[NetBehaviour] erhu & Comments on Alan Sondheim's postings on this list...

[Geert Dekkers]

I would like to add this:

- Alan might make art, but we will never know
- Alans work isn't a series of  "works"
- Alan makes raw materials, not consumer items
- We are smart enough to put it all together again

(Incidentally, I'm quite amazed that leon at c6.org's little bout of  
indigestion lead to a thread this size)

Geert Dekkers---------------------------
http://nznl.com | http://nznl.org | http://nznl.net
---------------------------------------



On 7/01/2007, at 4:12 PM, marc wrote:

> Comments on Alan Sondheim's postings on this list...
>
> I perceive Alan's post-works, as an going work in 'process',  
> expounding the very nature of process itself, as a continualy  
> networked , creative act of mutated-consciousness, in a literal  
> form. It involves the material itself to be distributed, when  
> visiting various lists as part of a performative operation, this is  
> part of its context. Viewing the function and behaviour of how the  
> work is solicited can also bring about a closer understanding of  
> what the work is doing, in essence, as we receive it daily.
>
> Its value as art, or even an act of creativity rests in  
> appreciating that some of the work is like semiotic code, using the  
> language of tools, sofware and the computer, to build the content,  
> mixed with more traditional wordings alongside other peices of  
> texts. His work is noise, not non-thinking noise but a noise that  
> expounds, or translates the result of Alan's poetic imagination,  
> melding with code. It is not trying to communicate as a linear  
> message would do, or as a singular art object like an image. It is  
> exploiting the channels of communication, leaking into these  
> platforms like a virus would, yet directed by his consciousness.
>
> So, Alan's behaviour in releasing his material around the Internet,  
> could be considered as acting much like a parasite. I do not mean  
> this in a negative way, but more that 'this is what is done', it  
> becomes, or is part of the meaning of the work itself - the  
> function is component of its larger meaning, if there is such a  
> thing as meaning. The intention of his actions, also becomes part  
> of the work which we may not be so clear about which is probably  
> what causes the most troubles, when people ask questions - like why  
> is there so much of it?
>
> Alan and the Internet cannot be split. His work spans its history,  
> and as much as it has dominated his psyche, he has also dominated  
> the Internet's psyche; and perhaps also infiltrated our own minds  
> just by being here or there, as we tour many of the lists  
> ourselves. We are part of the work, whether we be passively or  
> engaged with it, it is now part of our online presence with us,  
> like a virus, hacking into the listserv, structures and sub- 
> structures, and into our own contexts. We become segments of the  
> structures that he sets his work up to infiltrate.
>
> What makes it a little more confusing is that we know that Alan  
> harbours real emotions, ideas and also gets involved in discourse  
> regarding various subject matters on lists as well as distributing  
> his work on them at the same time. But, he speaks differently from  
> his posts/conversations because that is dialogue, and this should  
> be acknowledged. I do not feel that Alan is trying to impose any  
> type of mesaage to dominate us, or even try and impose a claiming  
> of territory. Much of his work just is, it is being, it is there  
> and bleeds into its surroundings like steam into a room.
>
> I am definately not sure if Alan would agree with any of this, but  
> if he is not going to respond and discuss about his work, it is not  
> a problem. Because going through the motions of exploring these  
> texts and their purposes etc, has been rewarding itself and opened  
> different possibilities, and nuances, and also helps one to  
> understand or at least appreciate (a little) work by other artists  
> such as MEZ and FLorian Cramer.
>
> marc :-)
>
> --------------------------
> (c)human interaction in a broad sense of any cultural appropriation  
> and use: in 1968, in his book Algol, Noël Arnaud made a first  
> attempt at using a programming language as material for poetic  
> compositions. Later on, the hacker slang “leet”, Alan Sondheim’s  
> “Codework” and Marie Anne Breeze’s “Mezangelle” all apply code as a  
> material that can be recomposed to create a particular form of  
> written language that is recognised as “computer talk”, imitating  
> command lines but readable as some sort of English. In the same way  
> as James Joyce experienced with language in “Finnegan’s Wake”,  
> these new forms of writing create their own semantics and a meta- 
> language with social and cultural implications. On the other hand,  
> the work of George Pérec, Jodi, the I/O/D group, Netochka Nezvanova  
> or Adrian Ward’s Auto-Illustrator introduce what Cramer defines as  
> “software dystopia”, the reflection on software not as a  
> subservient, domesticated assistant but as a fearful, obscure and  
> incomprehensible golem that may revolt against us at any time or  
> take its own decisions. Under this light, software becomes much  
> more than just a tool, it is part of a broader concept of culture.
> Pau Waelder - Words Made Flesh (2005) - Florian Cramer. http:// 
> www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?From=Index&review_id=167
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20070107/cacb7882/attachment.htm>