
>
>"jodi, for its part, is perhaps the best known accomplishment of the
>international net.art movement. In their site, Heemskerk and Paesmans have
>collaborated on a formal exploration of the visual implications and
>possibilities of web browsing software. Unlike e13, jodi is not merely an
>image and design delivery system, even if it does primarily focus on the
>visual aspects of net as media. The visuals presented by jodi don't only
>make reference to computer code and the visual detritus of computer
>systems, but employs such code in an experimental fashion in its
>implementation of a highly complex HTML hyperspace. So instead of a
>presentational graphic design style of beautiful images delivered by the
>net, we find that the surface of the browser has been reconsidered as
>having its own reflexive qualities as a medium, and it is the implications
>of these features of the browser that are explored in jodi. jodi treats
>the browser as an agent or systematic process, and let the browser "have
>it's say" as the conceptual foundation for their work. This includes the
>use of bad code, or the implementation of code in a manner in which was
>not intended by the engineers who designed the browsers or the language
>specifications. jodi is in no way a merely superficial art proposition
>which only concerns the visual play it ultimately presents, but is in fact
>a significant proposition about the codes which lie under the surface and
>mediate how we see and navigate."
>
>
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:

>>
>> I feel the projections showed Jodi's (or at least Dirk's) primary
>> motivations more than any of their other works.
>>
>> IMO Jodi is primarily interested in aesthetics. Jodi are primarily
>> visual. They are very formal and not interested in conceptualism
>> really. Their MO is recycling or misusing technology to create what
>> is a fairly conservative (read modern) aesthetic whose focus is
>> visual. The 'desktop improvisation' projections showed this very
>> clearly.
>>
>> Also, if one gets beyond the visual/aural assault of the projections
>> one starts to see a very human activity. It shows a whole new side of
>> Jodi, it makes them human. Watch the cursor, you can see the thought
>> patterns of the person behind it, searching, improvising, making
>> decisions. It's fun to watch someone who obviously loves to tinker
>> take the o-so-common computer desktop and make it do surprising
>> things. The simple fact that he surprised me with what he could do
>> with the Mac Classic Desktop (an environment i'm very intimate with)
>> I found very interesting.
>>
>> Jodi has never been about interaction. I don't think Jodi has ever
>> wanted to be scary either. They're kind of like a big monster who
>> wants to play but squishs their playmate because they don't know
>> their own strength.

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

I do agree, at least re the sense of 'conceptualist' that is attached to
systems art. What I was trying, (awkwardly), to get at was jodi's role in
defining what net.art (or more narrowly browser art), was in an expanded
field of what constitutes net.art; a related but different notion of
conceptualism. (Questioning the ontology of art, expanding the notion of
what functions as art is really the genealogical ancestor of systems art
and other types of conceptualism.) It is not a duchampian-strength claim I
am making, but I wanted to point out that back in 'the day' of the
international net.art movement, people were still sending jodi helpful
hints on improving their html.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:

> Hi Brett,
>
> You've convinced me. The distinctions you draw btw Jodi and other
> purely visual artists of the net makes the point compellingly that
> Jodi has a conceptual basis to their work.
>
> But that doesn't make them conceptualists (as I think you would
> agree). The point being that they would never create a system for
> system's sake. If their systems don't result in interesting visuals I
> don't think the public sees them. This is opposed to artists like..
> well, like MTAA in some work, where the system is paramount–damn the
> visuals if they don't result.
>
> take care,
>
> At 11:06 -0700 4/23/03, Brett Stalbaum wrote:
> >First, my congratulations to jodi, eyebeam, and the curators. There is not
> >very much that I wish to disagree with t.whid on here. But I think it is a
> >(small to medium) mistake to underplay the conceptualism in jodi's work,
> >because artists raising the question 'what is a browser?' is not too far
> >from raising questions about what art is. Maybe that is not the tightest
> >argument, but in any case, I think it is clear that they helped project the
> >definition of art in a direction that includes the performance of code in a
> >browser. This notion was not a broad assumption in the institutional art
> >world during middle 1990's as it is today. Thus I argue that 'conceptualism'
> >is an appropriate term, even if not a strong one.
> >
> >In 1998 (the date indicates something about why I focus on 'the browser'
> >over jodi's game work…), I wrote the following in switch, the journal at
> >cadre/sjsu, where jodi was in residency in 1994, btw.
> >(http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/brett/index.html)
> >
> >"jodi, for its part, is perhaps the best known accomplishment of the
> >international net.art movement. In their site, Heemskerk and Paesmans have
> >collaborated on a formal exploration of the visual implications and
> >possibilities of web browsing software. Unlike e13, jodi is not merely an
> >image and design delivery system, even if it does primarily focus on the
> >visual aspects of net as media. The visuals presented by jodi don't only
> >make reference to computer code and the visual detritus of computer
> >systems, but employs such code in an experimental fashion in its
> >implementation of a highly complex HTML hyperspace. So instead of a
> >presentational graphic design style of beautiful images delivered by the
> >net, we find that the surface of the browser has been reconsidered as
> >having its own reflexive qualities as a medium, and it is the implications
> >of these features of the browser that are explored in jodi. jodi treats
> >the browser as an agent or systematic process, and let the browser "have
> >it's say" as the conceptual foundation for their work. This includes the
> >use of bad code, or the implementation of code in a manner in which was
> >not intended by the engineers who designed the browsers or the language
> >specifications. jodi is in no way a merely superficial art proposition
> >which only concerns the visual play it ultimately presents, but is in fact
> >a significant proposition about the codes which lie under the surface and
> >mediate how we see and navigate."
> >
> >
> >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I feel the projections showed Jodi's (or at least Dirk's) primary
> >> motivations more than any of their other works.
> >>
> >> IMO Jodi is primarily interested in aesthetics. Jodi are primarily
> >> visual. They are very formal and not interested in conceptualism
> >> really. Their MO is recycling or misusing technology to create what
> >> is a fairly conservative (read modern) aesthetic whose focus is
> >> visual. The 'desktop improvisation' projections showed this very
> >> clearly.
> >>
> >> Also, if one gets beyond the visual/aural assault of the projections
> >> one starts to see a very human activity. It shows a whole new side of
> >> Jodi, it makes them human. Watch the cursor, you can see the thought
> >> patterns of the person behind it, searching, improvising, making
> >> decisions. It's fun to watch someone who obviously loves to tinker
> >> take the o-so-common computer desktop and make it do surprising
> >> things. The simple fact that he surprised me with what he could do
> >> with the Mac Classic Desktop (an environment i'm very intimate with)
> >> I found very interesting.
> >>
> >> Jodi has never been about interaction. I don't think Jodi has ever
> >> wanted to be scary either. They're kind of like a big monster who
> >> wants to play but squishs their playmate because they don't know
> >> their own strength.
>
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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.php
>

hi,
i think t.whid makes a good point regarding formalist concerns.
how would one separate the conceptual from the aesthetic in Jodi's work now? "conceptualism" and the "anti-aesthetic" has certainly become an aesthetic/formal strategy for many "new" and "old" media users, no? doesn't "code qua code"aesthetics really imply "code for the look of code?"
i always related to Jodi's work as "process-oriented," which is like conceptualism i guess, only it's concerned with internal (formal), meta questions (what is a browser?). It seems kinda in line with Serra's list and early lead work (the archetype of process art for me). Which is very different from, say, the conceptualism of Brett's work with the EDT, and it's relationship to code and aesthetics - or, to go back to the late 60s :), the early process/systems work of Haacke.
best,
ryan

There's also the incident where Yahoo! wouldn't list JODI's website because
it had zero content.

-e.



—– Original Message —–
From: "Brett Stalbaum" <[email protected]>
To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: [thingist] Jodi and Mouchette


> I do agree, at least re the sense of 'conceptualist' that is attached to
> systems art. What I was trying, (awkwardly), to get at was jodi's role in
> defining what net.art (or more narrowly browser art), was in an expanded
> field of what constitutes net.art; a related but different notion of
> conceptualism. (Questioning the ontology of art, expanding the notion of
> what functions as art is really the genealogical ancestor of systems art
> and other types of conceptualism.) It is not a duchampian-strength claim I
> am making, but I wanted to point out that back in 'the day' of the
> international net.art movement, people were still sending jodi helpful
> hints on improving their html.
>
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:
>
> > Hi Brett,
> >
> > You've convinced me. The distinctions you draw btw Jodi and other
> > purely visual artists of the net makes the point compellingly that
> > Jodi has a conceptual basis to their work.
> >
> > But that doesn't make them conceptualists (as I think you would
> > agree). The point being that they would never create a system for
> > system's sake. If their systems don't result in interesting visuals I
> > don't think the public sees them. This is opposed to artists like..
> > well, like MTAA in some work, where the system is paramount–damn the
> > visuals if they don't result.
> >
> > take care,
> >
> > At 11:06 -0700 4/23/03, Brett Stalbaum wrote:
> > >First, my congratulations to jodi, eyebeam, and the curators. There is
not
> > >very much that I wish to disagree with t.whid on here. But I think it
is a
> > >(small to medium) mistake to underplay the conceptualism in jodi's
work,
> > >because artists raising the question 'what is a browser?' is not too
far
> > >from raising questions about what art is. Maybe that is not the
tightest
> > >argument, but in any case, I think it is clear that they helped project
the
> > >definition of art in a direction that includes the performance of code
in a
> > >browser. This notion was not a broad assumption in the institutional
art
> > >world during middle 1990's as it is today. Thus I argue that
'conceptualism'
> > >is an appropriate term, even if not a strong one.
> > >
> > >In 1998 (the date indicates something about why I focus on 'the
browser'
> > >over jodi's game work…), I wrote the following in switch, the journal
at
> > >cadre/sjsu, where jodi was in residency in 1994, btw.
> > >(http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v4n2/brett/index.html)
> > >
> > >"jodi, for its part, is perhaps the best known accomplishment of the
> > >international net.art movement. In their site, Heemskerk and Paesmans
have
> > >collaborated on a formal exploration of the visual implications and
> > >possibilities of web browsing software. Unlike e13, jodi is not merely
an
> > >image and design delivery system, even if it does primarily focus on
the
> > >visual aspects of net as media. The visuals presented by jodi don't
only
> > >make reference to computer code and the visual detritus of computer
> > >systems, but employs such code in an experimental fashion in its
> > >implementation of a highly complex HTML hyperspace. So instead of a
> > >presentational graphic design style of beautiful images delivered by
the
> > >net, we find that the surface of the browser has been reconsidered as
> > >having its own reflexive qualities as a medium, and it is the
implications
> > >of these features of the browser that are explored in jodi. jodi treats
> > >the browser as an agent or systematic process, and let the browser
"have
> > >it's say" as the conceptual foundation for their work. This includes
the
> > >use of bad code, or the implementation of code in a manner in which was
> > >not intended by the engineers who designed the browsers or the language
> > >specifications. jodi is in no way a merely superficial art proposition
> > >which only concerns the visual play it ultimately presents, but is in
fact
> > >a significant proposition about the codes which lie under the surface
and
> > >mediate how we see and navigate."
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, t.whid wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> I feel the projections showed Jodi's (or at least Dirk's) primary
> > >> motivations more than any of their other works.
> > >>
> > >> IMO Jodi is primarily interested in aesthetics. Jodi are primarily
> > >> visual. They are very formal and not interested in conceptualism
> > >> really. Their MO is recycling or misusing technology to create what
> > >> is a fairly conservative (read modern) aesthetic whose focus is
> > >> visual. The 'desktop improvisation' projections showed this very
> > >> clearly.
> > >>
> > >> Also, if one gets beyond the visual/aural assault of the projections
> > >> one starts to see a very human activity. It shows a whole new side
of
> > >> Jodi, it makes them human. Watch the cursor, you can see the thought
> > >> patterns of the person behind it, searching, improvising, making
> > >> decisions. It's fun to watch someone who obviously loves to tinker
> > >> take the o-so-common computer desktop and make it do surprising
> > >> things. The simple fact that he surprised me with what he could do
> > >> with the Mac Classic Desktop (an environment i'm very intimate with)
> > >> I found very interesting.
> > >>
> > >> Jodi has never been about interaction. I don't think Jodi has ever
> > >> wanted to be scary either. They're kind of like a big monster who
> > >> wants to play but squishs their playmate because they don't know
> > >> their own strength.
> >
> > –
> > <twhid>
> > http://www.mteww.com
> > </twhid>
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> 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.php
> >
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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.php
>

I too think T. is right about the importance of the visuals in Jodi's work. All art is conceptual in some capacity, even Raphael. In 1994, any "art" you did online was conceptual by default in that it was automatically "virtual, remote, infinitely reproducible, etc." Scanning your cat and posting it as a gif was conceptual. Obviously Jodi was more intentionally conceptual than that. But I agree with T. that their primary impetus was experimentation and play, rather than "statement making." I suppose an emphasis on play and tweaking can be called process art (if one must obligatorily trace every piece of artwork back to something in "the record").

But Jodi's work has always had an intentional aesthetic (or anti/punk aesthetic, or whatever) that is not merely incidental, but central to what they are doing. They don't just break it, they break it right, so to speak. I can read their stuff like Klee and still get a lot out of it.

Which is why they are the only early net artists I ever really liked. And which is why they've worn a lot better over the years than someone like Heath Bunting. Their work isn't good just because they were historically the first to do something than anybody else could have done. They are still doing cool stuff that's tuff codewise and aesthetically.

This recent piece by Brent Gustafson (dhtml coder, web designer, bmx bicyclist) is in their vein:
http://ax.assembler.org/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

T. wrote:

> Hi Brett,
>
> You've convinced me. The distinctions you draw btw Jodi and other
> purely visual artists of the net makes the point compellingly that
> Jodi has a conceptual basis to their work.
>
> But that doesn't make them conceptualists (as I think you would
> agree). The point being that they would never create a system for
> system's sake. If their systems don't result in interesting visuals I
> don't think the public sees them. This is opposed to artists like..
> well, like MTAA in some work, where the system is paramount–damn the
> visuals if they don't result.