BIO
Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital <strike>art</strike> code?
Just wondering, do you think Abstraction is?
++++++
a. necessarily reductive in nature + b. actually inherently transcendental + d.
becomes more interesting if we are talking performative, generative, iterative
or retronascent
++++
but, really,
e. none of the above
or, better still
f. who cares
+++++
because?
Your use of the term generic term Abstraction as opposed to the specific
Abstract Art leaves too many other delicious possibilities to consider.
-Alexis
++++++
a. necessarily reductive in nature + b. actually inherently transcendental + d.
becomes more interesting if we are talking performative, generative, iterative
or retronascent
++++
but, really,
e. none of the above
or, better still
f. who cares
+++++
because?
Your use of the term generic term Abstraction as opposed to the specific
Abstract Art leaves too many other delicious possibilities to consider.
-Alexis
Re: Attention Please! (or, I pity da foo').
::So how much do I have to pay you to agree with me?
Nothing. I more or less already agree with you (save for the potential artistic
merit of a work vs. its effect: two words, and the first one is Leni), which,
if you had actually considered my e-mail in its entirety and not as a series of
dissonant, unconnected sentences, and/or had you bothered to visit and ponder
the original artist's site you might have figured out. In spite of my general
agreement with what you say on the list, however, I do find getting petulant
about RFID projects every time they come up to be quite tedious insofar as it
is rather a waste of righteous anger.
::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.
and...
::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.
AND...
::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless
::I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast
::option.
::
So, in other words, the intention of your constant degradations of RFID
projects on the list is no more, really, than a personal, mental
noodling on nothing more than a personal interest, to a relatively small and
incestuous community (Rhizome), rather than a substantive attempt at tackling
or changing the problems with RFID on a meaningful scale (Wired). (Whole
sentence = you are lacking balls, sir, and your protestations against RFID are
a mere whimper against a project destined to make a much larger bang.)
To summarize, please disregard my general postings on the subject, which were
really just a curmudgeonly challenge for you to put your money where your mouth
is. Alas, there is only mouth.
-Alexis
-Original message, from Rob-
::> We make money, not art.
::
::So how much do I have to pay you to agree with me?
::
::> I hadn't realized that all artists had to have the same intentions and beliefs
::for their work to receive a stamp of artistic merit.
::
::I'm not quite sure how we got here, but I do not particularly care what artists
::think. Unless they think "I'm going to kill Rob in three, two...", in which
::case the fact that they are an artist is a secondary consideration.
::
::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.
::
::> Many atrocities and wrongs
::> have been committed throughout history with the aid of artists, but that
::doesn't make
::> their work any less art.
::
::I'm not sure about that. Thomas Kinkade's shops would be a good counter-example.
::
::> It makes a call for those who disagree to respond with
::> their own work rebuking the first.
::
::If you see a mugging in progress, mugging someone else is not always the best
::way of reporting the incident.
::
::> But that requires action, balls, and
::> creativity, each of which this project has in spades.
::
::So, given this, its promotion of RFID is unproblematic? Or is it the presence of
::RFID that gives the work its "balls" and creativity?
::
::> Enough, at any rate, to
::> get a write up in Wired, ensuring a lot more people than those on this list
::> will hear (about) it.
::
::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast option.
::
::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.
::
::-Rob
Nothing. I more or less already agree with you (save for the potential artistic
merit of a work vs. its effect: two words, and the first one is Leni), which,
if you had actually considered my e-mail in its entirety and not as a series of
dissonant, unconnected sentences, and/or had you bothered to visit and ponder
the original artist's site you might have figured out. In spite of my general
agreement with what you say on the list, however, I do find getting petulant
about RFID projects every time they come up to be quite tedious insofar as it
is rather a waste of righteous anger.
::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.
and...
::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.
AND...
::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless
::I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast
::option.
::
So, in other words, the intention of your constant degradations of RFID
projects on the list is no more, really, than a personal, mental
noodling on nothing more than a personal interest, to a relatively small and
incestuous community (Rhizome), rather than a substantive attempt at tackling
or changing the problems with RFID on a meaningful scale (Wired). (Whole
sentence = you are lacking balls, sir, and your protestations against RFID are
a mere whimper against a project destined to make a much larger bang.)
To summarize, please disregard my general postings on the subject, which were
really just a curmudgeonly challenge for you to put your money where your mouth
is. Alas, there is only mouth.
-Alexis
-Original message, from Rob-
::> We make money, not art.
::
::So how much do I have to pay you to agree with me?
::
::> I hadn't realized that all artists had to have the same intentions and beliefs
::for their work to receive a stamp of artistic merit.
::
::I'm not quite sure how we got here, but I do not particularly care what artists
::think. Unless they think "I'm going to kill Rob in three, two...", in which
::case the fact that they are an artist is a secondary consideration.
::
::What interests me are artists' actions and the effects of those actions,
::particularly the unexamined, glossed-over, or dissonant effects of those
::actions.
::
::This is a separate issue from the work's merit as art, unless that merit rests
::in part on such issues.
::
::> Many atrocities and wrongs
::> have been committed throughout history with the aid of artists, but that
::doesn't make
::> their work any less art.
::
::I'm not sure about that. Thomas Kinkade's shops would be a good counter-example.
::
::> It makes a call for those who disagree to respond with
::> their own work rebuking the first.
::
::If you see a mugging in progress, mugging someone else is not always the best
::way of reporting the incident.
::
::> But that requires action, balls, and
::> creativity, each of which this project has in spades.
::
::So, given this, its promotion of RFID is unproblematic? Or is it the presence of
::RFID that gives the work its "balls" and creativity?
::
::> Enough, at any rate, to
::> get a write up in Wired, ensuring a lot more people than those on this list
::> will hear (about) it.
::
::I'll take the audience of Rhizome over the audience of Wired any day. Unless I'm
::trying to sell an SUV, in which case obviously I'll take the conde nast option.
::
::> So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
::
::I want to ask why the rash of RFID cheerleading in contemporary art.
::
::-Rob
Re: Attention Please! (An experiment and an Attention seeking video installation).
We make money, not art.
I hadn't realized that all artists had to have the same intentions and beliefs
for their work to receive a stamp of artistic merit. Many atrocities and wrongs
have been committed throughout history with the aid of artists, but that doesn't make
their work any less art. It makes a call for those who disagree to respond with
their own work rebuking the first. But that requires action, balls, and
creativity, each of which this project has in spades. Enough, at any rate, to
get a write up in Wired, ensuring a lot more people than those on this list
will hear (about) it.
So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
-Alexis
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Rob Myers wrote:
::And the art?
::
::- Rob.
::On 19 Apr 2006, at 20:24, Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> ::RFID: The neutral tool that art makes cool.
::>
::> RFID: The technology that, if we talk about hating it enough, amongst
::> ourselves,
::> without actually doing anything, will just disappear all by its lonesome,
::> its
::> evil little feelings in shambles.
::
I hadn't realized that all artists had to have the same intentions and beliefs
for their work to receive a stamp of artistic merit. Many atrocities and wrongs
have been committed throughout history with the aid of artists, but that doesn't make
their work any less art. It makes a call for those who disagree to respond with
their own work rebuking the first. But that requires action, balls, and
creativity, each of which this project has in spades. Enough, at any rate, to
get a write up in Wired, ensuring a lot more people than those on this list
will hear (about) it.
So. Do you want to make a whimper, or a bang?
-Alexis
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Rob Myers wrote:
::And the art?
::
::- Rob.
::On 19 Apr 2006, at 20:24, Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> ::RFID: The neutral tool that art makes cool.
::>
::> RFID: The technology that, if we talk about hating it enough, amongst
::> ourselves,
::> without actually doing anything, will just disappear all by its lonesome,
::> its
::> evil little feelings in shambles.
::
Re: Attention Please! (An experiment and an Attention seeking video installation).
::RFID: The neutral tool that art makes cool.
RFID: The technology that, if we talk about hating it enough, amongst ourselves,
without actually doing anything, will just disappear all by its lonesome, its
evil little feelings in shambles.
-Alexis
RFID: The technology that, if we talk about hating it enough, amongst ourselves,
without actually doing anything, will just disappear all by its lonesome, its
evil little feelings in shambles.
-Alexis
Re: on spam and viruses
There -have- been "useful" viruses, insofar as ones have been written that scan
for other viruses and tell users how to update their systems, try to stop
spyware from installing itself, etc. In fact, the first virus ever written
[(c)Brain] was something of this nature - a program to keep people from pirating
software. Think Sony BMG copy-protected CDs.
The problem with such "benevolent" viruses is primarily
two-fold: 1) They are installing themselves on a user's computer and using that
computer's resources without the user's knowledge or consent, and 2) they are
often poorly written and inadvertently do damage to the computer in some way.
It's kinda like a bunch of honky missionaries going to the Congo to convert all
the ignorant darkies and save their souls - possibly well-intentioned, but
outrageously misguided, unneeded, presumptuous, invasive, and damaging.
-Alexis
ps: do we even want to go into the radical/terrorism-consti(p|n)ation
discussion? Isn't the answer the same as the one to the mailia question?
Accept that sometimes life will do what it will, including consternation/the
vapors/death+violence/mail bombs, but giving up freedoms to some higher power
to make it more sanitized isn't worth the trade-off?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Jim Andrews wrote:
::Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:05:32 -0700
::From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: on spam and viruses
::
::The mailia piece was interesting in that it sparked more discussion on the
::list than many another art work. Because it wrought havok with the list.
::What better than something that directly operates forcefully on a list to
::make people on a list take notice? So, yes, I agree that it is of interest.
::
::And maybe it's round n of the 'communications revolution', but it'd sure be
::great to see some useful viruses or spam, something toward a greater good,
::rather than what is usually the impression one gets from spam and viruses,
::which is of infantile willfulness that disregards the will and desires of
::those on whom it operates.
::
::What is "radical" in an age of terrorism?
::
::ja
::http://vispo.com
::
for other viruses and tell users how to update their systems, try to stop
spyware from installing itself, etc. In fact, the first virus ever written
[(c)Brain] was something of this nature - a program to keep people from pirating
software. Think Sony BMG copy-protected CDs.
The problem with such "benevolent" viruses is primarily
two-fold: 1) They are installing themselves on a user's computer and using that
computer's resources without the user's knowledge or consent, and 2) they are
often poorly written and inadvertently do damage to the computer in some way.
It's kinda like a bunch of honky missionaries going to the Congo to convert all
the ignorant darkies and save their souls - possibly well-intentioned, but
outrageously misguided, unneeded, presumptuous, invasive, and damaging.
-Alexis
ps: do we even want to go into the radical/terrorism-consti(p|n)ation
discussion? Isn't the answer the same as the one to the mailia question?
Accept that sometimes life will do what it will, including consternation/the
vapors/death+violence/mail bombs, but giving up freedoms to some higher power
to make it more sanitized isn't worth the trade-off?
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Jim Andrews wrote:
::Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:05:32 -0700
::From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: on spam and viruses
::
::The mailia piece was interesting in that it sparked more discussion on the
::list than many another art work. Because it wrought havok with the list.
::What better than something that directly operates forcefully on a list to
::make people on a list take notice? So, yes, I agree that it is of interest.
::
::And maybe it's round n of the 'communications revolution', but it'd sure be
::great to see some useful viruses or spam, something toward a greater good,
::rather than what is usually the impression one gets from spam and viruses,
::which is of infantile willfulness that disregards the will and desires of
::those on whom it operates.
::
::What is "radical" in an age of terrorism?
::
::ja
::http://vispo.com
::