[NetBehaviour] erhu & Comments on Alan Sondheim's postings on this list...
Ken Turner
ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk
Mon Jan 8 13:42:50 CET 2007
The video 'duetavatargrange' is compelling - but who actually made it?
The dancers or the director?
I see it as a fragment looking for something extra, something outside
of its trapped self, both the dancers and the director.
Is heath bunting correct or not?
'most art means nothing to most people'
joseph beuys said that everybody is an artist.
It's an age old problem and one we have to live with.
Remember though that art lives on art and philosophy lives on
philosophy and if we did nothing, living would not be there for that
living ecstatic moment.
Alan states: 'touch has disappeared, replaced by"communication".
Is this not a comment on the danger of how we engage in communication
through communication: something missing here?
ken
On Jan 7, 2007, at 18:52, 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
>
More information about the NetBehaviour
mailing list