[NetBehaviour] erhu & Comments on Alan Sondheim's postings on this list...
geert at nznl.com
Sun Jan 7 18:31:12 CET 2007
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)
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://
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour