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

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 14:43:12 CEST 2009


We could, for instance say that Impressionism employs a visual
language based not on a flowing gradation of color but a more
segmented, gradual building of color. I don't know if everyone would
agree that this is correct but that's beside the point. The thing is
that a lot of people were so happy with the neo-classical "flow" of
colors (impeccably blended gradients, etc.) that they couldn't
understand why someone would want to break that up into something
splotchy and patchy. To the critics it just didn't make sense to
attempt a textural representation of something based on a texture that
just wasn't there. This was a visual language used by the
impressionists. Then we get the same sort of thing with Duchamp where
no one understands the conceptual language of his suggestion that an
upside down urinal can be a work of art worthy of a spot in a museum
simply because the artist has signed it. Kandinsky didn't even expect
people to understand his visual language so he wrote "dictionaries" of
sorts to explain it.

I say that art is always elitist because the act of creating something
as art suggests that it the artist's "version" has some transcendental
quality to it. Even in the case of Thomas Kincaid. The fact that he
creates painting suggests that he, at least, feels that the result of
his brushwork somehow transcends the actual objects he's painting. In
the broadest sense of the word, that has to count as a type of
elitism.

best r.
Pall

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>



-- 
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************




More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list