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

Mon Jan 8 01:25:04 CET 2007

Thanks for this. We still have absolutely no idea what these concepts  
(the avatar, our digitalization) will mean for us.

Geert

On 8/01/2007, at 12:49 AM, Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour