Dyske Suematsu
Since the beginning
dyske@dyske.com
Works in United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Discussions (125) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Operation Freedom Rape


I've been glued to the Internet on the coverage of the Iraq war. I summed up
my sentiments in my new essay. It is my view of how the war looks from the
other side.

http://www.dyske.com/default.asp?view_idt6

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Identifying with Rhizome


When I was younger, I used to nag my friends for every little shortcoming I
perceived in them. In retrospect, there were two reasons feeding off of each
other.

In my 20's, I was incredibly insecure about myself. I did not have a good
grasp of who I was. This ambiguity can be painful in a social situation.
Driven by this pain, I rushed to define who I was. But, who I am is who I
am; making a conscious effort to construct one's own identity, in the long
run, can only interfere and delay the natural progress of coming to terms
with one's self.

In my willful construction of my own identity, as with anything willful, my
identities were structured by (or like) language. The books I read, the
music I listened to, the clothing that I wore, the artists that I liked, the
schools I went to, the jobs I had, the communities I belonged to, and
finally the friends I had were quickly incorporated into the structure of my
identity. That is, my identity was a collection of such symbols structured
in a specific way.

With something like books, music, and art, it is easy for one to pick and
choose precisely what one wants for one's identity. However, this is not the
case with friends, and communities (I'll get to that part later.).
Unfortunately friends have their own autonomous wills, with their own ideals
and tastes. If you had unlimited access to the billions of people in the
world, perhaps you can pick and choose your friends precisely, like you do
with books, but this is not practically possible. So, you have to live with
whatever you've got. Since you have a limited number of them, you try to
improve the ones you got, hence the nagging.

Because of this phenomenon, the friendships in our 20's tend to be volatile.
We end up nagging each other. From the perspective of the nagged, it always
appears intrusive and invasive. You feel like saying to him, "If you don't
like me, leave me alone." But to be able to say this, you must be pretty
secure in yourself, having no need for him to be part of your identity. This
is rarely the case, so we end up creating a vicious cycle of co-dependence.

Communities work the same way. When a community becomes a significant part
of your identity, you come to rely on it for your mental stability. This
community can be the church you belong to, the musical band that you are
involved in, or an online artists' community. Since you do not have
unlimited access to all of the communities in the world, you try to improve
the ones you have to suit your needs. Because of this emotional attachment,
or the psychological need for it, you cannot afford to be objective or
reasonable, eventually reaching the level of invasiveness.

This is what I see of "After Rhizome" website.

I should emphasize again that, despite the axiomatic style that I employ in
my writings, ALL my writings are gross generalizations, and are my own
interpretations of the world. I do not claim any truth in my writing for
anyone else. If you get something out of this, that's great. If not, then
that's fine too.

-Dyske

--
Dyske Suematsu
http://www.dyske.com
Where Nothing Is Everything

DISCUSSION

Re: after rhizome?


This is really sad. I guess this is an old can of worms, but:

The writer of this site, Vladimir Kovacevic, should start his own net art
community so that he can see what it is like to start, build, and manage an
online community like Rhimzome. I would love to see him realize all of his
ideals in terms of how a net art website should be run. Only then, could I
respect any of his complaints.

I'm personally thankful that there is a community like Rhizome. Their member
agreement is not a secret; you can read it before you sign up. Even their
salaries are public information. So, if you don't like what you see, why
sign up? Obviously there are people who find Rhizome to be worth $5 a year.
And, naturally there are those who don't find it useful enough to pay for
it. The same goes for anything.

I do not see the point of this crusade against Rhizome. Did he get ripped
off by Rhizome somehow? I would remove anything that this writer has ever
posted on Rhizome, so that he could not complain about copyright issues. If
he ever made any donation or paid any membership fee, I would pay them back
to him too.

It is one thing to give suggestions, but it is entirely another to insult
someone by calling him greedy and manipulative. There is no reason for that.

-Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: The Race for War


Hi Are,

What is interesting in your (or Foucault's) argument is the concept of
"race." Here, you do not simply mean "race" as in the color of skin. "Race"
is a unity based on some sort of presumed similarities, bound and stabilized
by a center. I've written an essay on this matter:
http://www.dyske.com/default.asp?view_idt0

In it, my argument was that every unity is necessarily artificial. It is
often bound by high ideologies, but is achieved by practical compromises.
What enables us to see enemies is this notion of unity. Since unity is an
artificial construct, the notion of enemy is necessarily artificial as well.

Unity is an illusion of extended self. I live in New York, and I call myself
"New Yorker." In calling myself New Yorker, I artificially unite those who
live in New York and identify myself with that construct called "New
Yorker." And, I project qualities of a human onto this artificial construct
such as will, freedom, and sovereignty.

Artificial or not, unity is how our world is structured. Foucault's concern
seems to be with how we psychologically deal with this notion of unity, an
extended self. The same rules we employ for our own personal survival and
prosperity, apply to the notion of unity.

<quote>
"The appearance within the biological continuum of the human race of races,
the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain
races are described as good and that other, in contrast, are described as
inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that
power controls"
</quote>

This is what we do also at an individual level. Bush sees himself as "good",
and he identifies certain others to be "bad". He sees himself to be superior
to many others. He sees himself above most people. And, in turn he projects
these notions to his extended self called the USA. It is not just Bush who
does this. We all do to a degree. As long as we see the notion of "I" to be
different from the world, this is inevitable. Though it is not possible to
define what this "I" is without defining what non-I, i.e. the world, is, we
insist on seeing and believing it as real, and we act on this artificial
construct, a binary pair of "I" and the world which cannot justify the
existence of one without the other.

For me, the primary source of our political and social conflicts are in this
schism of "I" and the world. Seeing the difference and using it as a matter
of practicality is one thing, but it is entirely another to act on it as if
this schism is an innate quality of our reality, i.e., something that
preexists our thoughts.

Regards,
Dyske

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: PDPal and the continual nature of digital art


Hi t.whid,

Having a beginning and an end is different from something being "finished."

This "Don't Go There" piece was a finished piece when it went live. It was
up to the visitors to define when the ending of the piece was to come. This
is somewhat analogous to one concert John Cage had where the musicians were
already playing when the audience walked into the theater, and they did not
stop playing until everyone left. Each person was in charge of when the
piece was to begin and when it was to end. This is a conceptual performance
piece, and as far as its concept was concerned it was a finished piece. That
is, the concept itself did not evolve.

PDPal situation is different from this. What it might end up saying about
our society, psychology, memory, language, technology, etc., is uncertain.
The concept of the piece itself is not fixed. This often happens with many
websites where they turn into something that they didn't plan on becoming.
Their purposes, values, concepts, perspectives, or visions were formed as
they evolved. Some of them could end up saying nothing, serving nothing,
meaning nothing, and becoming worthless, but that is part of the fun.

> I need to assert the rights of the artist in this. As the artist
> using a medium it is our right to claim a piece's 'finished' or
> 'un-finished-ness'.

> Once again proving that most rules regarding artistic media and how
> artists use these media are made to be broken. (to flog a cliche)

I didn't say that it was a rule. I simply said that digital art "can be"
neither finished nor unfinished, where finished-ness is irrelevant. I didn't
mean to imply that this quality is what makes digital art good, either.

Because of the interactive nature of digital art, it has an effective way of
accepting influences from the audience, where the audience can play a
significant role in evolving and developing an artistic concept, where the
authorship of the concept belongs to no one person. This was possible
before, but the digital technology made this much more effective and
efficient, and therefore feasible and practical.

Dyske