[NetBehaviour] accident of art book

Ken Turner ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Dec 4 16:02:02 CET 2006


James
reading 'the accident of art'  by Paul Virilio is a provocative read, 
most certainly.
My most immediate attention was on the idea of focus itself.
Taking Paolo Uccello he described the content of the work, 'The Battle 
of San Romano', as being the artists use of perspective. He was a 
mathematician and painter who in presenting a multi dimensional view of 
the world, saw an expression of this view as a reason for the work, 
coming as it did, from both an inner compulsion and an  organising and 
belief system originating from himself.
Virilio then questioned whether the net-artist, in their collage 
construction of varied uses of software, not invented by the artists 
themselves, was in fact a genuine thoughtful creative process that 
could be considered authentic. Is he right or wrong in this? I think 
you said that the artist could produce his own software?
I think there is an interesting intelligence in the conversations of 
the book and one we should perhaps all venture into because of its 
provocative nature.
regards
ken



On Nov 25, 2006, at 20:12, Ken Turner wrote:

> hi James good of your to remain in contact
> The 'bloke' you refer to is a depiction of Prometheus who breathed 
> life into mankind and gave them fire  because they were so cold and 
> shivering.
> Zeus was angry and chained prometheus to a precipice with an eagle 
> pecking his liver out. so he's in a bit of pain.
> I use the idea as a metaphor and intent to continue this trait into a 
> performance.
> I sometime find emailing people a bit frustrating because people us it 
> in a fragmentary way and this is what I see as a networking failure.
> The three figures at the bottom of the page represent a failure in 
> communication.
> I hope my metaphors and symbolism has a resonance with you.
> If not then - anyway these things take time to find common ground and 
> I'm just trying to do a good job as an artist.
> Being an artist is hard work. By the way I have ordered the book 
> 'accident of art' and will let you know how I get on.
>
> All the best
> ken
> On Nov 23, 2006, at 21:26, <james at jwm-art.net> wrote:
>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I had a look at the site a few days ago. The paintings are a lot
>> different to those I last saw on your blog. The one with the
>> red/ochre/cyan face, next to the "critically human think I am
>> therefore" photo, I thought was sticking his fingers up to the viewer,
>> but eventually saw it's a bloke falling headfirst. That right? Or's it
>> a umm, thingy like old what'is name, picabia, double image?
>>
>> The three figures below it are quite entertaining too. It's 
>> interesting
>> what you mention about the local; familiar territory, and thought. 
>> Ideas
>> which might be something to do with what I do with art, or maybe just
>> what I think I do. But whichever, I'm still not quite yet familier 
>> with
>> them infact to both know exactly what the difference is, and put it 
>> into
>> practice.
>>
>> james
>>
>>
>> On 19/11/2006, "Ken Turner" <ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James
>>>
>>> One of the issues that Virilio deals with is the idea of speed as it
>>> effects perception.
>>> I think it also effects/infects subjectivity.
>>> If you are interested in painting please see the site below.
>>>
>>> http://www.imaginativeeye.co.uk/theoldship.html
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> ken
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2006, at 00:47, <james at jwm-art.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone read "The Accident of Art" by Paul Virilio and Sylvère
>>>> Lotringer? It is an "extended conversation" between them. I 
>>>> generally
>>>> find it difficult to understand criticism, the terms used, but by 
>>>> the
>>>> end of the book I think I had a vague idea of what they were talking
>>>> about.
>>>>
>>>> It goes something like this: The accident of art, or in fact it 
>>>> seemed
>>>> more general, the accident of globalization/capitalism, is the
>>>> correction of perception by machine. And, that we need to constantly
>>>> fight against the machine and get inside of it to change it. Anyhow 
>>>> it
>>>> was interesting but I thought that in particularly the way they 
>>>> talked
>>>> about the digital and analogue and the internet, Sondhiem (probably
>>>> others do too but I'm not aware of much) goes into greater depth.
>>>>
>>>> But the biggest thing that bugged me was the quick discussion about
>>>> software. Initially they spoke of architects and how they should 
>>>> write
>>>> their own software. Then a bit later, they question who are the
>>>> programmers? They're sure it's not Bill gates. And they lamented the
>>>> fact that no one goes about writing their own software. Me thinks 
>>>> they
>>>> need to research that a little more.
>>>>
>>>> I probably read it too quickly to understand more.
>>>>
>>>> James.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20061204/daee65b5/attachment.bin>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list