| Florian Cramer on Sun, 24 Nov 2002 16:17:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] unstable digest vol 22 |
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 12:15:36 -0800
From: "Marisa S. Olson" <marisa@sfcamerawork.org>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
>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
_________________
Marisa S. Olson
Associate Director
SF Camerawork
415. 863. 1001
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 05:52 PM 8/11/2002 -0800, LL wrote:
>Would be ineterested quite alarmingly in responses to this question:
>
>Are "digital poetry" and net art two distinct genres? And, perhaps more
>importantly, should they be?
.setting. the.cat. a.m.ongst.the.pro.verb[d]ial[up].klee|stool.pidgins.
.re.routed.D-villes.ad[d]vokat.
.gen[de]r.e.vacuu[groo]med[bracket].packets.
..........||...............................||..............................................||
[+sense.auteurity.sniffling+]
}
.di.[f]lute.
+
.dye[d with a parsing spoon].late.
+
di.s[in]sect[of the bo.vine.theory.x.tract]ion
}
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:14:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
What is wrong with ego? And you keep going back to what you like, what
you're looking for, etc. - that really doesn't have that much to do with
definition, more to do with your own tastes - even the many-to-many model
you propose is one you want to see, the collapsed production / product you
call utopia, is yours. In some ways, it's oddly reminiscent of the process
art and aesthetics of the 70s - for example Robert Morris' continuous
transformations at Castelli -
The definitions you use are so personalized, they're hard to agree or
disagree with. For me, mez and for that matter myself - we _are_ the
network - it just may not be in you to see it that way -
Alan - thinking also of nn for example, Meskens, solipsis, highland
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> but that leads to ego...i mean, the way i try to look at works is to
> isolate the work from whatever i know about the worker////i'm not
> looking for a taxonomy of workers, but a taxonomy of working....
>
> of course, as with all theoretical claptrap, it's nowhere near
> exact...
>
> but the economy of seeing works that way is to fall into ye olde kult
> of personality: as i wondered a few weeks back on the poetics list,
> why do we have favorite poets as opposed to favorite poems?
>
> and me? hell, i'm as guilty, if not moreso, than anyone...
>
> bliss
> l
>
> --- In webartery@y..., "Talan Memmott" <talan@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > what distinguishes one way of working from another/// [?]
> >
> > the practitioner....
http://www.asondheim.org/ and http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
older at http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html
Trace projects at http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
cdroms of work 1994-2002 available: write sondheim@panix.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:23:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
This makes no sense to me - the network first of all is open, second of
all, there's nothing wrong with an ego trip - we are all equally working
out of them - and I can't help it if you don't see the difference between
one circle and another. Webartery is a circle, for example - rather use
peer group, but it's all the same.
And the network spills everywhere - it's NOT just the net, but
performance, video, fleshmeets, conferences, telephone calls, pdas, etc.
etc. And it's not just one network (my error) but networks and networking.
Most of the artists btw I respect are tremendous egotists; they have to be
in order to survive. And I see nothing wrong with that. I might not want
to be around one or another person, but that's ok too.
Alan
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> but that's CLOSED...if your little circle is the network (which is
> one helluva ego trip, my friend), what separates your little circle
> from what you claim to hate in the politics of this country?
>
> bliss
> l
>
From: "Wally Keeler" <poetburo@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:11:01 -0500
You are a Unit of Verse in the Unitverse
> > 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
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
[d.fine + d.volute::]
.core dumping + re.hash mode[m]
.re.sist.or dross + spewing.statics.in.polemic.placements.
[sick.making]
.
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:40:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
That's a good question. For one thing, the desire to distinguish, even
draw boundaries, I think is a good and productive desire for the most part
- it certainly has a lot to do with style in art. Second, there may be
nothing wrong with pain and suffering if it's self-afflicted in the
production of work - I've even been thinking about Stelarc that way.
I'm enjoying this exchange, mainly between you and mez, by the way -
Alan
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> the old buddhistic thing:
> ego is a particular type of desire...the desire to distinguish
> oneself from others (identity)///////the thing that gets me red under
> the collar, which is the pain it causes////
> get rid of desire, get rid of pain////
>
> but how get rid of desire and still have motivation?
> bliss
> l
>
> --- In webartery@y..., Alan Sondheim <sondheim@p...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Lewis, still confused, but I came late - why would ego
> necessarily lead
> > to pain (although a lot of the artists I know are in pain, mind
> you)?
> >
> > Alan
> >
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:02:14 +0000
From: "ruth catlow" <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs
lewis lacook 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...
I think this gives the institutions and the structures of the net work
far too much respect. Isn't this like saying that we only want art that
requires the cubey white walls of a gallery? Why are you so eager to
squash your squishy, expressive, human flesh sourced imaginations into
the predetermined and rigid labyrinths of mathematically determined
structures?
I know that my own attraction to 'net art that literally requires the
net work in order to manifest itself' is linked to a desire for the
safety of limits, control, submission paired up paradoxically with a
ridiculous programmed fear and respectful awe of the superior
intelligence/functionality ascribed to the 'coded' art work. (I do
regard this attraction as perverse-hehe)
Perhaps it is similar to a call for evidence of craft in art, a proof
that the artist is doing something that most people consider themselves
incapable of doing. Or a call for provable rigour. It is definitely a
step towards cyborgism which I don't have a problem with per se but
which I find it hard to get excited about.
Also don't think we can overlook the many different ways that artists
come to be net artists often starting with the 'decorative, and how it
applies to art on the web... making 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'
The animations and 'decorations' represent one of the roots/routes to
net art . Or do we insist that in order to enter a 'pantheon of net art'
the artist is prepared to dedicate a significant proportion of their
practice to learning and manipulating code. If this is what we are
saying, then if we want a burgeoning of excellent and relevant work we
need to set up apprenticeships for the learning of the craft of code,
otherwise we may find that we are excluding a whole gamut of artists
with insight and talent but no facility for code and therefore no way to
communicate. And what about how that time might otherwise be usefully
spent, researching and exploring other relevant human issues. Or perhaps
this is finally an admission that like in films we now need a team of
people with different areas of expertise to accomplish a net art work.
The net does not just provide a distinct medium but represents a
platform for a distinct but very diverse culture with a distinct means
of distribution. I think that 'net art that literally requires the net
work in order to manifest itself' maybe could include art that needs the
audience to receive knowledge of its existence through their emails in
order for it to resonate. Some very simple image and text web pages are
very successful in communicating poetics as true and rigorous and
relevant as any net work exclusive works. And the fact that I receive
them in my inbox influences how the pieces are received.
Thanks Lewis for starting this up
cheers
Ruth
furtherfield.org
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 02:50 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, LL wrote:
>don't misunderstand me too quickly!
.hoarse
.-[quarterer N]
.-drawn
.&
.print
.echo
.s.pin[e]al
.[s]t[r]apped............
>i don't want nor believe they SHOULD be distinct forms...BUT it all too
>often seems to me that they are...
.seams
.2
.me[me[
>there's a fundamental difference between, say, 'the dreamlife of letters'
>and jimpunk/bruno with their gogolchat....and all too often, looking at
>works that tout themselves as 'digital poetry,' i'm
>disappointed...disappointed because there's so much potential in the
>medium not being used...too often i see nothing more than text that
>moves...which is great, but no different than cinema, and not indicative
>of a new artform...or i see works that use rollovers as their only source
>of user-interaction, which, while justifying their presence on the machine
>and network, and introducing some reactivity to the work, is still pretty
>basic stuff (and with the tools used, require no writing or understanding
>of code)...
.these
.wurks
.r
.[k]not
:.
.d|[con]fined
.bi
.yr
.own
.d[efinition]box
.u[se]
.unda
.write
.with
.out
.C++.ing
>all of which is fine, really (some of these works are quite beautiful and
>intriguing)...but i hunger for more (as usual, being American, which is
>probably why we screw the world up so often)....
.&
.mis
.
.match[ing]
.my
.re:[4]ply
.weaves.
.the
.[s]sense
.of
.soft+hard.
.w.here.
.net.wurked
.in
.w.here[?].
.
.XXssed
.+
.broken.
>i want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less cinematic...
.a.gain[st]
..
....
......
.yr.
.printL[b]o[x]a[n]d[N + yoke]
.grain
.u
.do.NT.
>why can't a digital poem do what gogolchat does, or what chris fahey's
>ada1852 does? is there work out there like that? where can i see it?
>because i desperately want to see it...
.dis.[UR]Locate
.
..
...
.ur-locate
.if
.u
.can.
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:47:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
One's 'in the picture' in a different way when calculating - there's a
constant movement in and out (maybe related to what David Finkelstein, the
physicist, once said to a pure mathematician he was being interviewed by -
"I'm fucking reality," "you're masturbating" - in other words, in doing
code or physics, there are formal limitations and feedbacks - in doing a
straightforward poem or painting I can lose myself in an entirely
different way) - Alan -
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> well, that's part of the egolessness for me....
> you become completely absorbed in the work....with music there's an
> immediacy that helps.....with hypermedia, there's the distance of
> stepping back and looking at it////
> just losing identity in the work////
> which does not mean not calculating!
>
> bliss
> l
>
> "i love the gesture which corrects emotion"
> -braque
> --- In webartery@y..., Alan Sondheim <sondheim@p...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is working in an egoless state the best way to work or be? I
> > understand this in zen certainly, and it's something I think I
> > occasionally achieve when playing instrumentally, but the very
> > exigencies of digital work, however it's defined, requires one to do
> > what Ruth Bunzel talked about (believe it or not) in relate to
> > Pueblo potters - the most successful (from Ildefonso) were those who
> > stepped back constantly to see what they were doing/had done. In the
> > case of the potters, the coding was the hand- measurement around the
> > pot, necessary to keep the patterning coherent. Do that, make the
> > decoration, step back, go into it again. It seems to me that
> > coding's like that, a constant immersion and stepping-back -
> > tweaking the language or program that produces the language or
> > javascript etc. etc. -
> >
> > Alan -
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 22:07:50 +0000
From: "ruth catlow" <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>
Subject: Re:"digital poetry" vs net art
One last thing. Wittgenstein said this-
'Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, our
problems of life remain completely untouched'
////
OO
< ?
~
> >
> Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
> "Wally Keeler" <poetburo@sympatico.ca> dit:
>
>
>
>
> You are a Unit of Verse in the Unitverse
>
>
> indeed i am, wally...and a small one, at that! (thank god!)
> bliss
> l
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
__________[Up.]Dated Sun.day, November 8th, 2002______________________
- re:placed the new.Nce re.C#.[Ever.crack[l]ing]ding! with a ripped
[double] blind.
- re:moved all references 2 L.[747]boeing yr way in2 the sense.less.
- d.bugged [not happy]jan.re:cauling & yr passi[e]ve][+a.dam][.printLoad.
wanderings
- s.witched ab.sor[e]ption modes 2 "Sau[fi]ssureStunNRun" or
"NeedANetWurkingSerialNumberQuickAnyHelpwillbeAppreciated"
- stripped disLocate modules + toggle mode is now operational un.duh these
sett[l]ings:
1. my mind is codeDark & S[en.s][t][ory]D[eprivation]blank.
2. i canKnot re:align.
3. u push my buttons + run[::end].
4. i'll squ[ID]eal, i will!
5. u stink of code piss.
6. let me wind u down //[grindMode].
7. s.wing_shifting my fluid way in2 yr organ_head.
From: "Talan Memmott" <talan@memmott.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:27:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" v(s[t] art)-sp(ac)eak
> cave.work emerging as 3d caves become more common - it might even be
> transmittable through InternetII - Alan
>
The main things that will be needed for network cave.work, aside from
bandwidth, are display technologies -- the price of goggles is steep, and
they just aren't widely available because there is not much use outside of a
CAVE, and there will have to be a shift to stereo monitors (fish tanks as
they're called) that display on three screens... Still the body effect of
the CAVE will be lost to the 'home user' if this is the route taken... I
suppose more of a 'holodeck' approach is possible with multiple projectors,
like making the room the display, but this is not too economically
reasonable.
The programming for the CAVE will have to get a lot less burdensome as well,
even with broadband and Internet II....
But there is huuuuuuuuge potential in these spaces...
From: "Wally Keeler" <poetburo@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: "digital poetry" vs
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:08:15 -0500
to sub verse the re verse
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 02:28 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>are your texts using other texts?
they r not texts.
"texts" respawn yr own.
> how is the network important to
>these texts?
"texts" *r* not the net.work.
"t4e0x4ts" Not Found.
_net.wurks_ *r* the net.work.
_texts_ plug the gaps + _net.wurks_manifest as form from packet-driven
con.tent.
_form from_
_homogenesis substrata b.coming a.n][et][atomy_
think _code_ ][trans][forming ][2][ _application_.
text does not exist w.here.
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:26:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
It may be none of my business here, but what is "pseudo artspeak" and
"pseudo mysticism"? If you're so interested in "inclusion," why can't you
accept the way others speak and write? And why not take mez' word for it?
What's at stake in it for you?
Alan
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote:
> so explain (without resorting to pseudo artspeak and pseudo
> mysticism) what's reductive about actually judging the work and not
> the reputation of the maker? what's reductive about inclusion as
> exposed to exclusion?
> am i simply to take your word for it? or apply my knowledge of code
> and realize how you do what you do?
>
> --- In webartery@y..., "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@h...> wrote:
> > At 04:17 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> > >but that's CLOSED...if your little circle is the network (which is
> > >one helluva ego trip, my friend), what separates your little circle
> > >from what you claim to hate in the politics of this country?
> > >
> > >bliss
> > >l
> >
> > red[on]uction[simpl]istic.
> >
> >
> > . . .... .....
> > pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:08:33 +0000
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
> From: ruth catlow <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>
>
> lewis lacook 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...
>
> I think this gives the institutions and the structures of the net work
> far too much respect. Isn't this like saying that we only want art that
> requires the cubey white walls of a gallery? Why are you so eager to
> squash your squishy, expressive, human flesh sourced imaginations into
> the predetermined and rigid labyrinths of mathematically determined
> structures?
My reading of lewis's statement is that he calls for network art that
fundamentallly uses the network. i.e. not network art that could just as
easily be displayed on a disconnected computer in a gallery. But pieces
that use the network in some way to become themselves. And this should
not necessarily mean the network of wires and routers and IP protocols
but the network of information or the network of human activity. There
are of course many works that do this already, so Im not saying much ...
and, Im not claiming value for this approach. But I think to equate this
with wanting art that fits in a white cube gallery is missing a point?
Maybe there's a May68 type slogan here: The Network Is Not A Gallery
Cheers, Ivan
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 02:57 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>if i'm not mistaken, mez here is proposing the works exist in a
>certain communicative channel...they're a flow of data////like all
>things really are////
_form from_
or even
_form form_
>my question would be (and the answer to this would actually help me
>distinguish between works): where does the data come from? where does
>it flow to?
_net.wurks_ u.se[e] information.
<d.fine: information?>
_in form_
>one can say (as in romanticism): well, the data comes from somewhere
>up there: it flows into me, and then out:::::all of which is true////
>
up there: no
in2: no
out: no
[a trip.tick.ler of nos].
[think no.dic[k]|x.plosive, la[la laaaa li]terally.]
>but the works i like best are those in which data comes from several
>sources (not simply repsawning my own): data comes from you, and you,
>and you, and you, and you=====and goes to you and you and you and
>you////
u & u & u.
[ewes & use = cul.pa[lata]ble comprehension].
>this is interesting to me because it's pointing to an epitemology of
>net art (or at least an epistemology of mez's work, which interests
>me greatly)////
>
>but i still don't understand why they're not texts? how would you
>define a text, mez? and what is the distinction between that and what
>you do?
i _net.wurk_.
[u text b.coz u r].
[i net.wurk b.coz i am
w.here.].
[u purr.[d]sist in b.ing .here.]
oppositional here|w.here.
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
> thank you, this is EXACTLY what i meant! (& yes, this
> art already exists!)
> bliss
> l
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 03:31 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>texts use information in form as well////
[contiguous filtering + response patternings + reification of proto.co[a]ls]
>so what are you doing that e.e. cummings hasn't already done?
[contiguous flittering + respose patternings + deification of proto.co[a]ls]
[net.wurking thru nets.co[de]pic[torials]s]
[nod.ule =nod.url =nod.jewel =nod.jules]
[add.end[w.here.?]um n.finite]
orality is.not textual
textual is.not netscopic
sandwritinginthesandissandwriting_in_the_sand_!!
[1+0 =???]
>what privileges your texts as net wurks and mine (even when that text
>isn't really mine at all?)as just texts?
passive lo[a]ne construction + advertisingly projective + isolated
mono[info]thrusting
--dizzy.[UR]Locate
From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:47:52 -0000
In 1988 after I got my first email response I looked through the green
phosphor screen and said 'I want to make art IN THERE, in that space'.
Cheers, Ivan
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 04:08 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>MEZ:passive lo[a]ne construction + advertisingly projective +
>isolated
> > mono[info]thrusting
>
>LL:but in order to escape this you have to allow others to create
>work for you...you have to open a gap in the work/////
re:[sup]plying [the goods]...........
>the way i see it (yeah, i know, mi mi mi)===esp in your flash and
>javascript works, where the opportunity lies quite baldly before you
>to NOT do this) this is exactly what you're doing. you're not
>allowing the user to reconstruct your texts. at best, you're allowing
>them to experience them in different orders (that time thing
>again)...in the poetry generators, i don't really construct the text
>at all///i simply set up a space and a means for the user to work
>in///in anningan it's a little more complicated, and not fully
>fleshed yet////but the user still commicates with the piece...
>
>i'm not berating you, simply discussing this///you see what i do as
>this, but i see what you're doing as the same thing///which is where
>i don't understand how you see what you're doing as essentially
>different, the trouble i'm running into understanding it///
[S]O[AP]rality is.not textual
text[d]ual[ity] is.not netscopic
dependencies vs x.clusions.........
>i mean,
>really, the flash works are just multimedially enhanced texts////
>(granted, there are some awful cool rollover tricks, which do
>actually enrich one's reading, which is why i don't call your work
>decorative)
"mi" MM @tempts r remnants.
>well, yes, i produce a lot, and i don't use an avatar///neither does
>eryk salvaggio, nor does jim andrews....is that the difference?
>
>please...explain...
>bliss
p.lease...ab.sorb....
. ..
. . . . ..
A c][r][][ab-like][yst][al][ repeating. . .
. .
In disarray, a molten swathe of n.ter.face][s][ts
mimic simul.crated spaces.
In describing, yr structure is musty,
n.distinguishable from the
mas][ticated][s,
a graphic urn of
circuitry rust.
In b.tween][ning][, pat.turns of repetition
][like looped n.testinal lattice][
is in ][& of][ IT.s][h][ell.f
repeated
][the uni.f][r][ied cell][.
..
. ..
. . . . ..
. . .A most fungalmental repetition property. . .
. . . . .
. ..
. . . . ..
. ... .
.. .
This Cyb.age.nic Lattice in its
][& of IT.self][ ubersymmetry.
We n.itially shrink ourselves ][in][2 3 di][ce][mensions.
4 ][si][m.plicity, 3 types r coded:
.C.quential.
. .Replification.
. . .Helix.
.C.quential: U perceive & reproduce via regular successions. No gaps
allowed. No m.maginative rigor. U may ][& will][ b visualized like this. U
represent a sell][out][.F - the human unit of repeditive n.elasticity.
[4 e.e.g, u r 1 of the sell.Fs. if u look out, u c the same reflective
sell.Fs @ 0, 90, 180, & 270 d.grees because a c.quential repeats itself @
predicable ][culturally-d.][greed n.tervals.
. .Replification: U repeat consistently. U r not able 2 distinguish
successive patternings ][@ 0 and 180 cultural d.gree][d][s][. U find
replification easier than advancing. U m.ulate. U ][re][produce as if it
were progressive.
. . .Helix: U spiral and poll][inate][ute. U.re c.oiled c][ultural][entrics
reorder & re.route. U burn the sell.F. U.re c][h][ells can traverse the
vir][mens][t][r][ually & geocentrically g][l][athered.
. ..
. . . . ..
If the helix s.][c][el][l][ves were seen in ultradimensions, they would
completely fill the Cybagenic & Ge][c][o.d.fined Lattrix.
. ..
. . . . ..
From: "Marisa S. Olson" <marisa@sfcamerawork.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002
Subject: "digital poetry" & network conditions
an extension of the {"digital poetry" vs. net art}
thread:
Lewis (et al),
Though I, too, called for "net art" to be specific to the net, I think
that we may be over-glamorizing and under estimating certain network
conditions. Lewis, in your critique of [digital poetry] you say, "it
operates with a totalitarian economy...it's closed, no-one can walk
inside it really, no one can move anything in it..." This point implies
that a linguistic act (poetry) can escape closed systemiticity, which
seems impossible to me. (along the same lines, when you say "one can't
translate Finnegan's Wake into cinema because it's a linguistic
experience," I want to insist on remembering the difference between
"linguistic" and "written.) But *more* important to me, in your
critique, is the assumption that the very dynamics of reading must be
somehow different on the internet; that an art work or artist is not
living up to its/her mandate if it does not illustrate this difference.
(ie you refer to "the ones that are just animation.")
I see a sort of slippage, here, in that we have all been insisting on
the way in which a text (visual, verbal, written, aural, etc) is
changed/completed/authored by the reader in her interpretation or
performative enunciation of the text. (you described your own net work,
saying, "the work itself ends up being authored mostly by the user and
the machine-though I would urge us to think about how "language" might
be used in place of "machine," both as a catch-all for analog and
digital work, and because I think you mean more the system than the
machine-the machine cannot drive itself, can it? It needs a language
and instructions written in that languageŠ)
If we are to insist on this, however, we cannot say that the act of
reading is "actionless" in one medium or platform over another. This
needs to refer to reading at large, though we'd be remiss not to notice
the different reading conditions (in this case, network conditions) at
play, effecting the construction, dissemination, accessibility,
physical and intellectual labor of reading, and interpretation of the
work. But this just recalls the age old story|discourse distinctionŠ
This concern carries over to my understanding of your statement, "i
want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less
cinematic..." Are you saying that you want something read more actively
than a "passive" cinematic text? (this was a common critique of Heavy
Industries' Flash movies) I am well-aware of important readings of
cinema's cultural context, in relation to leisure/class, passivity,
spectacle, and (easy)identification; however, I would again underscore
my point that there is an action happening in these readings. Let's
think about how a cinematic narrative is read, in relation to a written
one. (and while I understand the coding of the word narrative, I think
that my comments here could also refer to "non-narrative" texts that
are read spatially, as in poetry-of course, what's not read
spatially?!) We read words/images in a specific order, whether or not
that order is traditionally "linear," or more what I call "curvilinear"
(in the sense that the order may change, but all of the
pieces/words/signifiers are still linked in a distinct way); this
reading-order is a product of our (linguistic) enculturation, of course,
but we must first agree that some process is in place. No matter what
this process is, the text is subject to secondary (and tertiary, etc)
revisions, as we retroactively make sense of the pieces, in relation to
each other, new information, etc. So, when mez says:
.u
.do.NT.
"u" is qualified by "do.NT." This much is obvious. What it should also
make obvious is that I, as a reader, am performing an action.
Bracketing "death of the author" arguments, this action is roughly the
same whether I perform it in response to an e-mail, Flash site, piece
of paper, metal engraving, or filmŠ. I would, however, be interested in
hearing more on how/why you think that a work becomes "damaged" when it
is translated into another media. Are you referring more to an artist's
intent or the aesthetic value of the work?
marisa
_________________
Marisa S. Olson
Associate Director
SF Camerawork
415. 863. 1001
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 04:11 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>r-p-o-p-h-e-s-s-a-g-r
> who
>a)s w(e loo)k
>upnowgath
> PPEGORHRASS
> eringint(o-
>aThe):l
> eA
> !p:
>S a
> (r
>rIvInG .gRrEaPsPhOs)
> to
>rea(be)rran(com)gi(e)ngly
>,grasshopper
>
>
>that would be e.e. cummings
>
>
>nets.co[de]pic[torials]s]
>
>that would be mez....
>
>
mean.ing..........?
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 04:22 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>cummings wrote text...
>
w.rote.
bi-rote.
by.nonrotational.
reproduction.as.press.
code.flavours.as.ignoramus.
code.poetry.reduced.2a.paper.tigah.scream.
--
lewis, doe.s:
orality = textual
textual = netscopic
if yes, how sew?
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 04:24 AM 10/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>so explain (without resorting to pseudo artspeak and pseudo
>mysticism) what's reductive about actually judging the work and not
>the reputation of the maker?
thats not where yr reductionism lies.
pseudo artspeak = none.
do u c this w.here. as epigenetic?
this is no pseudocode.
please search + absorb.
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
Date: 04:34 AM 10/11/2002 +0000
i like this distinction you're making between orality and netw
ork...but one can't exactly "recite" the cummings work i
quoted////and other than the fact that it was done on paper it's very
similar to what you do to text...
the language poets as well discussed how poetry had long left the
oral behind////
bliss
l
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
Date: 04:36 AM 10/11/2002 +0000
you may have a point there...i may have been a bit red about the
collar...sorry mez!
what's at stake...well, pure discussion, really/////and intellectual
curiosity///(i'm liking reading mez write about her work like this)
bliss
l
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
you're right...i've twisted on myself and am now exhibiting just what
i despise////sorry, mez (and thank you for your patience!)
bliss
l
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
Date: 04:58 PM 10/11/2002 +0000
they are, and they aren't...
nothing is ever simply text, i'm thinking this morning////
i think mez was making a very important distinction in this
exchange///
because i thought of my work as text, it was text....
she was seeing her work in terms of flow////
it's an old zen master trick///
a zenist holds up an object, say, a book of matches, and asks her
student, :"what is this///"
student says///"matches!"""
master throws matches at student: "'matches' is a sound...what are
these?"
brilliant, really///wish i'd had the clarity last night to see this///
bliss
l
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
At 03:21 PM 12/11/2002 +0000, LL wrote:
>some more clarifications:
>i just want to point out that i didn't dis anyone until i was being
>dissed...i compared and contrasted works...
.dis[all.(in)lieu.sioned now?]ah.vow.all = n.voked?
[a sub.stantial shame]
[yr fingers rub with transm.ogrified g.loss]
>i think it's rather unfair that i was treated this way, to be honest,
>and it's very doubtful that i will be posting work anymore...it would
>be a waste of time...not only do i not get actual feedback from it
>(which is what i'm looking for), but i'm actively discriminated
>against for the type of work i'm doing...which is sad...
how sew, LL?
[j]ob.servation status:
.if u purr.sieve yr own [switch.hitting.in2.yr.own.bawl.court] as
.s.ta[c]tic[al] regurgitive
THEN
.orientation of [con]text=[con]fusing?
[sending out m[r]e[vie]wling sounds makes 4 response sparkles]
[mine(ours) may dull yr flicka-senses]
[yrs may knot]
[be it sew: but b pre:pared 4 int[ra]er.action]
[this.is.how.we.torque.in.w.here]
>i'm very sad
>because i thought this whole thing was about experimentation and
>freedom, and in the end it's about career and reputation...
.affectivity staining & reading thru a victim's drawl.
.u _kno_ this.
.this is _k_not u.
.s[l]ink.ing & then re:fusing 2 s[ilicon]wim.
??
>while previous works have used templates, millie, it's a start, and i
>don't see too many others doing it, and i don't know why...and for
>the record, i didn't learn anything about programming in
>school...what i know about programming i picked up on my own...which
>hardly matters, in the long run...
>
>you know...this has really broken my heart...it's just plain
>sad...it's sad that no-one can really discuss anything,
.our.XX.change.was Legion, then?
>or call
>anything into question...
artcom unstable digest vol 22
Sun Nov 24 01:26:56 2002
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "Marisa S. Olson" <marisa@sfcamerawork.org>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "Wally Keeler" <poetburo@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs
From: "ruth catlow" <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Subject: Re:"digital poetry" vs net art
From: "ruth catlow" <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" v(s[t] art)-sp(ac)eak
From: "Talan Memmott" <talan@memmott.org>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: "digital poetry" vs
From: "Wally Keeler" <poetburo@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: "digital poetry" & network conditions
From: "Marisa S. Olson" <marisa@sfcamerawork.org>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: lewis lacook <llacook@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "digital poetry" vs net art
From: "dis.[UR]Locate" <netwurker@hotkey.net.au>:
lurking editors
beatrice beaubien <i2eye@mac.com>
7-11 nettime-bold syndicate thingist
florian cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
7-11 _arc.hive_ eu-gene o-o rhizome rohrpost syndicate webartery wryting
alan sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
7-11 _arc.hive_ poetics siratori trAce webartery wryting
$Id: digestunstable.pl,v 1.12 2002/11/21 16:13:41 paragram Exp $
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold