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

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 18:12:17 CEST 2009 

We're probably applying different terminology to the same things but
it's not uncommon to talk about "language" in relation to art work.
What I mentioned goes far beyond being just "style", these are
different methods of conveying ideas or feelings. Saying that the
difference between Neo-Classicism and Impressionism is purely
stylistic is a drastic understatement.

I think, within the arts, that the idea that elitism always carries
negative connotations is more or less obsolete /at least within the
elite... :-) /. It's an accepted fact that contemporary art can never
speak to "everyone". It's always pushing the boundaries and it takes
people a while to catch up. It "speaks" to those who are already in
the fray, a part of the art-elite. Artists aren't always the best at
communicating what their art is about so often it has to wait for
someone to come around who both understands it and is capable of
explaining it in a manner that makes sense to people.

Kincaid's paintings do transcend the original objects in that they
represent the object as well as his own input. It doesn't matter
whether or not we think his input is significant. A painting of a jar
surpasses the original jar simply because a human inserted a part of
themselves into it. It's not longer just the jar, it's the jar and the
painter.

This is from Kincaid's website:

"Thomas Kinkade is America's most collected living artist. Coming from
a modest background, Kinkade emphasizes simple pleasures and
inspirational messages through his paintings. As a devout Christian,
Kinkade uses his gift as a vehicle to communicate and spread inherent
life-affirming values."

He is "America's most collected living artist." and "uses his gift".
He has a "gift" that others don't have. Doesn't this make him elite?
He might not be "THE elite" but given these extraordinary credentials
(he's also received "multiple National Association of Limited Edition
Dealers (NALED) awards for Artist of the Year and Graphic Artist of
the Year"!) he must be some kind of elite. Above others. Best in
category. Now, the fact that I'm making fun of him for this just makes
me another type of "elite". I'm not even sure if I could say "more
elite". I mean, I don't have a "Pall Thayer Collector's Society" (
http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.collectors.web.tk.CollectorsServlet
).



On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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