[NetBehaviour] accident of art book

james at jwm-art.net james at jwm-art.net
Thu Nov 23 22:26:53 CET 2006


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


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.
>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

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list