[NetBehaviour] accident of art book

james at jwm-art.net james at jwm-art.net
Sun Nov 26 19:49:03 CET 2006

I looked again at your blog and realised I imagined the differences
between the paintings.

I think the Accident of Art book was better than the impression I gave
earlier. But their lack of awareness of the free software movement for
me was a glaring ommission. Even if free/libre/opensource/etc software
did not exist when they conversed about it (but consider how they talk
about Bill Gates), it still should have been acknowledged, even if as
just a footnote, IMHO.

It gives the wrong impression to those with little interest in computers,
strengthening the message there is no alternative. These days, the free
software movement is massive - half the internet runs on it. Software
made by individual programmers (grouping together), aswell as artists
writing their own programs, does, for me atleast, everything I need and
want it to. With Linux et al you can get right into it's core, probably
much further inside than Paul Virilio and Sylvère Lotringer could
probably imagine. It does all the things they criticise the technology
for lacking.


On 25/11/2006, "Ken Turner" <ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk> 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
>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
>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
>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
>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

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list