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

Sun Jan 7 19:52:18 CET 2007

Hi Geert,

 >Really?

I think that perhaps there those who are more interested in collecting 
specific information & promoting their projects, rather the other noise 
that happens on lists. I think that our list is actually pretty mellow 
really...

 >Alan might make art, but we will never know

I remember Heath Bunting stuck some text on a billboard about 15 yearsa 
go now saying 'most art means nothing to most people'...

marc

> Really?
>
> Anyway, I was just reconsidering a line
>
>>> - Alan might make art, but we will never know
>>
>
> at first I wrote
>
> Alan might NOT make art, but we will never know
>
> I think that's better
>
>
> Geert
>
>
>
>
> On 7/01/2007, at 6:35 PM, marc wrote:
>
>> Hi Geert,
>>
>> >(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)
>>
>> Well, he must of been affected in some way because he has  
>> unsubscribed now.
>>
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>>> 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. http:// 
>>>> www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?From=Index&review_id=167  
>>>> <http://www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php? 
>>>> From=Index&review_id=167>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org <mailto: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
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>