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

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Tue Jul 7 17:12:08 CEST 2009 

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:

> 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.
>
These are styles, not languages, unless one wants to abandon any normal 
meaning of language.

> 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.

So for example Maria Martinez' work is elitist? She didn't even bother 
signing most of her pieces. Where do you draw the line?

I thik you're stretching the meaning of elitism as well; Kincaid's hardly 
elitist in any usual sense of the term, and I doubt his 'brushwork somehow 
transcends' anything - the idea of transcendence itself is problematic 
applied broadly to art.

Again I keep thinking - break down the barriers! and for me these terms 
are barriers to 'just looking' - Andre's Hartford piece for example years 
ago was called elitist; it's an easy and misplaced weapon.

- Alan

>
> 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
> *****************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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