| PROPAGANDA on Wed, 5 Dec 2001 02:31:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] /// 0100101110101101.ORG /// FTPermutations_1.3 |
/// FTPermutations /// http://www.webartery.com /// # From: "Talan Memmott" <talan@m...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 2:42 am # Subject: web art and intervention > >I don't think it depends on how this went down... Though I do understand > >your distinction between their own directory and those of the other > >artists... > > yes, this is m.portant. i'd like 2 make it clear here that i'm not trying 2 > d.fend 0100101110101101.ORG's actions, but rather open up room 4 discussion > regarding this action/n.tervention/attack, & the idea of co-opting a medium > to reflect aspects that d.fine it......woteva u term it. i term it > n.tervention. interference would probably b a more accurate term. To make this point.... Does the intervention, action, interference have to be destructive...? And, would it have been depleted in impact if the Curator and other Artists were made aware that the work was going to be transformed....? > > >> At some level though, I think the curator made an error in selecting them > > >> without some condition that they would not attack a show they had agreed > >to > > >> be in.... > > > > > d.pends on the nature of the 'attack'...is the interface still messed up? > > > >In consideration of the issues they claim to be addressing by doing this... > >And, that the curator and artists had no knowledge of this beforehand... I > >find it difficult to validate this 'action' [as it were].... > > ok! i can understand y u would find it difficult 2 validate, of course, > again, i'm not trying 2 validate 0100101110101101.ORG actions, but rather > look @ the idea of re.n.venting & stylising traditional presentation > mechanism & realigning them in2 another ][net.reflected][ di.mension. > > [ i must use terminology that comes across as absolutist. i'll try and wurk > on that]. > Mez, it is not that your language is absolutist... Rather; the reasons given by 01etc.org and their changing hands so as to make the disgruntled artists into the 'boobs' in this for complaining about their work being screwed, just doesn't jibe... It makes me angry actually.... Not that, 01etc participates in this sort of things, creates this sort of work, but that they did not have the foresight to consider ramifications...That they essentially screwed over the artists by making this move, then complain as artists, about the artists complaining about them doing this... Here are the three main points in their explanation 1) net.art has moved from its roots 2) servers are vulnerable 3) the net is a funny place and this action demonstrates it [if you don't get it you are stodgy] some thoughts.... Alan took care of #1..... I mean, cave painting moved away from its roots..... world cultures move away from their roots.... #2 is a big --- Duuuuuh from my perspective.... #3 who was this funny to? I get it, and I still don't think it was funny.... The subversion is twisted... Doesn't add-up politically, creatively or anything... The action is misguided in my opinion for a couple of reasons.... 1) it assumes a power that it claims to deny... 2) it missed its target a)as most Users just saw fucked-up work and were not aware 01etc.org was involved at all b)the Curator had no idea and was not able to provision for it c)the other Artists were completely unaware. > >The Korean Ministry of Culture is asking the curator to pay back all the > >money for the development of the site, infra-structure, the festival and > >such.... And, will be out of a job... Kicked out Korea if he cannot pay... > > wow, that's very rough...there isn't anyway of switching the responsibility > on2 0100101110101101.ORG's shoulders? > Well.... That would be fine.... But, they are just the little artists, while the curator is the CURATOR and responsible for the show... Interestingly enough, 0100101110101101.ORG is one of only 2 groups/artists that was actually invited to Korea.... That should be an interesting meeting between them and the curator.... |||||||||||||||||||| # From: Jennifer Ley <jtley@h...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 3:23 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] web art and intervention Talan I think you've made some excellent points It's seem to me that hacking a site in 2001 is pretty old news. If any web artist and or web entity or network entity wishes to create commentary about the nature of where net/web.art is headed ... that commentary/intervention needs to be a bit more sophisticated to really capture our attention. Rimbaud pissed on a table ... and I hear it worked pretty well for Jackson Pollock ... but acts like this merely serve to indicate disgust, at the same time their symbolic value becomes limited by the lack of maturity shown by the means of protest. I think a lot of us realize that it takes a bit more time, effort, forethought -- to craft work which creates meaningful commentary. Hopefully someone will be able to convince the powers that be in Korea that the curator should not be held responsible. Hopefully, when they go to Korea, the members of 01 etc will be willing to take responsibility for their actions, and perhaps consider that there may be cultural ramifications to their actions which they did not intend. For myself, I'm thrilled to remain hopelessly un-hip ... a happy fuddy duddy. best Jen |||||||||||||||||||| # From: joecow@b... # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 3:59 am # Subject: Re: Korea Web Art Festival not gonna get into this argument except to point out that all this talk makes me *wish" I could see the deformed work. only I can't, since everything has apparently been straightened out already. which should perhaps mitigate claims of the damage done here??? (except for the person losing their job -- is this really true? > ran something called 'FTPermutations' just to clarify, does anyone know whether we're talking about 0100101110101101.org or 0100101110110101.org ?? florian? |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "][D(NA).fence][" <netwurker@h...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 3:59 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] w][n][e][t][b art & ][co-][options At 06:42 PM 12/3/2001 -0800, you wrote: >To make this point.... Does the intervention, action, interference have to >be destructive...? no, of course not, but then again that d.pends on yr version/opinion of wot destructive_ n.tails.....if 0100101110101101.ORG had *not* altered other artists' wurk in terms of the m.mediate interface/structural presentation & offered a revamped/recodified version of the overall site from their directorie.s][pace][ alone then i'd consider the wurk more successful [but not ul(in)timately][, both in terms of ][+itive][ con.c.quences & artistic validity..... >And, would it have been depleted in impact if the >Curator and other Artists were made aware that the work was going to be >transformed....? possibly...n.deed, marty & i did a similar _n.vervention_ back in 98? i think.....of course, i solicited approval from all involved first......... >Mez, it is not that your language is absolutist... Rather; the reasons given >by 01etc.org and their changing hands so as to make the disgruntled artists >into the 'boobs' in this for complaining about their work being screwed, >just doesn't jibe... It makes me angry actually.... i noticed;) > Not that, 01etc >participates in this sort of things, creates this sort of work, but that >they did not have the foresight to consider ramifications... yup, that's wot i've been ][trying 2][ say.ing? >That they >essentially screwed over the artists by making this move, then complain as >artists, about the artists complaining about them doing this... > > >Here are the three main points in their explanation >1) net.art has moved from its roots >2) servers are vulnerable >3) the net is a funny place and this action demonstrates it [if you don't >get it you are stodgy] ...2 b fair 2 them, & quoting from the x.planation given in their artists statement, they also say: " 0100101110101101.ORG work on what they consider contradictions of the modern cultural system and particularly the concept of authenticity and authorship, taking advantage of the manipulation potential offered by the internet". now, i think the language they m.ploy is telling, as with the discussion here as well ..the use of the phrase _taking advantage of_, 4 n.stance... as i have stressed previous.lee i don't think they successfully ruminated on the con.c.equences of their actions prior 2 carrying out the n.tervention....... >some thoughts.... Alan took care of #1..... I mean, cave painting moved away >from its roots..... world cultures move away from their roots.... ok, as u know talan, i do have an x.plicit worry regarding this...in terms of a growing santization of net.wu][a][r][t][k principles & re-opting of l.ements that have assisted in the very genre strain gestating in the first place........of course i may.b reflecting on a different concern n.tirley, but i'll elaborate on it here re:g][u][ardless...[x.cuse me if i'm tang][augm][enting: i have no problem with multiple variations of n][w][e][b][t art, obviously, & n.deed n.joy this very migratory as][x][pect][ation][.......wot does concern me is the _dilution_ of net.wurked practices by various practitioners who adopt functions/behaviours that have previously been [contextually][ m.bedded in an environment that actively seeks 2 reflect this practice.......not in terms of x.pressive x.ploration, more in terms of using these functions/practices & relating them 2 a static, non-interactive [in the sense of n.capsulating myriad users bound 2gether via technological procedures] format that dis][tressly][places this mesh-like basis.......... ..i worry about this constantly, as it difficult 2 judge whether forms that take the net.wurk dynamic in2 new areas r developing new spikes of artistic n.tent _or_ r diluting them in terms of a gradual e.rosion of precise distinctions that make this artform ][passionately][ n.teresting....4 x.ample, whether ppl who m.ploy a][rt][vataristic states removed from a com.MOO.nication.scape, or use neologisms born from an community n.tent on [speedy][reticulation ][as in a gamer n.vironment or a chat room in which typeographic speed is s.sential 2 multilogue maintenance][ etc realise that this re:ap(e)propriation - via a reliance on established n(m)odes of representation - makes the m.pact of their _natural_ context muddy?][which is not always negative in m.pact...but sometimes the tinny ring of hollow art-co-option rings thru][....... ....i c the strippage of m][n][e][t][chanisms d.voted 2 a profound alteration of art canons/individualised authorship/regulatory systems& n.stitutions as sad.......the reappropriation of fundamental/core components ][ie taking the constellated distribution models x.clusive 2 the w][n][e][t][b in terms of geospatial m.mediacy & conflagrated projection of selves/architecture/spaces, & drawing them back in2 an object/craft-as-in-capitalistically-&-hierarchically-oriented [pre][formulations as a great worry][............. >#2 is a big --- Duuuuuh from my perspective.... #3 who was this funny to? I >get it, and I still don't think it was funny.... its actually more of an _in_ joke [or would have been if successful] 2 those who regularly consume a 7-11/american x.press/net-diet....n.tirely in.appropriate in terms of the artist-as egoed-individual p][erpetuation][arameter via which the festival i][wa][s operating under....[& i mean ego with a freudian n.flection here]......... >The subversion is twisted... Doesn't add-up politically, creatively or >anything... >The action is misguided in my opinion for a couple of reasons.... 1) it >assumes a power that it claims to deny... 2) it missed its target a)as most >Users just saw fucked-up work and were not aware 01etc.org was involved at >all b)the Curator had no idea and was not able to provision for it c)the >other Artists were completely unaware. fair enuff. >Well.... That would be fine.... But, they are just the little artists, while >the curator is the CURATOR and responsible for the show... yes, again portraying a traditional power structure in terms of the wurk's presenta][cura][tion & corresponding art-institution dynamic...this seems so foreign in terms of a net.wurk that could function otherwise...... >Interestingly enough, 0100101110101101.ORG is one of only 2 groups/artists >that was actually invited to Korea.... That should be an interesting meeting >between them and the curator.... yes, n.deed. cheers, mez |||||||||||||||||||| # From: <men2@c...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 4:14 am # Subject: RE: [webartery] Korea Web Art Festival I am more irritated with their action after reading the justification... They actually have the nerve to attack the other artists merely because they want people to be able to view their own work as intended. This is not like complaining that a painting is too far to the right (although I don't see anything wrong with an artist having opinions on where his/her painting is to be hung-- wanting it in a particular place is natural when you see every work as an installation, not as a piece with no surroundings). This is a matter of corrupting people's work which they have spent time and imagination creating. And also, depending on what exactly was done, it may damage the "original" work whereas mishanging a painting doesn't affect the painting permanently. I assume all artists had backup files, or else they copied their pieces to the show's computer, rather than linking, but still, damaging files is damaging files. I don't see that kind of damaging as art. Millie |||||||||||||||||||| # From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@p...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 5:14 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] found the 0100101110101101.ORG n.terview Talan this is really horrible. But I find, I've been thinking a lot about this, that we as online artists, tend to excuse a lot we wouldn't elsewhere if it appears radical - for example nn and Microsoft both make their software unable to be duplicated; both retain tight control over tight systems; both work on extremely heavy promotion; both think of themselves as "simply superior" - but we favor nn - if anything, at least for me, I feel very much a double standard here - if it looks radical/creative it's ok - if it looks like Microsoft, it's not. There's a lot of vandalism art out there that's excused. And there's a lot of talk about the death of "net.art" which is as ridiculous as the "death of painting" which is periodically portrayed - as if there were a Spenglerian lifeform organism at work creating and destroying media - when in fact, we almost never think about _audience_ outside of this hothouse - or outreach, which even the lousiest alternative space cultivates (in the US at least). As if, well, net.art was born by XY and Y (there are always names and movements at work), now it's dead (we declare it dead, etc. etc.) - this going against the grain, the whole shebang of the Net and its (somewhat) level playing field. And with all of this, deconstruction, multiculturalism, feminism, etc. - all that struggle - thrown out the window so we can return to the modern- ist purified artwork, clean and inviolate, and highly defined - how else could we proclaim it dead? Alan, still on the same track, but feeling ill, hope the above makes sense |||||||||||||||||||| # From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@p...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 5:17 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] found the 0100101110101101.ORG n.terview Even more - this also is infuriating - other museums, other sites, are going to head to self-censorship, if they show web art at all. We all suffer because of these jerks. Sorry. I've worked on big shows at times, and they take hundreds and hundreds of hours to set up - but because of an idiotic aesthetic point - and not intervention or interference, but in terms of reception: destruction - you and I and others will have less of a chance to show. Alan |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "Talan Memmott" <talan@m...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 5:31 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] w][n][e][t][b art & ][co-][options > >And, would it have been depleted in impact if the > >Curator and other Artists were made aware that the work was going to be > >transformed....? > > possibly...n.deed, marty & i did a similar _n.vervention_ back in 98? i > think.....of course, i solicited approval from all involved first......... I am not against this sort of artwork... And, in the general public sphere of mailing lists it seems appropriate, expected.... In a curated show on the otherhand there has to be some balance.... This sort of work could exist just fine, I think, in a gallery or whatever... But, since even the artists define it as something of prank -- it would have been better for the artists to be in on it, at some level.... If they had asked permission of the artists to do this to the works I am fairly sure most would have said go for it... Had the curator known he could have been prepared to NOT take action against the 'hack' [for lack of a better word], and been prepared to expalin the moves to the organizers of the event.... This could have opened into some interesting discussion at the actual festival, but now it looks like it will just be a bunch of pissed-off people getting together. As to the rest of your message.... I have to think of an appropriate response to this.... I have problems with some of this.... Much of it seems to set up a paradox.... |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "Talan Memmott" <talan@m...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 5:32 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] Re: Korea Web Art Festival 0100101110101101.ORG ----- Original Message ----- From: <joecow@b...> To: <webartery@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:59 PM Subject: [webartery] Re: Korea Web Art Festival > not gonna get into this argument except to point out that all this > talk makes me *wish" I could see the deformed work. only I can't, > since everything has apparently been straightened out already. which > should perhaps mitigate claims of the damage done here??? (except for > the person losing their job -- is this really true?) > > > ran something called 'FTPermutations' > > just to clarify, does anyone know whether we're talking about > 0100101110101101.org or 0100101110110101.org ?? > > florian? |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "][D(NA).fence][" <netwurker@h...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 5:55 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] w][n][e][t][b art & ][co-][options At 09:31 PM 12/3/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I am not against this sort of artwork... i know!:) >And, in the general public sphere >of mailing lists it seems appropriate, expected.... In a curated show on >the otherhand there has to be some balance.... This sort of work could exist >just fine, I think, in a gallery or whatever... But, since even the artists >define it as something of prank -- it would have been better for the artists >to be in on it, at some level.... If they had asked permission of the >artists to do this to the works I am fairly sure most would have said go for >it... Had the curator known he could have been prepared to NOT take action >against the 'hack' [for lack of a better word], and been prepared to expalin >the moves to the organizers of the event.... This could have opened into >some interesting discussion at the actual festival, but now it looks like it >will just be a bunch of pissed-off people getting together. agreed:) >As to the rest of your message.... I have to think of an appropriate >response to this.... I have problems with some of this.... Much of it seems >to set up a paradox.... sure, & it woodn't surprise me if my whole worry-bag is riddled with pa][ndora's][rad][b][oxes:) chunks, mez |||||||||||||||||||| # From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@p...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 6:39 am # Subject: Vito Acconci for some reason Vito's early work came to mind - he was doing a reading at the Dwan gallery in New York - one of a series of poets - and he started uptown, walking towards the gallery, calling in when he'd pass a phone - announcing where he was, disrupting the other readings. but this seems different in the sense that V. was also interested in the phenomenology of the peripheral (a lot of his performance was like that), the hidden - and he was both a presence and peripheral to the reading, there and not there. in 0 to 9, a magazine he edited with Bernadette Mayer, he did a long piece which went at the top of the page, across other writers, commenting on framework (as far as I can remember). his early work, as I've said before, also used punctuation and syntax/ grammar/semantics in radically innovative ways reminiscent of what we're seeing on webartery and arc. to some extent it came from Stein; it also came from structuralism and texts on the phenomenology of the body - Ed Hall, Merleau-Ponty, etc. later, he turned his back on this work and the poetry world in general, and very little of this stuff has been reprinted or is accessible at this point. even his installations - Seedbed for example - were disruptive - in this case, of the spectatorial position. for me 10etc. seem crude in comparison - there's naive theory at best behind the stuff, theory like the 'x is dead' metaphor (I almost wrote 'meataphor' which is more accurate) which, again and again, needs to be deconstructed. and what's missing in all of this - and in a LOT of net art (not Jim's work btw or the other work here asking about interface, working through this) - is thought about the role of the audience. and that is _so critical - the best thing in the world is to inspire someone _not_ on one's mailing list... finally, I want to mention an important change that happened in NY per- formance art, and that has moved me even now. when you saw a performance by Vito, say in 1973, or others like Oppenheim, etc., at that point, you'd leave stunned and moved and quiet; no one talked, you just walked out. later there would be talk, etc. but much later. and this work would be stunning and theoretically astute, and somewhat male-oriented, in spite of people like Gina Pane or Joan Jonas. later, Vito sponsored Laurie Anderson at Artists Space, and I saw her early loft performances. and they were different, revolutionary; they were personal, intense, she spoke _to_ the audience, not at them, etc. afterwards people would stand and clap, which was itself unheard of in the Soho performance scene. but she was deliberately setting out to reach people, to work the audience, etc. - and to do this from a feminist view- point, and it was amazing. it was a whole different world opening up. when I brought her to Nova Scotia (NSCAD), she was coming out with plati- tudes that worked, that meant something: "If you take up 45 minutes of the audience's time, you have to give them something work 45 minutes." "I want my works to be entertaining, to bring the audience in." And so forth. Around then she was also going constantly to see the work of the young Andy Kaufman; they were talking about collaborating together, and Kaufman's disruptive techniques are, to this day, both entertaining, and astute - and he was able to do that on national (US) television - Saturday Night Live, and the various latenight talk shows. anyway, the point in all of this, if there is one, is that there is a dialectic among disruption, artist, audience, theory, and site - and this dialectic seems sadly absent in a lot of hacking work, which reverts back almost to male adolescent messiness. even declaring one or another form of art "dead" is that kind of gesture - which I also relate to a manifesto- tendency (you used to see more of that earlier on nettime I think). apologies for all of this, but there's context and context and context... Alan |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "][D(NA).fence][" <netwurker@h...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 4:07 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] Re: Korea Web Art Festival joe, go2: http://www.koreawebart.org/0100101110101101org.html i guess this must b the watered-down version. cheers, mez |||||||||||||||||||| # From: "][D(NA).fence][" <netwurker@h...> # Date: Tue Dec 4, 2001 4:27 am # Subject: Re: [webartery] Re: Korea Web Art Festival At 03:59 AM 12/4/2001 +0000, you wrote: >not gonna get into this argument this is an argument? i thought it was a discussion? /// FTPermutations /// http://www.webartery.com /// _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold