BIO
Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::>
::> I wasn't referring to criticism, I was referring to annoyance/anger/upset,
::> and I
::> still stand by fear and insult/offense as the causes of those reactions.
::> Likewise, I use the word progress in its most simplistic way - getting
::> somewhere on an idea.
::
::So, criticism can't be generated from "personal" stakes? Isn't this killing
::the messenger?
That has nothing to do with what I said since I wasn't refering to criticism.
Perhaps if you read further you will better understand what I was referring to.
::No, YOU'RE discussing the "NATURE of the thing." Some of us aren't interested
::in ontological problems about the "nature" of anything. In fact, trying to
::argue for the "Nature" of anything is exactly what i would argue is a
::neutralizing force that masks politics. No one is disputing that an author of
::a compendium makes choices. The point is to look at what those choices are.
To what end? It is a statement of fact that leaves are green, and it is known
why leaves are green. Finding a new tree with green leaves and engaging in a
discussion about the new tree with green leaves is still talking about a tree
with green leaves - ubnless we are five years old and do not yet understand the
greenness of leaves, it isn't a useful discussion, it doesn't stengthen the
idea that leaves are green. It doesn't do anything at all except water down
the body of knowledge by diluting the pool.. This is why I have said that the
discussion is about the
nature of compendiums -a thing which I most assuredly do NOT want to discuss.
Precisely because all that is offered by a new critique about a new
compendium that has made choices is that the particular compendium did not exist
before.
If
::i'm not mistaken, that's what is being discussed here. This may seem an
::ancient point to you, and one preventing the "progress" you're looking to
::make, but it's not an end game problem. Have those "existing critiques" lost
::their value?
No, they haven't. But new critiques that do not do anything except endlessly
point out that leaves are green do not have value. It's like the fingerprinting
conundrum - every different fingerprint found "reinforces" that
fingerprints are all different, but no one cares anymore because it is a given
that that is a fact. It is only when a fingerprint comes along that is
the same that it is any longer worth speaking about.
If so, why? You seem to suggest that a "body of knowledge"
::consists solely of generalizations without any contribution made by looking at
::specifics. Using an existing critique to look at a new circumstance may not
::add to the body of canonized continental philosophy, but that hardly makes
::such activity useless.
See above. Initially, items that reinforce views are useful for giving
strength to the argument. But There is a tipping point at which a fact is so
widely accepted (compendiums make choices), that finding a new one that does so
no longer does anything, either to reinforce or not.
::> Just my little form of a joke. New media doesn't separate them, nor does
::> academia. Which is probably why so many bad arguments that look pretty
::> continue
::> to exist in its walls, and why good arguments that don't follow the rules
::> get
::> ignored as crazy or stupid. Form. Function. Content. We take their
::> relation
::> as a given, to our detriment, only because people smarter than us made some
::> statements once upon a time.
::
::i figured it to be a joke. And the point about "bad arguments that look
::pretty" is a well worn (and well founded) crit of a lot of art, not to mention
::NM art. But what "good arguments that don't follow the rules" are being
::ignored? Academia and art are hardly monolithic industries, and i can find
Why, my own, of course. The joke was about myself. Even in this e-mail you
have trashed my views because I am not accepting the academic paradigm of
picking a safe position (compendiums make choices and critiquing them is
useful). How many other e-mails to this list have bashed me because I need to
go read a book, or because I am not a high powered system administrator, or
because I write a pugnacious response to a post and refuse to drop names like
John Berger's or Beatriz blah blah blah's?
::i realize such discussions as this tend towards the ossification of positions,
::and i think there are a lot of parallel points going by each other. i'm just
::honestly disinterested in/suspicious of an attempt to "get at" the "NATURE of
::the thing." For what purpose? To decide once and for all the REALITY of
::publishing on New Media? To continue the tradition of iconoclastic posturing
::just because it's fun, available and convenient? Or is there something more
::substantive and enlightening than what you've shared so far that gives us a
::position from which to consider the topic at hand other than established
::critiques?
No, I am not posturing because it's fun. I'm doing it because it makes a point,
and because I am experimenting with understanding what is and is not
considered acceptable in academia. Forgive me for making you all my unwitting
subjects, but I have learned more than you can ever imagine from the responses I
receive on this list. Contrary to what I am sure many of you believe, I am not
anti-academic. I AM an academic, and I believe quite firmly that it is
academia's mandate to use our brains to make the world a better place. There
it is, my dirty secret - I actually think we need to do good and use our powers
for that end. I think we need to serve people and produce useful, meaningful
work that has an impact, and that people can understand and apply. Shh. Don't
tell. It could probably kill my (future) career. Unfortunately for my personal
desires, I also see us failing quite miserably because of our stubborn
insistence on a system that does not work. My personal research is into fixing
that system. I need to understand it that much better in order to do that.
As for my "lack" of contribution to this discussion, I have previously posed
several questions that I feel could actually SOLVE the dilemma of choices in
anthologies, but since no one wishes to discuss them (for whatever reason,
whether because they are simply not interesting, they are crappy ideas,
academia really HAS devolved that completely into doing nothing but critiquing
(as opposed to acting), or I simply didn't frame them "appropriately") I
suppose I do not, at this point, have anything "more substantive" to add.
::i'm all about embracing positivism lately, just give me a way to do
::it that isn't politically regressive.
Although I am sure you do not intend me to do so, I am going to personally read
this as "I'm all about embracing new ideas, just tell me what they are so that I
don't have to think of them by myself."
-Alexis
::> I wasn't referring to criticism, I was referring to annoyance/anger/upset,
::> and I
::> still stand by fear and insult/offense as the causes of those reactions.
::> Likewise, I use the word progress in its most simplistic way - getting
::> somewhere on an idea.
::
::So, criticism can't be generated from "personal" stakes? Isn't this killing
::the messenger?
That has nothing to do with what I said since I wasn't refering to criticism.
Perhaps if you read further you will better understand what I was referring to.
::No, YOU'RE discussing the "NATURE of the thing." Some of us aren't interested
::in ontological problems about the "nature" of anything. In fact, trying to
::argue for the "Nature" of anything is exactly what i would argue is a
::neutralizing force that masks politics. No one is disputing that an author of
::a compendium makes choices. The point is to look at what those choices are.
To what end? It is a statement of fact that leaves are green, and it is known
why leaves are green. Finding a new tree with green leaves and engaging in a
discussion about the new tree with green leaves is still talking about a tree
with green leaves - ubnless we are five years old and do not yet understand the
greenness of leaves, it isn't a useful discussion, it doesn't stengthen the
idea that leaves are green. It doesn't do anything at all except water down
the body of knowledge by diluting the pool.. This is why I have said that the
discussion is about the
nature of compendiums -a thing which I most assuredly do NOT want to discuss.
Precisely because all that is offered by a new critique about a new
compendium that has made choices is that the particular compendium did not exist
before.
If
::i'm not mistaken, that's what is being discussed here. This may seem an
::ancient point to you, and one preventing the "progress" you're looking to
::make, but it's not an end game problem. Have those "existing critiques" lost
::their value?
No, they haven't. But new critiques that do not do anything except endlessly
point out that leaves are green do not have value. It's like the fingerprinting
conundrum - every different fingerprint found "reinforces" that
fingerprints are all different, but no one cares anymore because it is a given
that that is a fact. It is only when a fingerprint comes along that is
the same that it is any longer worth speaking about.
If so, why? You seem to suggest that a "body of knowledge"
::consists solely of generalizations without any contribution made by looking at
::specifics. Using an existing critique to look at a new circumstance may not
::add to the body of canonized continental philosophy, but that hardly makes
::such activity useless.
See above. Initially, items that reinforce views are useful for giving
strength to the argument. But There is a tipping point at which a fact is so
widely accepted (compendiums make choices), that finding a new one that does so
no longer does anything, either to reinforce or not.
::> Just my little form of a joke. New media doesn't separate them, nor does
::> academia. Which is probably why so many bad arguments that look pretty
::> continue
::> to exist in its walls, and why good arguments that don't follow the rules
::> get
::> ignored as crazy or stupid. Form. Function. Content. We take their
::> relation
::> as a given, to our detriment, only because people smarter than us made some
::> statements once upon a time.
::
::i figured it to be a joke. And the point about "bad arguments that look
::pretty" is a well worn (and well founded) crit of a lot of art, not to mention
::NM art. But what "good arguments that don't follow the rules" are being
::ignored? Academia and art are hardly monolithic industries, and i can find
Why, my own, of course. The joke was about myself. Even in this e-mail you
have trashed my views because I am not accepting the academic paradigm of
picking a safe position (compendiums make choices and critiquing them is
useful). How many other e-mails to this list have bashed me because I need to
go read a book, or because I am not a high powered system administrator, or
because I write a pugnacious response to a post and refuse to drop names like
John Berger's or Beatriz blah blah blah's?
::i realize such discussions as this tend towards the ossification of positions,
::and i think there are a lot of parallel points going by each other. i'm just
::honestly disinterested in/suspicious of an attempt to "get at" the "NATURE of
::the thing." For what purpose? To decide once and for all the REALITY of
::publishing on New Media? To continue the tradition of iconoclastic posturing
::just because it's fun, available and convenient? Or is there something more
::substantive and enlightening than what you've shared so far that gives us a
::position from which to consider the topic at hand other than established
::critiques?
No, I am not posturing because it's fun. I'm doing it because it makes a point,
and because I am experimenting with understanding what is and is not
considered acceptable in academia. Forgive me for making you all my unwitting
subjects, but I have learned more than you can ever imagine from the responses I
receive on this list. Contrary to what I am sure many of you believe, I am not
anti-academic. I AM an academic, and I believe quite firmly that it is
academia's mandate to use our brains to make the world a better place. There
it is, my dirty secret - I actually think we need to do good and use our powers
for that end. I think we need to serve people and produce useful, meaningful
work that has an impact, and that people can understand and apply. Shh. Don't
tell. It could probably kill my (future) career. Unfortunately for my personal
desires, I also see us failing quite miserably because of our stubborn
insistence on a system that does not work. My personal research is into fixing
that system. I need to understand it that much better in order to do that.
As for my "lack" of contribution to this discussion, I have previously posed
several questions that I feel could actually SOLVE the dilemma of choices in
anthologies, but since no one wishes to discuss them (for whatever reason,
whether because they are simply not interesting, they are crappy ideas,
academia really HAS devolved that completely into doing nothing but critiquing
(as opposed to acting), or I simply didn't frame them "appropriately") I
suppose I do not, at this point, have anything "more substantive" to add.
::i'm all about embracing positivism lately, just give me a way to do
::it that isn't politically regressive.
Although I am sure you do not intend me to do so, I am going to personally read
this as "I'm all about embracing new ideas, just tell me what they are so that I
don't have to think of them by myself."
-Alexis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
lol, slighted
-A.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Rob Myers wrote:
::Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:13:36 +0100
::From: Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org>
::To: Rhizome Raw list <list@rhizome.org>
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::On 11 Aug 2006, at 20:01, Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> I have/had no intent to close the ranks on this one, merely to suggest we
::> analyze the things we take for granted.
::
::I'm *calling* for analysis of what is taken for granted: the omissions &
::inclusions in a particular cultural work. Discussing future ideal systems
::would be interesting, but is not a substitute for this.
::
::Furtherfield are in fact part of the future you propose: an open site for
::review, discussion, education and creation. I personally like this glimpse of
::your future but if I were you I'd feel a little slighted by the fact that it
::doesn't seem to be considered suitable for inclusion in a book about net.art .
::;-)
::
::> (As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we care
::> so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn over.)
::
::There are various useful concepts around this. Hofstadter talks about "framing
::message" in "Godel Escher Bach", McLuhan claims that the medium is the
::message, and The Fun Boy Three claim that "It ain't what you do it's the way
::that you do it" (with some asistance from Bananarama). The delivery is part of
::the message, there are no incidentals in communication, certainly not in
::autographic work. Allographic work may have some leeway, although noise can be
::ironised into signal by nostalgia, Trip Hop music, 8-bit art and music and
::Glitch Art are good examples of this.
::
::I wish I had time to format that in Mez-speak to underline it. :-)
::
::- Rob.
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
-A.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Rob Myers wrote:
::Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:13:36 +0100
::From: Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org>
::To: Rhizome Raw list <list@rhizome.org>
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::On 11 Aug 2006, at 20:01, Alexis Turner wrote:
::
::> I have/had no intent to close the ranks on this one, merely to suggest we
::> analyze the things we take for granted.
::
::I'm *calling* for analysis of what is taken for granted: the omissions &
::inclusions in a particular cultural work. Discussing future ideal systems
::would be interesting, but is not a substitute for this.
::
::Furtherfield are in fact part of the future you propose: an open site for
::review, discussion, education and creation. I personally like this glimpse of
::your future but if I were you I'd feel a little slighted by the fact that it
::doesn't seem to be considered suitable for inclusion in a book about net.art .
::;-)
::
::> (As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we care
::> so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn over.)
::
::There are various useful concepts around this. Hofstadter talks about "framing
::message" in "Godel Escher Bach", McLuhan claims that the medium is the
::message, and The Fun Boy Three claim that "It ain't what you do it's the way
::that you do it" (with some asistance from Bananarama). The delivery is part of
::the message, there are no incidentals in communication, certainly not in
::autographic work. Allographic work may have some leeway, although noise can be
::ironised into signal by nostalgia, Trip Hop music, 8-bit art and music and
::Glitch Art are good examples of this.
::
::I wish I had time to format that in Mez-speak to underline it. :-)
::
::- Rob.
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::> Good. Maybe that person will ask themself why. Hackles only get raised
::> when
::> something sacred or scary is stepped on, and both fear and idols prevent
::> progress.
::
::Alexis, you usually raise pretty good and irreverent questions, but i think
::your statement here is a bit presumptuous and iconoclastic. Criticism is not
::ALWAYS grounded in fear of "progress." And, more often than not, "progress" is
::a simple way of naturalizing and neutralizing politics (of whatever form you
::like).
I wasn't referring to criticism, I was referring to annoyance/anger/upset, and I
still stand by fear and insult/offense as the causes of those reactions.
Likewise, I use the word progress in its most simplistic way - getting
somewhere on an idea.
::i don't want to speak for anyone here, but i don't think the issue is really
::one of the ability of a book to be comprehensive or complete. Or whether
::anthologies and compilations should exist or not. It's an entirely different
::concern to point out that any collection of ideas/people/places/etc.
::inherently contains a perspective and that perspectives can and should be
::critiqued for the narratives they create (i think Rob made this point rather
::well). It's (not-so-)simply a matter of contesting history and not letting
::dominant voices write it so smoothly and cleanly at the expense of others'
::stories. One value of such texts is in their ability to generate reaction and
::revisions to the histories they attempt to solidify.
Well what is the sound of one hand clapping? The point being
contested/critiqued/what have you is currently the very nature of the academy.
There is a heirarchy. Some things get left out. The story is not complete. We
pick and choose. Some would pick and choose one thing, some would pick and
choose another. We're discussing the very NATURE of the thing, something that
ISN'T in question right now, insofar as everyone has agreed on the point that
an anthology says as much by what it leaves out as what it doesn't. It's a
pretty old critique. I guess I'm just a
little unclear on where repeating an existing critique gets us. I can -quote-
Foucault till I run out of breath, but I don't add or take away from the body of
knowldge. Likewise, I can make the factual statement that a book has pages or
a compendium makes choices.
::> (As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we
::> care so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn
::> over.)
::
::not sure if this is a rhetorical and ironic gesture... on a "new media" list
::to separate the "message" from the "media"...
Just my little form of a joke. New media doesn't separate them, nor does
academia. Which is probably why so many bad arguments that look pretty continue
to exist in its walls, and why good arguments that don't follow the rules get
ignored as crazy or stupid. Form. Function. Content. We take their relation
as a given, to our detriment, only because people smarter than us made some
statements once upon a time.
-Alexis
::> when
::> something sacred or scary is stepped on, and both fear and idols prevent
::> progress.
::
::Alexis, you usually raise pretty good and irreverent questions, but i think
::your statement here is a bit presumptuous and iconoclastic. Criticism is not
::ALWAYS grounded in fear of "progress." And, more often than not, "progress" is
::a simple way of naturalizing and neutralizing politics (of whatever form you
::like).
I wasn't referring to criticism, I was referring to annoyance/anger/upset, and I
still stand by fear and insult/offense as the causes of those reactions.
Likewise, I use the word progress in its most simplistic way - getting
somewhere on an idea.
::i don't want to speak for anyone here, but i don't think the issue is really
::one of the ability of a book to be comprehensive or complete. Or whether
::anthologies and compilations should exist or not. It's an entirely different
::concern to point out that any collection of ideas/people/places/etc.
::inherently contains a perspective and that perspectives can and should be
::critiqued for the narratives they create (i think Rob made this point rather
::well). It's (not-so-)simply a matter of contesting history and not letting
::dominant voices write it so smoothly and cleanly at the expense of others'
::stories. One value of such texts is in their ability to generate reaction and
::revisions to the histories they attempt to solidify.
Well what is the sound of one hand clapping? The point being
contested/critiqued/what have you is currently the very nature of the academy.
There is a heirarchy. Some things get left out. The story is not complete. We
pick and choose. Some would pick and choose one thing, some would pick and
choose another. We're discussing the very NATURE of the thing, something that
ISN'T in question right now, insofar as everyone has agreed on the point that
an anthology says as much by what it leaves out as what it doesn't. It's a
pretty old critique. I guess I'm just a
little unclear on where repeating an existing critique gets us. I can -quote-
Foucault till I run out of breath, but I don't add or take away from the body of
knowldge. Likewise, I can make the factual statement that a book has pages or
a compendium makes choices.
::> (As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we
::> care so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn
::> over.)
::
::not sure if this is a rhetorical and ironic gesture... on a "new media" list
::to separate the "message" from the "media"...
Just my little form of a joke. New media doesn't separate them, nor does
academia. Which is probably why so many bad arguments that look pretty continue
to exist in its walls, and why good arguments that don't follow the rules get
ignored as crazy or stupid. Form. Function. Content. We take their relation
as a given, to our detriment, only because people smarter than us made some
statements once upon a time.
-Alexis
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
I have/had no intent to close the ranks on this one, merely to suggest we
analyze the things we take for granted. Perhaps I got someone's hackles up.
Good. Maybe that person will ask themself why. Hackles only get raised when
something sacred or scary is stepped on, and both fear and idols prevent progress.
The difficulties pointed out on here have simply been pointed out, but I'm still
not seeing a significant effort at tackling the root of the problem -
ultimately, it's just a bit of grumbling about what is/isnot included in
Volume X or Y. We've pointed out the trouble with people interpreting such
books as definitive, but nt whether or not they are actually CAPABLE of being
definitive. It's very easy to stamp feet and say something is not definitive.
Much harder to find a way to address the problem. Do we need a new way of
publishing? Should the book be pimped to a different audience (non-general,
specifically) who will be savvy enough to understand these difficulties?
Should these sort of books stop being published altogether because there IS no
other solution? Do we need to go so far as to improve education on a
general level, so that ANYONE reading such a volume would be aware of these
inherent difficulties and not make such a simple but stupid mistake? Those
questions are real ones, not a way of "closing the ranks." I prefer to think
of it as opening them up.
-Alexis
(As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we
care so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn over.)
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 rob@robmyers.org wrote:
::Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:26:54 +0100
::From: rob@robmyers.org
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::Quoting Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>:
::
::> The non-complaining points that you made seemed to be basically that the
::> book
::> doesn't cover what it should.
::
::That seems to be a substantive criticism.
::
::The Internet is global, and much net.art work, even some of importance, has
::taken place in that forgotten corner of the market known as The Rest Of The
::World.
::
::Attempts to streamline the emerging histroy of net.art in favor of ...? can
::and
::should be contested.
::
::> My point is that any
::> book that showcases something like "new media art" is going to miss certain
::> things,
::
::If I don't know who Barbara Kruger is and I write a book on 1980s American art
::that omits her I am incompetent. If I do know who Barbara Kruger is and I
::write
::a book on 1980s American art that omits her I have some explaining to do.
::
::Furtherfield is not unimportant.
::
::Omissions can be accounted for, and when those omissions are important they
::*should* be accounted for. The claim that "any book that showcases something
::like "new media art" is going to miss certain things" does kinda render things
::a bit opaque.
::
::> To be honest, I thought that point was a given, and that is why I ask what
::> YOUR
::> point is.
::
::In Soviet Russia, apologists accuse YOU! /slashdot
::
::I do agree that any "comprehensive" survey is going to be a mass of
::exclusions,
::score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves.
::
::This doesn't mean that we are forbidden from asking what those are.
::
::> I feel like I must be missing something. Like maybe you have a
::> different gripe that you haven't mentioned - perhaps the text sucks ass.
::> But
::> that's not what you brought up. You brought up its non-comprehensiveness.
::> What
::> am I missing?
::
::If a net.art text was well written but ignored Rhizome, nettime and (say) MTAA
::in favor of "Downloadables" (1996) by Rob Myers that would not be OK. Well I'd
::be happy obviously, but I'd have to admit that soemthing wasn't right. If a
::series of texts emerged that did this I'd want to know what was going on.
::
::Marc's critique deserves an answer packed slightly less with cubist straw men
::("Are you suggesting that books not be written on the subject?"). I don't
::think
::that closing ranks is the best response.
::
::- Rob.
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
analyze the things we take for granted. Perhaps I got someone's hackles up.
Good. Maybe that person will ask themself why. Hackles only get raised when
something sacred or scary is stepped on, and both fear and idols prevent progress.
The difficulties pointed out on here have simply been pointed out, but I'm still
not seeing a significant effort at tackling the root of the problem -
ultimately, it's just a bit of grumbling about what is/isnot included in
Volume X or Y. We've pointed out the trouble with people interpreting such
books as definitive, but nt whether or not they are actually CAPABLE of being
definitive. It's very easy to stamp feet and say something is not definitive.
Much harder to find a way to address the problem. Do we need a new way of
publishing? Should the book be pimped to a different audience (non-general,
specifically) who will be savvy enough to understand these difficulties?
Should these sort of books stop being published altogether because there IS no
other solution? Do we need to go so far as to improve education on a
general level, so that ANYONE reading such a volume would be aware of these
inherent difficulties and not make such a simple but stupid mistake? Those
questions are real ones, not a way of "closing the ranks." I prefer to think
of it as opening them up.
-Alexis
(As an aside, the message is the important thing, is it not? Why do we
care so much how it is delivered? It's a fascinating question to turn over.)
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 rob@robmyers.org wrote:
::Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:26:54 +0100
::From: rob@robmyers.org
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::Quoting Alexis Turner <subbies@redheadedstepchild.org>:
::
::> The non-complaining points that you made seemed to be basically that the
::> book
::> doesn't cover what it should.
::
::That seems to be a substantive criticism.
::
::The Internet is global, and much net.art work, even some of importance, has
::taken place in that forgotten corner of the market known as The Rest Of The
::World.
::
::Attempts to streamline the emerging histroy of net.art in favor of ...? can
::and
::should be contested.
::
::> My point is that any
::> book that showcases something like "new media art" is going to miss certain
::> things,
::
::If I don't know who Barbara Kruger is and I write a book on 1980s American art
::that omits her I am incompetent. If I do know who Barbara Kruger is and I
::write
::a book on 1980s American art that omits her I have some explaining to do.
::
::Furtherfield is not unimportant.
::
::Omissions can be accounted for, and when those omissions are important they
::*should* be accounted for. The claim that "any book that showcases something
::like "new media art" is going to miss certain things" does kinda render things
::a bit opaque.
::
::> To be honest, I thought that point was a given, and that is why I ask what
::> YOUR
::> point is.
::
::In Soviet Russia, apologists accuse YOU! /slashdot
::
::I do agree that any "comprehensive" survey is going to be a mass of
::exclusions,
::score-settling, favors, boosting, covering-up and right moves.
::
::This doesn't mean that we are forbidden from asking what those are.
::
::> I feel like I must be missing something. Like maybe you have a
::> different gripe that you haven't mentioned - perhaps the text sucks ass.
::> But
::> that's not what you brought up. You brought up its non-comprehensiveness.
::> What
::> am I missing?
::
::If a net.art text was well written but ignored Rhizome, nettime and (say) MTAA
::in favor of "Downloadables" (1996) by Rob Myers that would not be OK. Well I'd
::be happy obviously, but I'd have to admit that soemthing wasn't right. If a
::series of texts emerged that did this I'd want to know what was going on.
::
::Marc's critique deserves an answer packed slightly less with cubist straw men
::("Are you suggesting that books not be written on the subject?"). I don't
::think
::that closing ranks is the best response.
::
::- Rob.
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
I read all of your comments to the list, if that is what you mean (as opposed to
the book itself). My question for you is, are you simply speaking rhetorically?
The non-complaining points that you made seemed to be basically that the book
doesn't cover what it should. My point is that any
book that showcases something like "new media art" is going to miss certain
things, include things that people don't think should be included, etc. etc.
For every Marc that wants to know why project X wasn't shown, there's a Mark
that doesn't think it should be - There is no such thing as a showcase book that
includes all things for all people (or, in other words, everyone's a critic).
To be honest, I thought that point was a given, and that is why I ask what YOUR
point is. I feel like I must be missing something. Like maybe you have a
different gripe that you haven't mentioned - perhaps the text sucks ass. But
that's not what you brought up. You brought up its non-comprehensiveness. What
am I missing?
-Alexis
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, marc wrote:
::Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:29:38 +0100
::From: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::Hi Alexis,
::
::2 points...
::
::- I am not complaining...
::
::- did you actually read the text?
::
::marc
::
::> The Internet is comprised of billions of pages and millions of sites. There
::> is no such thing as a book that can be comprehensive or definitive about
::> something as broad as net art, or even something as specific as mallard
::> hunting sites from the American South. You need encyclopedias for something
::> like that, and no book will ever include or exclude the "right" projects.
::> SO I gues my question is, Are you suggesting that books not be written on
::> the subject? (If you are, that is fine, but say that,don't complain about
::> one specific book that fails for all the same reasons that they will ALL
::> fail.) If you aren't suggesting that, then what are you suggesting?
::> -Alexis
::>
::> +
::> -> post: list@rhizome.org
::> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
::> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::> +
::> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::>
::>
::>
::
::
::--
::Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
::HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
::Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
the book itself). My question for you is, are you simply speaking rhetorically?
The non-complaining points that you made seemed to be basically that the book
doesn't cover what it should. My point is that any
book that showcases something like "new media art" is going to miss certain
things, include things that people don't think should be included, etc. etc.
For every Marc that wants to know why project X wasn't shown, there's a Mark
that doesn't think it should be - There is no such thing as a showcase book that
includes all things for all people (or, in other words, everyone's a critic).
To be honest, I thought that point was a given, and that is why I ask what YOUR
point is. I feel like I must be missing something. Like maybe you have a
different gripe that you haven't mentioned - perhaps the text sucks ass. But
that's not what you brought up. You brought up its non-comprehensiveness. What
am I missing?
-Alexis
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, marc wrote:
::Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:29:38 +0100
::From: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Mark Tribe's - New Media Art, book.
::
::Hi Alexis,
::
::2 points...
::
::- I am not complaining...
::
::- did you actually read the text?
::
::marc
::
::> The Internet is comprised of billions of pages and millions of sites. There
::> is no such thing as a book that can be comprehensive or definitive about
::> something as broad as net art, or even something as specific as mallard
::> hunting sites from the American South. You need encyclopedias for something
::> like that, and no book will ever include or exclude the "right" projects.
::> SO I gues my question is, Are you suggesting that books not be written on
::> the subject? (If you are, that is fine, but say that,don't complain about
::> one specific book that fails for all the same reasons that they will ALL
::> fail.) If you aren't suggesting that, then what are you suggesting?
::> -Alexis
::>
::> +
::> -> post: list@rhizome.org
::> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
::> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::> +
::> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::>
::>
::>
::
::
::--
::Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
::HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
::Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::