[NetBehaviour] erhu & Comments on Alan Sondheim's postings on this list...
marc.garrett at furtherfield.org
Sun Jan 7 18:35:43 CET 2007
>(Incidentally, I'm quite amazed that leon at c6.org
<mailto:leon at c6.org>'s little bout of indigestion lead to a thread this
Well, he must of been affected in some way because he has unsubscribed now.
> 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
> <mailto: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.
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org <mailto:NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
More information about the NetBehaviour