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

Mon Jan 8 00:49:48 CET 2007

Hi
not particularly an answer to you Geert, you just
happened to post the latest in this thread, but a very
concrete response to all those who've expressed
puzzlement about Alan Sondheim's work.
Check out the video we posted on dvblog yesterday:

http://dvblog.org/?p=53

it's from a series of dance/movement videos Alan's
been making with Foofwa d'Imobilite & Maud Liardon. 
I think to watch it unmoved one would have to have a
heart of stone :)   - surely there's no *theory*
required, no *difficulty* to be overcome to be touched
in some way by this.

If this series of videos were *all* he'd ever made it
would establish him as a serious force but he has made
an astonishing *amount* & *variety* of work over a
long period of time.
I certainly don't like *everything* he makes ( even
assuming that the mark of what determines whether an
artist is worthwhile is whether one simply "likes"
what they do) & I'm absolutely sure that I have
certain big philosophical disagreements with him, but
I'm constantly astonished by his sheer range, not just
in terms of video work but the work he does with
language. I also like, in the era of the one liner as
art, very much the way this work refuses glibness or 
cosying up to the watcher/reader. I think if we are
*serious* as critics or fellow artists, or both, we
have a certain responsibility to attempt some
*serious* engagement with work before we even
*consider* dismissing it, though my bet is *this* work
will be even more alive & kicking just as hard in a
century...
best
michael

--- Geert Dekkers <geert at nznl.com> wrote:

> Perhaps. But as you might know, I included Alan in
> "Digital Bodies",  
> a show I did with Antoinette Reuten in her gallery
> in Amsterdam. I  
> had some trouble convincing her Alan was really
> "doing art" (I spend  
> most of my days wondering what that means). So I do
> see a consumerist  
> stance as a real obstacle to the appreciation of
> art. People tend to  
> want a finished product, and Alan jsut isn't giving
> this kind of thing.
> 
> Geert
> 
> 
> On 7-jan-2007, at 19:52, marc wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> >
>
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> met vriendelijk groet,
> 
> Geert Dekkers
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -------------------
> Geert Dekkers Web Studio | 2e Keucheniusstraat 8HS
> 1051VR Amsterdam |  
> +31(0)627224301 | http://nznl.net
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 