BIO
Curt Cloninger is an artist, writer, and Associate Professor of New Media at the University of North Carolina Asheville. His art undermines language as a system of meaning in order to reveal it as an embodied force in the world. His art work has been featured in the New York Times and at festivals and galleries from Korea to Brazil. Exhibition venues include Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), Granoff Center for The Creative Arts (Brown University), Digital Art Museum [DAM] (Berlin), Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (Chicago), Black Mountain College Museum + Arts Center, and the internet. He is the recipient of several grants and awards, including commissions for the creation of new artwork from the National Endowment for the Arts (via Turbulence.org) and Austin Peay State University's Terminal Award.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Re: Re: An Interpretive Framework for Contemporary Database Practice in the Arts
Brett Stalbaum wrote:
> the virtual is closer to
> the real than fiction - in fact, the virtual and the real are
> co-adaptive in C5's thinking. I don't care about fiction actually, it
> is
> more interesting for me to take on the virtual/real axis as something
> to
> contest (database politics) or something to work with and explore
> (database formalism).
Hi Brett,
This is where your position asserts a neutrality it doesn't seem to actually occupy. Neither activism nor "database formalism" sidestep fiction. Tactical media is a performative form of fiction, and "database formalism" seems a philosophical form of fiction (more like an essay -- albeit with a kind of performative object lesson as its footnote). Even "real science" is fiction, as David Wilson celebrates.
The only thing not fictional is the ontological one to one relationship that exists betwen the world and its hypothetical lifesize map. But as soon as Borges observes and describes that abstract relationship, his observational "research" becomes narrative (and a resonant narrative, since Borges is a crafty writer). As soon as you write an artist statement or a paper explaining the "meaning" of your GPS experiments, your experiments become their own genre of fiction (particularly when your para-art texts are written prior to the enacted experiments). The virtual may in some sense be closer to the real than fiction (unless crafty fiction is a lie that tells the truth), but your research itself is not the "actual" virtual. It can't escape being a kind of obtuse fiction about the virtual.
best,
curt
> the virtual is closer to
> the real than fiction - in fact, the virtual and the real are
> co-adaptive in C5's thinking. I don't care about fiction actually, it
> is
> more interesting for me to take on the virtual/real axis as something
> to
> contest (database politics) or something to work with and explore
> (database formalism).
Hi Brett,
This is where your position asserts a neutrality it doesn't seem to actually occupy. Neither activism nor "database formalism" sidestep fiction. Tactical media is a performative form of fiction, and "database formalism" seems a philosophical form of fiction (more like an essay -- albeit with a kind of performative object lesson as its footnote). Even "real science" is fiction, as David Wilson celebrates.
The only thing not fictional is the ontological one to one relationship that exists betwen the world and its hypothetical lifesize map. But as soon as Borges observes and describes that abstract relationship, his observational "research" becomes narrative (and a resonant narrative, since Borges is a crafty writer). As soon as you write an artist statement or a paper explaining the "meaning" of your GPS experiments, your experiments become their own genre of fiction (particularly when your para-art texts are written prior to the enacted experiments). The virtual may in some sense be closer to the real than fiction (unless crafty fiction is a lie that tells the truth), but your research itself is not the "actual" virtual. It can't escape being a kind of obtuse fiction about the virtual.
best,
curt
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Interpretive Framework for Contemporary Database Practice in the Arts
It's funny. I keep a running list of quotations here:
http://lab404.livejournal.com
So far Manovich has only made the list once:
http://lab404.livejournal.com/32638.html
[added 10/06/2004]
A model for this "more excellent way" is Laney in William Gibson's novels -- water-witching the data to suss out and delineate the human intention embedded within it. Sure there is an intrinsic relationship between abstracted data and the real world, but just abstracting the data and looking at it isn't going to reveal that relationship. The goal is to somehow make the data resonant by transforming it into narrative, thus mapping it back to the real in an experientially transformative way.
But if you buy into Baudrillard, you're not looking for a "real/intrinsic" connection back to the real, because the abstracted data has its own simulated, relative, hyper- (I'd say quasi-) "truth." So you just recontextualize the data a bit and claim you've created meaning. Such work is still largely stuck on the disembodied data side of the fence -- along with the abstract control structures, materialist systems, generative abstract visualizations (and of course, the 'puters themselves) -- which seems to me an increasingly dead-end side of the fence. I agree that "data impinges on reality" in some generalized way (a la McLuhan or Virilio), but that doesn't ensure that one's singular database artwork will de facto impinge on reality. It's the artist's task to craft or explore this connection with reality in some more intentional (dare I say "idiosyncratic") way.
Similarly, I agree with Brett's statement that, "artists should utilize the notion of the virtual for predictive or analytical practices that reveal knowledge about the world, or better, that emerge new behavior, exploration and experience." But this isn't going to just automatically happen simply because there exists some materialistic relationship between the real world and abstracted data. The Rokeby and Legrady pieces mentioned work because they start off with simple objects of immediate, subjective knowability and relevance to the participants. Giver of Names and Pockets Full of Memories work not because they successfully mediate between the real/particular and the simulated/aggregate. On the contrary. They work precisely because they foreground the humorous limitations of trying to abstract the real. It's not simply that stuff gets transfered over the fence. It's that stuff gets transfered over the fence in a way that tells a story about subjective human knowing. Manovich's soft cinema is less interesting precisely because it lacks this subjective element. Sure, the user provides subjective meaning by making her own connections while passively viewing the generative piece, but then the user also provides subjective meaning by making her own connections while passively viewing Man With a Movie Camera (or Ace Ventura, Pet Detective for that matter).
I can't help but compare The Great Wall of California project to Generative Psychogeography ( http://socialfiction.org/psychogeography/dummies.html ). Both use technology to navigate "real" space. The latter appeals to me because its emphasis is less on the conceptual act of mapping and more on the subjective human experience of drifiting around a city full of people. Taking a map of Chicago and using it to negotiate Manhattan is going to cause cognitive subjective growth in the drifter. Taking GPS coordinates of China and using them to negotiate the California desert foregrounds a coneptual observation regarding the ontology of data, but causes what kind of subjective growth or awareness in the hiker? Last summer, after hiking all day to a particularly amazing view in the middle of Slickrock Wilderness here in western North Carolina, I came upon another group of hikers at the top. As I watched the sun set, they computed the GPS coordinates of their campsite in relation to their current location and tried to get their cell phones to work, occasionally pausing to snap a few digital pictures. It was all so much extra, imported interference -- obscuring rather than illuminating the real. Not *concurrent with*, but *beneath* the paving stones lies the beach.
The "art" of database art is to take what you've gleaned from that aggregated/abstracted realm and tie it back in to the soulish human realm by storytelling (in the broadest sense of the word). Our data may illuminate us, but they don't fully delimit or construct us. If you think they do, you are liable to spend a lot of time on the semio-centric, techno-wanking side of the fence.
these seem related:
http://spurse.org/
http://lab404.com/data/
http://lab404.com/abstract/
http://deepyoung.org/permanent/science/
peace,
curt
> in short, rather than trying hard to pursue the
> anti-sublime ideal, data visualization artists should also not
> forget that art has the unique license to portray human subjectivity.
http://lab404.livejournal.com
So far Manovich has only made the list once:
http://lab404.livejournal.com/32638.html
[added 10/06/2004]
A model for this "more excellent way" is Laney in William Gibson's novels -- water-witching the data to suss out and delineate the human intention embedded within it. Sure there is an intrinsic relationship between abstracted data and the real world, but just abstracting the data and looking at it isn't going to reveal that relationship. The goal is to somehow make the data resonant by transforming it into narrative, thus mapping it back to the real in an experientially transformative way.
But if you buy into Baudrillard, you're not looking for a "real/intrinsic" connection back to the real, because the abstracted data has its own simulated, relative, hyper- (I'd say quasi-) "truth." So you just recontextualize the data a bit and claim you've created meaning. Such work is still largely stuck on the disembodied data side of the fence -- along with the abstract control structures, materialist systems, generative abstract visualizations (and of course, the 'puters themselves) -- which seems to me an increasingly dead-end side of the fence. I agree that "data impinges on reality" in some generalized way (a la McLuhan or Virilio), but that doesn't ensure that one's singular database artwork will de facto impinge on reality. It's the artist's task to craft or explore this connection with reality in some more intentional (dare I say "idiosyncratic") way.
Similarly, I agree with Brett's statement that, "artists should utilize the notion of the virtual for predictive or analytical practices that reveal knowledge about the world, or better, that emerge new behavior, exploration and experience." But this isn't going to just automatically happen simply because there exists some materialistic relationship between the real world and abstracted data. The Rokeby and Legrady pieces mentioned work because they start off with simple objects of immediate, subjective knowability and relevance to the participants. Giver of Names and Pockets Full of Memories work not because they successfully mediate between the real/particular and the simulated/aggregate. On the contrary. They work precisely because they foreground the humorous limitations of trying to abstract the real. It's not simply that stuff gets transfered over the fence. It's that stuff gets transfered over the fence in a way that tells a story about subjective human knowing. Manovich's soft cinema is less interesting precisely because it lacks this subjective element. Sure, the user provides subjective meaning by making her own connections while passively viewing the generative piece, but then the user also provides subjective meaning by making her own connections while passively viewing Man With a Movie Camera (or Ace Ventura, Pet Detective for that matter).
I can't help but compare The Great Wall of California project to Generative Psychogeography ( http://socialfiction.org/psychogeography/dummies.html ). Both use technology to navigate "real" space. The latter appeals to me because its emphasis is less on the conceptual act of mapping and more on the subjective human experience of drifiting around a city full of people. Taking a map of Chicago and using it to negotiate Manhattan is going to cause cognitive subjective growth in the drifter. Taking GPS coordinates of China and using them to negotiate the California desert foregrounds a coneptual observation regarding the ontology of data, but causes what kind of subjective growth or awareness in the hiker? Last summer, after hiking all day to a particularly amazing view in the middle of Slickrock Wilderness here in western North Carolina, I came upon another group of hikers at the top. As I watched the sun set, they computed the GPS coordinates of their campsite in relation to their current location and tried to get their cell phones to work, occasionally pausing to snap a few digital pictures. It was all so much extra, imported interference -- obscuring rather than illuminating the real. Not *concurrent with*, but *beneath* the paving stones lies the beach.
The "art" of database art is to take what you've gleaned from that aggregated/abstracted realm and tie it back in to the soulish human realm by storytelling (in the broadest sense of the word). Our data may illuminate us, but they don't fully delimit or construct us. If you think they do, you are liable to spend a lot of time on the semio-centric, techno-wanking side of the fence.
these seem related:
http://spurse.org/
http://lab404.com/data/
http://lab404.com/abstract/
http://deepyoung.org/permanent/science/
peace,
curt
> in short, rather than trying hard to pursue the
> anti-sublime ideal, data visualization artists should also not
> forget that art has the unique license to portray human subjectivity.
Re: KASPAR HAUSER&isabelle dinoire
Hi Manik,
No offense taken about the US. I was just curious. I see that y'all
expect more of the US, and it is refreshingly hopeful that someone
has any expectations at all.
Regarding Kaspar Hauser, this was filmed near where I live:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell
Regarding Isabelle, I am glad that some things are still sacred to
some people. And I am glad that people are still using rhizome as a
community.
"Keep coming back. It works if you work it."
curt
At 8:24 PM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>Hi Curt,
>Thanks for fast answer.
>I spend a long time not to define my own feeling
> toward Isabelle,but to find appropriate
>way to answer to utmost horrifying declaration like this
>one for example:"this video is about the truth of nerve endings and
>microphones."
>Or worst:"...we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
>Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
>sampling and the sampling of media."My understand of
>ethical can't store those nonsense in space of
>creative/aesthetic/or"art",to be obvious on indirect way.
>One boy from England,Marco B.(I think it's his artistic name)
>use to make happening with bloodshed,and this concrete
>act/ritual was utmost unacceptable for me as act of creativity.
>I'm sure blood is better to use for infusion(I don't care if
>somebody find that old-fashioned).Also MANIK despise
>people who vulture/necrophilistic run to exploit others
>accident(Agricola de Cologne,abe linkoln...etc).In Warhol case that
>was break trough
>conservatism of ruling class(in Foucoult classification *race*),but
>"something good
>repeating so many times(in time)became farce".In the midlle of farce,when
>unconscious,amateurism cut up anyhow destroyed sense for dignity
>of thoughtful people,my reaction was to defend essence I belive.
>Finaly,in my own country,Serbia, MANIK'S exclude from public life(we dare
>to think) and Rhizome_Raw is,so far,best place to expres opinion and define
>own mental space(next to making specific thing,techae,"art").We know
>that ewerything we said on Rhizome_Raw goes on *right*place,spy are
>around,you could think it's paranoya if you wish...
>In your case I exaggerate because obvious i'm stil not
>able to understand nuance of English language,and,which is
>more important my threshold of sensitivity is shake
>with too much stupid thing I see around.
>You and few other guy(they don't need advertising by
>mentioned theirs names)were MANIK'S fulcrum in
>flood of contradictory and mediocre appear on Rhizome_Raw.
>I was in dilema what to do.And I decide to wrote mail to you.
> Your answer show to one who is interested
>that there's way to put things on right place trough
>dialogue with mutual respect.
>MANIK know that's good way which could be useful as
>realize something immanent to "art"&public direction.
>MANIK'S first "art"experience was American films,
>"Vistavision"is our first color fascination(still is).I know
>about Amerika much more that you think(half of MANIK spend
>few month there,and other half have son who study
>philosophy and anthropology in Canada,its close to America?)
>Sory if we offend you,and if we are it wasn't from pollute spring.
>Best wishes
>MANIK
>
>Hi Manik,
>
>I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
>everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
>of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
>reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
>rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
>heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
>experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
>perspective.
>
>Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
>true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
>me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
>non-local "events."
>
>I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
>that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
>cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
>brave.
>
>The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
>event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
>couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
>sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.
>
>Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
>Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
>or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
>whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
>growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
>as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
>one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
>me. I may say something that changes you.
>
>So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
>outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
>This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
>energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
>our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
>not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
>upon my shores and inundate me.
>
>Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
>imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
>in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
>place over here.
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>
>At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>>
>>
>>Curt wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>>
>> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>>observations from this perspective:
>>
>>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
>><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29
>>)and
>>totally
>>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>>(<<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>>origin(
>><<http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
>>)because
>>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom..."He come with the rain and
>>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>>
>>1.
>>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>>
>>
>>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience...
>>whole complexity
>> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
> >from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify...And you
>>became one more indoctrinate man.
>>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
>> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>>disturb you at all.Really?
>>
>>
>> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>>
>>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>>another expression for event,or media...).Unclear ness part of
>>text...
>>
>>2.
>>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>>piece is touching and brave.
>>
>>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>>irony,not disown...Bad and ugly.
>>
>> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>>
>>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
> >fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>>Best wishes
>>MANIK
No offense taken about the US. I was just curious. I see that y'all
expect more of the US, and it is refreshingly hopeful that someone
has any expectations at all.
Regarding Kaspar Hauser, this was filmed near where I live:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell
Regarding Isabelle, I am glad that some things are still sacred to
some people. And I am glad that people are still using rhizome as a
community.
"Keep coming back. It works if you work it."
curt
At 8:24 PM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>Hi Curt,
>Thanks for fast answer.
>I spend a long time not to define my own feeling
> toward Isabelle,but to find appropriate
>way to answer to utmost horrifying declaration like this
>one for example:"this video is about the truth of nerve endings and
>microphones."
>Or worst:"...we are talking about an act of remixing a face.
>Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue
>sampling and the sampling of media."My understand of
>ethical can't store those nonsense in space of
>creative/aesthetic/or"art",to be obvious on indirect way.
>One boy from England,Marco B.(I think it's his artistic name)
>use to make happening with bloodshed,and this concrete
>act/ritual was utmost unacceptable for me as act of creativity.
>I'm sure blood is better to use for infusion(I don't care if
>somebody find that old-fashioned).Also MANIK despise
>people who vulture/necrophilistic run to exploit others
>accident(Agricola de Cologne,abe linkoln...etc).In Warhol case that
>was break trough
>conservatism of ruling class(in Foucoult classification *race*),but
>"something good
>repeating so many times(in time)became farce".In the midlle of farce,when
>unconscious,amateurism cut up anyhow destroyed sense for dignity
>of thoughtful people,my reaction was to defend essence I belive.
>Finaly,in my own country,Serbia, MANIK'S exclude from public life(we dare
>to think) and Rhizome_Raw is,so far,best place to expres opinion and define
>own mental space(next to making specific thing,techae,"art").We know
>that ewerything we said on Rhizome_Raw goes on *right*place,spy are
>around,you could think it's paranoya if you wish...
>In your case I exaggerate because obvious i'm stil not
>able to understand nuance of English language,and,which is
>more important my threshold of sensitivity is shake
>with too much stupid thing I see around.
>You and few other guy(they don't need advertising by
>mentioned theirs names)were MANIK'S fulcrum in
>flood of contradictory and mediocre appear on Rhizome_Raw.
>I was in dilema what to do.And I decide to wrote mail to you.
> Your answer show to one who is interested
>that there's way to put things on right place trough
>dialogue with mutual respect.
>MANIK know that's good way which could be useful as
>realize something immanent to "art"&public direction.
>MANIK'S first "art"experience was American films,
>"Vistavision"is our first color fascination(still is).I know
>about Amerika much more that you think(half of MANIK spend
>few month there,and other half have son who study
>philosophy and anthropology in Canada,its close to America?)
>Sory if we offend you,and if we are it wasn't from pollute spring.
>Best wishes
>MANIK
>
>Hi Manik,
>
>I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
>everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
>of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
>reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
>rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
>heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
>experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
>perspective.
>
>Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
>true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
>me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
>non-local "events."
>
>I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
>that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
>cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
>brave.
>
>The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
>event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
>couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
>sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.
>
>Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
>Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
>or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
>whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
>growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
>as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
>one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
>me. I may say something that changes you.
>
>So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
>outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
>This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
>energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
>our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
>not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
>upon my shores and inundate me.
>
>Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
>imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
>in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
>place over here.
>
>peace,
>curt
>
>
>
>At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>>
>>
>>Curt wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>>
>> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>>observations from this perspective:
>>
>>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
>><<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29
>>)and
>>totally
>>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>>(<<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>>origin(
>><<http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
>>)because
>>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom..."He come with the rain and
>>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>>
>>1.
>>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>>
>>
>>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience...
>>whole complexity
>> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
> >from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify...And you
>>became one more indoctrinate man.
>>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
>> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>>disturb you at all.Really?
>>
>>
>> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>>
>>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>>another expression for event,or media...).Unclear ness part of
>>text...
>>
>>2.
>>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>>piece is touching and brave.
>>
>>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>>irony,not disown...Bad and ugly.
>>
>> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>>
>>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
> >fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>>Best wishes
>>MANIK
Re: KASPAR HAUSER&isabelle dinoire
Hi Manik,
I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
perspective.
Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
non-local "events."
I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
brave.
The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.
Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
me. I may say something that changes you.
So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
upon my shores and inundate me.
Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
place over here.
peace,
curt
At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>
>
>Curt wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>observations from this perspective:
>
>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29 )and
>totally
>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>origin(
><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire )because
>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom..."He come with the rain and
>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>
>1.
>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>
>
>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience...
>whole complexity
> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
>from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify...And you
>became one more indoctrinate man.
>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>disturb you at all.Really?
>
>
> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>
>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>another expression for event,or media...).Unclear ness part of
>text...
>
>2.
>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>piece is touching and brave.
>
>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>irony,not disown...Bad and ugly.
>
> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>
>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
>fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>Best wishes
>MANIK
I'm not criticizing the nature of "event." That would be silly since
everything in time is some sort of event. I'm criticizing the nature
of thrice-removed, heavily mediated events being mistaken for
reality. I'm not claiming the high ground of immediacy. As you
rightly point out, I am writing from a four-times removed, even more
heavily mediated perspective. I'm just saying we are all
experiencing this particular event from a heavily mediated
perspective.
Also, as you point out, I'm an academic by definititon (although some
true academics would find that definition stretched when applied to
me). I'm very much involved in certain forms of knowledge and
non-local "events."
I'm not being sarcastic when I say "touching and brave." I mean
that. With everyone so obligatorily ideologically neutral and
cynical, I think any expression of human empathy is truly honest and
brave.
The funeral metaphor is not criticizing the nature of the dinoire
event; it's criticizing how some people in this particular thread
couldn't simply express their empathy without having to back up and
sterilize it by asserting an ideologically relative position.
Manik, what does this woman have to do with me? Were it not for
Rhizome Digest, I probably would have never heard of her. Would she
or I be any worse for it? There are people in my local community
whom I know. I am involved in their lives and we are changing and
growing together. Even you and others on this list (heavily mediated
as it is) are part of a community I consider more immediate than a
one-to-many television news broadcast. You say things that change
me. I may say something that changes you.
So many people spend so much energy tracking, commenting on, being
outraged by, spitting into the wind at distant, medidated events.
This seems a convenient placebo in many instances to be full of
energeteic futility. We are all allowed and even obliged to choose
our battles wisely, that our energies may have some efficacy. I am
not ethically obliged to let every single event in the world break
upon my shores and inundate me.
Finally, when you imagine the U.S., what kind of monolith do you
imagine? It's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous place over here. Even
in my immediate family of five, it's a pretty strange, unhomogeneous
place over here.
peace,
curt
At 8:21 AM +0100 2/12/06, manik wrote:
>
>
>Curt wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have
>a television and I don't read the news. Without the >backstory, my
>only story is the video itself and your responses. Some
>observations from this perspective:
>
>We have rare opportunity to fell sublimate(
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28psychology%29 )and
>totally
>cool testimony,almost like Kaspar Hauser's
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser).It's
>like somebody said:"This what I'm going to tell you have irrefutable
>essence,closest to "truth" than everything else. It's closest to
>origin(
><http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire>http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire )because
>of simple fact:my perception's out of any context-innocent in some
>kind of silence caused by shortage of information from any other
>media.Fact that my approach to this work still have some
>primordial,almost immanent phenomenon distance(because it's not
>under any media influence)imply that my testify and observation
>have maximal value,it's kind of axiom..."He come with the rain and
>bring us enlightenment.Curt-Ideal eyewitness.
>
>1.
>>People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have
>>obviously been moved by a heroic media >narrative. Having no
>>backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only
>>surmised a synopsis of the story via >this thread, abe's piece
>>seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled
>>for the worst, and I almost >didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my
>>local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I
>>kept waiting to be >disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or
>>read something evocative in the media coverage that moved
>>you, >something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you
>>see the "reality" of the event? Really?
>
>
>I haven't seen "reality"of the event.Really.Have you,or any of you
>ever seen reality of any event?What's reality of event:visual
>side(what about blind people?),energy you feel in immediate
>presence,your reflexion about same one,your life&body experience...
>whole complexity
> mean to see something,and I understand your distance
>from"reality"(underline by quotation marks),but I just can't believe
>that you could leave word event,in same constellation without those
>quotation marks.Is that mean that "reality"have nothing to do with
>events,by the definition,(and vice versa)and if somebody said that
>he/she have seen reality you consistent doubt in material side of
>this "reality".So,reality without event is metaphysics.My question
>is:"Have you ever seen metaphysics?"And when,or if you said :"This
>is metaphysics."what you mean by that.For example;I doubt you see
>reality of the event of bombing big city like Belgrade in 666I,and
>consequence's that this event never happened.But you do read some
>article(thread)written by some "Marisa",and you slowly fold up
>puzzle compose by fragments,doubtful ideological testify...And you
>became one more indoctrinate man.
>Now I can't remember for sure the name of man who,(it could be
>possible Liottard?)who deduce one
>paradigmatic axiom(paraphrase):"Fascist conc.-lager
>existing because for fascist was impossible to kill whole camp
>inmate,which mean to kill "reality"(all witnesses)of event:place and
> occurrence,killers and victims.Interesting hiding,or better
>*retract*of ruling discourse in "Main Subject"(term for U.S.A by
>J.Habermas).I hardly wait to see Spike Lee's documentary about
>reality of event in New Orleans after Katrina.I belief he's one of
>few people in America who doesn't afraid to see reality of
>event.Fact that you have no TV,and that you don't read newspaper
>doesn't take of responsibility from you.Your escapism in metaphysics
>couldn't develop discourse of wish,or hiding,it doesn't matter(in
>Lacanian key-your wish couldn't immediately became object of your
>wish,between you and objectification of your phantasm is
>mediator."Other" and only trough this"Other"you could create your
>wish became thing(object).But,I(what me and other discuss when This
>"I"appear)not in a good mood to let you create your wish.I became
>disturbance instead conductor between you and your phantasm(phantom
>of your wish).First obstacle's fact that you haven't seen other
>side;you've seen only smoke from crematorium chimney,and you are
>happy because fact that somebody,down,there make cookies don't
>disturb you at all.Really?
>
>
> >To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a
>dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of >the
>spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false
>sense of immunization that sucks you into an even >deeper symbiotic
>relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris?
>Why are most of you still in New >York, Los Angeles, and London?
>"Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
>
>It's not up to you to pick as girl of marriageable age nature of
>your relationship with spectacle(I suppose this is
>another expression for event,or media...).Unclear ness part of
>text...
>
>2.
>>The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's
>>piece is touching and brave.
>
>Way you put words together in this sentence(syntax)is slimy-not
>irony,not disown...Bad and ugly.
>
> >The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such
>expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and >truth are
>subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the
>nuanced differences between truth and reality >in this context is
>like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey
>expresses a more appropriate >sense of mourning.
>
>Your escapism doesn't have nothing with people who can fell deep and
>unconditional empathy with Isabelle Dinoire .
>Maybe she's stoned bitch so much fill with narcotics that
>she*deserve*what's happened to her,but it's not up to you,educated
>man,professor and teacher to discuss about whole complex case with
>pathetic example about grey and black funeral suit.
>I think you fill thing in word,and in America particularly goes bad
>that soon is going to be very dangerous.
>Instead to face with threat which is always two-way:inside you and
>outside,you prattle loudly as child lost in woods "to drive away
>fear".I think I know you enough to warn you friendly(if you fill
>other way you're wrong)that this what you've written here is
>convincing worse sense I read your texts.
>Best wishes
>MANIK
Re: isabelle dinoire
Hi all,
I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have a television and I don't read the news. Without the backstory, my only story is the video itself and your responses. Some observations from this perspective:
1.
People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have obviously been moved by a heroic media narrative. Having no backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only surmised a synopsis of the story via this thread, abe's piece seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled for the worst, and I almost didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I kept waiting to be disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or read something evocative in the media coverage that moved you, something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you see the "reality" of the event? Really?
To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of the spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false sense of immunization that sucks you into an even deeper symbiotic relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris? Why are most of you still in New York, Los Angeles, and London? "Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
2.
The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's piece is touching and brave. The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and truth are subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the nuanced differences between truth and reality in this context is like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey expresses a more appropriate sense of mourning.
3.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/silenthill/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIwCHNUazzE
curt
abe wrote:
> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
I just read the thread and then watched the video. We don't have a television and I don't read the news. Without the backstory, my only story is the video itself and your responses. Some observations from this perspective:
1.
People denounce the media as spectacle, yet many who responded have obviously been moved by a heroic media narrative. Having no backstory, having seen/read no media narrative, having only surmised a synopsis of the story via this thread, abe's piece seems neither horrifying, inhumane, nor disturbing. I was steeled for the worst, and I almost didn't watch it (like Jason V.A., my local life is plenty beset by evil without having to import it). I kept waiting to be disturbed, and it never happened. You saw or read something evocative in the media coverage that moved you, something beyond the basic synopsis of the story. Did you see the "reality" of the event? Really?
To simply become aware of the spectacle is to enter into a dangerous relationship with it, because mere awareness of the spectacle doesn't ward it off. If anything, it gives you a false sense of immunization that sucks you into an even deeper symbiotic relationship with the spectacle. Why did Debord remain in Paris? Why are most of you still in New York, Los Angeles, and London? "Could you just not bear to look? You get no commercials."
2.
The compassion and empathy expressed by those who object to abe's piece is touching and brave. The rote (dare I say "ethical") obligation to follow up such expressions of empathy with a disclaimer that ethics and truth are subjective chills much of the original warmth. Quibbling over the nuanced differences between truth and reality in this context is like arguing loudly at someone's funeral over whether black or grey expresses a more appropriate sense of mourning.
3.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/silenthill/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIwCHNUazzE
curt
abe wrote:
> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire