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

Alan Sondheim sondheim at panix.com
Wed Jul 8 05:18:18 CEST 2009 


I think if you find Kincaid elite, you're really pushing the envelope 
there, as if any art-making were a priori elite, from Grandma Moses to 
Beuys, whomever. I don't buy into this - I think you art is a language 
game in W's sense, and that different groups respond differently in all 
sorts of ways - Bourdieu's Distinction is good in this respect. 'Elite' 
has uncomfotable connotations of connoisseurship, and that hardly applies 
to most popular art.

The difference between neo-clas and impres to me has more to do with 
habitus and culture than with any sort of artistic style. I more or less 
follow Eco in Theory of Semiotics or say Metz' Imaginary Signifier - 
language tends to run into a _lot_ of problems when extended beyond one 
sort of formal or informal formalism or another.

Sorry, fuzzy thinking tonight, we're leaving tomorrow for a couple of 
weeks.

- alan

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:

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