Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Post your art in ArtForum

Not sure if this relates, but it appears that the AF board may be coming
down:

+++

by Agnes Klein, 09.04.07 11:46 am

To all who would like to be Anonymus on the "ART" Forums
Back Talk, jobpiston, suckerpunched, FakeName5678, Hel Metem etc.
punched by a sucker……………….

Do you have the guts to use your real name? pseudo-names are ridiculous, no
one really wants to talk with you girls and boys :-), Ladies and Gentlemen??
This forum is doomed just because can't be taken seriously, it doesn't make
any good service for the magazine.

+++

Relating to art in general, I wonder if arborescent aspects are OK too. For
example, "Art A is more worth looking at than Art B" is a hierarchical
statement. "It is better to do A than B" is hierarchical. Even if you only
apply the preference to yourself and how you spend your day, it's still sort
of hierarchical. That doesn't seem totally false to me.

Aside from the question whether hierarchy is desirable sometimes, it may be
that the rhizome vs. arbor distinction is not really apropos or rigorous.
Perhaps Deleuze and Guattari were just one side of the argument so to speak,
themselves matching a date and time (postwar France).

It might be more proper to say that both tree and rhizome aspects are OK.

But really it's not trees and rhizomes. Realistically, it's more "centrally
controlled hierarchical power" and "decentralized free network power."
Also, they are not antitheses, they're co-operative partners and friends.

For example, the Louvre museum used to be a fort, a military fort. It was
built to protect the Paris economy from bandits in the countryside. So, to
protect the free market activity you created a military-hierarchical
activity. I think this is both sad in a way but also it's at work all the
way through history, even back to the village level.

Thus it may be that at the current time, the basic logic of Deleuze and
Guattari is not straightforwardly accurate nor was it ever. Their theory
was basically an over-reach bred of the condition of the French academy at
the time.

Interestingly though, the ideas of Deleuze and Guattari are extremely
accepted, institutionalized, and arborescent in the U.S humanities. Which
is fine, absolutely. Institutions can do exactly whatever they want. It's
not appropriate to complain and criticize all the time.

All this is why I think there needs to be a big, big project on the scale of
a new art-historical period. It won't happen right away or even soon, and
people will have to work their whole lives on it without any establishment
recognition, like Van Gogh.

Networks are not all free-form decentralized activity. They are predicated
on a central hierarchy strong enough to defend the network from inner and
outer threats. This is the type of thinking that Deleuze and Guattari were
so vehemently against, but what if they were wrong? If they were wrong,
then their rhizome-centric ideas would actually revert to the negative and
undermine free network activity in a perverse reverse.

So, I think that the network period has a lot of work to do getting over
what you could call early network errors. But also just continuing to
persist and make art is a good thing too, just keeping on. So that is a
good thing for Rhizome.org to have accomplished. I think it would be even
better if they could be the great forerunner for the new art-historical
period "Networkism," but even if they are not they are still a good thing.
It is not even one iota Rhizome.org's obligation to take risks or suffer
etc. to follow my speculations, rather that is my obligation and task as a
free person.

Also Networkism will have to come to an agreement or detente of some sort
with the military-industrial complex, the free market, the artistic
establishment, and the free network if it is to achieve true fulfillment.
And the best way to do this is almost for sure just to persist as outsider
activity, non-confrontational, but also not secretive or cowardly. If it is
appropriate or not for Networkism to criticize any particular contemporary
artist or art institution I cannot say but I think it's probably not OK. I
mean, for my own point of view I make a strong policy of not criticizing
because that inflames danger and "fitna" i.e. undue controversy and
violence. William Blake also said that "bad art will cease to exist when
people stop looking at it," and the message is that it is false logic to
attack other art or art you don't like because even if it is "bad,"
attacking it is not the way to make good art or better art possible.

So good patience and piety are the most key factors and that's why I mention
them in the conference this year. Yet such moods are never the great
spectacular hits so you have to accept being unknown, as you can see all
through history also.

As to Antonin Artaud, I think he may also have been completely goofed up and
wrong like Deleuze and Guattari, very much a biased one-sided person again
suffused by postwar France and all of its major issues such as Vichy, the
deportation, socialism, Le Pen, etc.



>From: <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Post your art in ArtForum
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:38:42 -0400
>
>http://artforum.jeffreythompson.org/
>
>Really interesting project where for $1.50 charge, you can put an image
>approximately 3/16" x 3/16" on a full page ad in ArtForum.
>
>Definitely worth a look
>+
>-> 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

Da + da.

> Also Networkism will have to come to an agreement or detente of some sort
> with the military-industrial complex, the free market, the artistic
> establishment, and the free network if it is to achieve true fulfillment.
> And the best way to do this is almost for sure just to persist as outsider
> activity, non-confrontational, but also not secretive or cowardly. If it is
> appropriate or not for Networkism to criticize any particular contemporary
> artist or art institution I cannot say but I think it's probably not OK. I
> mean, for my own point of view I make a strong policy of not criticizing
> because that inflames danger and "fitna" i.e. undue controversy and
> violence. William Blake also said that "bad art will cease to exist when
> people stop looking at it," and the message is that it is false logic to
> attack other art or art you don't like because even if it is "bad,"
> attacking it is not the way to make good art or better art possible.

> So good patience and piety are the most key factors and that's why I mention
> them in the conference this year. Yet such moods are never the great
> spectacular hits so you have to accept being unknown, as you can see all
> through history also.
>
> As to Antonin Artaud, I think he may also have been completely goofed up and
> wrong like Deleuze and Guattari, very much a biased one-sided person again
> suffused by postwar France and all of its major issues such as Vichy, the
> deportation, socialism, Le Pen, etc.
>
>
>
> >From: <[email protected]>
> >Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Post your art in ArtForum
> >Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:38:42 -0400
> >
> >http://artforum.jeffreythompson.org/
> >
> >Really interesting project where for $1.50 charge, you can put an image
> >approximately 3/16" x 3/16" on a full page ad in ArtForum.
> >
> >Definitely worth a look
> >+
> >-> 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
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

Zhuan Falun is not flowery in its language and even does not conform to
modern grammar. However, if I try to use modern grammar to polish this
book of the Great Law, there would arise a serious problem: the
language and grammatical structure of the writing might be standard
and beautiful, but they will not be able to impart deeper and higher
implications, because it is completely beyond the capability of
contemporary standard vocabulary to express the Great Law as a guide in
different higher dimensions and its manifestations in each dimension
so as to give an impetus to the evolution of the practitioner's True
Being and cultivation energy, and promote a substantial
transformation. …… Li Hongzhi

o
[ + ]

+ + +


| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42