[NetBehaviour] a new Microcode: Vito Acconci's 'Seedbed'

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Mon Jul 6 23:29:26 CEST 2009 

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I believe all art does, at some level, require specific knowledge of
> specific "languages". If we look for instance at the emergence of
> Impressionism, it wasn't commonly accepted because people didn't
> understand its "language".

I don't think art has specific languages, but that's a very long argu- 
ment here; I'd combine Eco with Kristeva's Revolution in Poetic Language 
in this sense. I have no idea at all what a 'language of impressionism' 
is, although I usually can recognize an impressionist painting, but even 
then there are Americans that I'd have no idea how to place within the 
aegis.

> I probably come off sounding really "elitist" but art has always been
> and will always be "elitist".

Now Thomas Kincaid is _not_ elitist and is certainly an artist. So is 
Brittney for that matter.

I do want to make it clear this isn't about your work which I like! But 
about 'art in general' however that might be!

And thanks, Alan

>
> best r.
> Pall
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> And of course it's valid; I actually don't think 'validity' is a reasonable
>> category in aesthetics - it can be defined in terms of social groups or
>> language games, but has nothing intrinsic about it. Another interesting
>> point - Seedbed could be 'directly' experienced, even without reading the
>> wall-text, but your work requires a knowledge of a specific computer
>> language. So the program can be translated one to another; I don't see
>> Seedbed itself translating, which is why I have fairly negative feelings
>> about 'recreation' art, especially in Second Life...
>>
>> - Alan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>
>>> Well, actually the perl code:
>>>
>>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>> $p = `Seedbed`;
>>>
>>> would run without error. $p would contain the "not found" error. But I
>>> don't feel that it does much in pointing out the significance of the
>>> medium in this particular case. Perhaps if the work was about
>>> something lost or nonexistent, it would work but not for the "Seedbed"
>>> piece. The title of each of these Microcodes is as much a part of the
>>> complete work as anything else. The direct reference by name has
>>> already been made in the title and therefore I don't see any
>>> meaningful reason to reference it again in this way. Someone might
>>> say, "But you did it in 'Sleep'." However, I don't see that as the
>>> same thing because 'sleep' is an actual Perl function.
>>>
>>> If you want to attempt a phenomenological examination of the reference
>>> itself, let me explain exactly what led to the creation of this
>>> Microcode. I was doing some work the other day where I had to use the
>>> "touch" command legitimately. This reminded me of James Morris'
>>> "Microcrudities" where he used the command along with the variable
>>> "myself". This reminded me of my code piece "exist.pl" from last year
>>> where a perl code referenced itself in various human ways, i.e.
>>> my_existence, my_experience, my_environment, etc. When I thought of a
>>> Perl script referencing itself as the location of the actual file and
>>> then 'touching' that file, it reminded me of "Seedbed". And so I
>>> created the script that locates 'itself', that is, the file containing
>>> the runnable code and then 'touches' the file. I decided to print the
>>> long listing of the file each time to show the effects of 'touching'
>>> the file (the creation date is updated each time) as a hint that this
>>> sort of 'touching' is very different than Acconci's 'touching'. Of
>>> course, more people are going to understand the referenced meaning
>>> than the real meaning. But does that make it any less valid? Now that
>>> I think about it, the work isn't about Acconci's "Seedbed" at all.
>>> It's much more about the intended and almost inevitable
>>> misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> best r.
>>> Pall
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you here, and as usual a couple of points.
>>>> If k:> Seedbed
>>>> doesn't run, can it be said to run as not-run? This isn't trivial; Max
>>>> Black discussed it in terms of defining blackbirds as not-this, not-that;
>>>> obviously the list is infinite. Certainly 'Seedbed' as a command tells us
>>>> something - that the only thing it will run is the generic not-found -
>>>> but
>>>> that's something.
>>>> I do understand the non-issue of reproduction of other work in
>>>> micro-code,
>>>> and as you say, Seedbed is referenced; what I was on about, was what sort
>>>> of reference? There's a whole phenomenology here of course, which might
>>>> or
>>>> might not be of interest.
>>>> - Alan, and thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think I have to bring things back down to the ground now. After
>>>>> taking a bit of a break in the country in glorious weather, I see that
>>>>> this discussion is really going far beyond the work that's being
>>>>> discussed. Obviously, none of the microcodes that reference other work
>>>>> (and keep in mind that there only 3 or 4 out 20-some codes that do
>>>>> this) are meant to be accurate reproductions of those works. Actually,
>>>>> as reproductions they are meant to fail and in doing so they become
>>>>> new works of art. "Seedbed" attempts to reference the original
>>>>> performance with the words "touch myself" and by using the same title.
>>>>> But the way these words are applied within the code gives them a very
>>>>> different meaning as code. They also produce a result and it's a
>>>>> result that has absolutely nothing to do with the non-code meaning of
>>>>> the works. So these arguments about whether or not the code version
>>>>> references the original "Seedbed" accurately enough, are entirely
>>>>> beside the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason some of the Microcodes reference older work is to highlight
>>>>> the differences between the media. To show that while code as a medium
>>>>> is incapable of reproducing other work created in different media, it
>>>>> is also a distinct medium of its own that is capable of doing things
>>>>> that other media can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your suggestion of "an absolute minimum" wouldn't work as a Microcode
>>>>> because, as I mentioned earlier, I set a rule for myself, that all of
>>>>> the codes be runnable. Since, as Alan points out in his post,
>>>>> "Seedbed" doesn't run as a Unix command, this code wouldn't really be
>>>>> runnable.
>>>>>
>>>>> As mentioned above, the idea is simply to bring the original
>>>>> performance to mind. No more. Because the medium being used is
>>>>> incapable of doing more. It's entirely incapable of "bringing it to
>>>>> life, enacting it, redoing it, reperforming it". At the very most, it
>>>>> can "suggest it".
>>>>>
>>>>> best r.
>>>>> Pall
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:16 PM, <lotu5 at resist.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps the problem here is that
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is no one essence of this performance, or any performance for that
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>> While you do say "a single 'essence'", and not "the", to me a major
>>>>>> part
>>>>>> of the very idea of performance is to create something which is in
>>>>>> excess
>>>>>> of language and representation, something which the techne of words or
>>>>>> photo or video don't capture, much less a few lines of code. While I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> the notion of translating a performance into code is interesting,
>>>>>> perhaps
>>>>>> what this discussion precisely raises is that there are a multiplicity
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> essences, dirtiness, fantasy, masturbation, soreness, mystery,
>>>>>> discomfort,
>>>>>> the body, the absence of the body... Your microcodes seem to be a sort
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> review or remix of another work, based on your personal interpretation.
>>>>>> In
>>>>>> fact, I think that the reduction of the body to a set of files in your
>>>>>> home directory is in itself an abjection and a sadness, a departure
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> all the rich, sensual complexity of the body and a reduction to a few
>>>>>> digital bytes. Perhaps the sadness of the digital is expressed very
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pall Thayer wrote:I guess by "the essence" of the work, I'm
>>>>>>>> considering the absolute minimum that it takes to bring to mind
>>>>>>>> "Seedbed" when looking at the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, but here is sounds like you're talking about a simlpe
>>>>>> representation,
>>>>>> and I think being very reductive! Wouldn't the absolute minimum be
>>>>>> something like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>>>>> $p = `seedbed`;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? When in fact, the interesting part is to go beyond simply bringing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> performance to mind, but as the furtherfield review writes, to bring it
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> life, to enact it, to redo it, to reperform it, in the form of an
>>>>>> actual
>>>>>> running program?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2009, "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The essence it seemed to me wasn't self-referentiality or touch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (good
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unix
>>>>>>>>>>>>> command too), so much as it was about targeting the ab/use/er,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirtiness. And code's always clean; even dirty code's clean, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the primary reasons that I've "redone" a number of known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by other artists in these Microcodes is more to point out the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between code as a medium and other media. So the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't necessarily to emulate the work as closely as possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather to capture a single "essence" of it in very compact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think that trying to work the incline and fantasies into this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "version" of the work would result in considerably more code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would in turn make the work overly complex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *****************************
>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>> artist
>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>> *****************************
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive:  http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>>>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>>>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *****************************
>>> Pall Thayer
>>> artist
>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>> *****************************
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive:  http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *****************************
> Pall Thayer
> artist
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> *****************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>



| Alan Sondheim Mail archive:  http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
| Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
| sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list