BIO
Re: Re: Re: New on post.thing.net
Poor Annie - I am sorry, but I cannot join your all grrrllllist revolution.
After many years of unadulterated hate, I finally figured out what blogs are
good for (namely, that precisely -because- of the distance they impose, they
allow for a much better stab at rational, thoughtful pause...reflection, if you
will...for both the writer and the reader [This is not to say that all, most,
or even many blogs take advantage of this fact, but it is there nonetheless]):
http://tastyresearch.wordpress.com/
http://infosthetics.com/
http://digitalhistoryhacks.blogspot.com/
http://history-and-education.blogspot.com/
http://rahrahfeminista.com/blog/
-Alexis
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Jim Andrews wrote:
::Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:32:27 -0800
::From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: New on post.thing.net
::
::i don't have a blog. actually i do. i signed up for one. but i don't operate in such a way that i was moved to do anything with it. it's just not me, apparently.
::
::here's a blog i visit fairly often: http://dbqp.blogspot.com . this is geof huth's blog on visual poetry.
::
::the form of the blog is not going to be right for all, but apparently it is very right for what geof is doing at the moment. i first encountered geof's work in the late 80's; i've been following his work for a long time. i don't know of a more serious one concerning visual poetry. there are other blogs concerning visual poetry where interesting visual poets post good work. but the blog is sort of incidental to most of these blogs. it's just somewhere to post the work. whereas huth is doing something else.
::
::what are the urls of blogs you visit fairly often?
::
::ja
::http://vispo.com
::
::
After many years of unadulterated hate, I finally figured out what blogs are
good for (namely, that precisely -because- of the distance they impose, they
allow for a much better stab at rational, thoughtful pause...reflection, if you
will...for both the writer and the reader [This is not to say that all, most,
or even many blogs take advantage of this fact, but it is there nonetheless]):
http://tastyresearch.wordpress.com/
http://infosthetics.com/
http://digitalhistoryhacks.blogspot.com/
http://history-and-education.blogspot.com/
http://rahrahfeminista.com/blog/
-Alexis
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Jim Andrews wrote:
::Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:32:27 -0800
::From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: New on post.thing.net
::
::i don't have a blog. actually i do. i signed up for one. but i don't operate in such a way that i was moved to do anything with it. it's just not me, apparently.
::
::here's a blog i visit fairly often: http://dbqp.blogspot.com . this is geof huth's blog on visual poetry.
::
::the form of the blog is not going to be right for all, but apparently it is very right for what geof is doing at the moment. i first encountered geof's work in the late 80's; i've been following his work for a long time. i don't know of a more serious one concerning visual poetry. there are other blogs concerning visual poetry where interesting visual poets post good work. but the blog is sort of incidental to most of these blogs. it's just somewhere to post the work. whereas huth is doing something else.
::
::what are the urls of blogs you visit fairly often?
::
::ja
::http://vispo.com
::
::
Re: "A Country Ruled by Faith" by Gary Wills
Errr...not to downplay current or past events, or the jubilation that many feel
right now, but I would hardly call the current power structure "unique." The
description you just gave sums up almost every repressive regime that has ever
existed. Create a rallying point (usually by way of fear), stifle opposition,
restrict freedoms, and silence the intelligentsia.
The real danger is that a simple election will not "undo" human beings' eternal
stupidity to fall for the same ridiculous tricks over and over. Wait a few
years.
-Alexis
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 dymond@idirect.ca wrote:
::Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 01:43:26 -0500 (EST)
::From: dymond@idirect.ca
::To: Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org>
::Cc: dymond@idirect.ca, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, Rhizome <list@rhizome.org>
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "A Country Ruled by Faith" by Gary Wills
::
::> Don't underestimate the power of the politicians at large.
::>
::> "Don't worry there will always be another war."
::> Leon Golub, 1998
::>
::> Hopefully time can change for the good.
::> Leon Golub, 1998
::>
::> Hopefully time can change for the good.
::
::No I don't underestimate that power, but, this last power structure was
::unique.
::It worked the fear "card" in ways I've never seen before. It attempted to
::destroy the individual and replace it with the greater good , however
::ill-precieved.
::This rightist conglomerate forced creative individuals underground and
::made some move oversees, fragmenting the will to criticize. Faced with the
:: unending and relentless censorship by the overseers of the "rightist
::faith", the creative mind sought sanctuary. Unfortunately while the
::creative individual was in sanctuary the audience sought entertainment
::from without and the void was filled by poseurs and clowns. Now the
::floodgates are open, the poseurs are exposed and the will to scream "I
::exist" is back in play. You can make art that isn't ironic,
::self-reflective, cool or otherwise "RIGHT".
::We can thank the right-wing for re-invigorating the existential through
::their failure.
::Camus would be very happy.
::Eric
::
::+
::-> 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
::
right now, but I would hardly call the current power structure "unique." The
description you just gave sums up almost every repressive regime that has ever
existed. Create a rallying point (usually by way of fear), stifle opposition,
restrict freedoms, and silence the intelligentsia.
The real danger is that a simple election will not "undo" human beings' eternal
stupidity to fall for the same ridiculous tricks over and over. Wait a few
years.
-Alexis
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 dymond@idirect.ca wrote:
::Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 01:43:26 -0500 (EST)
::From: dymond@idirect.ca
::To: Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org>
::Cc: dymond@idirect.ca, Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com>, Rhizome <list@rhizome.org>
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "A Country Ruled by Faith" by Gary Wills
::
::> Don't underestimate the power of the politicians at large.
::>
::> "Don't worry there will always be another war."
::> Leon Golub, 1998
::>
::> Hopefully time can change for the good.
::> Leon Golub, 1998
::>
::> Hopefully time can change for the good.
::
::No I don't underestimate that power, but, this last power structure was
::unique.
::It worked the fear "card" in ways I've never seen before. It attempted to
::destroy the individual and replace it with the greater good , however
::ill-precieved.
::This rightist conglomerate forced creative individuals underground and
::made some move oversees, fragmenting the will to criticize. Faced with the
:: unending and relentless censorship by the overseers of the "rightist
::faith", the creative mind sought sanctuary. Unfortunately while the
::creative individual was in sanctuary the audience sought entertainment
::from without and the void was filled by poseurs and clowns. Now the
::floodgates are open, the poseurs are exposed and the will to scream "I
::exist" is back in play. You can make art that isn't ironic,
::self-reflective, cool or otherwise "RIGHT".
::We can thank the right-wing for re-invigorating the existential through
::their failure.
::Camus would be very happy.
::Eric
::
::+
::-> 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: where do we go now?
Man, Curt, Gawker compared you to Klosterman (write of "philosophie de la sac de
douche"), and a commenter even poetically referred to you as a "tardwaffle."
Kudos. You have successfully elicted the voice of a generation - grumpy,
powerless, polemical rantings that, while hilariously bilious and well-turned,
neither accomplish anything nor uncover some fundamental truth.
In other words, I think your point was well made via the responses to it.
-Alexis
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, curt cloninger wrote:
::Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:42:25 -0800
::From: curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: where do we go now?
::
::OK. Finally enought interweb time and activity have passed to allow me to contextualize this as net art:
::
::I wrote an article about Sweet Child O' Mine here:
::http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id484
::
::Then I ported it to an ABC World News video piece here:
::http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::
::It promptly got unilaterally critiqued at two diametrically opposed blogs:
::
::Gawker:
::http://www.gawker.com/news/abc-news/being-massive-asshole-apparently-prerequisite-for-voice-of-a-generation-designation-212186.php
::
:: and the Guns N' Roses fan site:
::http://www.gnrdaily.com/news_detail.asp?id%6
::
::+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::
::I have been thinking about this recent phenomenon in terms of my art practice. One of my secret, subordinate agendas for my practice is to see if I can somehow redeem popular music along the way. The concensus is that it can't be done. Too many residual, subjective cultural associations attached to these songs, to use them in an art piece is like using the flag or the cross -- unless you want all those residual associations flowing through and refracting around your art piece, overwhelming it and derailing it, probably best to avoid pop music altogether. There is a Warholian way to do it where the whole art piece becomes about pop culture itself, but I didn't want to do it that way. I had hoped to somehow recontextualize pop music and redeem it so that it is seen with pathos and empathy. It's tricky, because I don't want to be uber-earnest and absolutely unironic; yet I don't want to be highbrow, tongue-in-cheeck, totally ironic and not earnest at all. I think the P!
as!
:: te article pulls it off better than the abc talk. And of course, neither piece is really trying to be "art."
::
::The take-away from this whole experience is that everybody wanted to talk about the person of Axl Rose, which was the last thing I wanted to talk about. I worked with the ABC producer to put the attention on the song and away from the band, but it was like there was this sort of spectacular/simulacrum tractor beam around Axl Rose that could not be resisted. The response from the Gn'R fan site and the Gawker site was instructive. Neither group wanted their banal media to be redeemed. The suggestion that there might be something sublime about pop music was strongly resisted by both camps (L.A. biker rockers and snarky NYC media hounds). The former wanted to worship pop music unredeemed; the latter wanted to ridicule it unredeemed.
::
::WWDD (What Would Debord Do)?
::
::So much easier to simply sculpt sound and light (I'm currently working with theremin/analog synthesizer improvisational performance and synesthetic superimposed projections) than to make a social sculpture that negotiates the tar baby of mass media without getting commodified by it. I respect Daniel: http://www.danielbozhkov.com/larry_stills/larryking.html
::
::curt
::
::++++++++++
::
::curt cloninger wrote:
::
::> I should probably try to come up with some way to contextualize this
::> as net art:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::>
::> here is the whole broadcast:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24615
::>
::> curt
::+
::-> 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
::
douche"), and a commenter even poetically referred to you as a "tardwaffle."
Kudos. You have successfully elicted the voice of a generation - grumpy,
powerless, polemical rantings that, while hilariously bilious and well-turned,
neither accomplish anything nor uncover some fundamental truth.
In other words, I think your point was well made via the responses to it.
-Alexis
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, curt cloninger wrote:
::Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 08:42:25 -0800
::From: curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: where do we go now?
::
::OK. Finally enought interweb time and activity have passed to allow me to contextualize this as net art:
::
::I wrote an article about Sweet Child O' Mine here:
::http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/article?article_id484
::
::Then I ported it to an ABC World News video piece here:
::http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::
::It promptly got unilaterally critiqued at two diametrically opposed blogs:
::
::Gawker:
::http://www.gawker.com/news/abc-news/being-massive-asshole-apparently-prerequisite-for-voice-of-a-generation-designation-212186.php
::
:: and the Guns N' Roses fan site:
::http://www.gnrdaily.com/news_detail.asp?id%6
::
::+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::
::I have been thinking about this recent phenomenon in terms of my art practice. One of my secret, subordinate agendas for my practice is to see if I can somehow redeem popular music along the way. The concensus is that it can't be done. Too many residual, subjective cultural associations attached to these songs, to use them in an art piece is like using the flag or the cross -- unless you want all those residual associations flowing through and refracting around your art piece, overwhelming it and derailing it, probably best to avoid pop music altogether. There is a Warholian way to do it where the whole art piece becomes about pop culture itself, but I didn't want to do it that way. I had hoped to somehow recontextualize pop music and redeem it so that it is seen with pathos and empathy. It's tricky, because I don't want to be uber-earnest and absolutely unironic; yet I don't want to be highbrow, tongue-in-cheeck, totally ironic and not earnest at all. I think the P!
as!
:: te article pulls it off better than the abc talk. And of course, neither piece is really trying to be "art."
::
::The take-away from this whole experience is that everybody wanted to talk about the person of Axl Rose, which was the last thing I wanted to talk about. I worked with the ABC producer to put the attention on the song and away from the band, but it was like there was this sort of spectacular/simulacrum tractor beam around Axl Rose that could not be resisted. The response from the Gn'R fan site and the Gawker site was instructive. Neither group wanted their banal media to be redeemed. The suggestion that there might be something sublime about pop music was strongly resisted by both camps (L.A. biker rockers and snarky NYC media hounds). The former wanted to worship pop music unredeemed; the latter wanted to ridicule it unredeemed.
::
::WWDD (What Would Debord Do)?
::
::So much easier to simply sculpt sound and light (I'm currently working with theremin/analog synthesizer improvisational performance and synesthetic superimposed projections) than to make a social sculpture that negotiates the tar baby of mass media without getting commodified by it. I respect Daniel: http://www.danielbozhkov.com/larry_stills/larryking.html
::
::curt
::
::++++++++++
::
::curt cloninger wrote:
::
::> I should probably try to come up with some way to contextualize this
::> as net art:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24538
::>
::> here is the whole broadcast:
::> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id&24615
::>
::> curt
::+
::-> 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: Re: Re: Re: Community
::1.
::it's always the same old names on this list:
::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van Anden,
::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers, T.Whid,
::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers & salvatore
::> iaconesi
::
::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are they? if
::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved, not
::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because as
::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the other
::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too. this
::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool: learn by
::mistakes instead.
Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of course,
unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
-A.
::it's always the same old names on this list:
::> by Steven Read, Eric Dymond, Lee Wells, Annie Abrahams, Jason Van Anden,
::> Lauren Cornell, alexis turner, MANIK, Pall Thayer, Rob Myers, T.Whid,
::> beate zurwehme, M. River, Michael Szpakowski, Rob Myers & salvatore
::> iaconesi
::
::there MUST be more people than just this subscribing? where are they? if
::we want to discuss teh community, the _COMMUNITY should be involved, not
::just the _DEFAULT_CONTRIBUTORS. i hardly ever post to this because as
::'just some guy' i expect not to be taken [as] seriously. all the other
::subscribers must also have their reasons for remaining silent too. this
::does not a community make. speak, even if you sound like a fool: learn by
::mistakes instead.
Hear, hear! I sound like a fool 95% of the time (the other 5% is, of course,
unadulterated genius), but when do I let that stop me?
-A.
Re: Re: Community
This has quickly devolved into a Rhizome bashing discussion, which is actually
kind of cute, as it's the most life I've seen in months. Even so, I would
simply like to point out (and then feel free to continue along whatever path you all
desire) that I was not merely bashing Rhizome as a tiny handful of all
powerful evil white devil administrators that hold our ephemeral souls in their
destructive hands.
I think it is worth considering that there are faults from many directions.
1) In a desperate effort to gain acceptance, both the Rhizome users and the
administrators have made the erroneous decision that quantity = proof of
legitimacy. The more art, the more users, the more notices, the more X, the
more acceptable and legitimate what we do must be. We are drowning in a sea of
fliers right now, each proclaiming our right to exist, and each smothering that
very existence by their sheer mass.
2) Rhizome community members have the lazy and/or greedy attitude that Rhizome
"owes" us services and is somehow a "provider." Regrettably, however, we can
have one or the other. Are we part of a business, or a community? They are
usually mutually incompatible, and, when they're not, they should be. If we
want a community, then Rhizome must be viewed as a facilitator. In which case
it would be useful to suggest that they are facilitating poorly, but not that
you aren't getting what you paid for.
3) We are, all, unwilling to accept that NMA or whatever the hell you want to
call the stuff on this list is too big for a teeny, chummy, 10 house
neighborhood. We are insisting on both maintaining forums structured for a user
base 5 years past, and on consuming absolutely every single thing that this new,
much larger group produces. We want Rhizome to provide tools that make our
gorging easier, rather than admitting that there is a critical point at which we
can no longer eat everything that comes across the table and that we instead
need tools that can make our experience more selective.
3a) The administrators, also guilty of this same unwillingness, haven't admitted
that they need more people to do what they are doing. The result is that
legitimate problems never get solved.
4) Many of us seem to believe that everything that is said, written, or created
is equally as good as everything else. And that's just stupid. More noise is
not better noise. It's just more.
5) Finally, the users are filled with apologies when another user breaks the
system or puts an undue burden on the administrators, but become downright
shrill and hysterical the instant the administrators do anything too slowly, or
incorrectly.
My complaints, then, about Rhizome 'lacking' are pretty much about the whole
thing from top to bottom. Fixing a feature will not correct the absurd
dysfunctionalities that are about 1 year away from actually being -built in- to
the system.
-Alexis
kind of cute, as it's the most life I've seen in months. Even so, I would
simply like to point out (and then feel free to continue along whatever path you all
desire) that I was not merely bashing Rhizome as a tiny handful of all
powerful evil white devil administrators that hold our ephemeral souls in their
destructive hands.
I think it is worth considering that there are faults from many directions.
1) In a desperate effort to gain acceptance, both the Rhizome users and the
administrators have made the erroneous decision that quantity = proof of
legitimacy. The more art, the more users, the more notices, the more X, the
more acceptable and legitimate what we do must be. We are drowning in a sea of
fliers right now, each proclaiming our right to exist, and each smothering that
very existence by their sheer mass.
2) Rhizome community members have the lazy and/or greedy attitude that Rhizome
"owes" us services and is somehow a "provider." Regrettably, however, we can
have one or the other. Are we part of a business, or a community? They are
usually mutually incompatible, and, when they're not, they should be. If we
want a community, then Rhizome must be viewed as a facilitator. In which case
it would be useful to suggest that they are facilitating poorly, but not that
you aren't getting what you paid for.
3) We are, all, unwilling to accept that NMA or whatever the hell you want to
call the stuff on this list is too big for a teeny, chummy, 10 house
neighborhood. We are insisting on both maintaining forums structured for a user
base 5 years past, and on consuming absolutely every single thing that this new,
much larger group produces. We want Rhizome to provide tools that make our
gorging easier, rather than admitting that there is a critical point at which we
can no longer eat everything that comes across the table and that we instead
need tools that can make our experience more selective.
3a) The administrators, also guilty of this same unwillingness, haven't admitted
that they need more people to do what they are doing. The result is that
legitimate problems never get solved.
4) Many of us seem to believe that everything that is said, written, or created
is equally as good as everything else. And that's just stupid. More noise is
not better noise. It's just more.
5) Finally, the users are filled with apologies when another user breaks the
system or puts an undue burden on the administrators, but become downright
shrill and hysterical the instant the administrators do anything too slowly, or
incorrectly.
My complaints, then, about Rhizome 'lacking' are pretty much about the whole
thing from top to bottom. Fixing a feature will not correct the absurd
dysfunctionalities that are about 1 year away from actually being -built in- to
the system.
-Alexis