BIO
Lewis LaCook makes things. He is a programmer/poet. He likes unstable objects. He doesn't eat enough. Send him all your money.
Re: onCelestialEvent (creation)
simplistic slick crap...
the actionscript equivalent of a greeting card....
bliss
l
--- Net Art News <netartnews@rhizome.org> wrote:
---------------------------------
NET ART NEWS May 13, 2003
onCelestialEvent (creation) Ah, the poetics of
computer code! It can be read as a subtext of the art
it creates (Whitney's CODeDOC exhibit). Or its syntax
can be appropriated into English writing (Mez Breeze,
Mark Amerika, NN). 'Life Program' takes the latter
approach, but with a multimedia twist.It's the
history of mankind as an animated Action Script
'poem.' 'God,' 'human,' and 'nature' are all
variables. Unlike lesser code poetry, the syntax
isn't merely cyber-fluff; it logically correlates to
the plot of the narrative. And the accompanying
visuals (animated using Action Script, naturally) make
for a provocative experience. - Curt Cloninger
http://www.systemsoular.com/LifeProgram/**NOTE: An
HTML version of this email appears below. If you are
readingthis, your email application does not support
HTML-encoded email.**Rhizome members can subscribe and
unsubscribe by
visitinghttp://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz. If you
simply want to unsubscribefrom Net Art News, send an
email to majordomo@rhizome.org with nosubject, and the
line "unsubscribe netartnews " inthe body of the
email.(For example: "unsubscribe netartnews
john@email.com".)************************************************************************
-->Rhizome.org: Net Art News May 13, 2003
launch rhizome | contact us | support rhizome |
info
onCelestialEvent (creation)
Ah, the poetics of computer code! It can be read as a
subtext of the art it creates (Whitney's CODeDOC
exhibit). Or its syntax can be appropriated into
English writing (Mez Breeze, Mark Amerika, NN). 'Life
Program' takes the latter approach, but with a
multimedia twist. It's the history of mankind as an
animated Action Script 'poem.' 'God,' 'human,' and
'nature' are all variables. Unlike lesser code
poetry, the syntax isn't merely cyber-fluff; it
logically correlates to the plot of the narrative.
And the accompanying visuals (animated using Action
Script, naturally) make for a provocative experience.
- Curt Cloninger
http://www.systemsoular.com/LifeProgram/
SEND NET ART NEWS TO A FRIEND [input]
[input] ADD NET ART NEWS TO YOUR WEB SITE
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization. If you value this free publication,
please consider making a contribution within your
means.
We accept online credit card contributions at
http://rhizome.org/support. Checks may be sent to
Rhizome.org, 180 Varick Street, Suite 1126, New York,
NY 10014, USA. Or call us at +1.646.552.2313.
Contributors are gratefully acknowledged on our web
site at http://rhizome.org/info/10.php.
Rhizome members can subscribe and unsubscribe by
visitinghttp://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz.If you
simply want to unsubscribe from Net Art News,send an
email to majordomo@rhizome.org with no subject,and the
line "unsubscribe netartnews <your email address>" in
the body of the email.(For example: "unsubscribe
netartnews john@email.com".)
Net Art News is edited by Rachel Greene. Ideas for Net
Art News are welcome, must relate to new media art,
and can be emailed to rachel@rhizome.org with 'Net Art
News' in the subject line.
Net Art News is supported by grants from The Charles
Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with
public funds from the New York State Council on the
Arts, a state agency. [input]
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
the actionscript equivalent of a greeting card....
bliss
l
--- Net Art News <netartnews@rhizome.org> wrote:
---------------------------------
NET ART NEWS May 13, 2003
onCelestialEvent (creation) Ah, the poetics of
computer code! It can be read as a subtext of the art
it creates (Whitney's CODeDOC exhibit). Or its syntax
can be appropriated into English writing (Mez Breeze,
Mark Amerika, NN). 'Life Program' takes the latter
approach, but with a multimedia twist.It's the
history of mankind as an animated Action Script
'poem.' 'God,' 'human,' and 'nature' are all
variables. Unlike lesser code poetry, the syntax
isn't merely cyber-fluff; it logically correlates to
the plot of the narrative. And the accompanying
visuals (animated using Action Script, naturally) make
for a provocative experience. - Curt Cloninger
http://www.systemsoular.com/LifeProgram/**NOTE: An
HTML version of this email appears below. If you are
readingthis, your email application does not support
HTML-encoded email.**Rhizome members can subscribe and
unsubscribe by
visitinghttp://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz. If you
simply want to unsubscribefrom Net Art News, send an
email to majordomo@rhizome.org with nosubject, and the
line "unsubscribe netartnews " inthe body of the
email.(For example: "unsubscribe netartnews
john@email.com".)************************************************************************
-->Rhizome.org: Net Art News May 13, 2003
launch rhizome | contact us | support rhizome |
info
onCelestialEvent (creation)
Ah, the poetics of computer code! It can be read as a
subtext of the art it creates (Whitney's CODeDOC
exhibit). Or its syntax can be appropriated into
English writing (Mez Breeze, Mark Amerika, NN). 'Life
Program' takes the latter approach, but with a
multimedia twist. It's the history of mankind as an
animated Action Script 'poem.' 'God,' 'human,' and
'nature' are all variables. Unlike lesser code
poetry, the syntax isn't merely cyber-fluff; it
logically correlates to the plot of the narrative.
And the accompanying visuals (animated using Action
Script, naturally) make for a provocative experience.
- Curt Cloninger
http://www.systemsoular.com/LifeProgram/
SEND NET ART NEWS TO A FRIEND [input]
[input] ADD NET ART NEWS TO YOUR WEB SITE
Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization. If you value this free publication,
please consider making a contribution within your
means.
We accept online credit card contributions at
http://rhizome.org/support. Checks may be sent to
Rhizome.org, 180 Varick Street, Suite 1126, New York,
NY 10014, USA. Or call us at +1.646.552.2313.
Contributors are gratefully acknowledged on our web
site at http://rhizome.org/info/10.php.
Rhizome members can subscribe and unsubscribe by
visitinghttp://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz.If you
simply want to unsubscribe from Net Art News,send an
email to majordomo@rhizome.org with no subject,and the
line "unsubscribe netartnews <your email address>" in
the body of the email.(For example: "unsubscribe
netartnews john@email.com".)
Net Art News is edited by Rachel Greene. Ideas for Net
Art News are welcome, must relate to new media art,
and can be emailed to rachel@rhizome.org with 'Net Art
News' in the subject line.
Net Art News is supported by grants from The Charles
Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with
public funds from the New York State Council on the
Arts, a state agency. [input]
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: reductionist crap.......
it's wired...whaddya expect...
bliss
l
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,58736,00.html/wn_ascii
>
>
>
>
> - pro][rating][.lucid.txt
> -
> -
>
> http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/txts
> _
> _men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.gages_
>
bliss
l
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,58736,00.html/wn_ascii
>
>
>
>
> - pro][rating][.lucid.txt
> -
> -
>
> http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/txts
> _
> _men[iscus_heart] plucking via broken bag.gages_
>
Re: Re: Re: dream7 piece
--- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>
>
>
> > this is a bit shortsighted, and horribly untrue...
> > how could an artist create ANYTHING without a
> certain
> > amount of discipline? you have to actually sit
> down
> > and do it day by day, and still feel enthusiastic
> > enough about it to sustain projects...you have to
> have
> > the discipline to do it over and over again until
> you
> > develop the muscles every good artist
> has...musicians
> > have to rehearse, poets have to write and write
> and
> > write before they can finally write poetry in a
> way
> > that combines what they've read with what they
> feel
> > and know...
>
> And so far throughout this entire process you have
> not once mentioned the
> discipline required to *think*.
because thinking is plural, eryk...it's not as simple
as what you're laying out...otherwise, we REALLY would
have been able to design a machine that
thinks...instead, all we can do is design machines
that make decisions...which is not really thinking...
there's visual thought and sonic thought and
linguistic thought and mathematical thought and
algorithmic thought and...
so...disciplines...
>
>
> > but it's not all about feeling good...not at
> > all...what appeals to me does not neccessarily
> "feel
> > good"---i love atonal music, and atonal music
> doesn't
> > always feel good---i love aleatory process, but
> > sometimes the results of that process don't feel
> > good...pleasure, strangely, doesn't always feel
> > good...
>
>
> I was talking about the pleasure that comes from a
> "pleasing" idea and the
> rejection of the ones that are not.
but why then would these arts have been made? why
atonality? it's a rejection of something
pleasing--classical harmony, functional
tonality...just as aleatoric art is a rejection in
some ways of a way of seeing an artwork as a
totality////
see, this is all too general...what do you mean by
"idea?" what do you mean by "thought?"
>
>
> > to be a yes-man in net art i would have to, for
> > example, salivate whenever i heard vuk cosic's
> name,
> > or admire any number of works simply because they
> are
> > canonical---the same is true for poetry...i'd have
> to
> > love shakespeare because i was told that
> shakespeare
> > is great...but what if i start asking questions?
> what
> > if i ask what is it about vuk cosic or shakespeare
> > that makes their work great? then i'm getting
> > somewhere---and my answers may vary considerably
> from
> > yours---which is good...
>
>
> Yes that's fine, but that is not what I am talking
> about. I am talking abour
> accepting or rejecting philosophies based on a
> yes-man attitude for your own
> self. One who salivates at any idea which he/she
> deems as "good" and
> tyrannically rejects any idea that he/she deems as
> "bad."
but you yourself, by authoring rules for net art
(unless these are as tongue-in-cheek as i actually
believe they are), have "tyrannically rejected" ideas
you deem as "bad." it's the same thing. in the end,
one does take positions, which involves
discrimination...the struggle is to remain open, to
watch the ideas you rejected and respect them...
>
>
>
> > kierkegarrd basically wrote that systems are
> > impossible...because life isn't closed, it's not
> > over...and systems encapsulate dead
> things...things
> > that are no longer growing---
>
> Precisely, and a system could we build to maintain a
> constant awareness of
> those types of things?
not sure what you're getting at here...(and my am i
full of typos today)---but would that be a system?
>
>
> > but it is thought that leads to war...thought and
> the
> > manipulation of thought---would we have had hitler
> if
> > we hadn't had hegel?
>
> We had Hegel without Hitler. You are refferring
> again not to intellectual
> thought but to intellectual thoughtlessness. I'm not
> really talking about
> intellect, I am talking about observation.
> -e.
>
but we didn't have hitler without hegel, and that's
the unfortunate thing...
bliss
l
>
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>
>
>
> > this is a bit shortsighted, and horribly untrue...
> > how could an artist create ANYTHING without a
> certain
> > amount of discipline? you have to actually sit
> down
> > and do it day by day, and still feel enthusiastic
> > enough about it to sustain projects...you have to
> have
> > the discipline to do it over and over again until
> you
> > develop the muscles every good artist
> has...musicians
> > have to rehearse, poets have to write and write
> and
> > write before they can finally write poetry in a
> way
> > that combines what they've read with what they
> feel
> > and know...
>
> And so far throughout this entire process you have
> not once mentioned the
> discipline required to *think*.
because thinking is plural, eryk...it's not as simple
as what you're laying out...otherwise, we REALLY would
have been able to design a machine that
thinks...instead, all we can do is design machines
that make decisions...which is not really thinking...
there's visual thought and sonic thought and
linguistic thought and mathematical thought and
algorithmic thought and...
so...disciplines...
>
>
> > but it's not all about feeling good...not at
> > all...what appeals to me does not neccessarily
> "feel
> > good"---i love atonal music, and atonal music
> doesn't
> > always feel good---i love aleatory process, but
> > sometimes the results of that process don't feel
> > good...pleasure, strangely, doesn't always feel
> > good...
>
>
> I was talking about the pleasure that comes from a
> "pleasing" idea and the
> rejection of the ones that are not.
but why then would these arts have been made? why
atonality? it's a rejection of something
pleasing--classical harmony, functional
tonality...just as aleatoric art is a rejection in
some ways of a way of seeing an artwork as a
totality////
see, this is all too general...what do you mean by
"idea?" what do you mean by "thought?"
>
>
> > to be a yes-man in net art i would have to, for
> > example, salivate whenever i heard vuk cosic's
> name,
> > or admire any number of works simply because they
> are
> > canonical---the same is true for poetry...i'd have
> to
> > love shakespeare because i was told that
> shakespeare
> > is great...but what if i start asking questions?
> what
> > if i ask what is it about vuk cosic or shakespeare
> > that makes their work great? then i'm getting
> > somewhere---and my answers may vary considerably
> from
> > yours---which is good...
>
>
> Yes that's fine, but that is not what I am talking
> about. I am talking abour
> accepting or rejecting philosophies based on a
> yes-man attitude for your own
> self. One who salivates at any idea which he/she
> deems as "good" and
> tyrannically rejects any idea that he/she deems as
> "bad."
but you yourself, by authoring rules for net art
(unless these are as tongue-in-cheek as i actually
believe they are), have "tyrannically rejected" ideas
you deem as "bad." it's the same thing. in the end,
one does take positions, which involves
discrimination...the struggle is to remain open, to
watch the ideas you rejected and respect them...
>
>
>
> > kierkegarrd basically wrote that systems are
> > impossible...because life isn't closed, it's not
> > over...and systems encapsulate dead
> things...things
> > that are no longer growing---
>
> Precisely, and a system could we build to maintain a
> constant awareness of
> those types of things?
not sure what you're getting at here...(and my am i
full of typos today)---but would that be a system?
>
>
> > but it is thought that leads to war...thought and
> the
> > manipulation of thought---would we have had hitler
> if
> > we hadn't had hegel?
>
> We had Hegel without Hitler. You are refferring
> again not to intellectual
> thought but to intellectual thoughtlessness. I'm not
> really talking about
> intellect, I am talking about observation.
> -e.
>
but we didn't have hitler without hegel, and that's
the unfortunate thing...
bliss
l
>
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: dream7 piece
point well taken!
bliss
l
> > What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
> > do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
> > particular work but which measures things against a
> > particular technical or conceptual yardstick
>
> I totally agree. This type of formalist critique (is it net-centric?
> what expected statements does it make [man/machine, telepresence,
> surveilance, political protest]? is it reactive, autogenerative,
> non-linear?) is like connect the dots for lazy art critics. Props to
> marc garrettt for posting what I'm reading as the only truly incisive
> crit of this piece thus far. Everybody is talking about their own
> grids and filters and agendas, and nobody is engaging with the piece
> to see the terms on which it attempts to communicate itself. Is it
> lack of ability to engage with an art object as anything other than a
> conceptual signifier? Is it a dearth of vocabulary with which to
> describe an appropriately concise aesthetic reaction?
>
> It's like critiquing Monet's water lily pond painting and saying,
> "well, it's a bit blurry. You can't really see the objects clearly.
> Perhaps he should better acquaint himself with Photoshop's 'unsharp
> mask' filter."
>
> This particular dream7 piece may well suck, but pointing out how it
> doesn't fit through your genre grid is a shorthand way of telling me
> nothing much.
bliss
l
> > What I am against is an orthodoxy that is nothing to
> > do with the concrete discussion of the merits of a
> > particular work but which measures things against a
> > particular technical or conceptual yardstick
>
> I totally agree. This type of formalist critique (is it net-centric?
> what expected statements does it make [man/machine, telepresence,
> surveilance, political protest]? is it reactive, autogenerative,
> non-linear?) is like connect the dots for lazy art critics. Props to
> marc garrettt for posting what I'm reading as the only truly incisive
> crit of this piece thus far. Everybody is talking about their own
> grids and filters and agendas, and nobody is engaging with the piece
> to see the terms on which it attempts to communicate itself. Is it
> lack of ability to engage with an art object as anything other than a
> conceptual signifier? Is it a dearth of vocabulary with which to
> describe an appropriately concise aesthetic reaction?
>
> It's like critiquing Monet's water lily pond painting and saying,
> "well, it's a bit blurry. You can't really see the objects clearly.
> Perhaps he should better acquaint himself with Photoshop's 'unsharp
> mask' filter."
>
> This particular dream7 piece may well suck, but pointing out how it
> doesn't fit through your genre grid is a shorthand way of telling me
> nothing much.
Re: Re: Re: dream7 piece
Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references
> have been the same if
> they piece had included references to something like
> Lewis Carrol or TS
> Eliot?
yes! "Lewis Carrol" and "T.S. Eliot" are words...
Granted they are literary examples and
> Beadrillard resides in the
> area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
> Tao Te Ching or
> Revelations?
1) I'm not so sure there's that big a gulf between
literature and philosophy---hasn't been since
nietszche--
2) I would still have had problems with the
piece--regurgitation is regurgitation---and my
problems with the work involve the work as a whole,
anyway---like i said, it's just OK---
How much
> stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
> artist and isn't "handed
> down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
> much.
--i would say nothing at all, really///but the
exciting stuff happens in the mix...and there's no mix
here, no new angle from which to see it///it's like
reading "Baudrillard for Dummies"...
A common problem with the artist these days is
> that in the rejection of
> "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
> can "pick and choose"
> from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
> "like". It's not true.
> If an actually powerful system of thought is
> designed from scratch it
> requires paying attention to its totality- progress
> happens in the bits and
> pieces we don't "like."
bullshit--part of the freedom of being human is being
able to synthesize, which means that i can take what i
like and i can discard the rest//what i like will
collidge with other things i like, and eventually a
"system" of thought will be born (i dislike that,
actually...and i would stand behind what kierkegarrd
said about systems and their insufficiency---ack, here
i am referencing kierkegaard! )
it's not an easy way out either////the work comes in
making those bits and pieces you've gathered fit
together in some meaningful way into your life, into
your daily practice...we don't really need a "system"
of thought---systems of thought have gotten us nothing
but war and genocide///
bliss
l
--- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references
> have been the same if
> they piece had included references to something like
> Lewis Carrol or TS
> Eliot? Granted they are literary examples and
> Beadrillard resides in the
> area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
> Tao Te Ching or
> Revelations?
>
> I'm not entirely sure that quoting Beaudrillard
> actually is designed to
> "illustrate intellect". For many people, quoting
> philosophers is done for
> reasons aside from simply proving that one can quote
> a philosopher. How much
> stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
> artist and isn't "handed
> down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
> much.
>
> A lot of art is a conduit for ideas or an
> interaction with ideas. You can
> quote the source directly, or create a mishmash of
> ideas and call it
> "independant creative energy." I don't mean to say
> independant creative
> energy does not exist, but jamming a series of
> philosophies together isn't
> it. A common problem with the artist these days is
> that in the rejection of
> "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
> can "pick and choose"
> from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
> "like". It's not true.
> If an actually powerful system of thought is
> designed from scratch it
> requires paying attention to its totality- progress
> happens in the bits and
> pieces we don't "like." You should not change your
> therapist when they say
> some of the blame lies with the patient. It's not an
> excuse for dogma or
> fundamentalism, either, but rather, it's humility.
> If your "truth" about the
> system is there it will become apparent and changes
> can take place. I just
> worry that a lot of faux "independant thought" is
> precisely the opposite,
> it's a total choosing of the easiest elements of
> various philosophies which
> contributes to diluting the potency of all of them.
>
> If this seems like rambling, it's not, in in regards
> to the "chinese
> whispers" effect that you talk about. I think that
> what you call the
> "regurgitation" of ideas can really be called a
> distortion of mediation, in
> this regard the words are presented in thier
> totality, so there is no
> distortion of information by the medium it is
> departed in. Had they
> presented ideas as thier own which were half
> imagined and half "simulation
> and simulacra" by Jean Beaudrillard then you might
> have a case for
> distortion, but what's interesting is that this
> would usually pass for
> "independant creative thought" whereas adding
> color/art to a text which
> serves as a distinct and seperate *interpretation*
> is written off as
> pretentious.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
> To: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>;
> <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:46 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
>
>
> > I have no issue with the medium used really, each
> to their own creative
> > process - yet I have a problem much more with the
> clich'e Baudrillard
> > references.
> >
> > Using such references instantly declares an almost
> illustrational
> intellect,
> > using ideas/notions handed down via educational
> protocol is not
> necessarily
> > an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to
> show more what one has
> been
> > informed of by other people, rather than what one
> carries as a creative
> > entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated
> and displayed as
> art/design
> > = information.
> >
> > What I also find is interesting is what is not
> being communicated in their
> > work. The function or act of their 'Exformation',
> what they are not saying
> > or doing. For therin lies a more interesting set
> of ideas and 'embodied'
> > experience that connects them, their true essence.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> > > i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just
> okay---nothing
> > fabulous----
> > >
> > > it's a bit simple and predictable, and the
> flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not
> > usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic
> flash, but this is like flash
> > 101 when it comes to animation and code...and
> conceptually, it treads the
> > same very tired track...
> > >
> > >
> > > great discussion arising out of it, though...
> > >
> > > bliss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes it's a nice piece.
> > > > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but
> without
> > > > recourse to having the viewer click for the
> sake of
> > > > it.
> > > > There is a kind of genre of
> > > > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which
> don't seem
> > > > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of
> things
> > > > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the
> like
> > > > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which
> I find
> > > > consistently exciting and interesting and
> which I
> > > > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of
> things to
> > > > have rather more importance than they are
> accorded
> > > > now.
> > > > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
> > > > -obviously thought and care went into them.
> > > > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds
> anything
> > > > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
> > > > orthodoxy.
> > > > best
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned
> here, dream7
> > > > > and fakeshop.
> > > > >
> > > > > -e.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains
> is for the use is that
> > > > of the sender and does not bind the
> precautions to minimise authority
> > > > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by
> software viruses email.
> > > > We have taken the risk of transmitting
> software viruses, but we advise
> > > > that you carry out your own virus attachment
> to this message. Internet
> > > > email that you observe this lack is not a
> secure communication
> > > > medium, and we advise of security when
> emailing us. District
> > > > Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > > > http://search.yahoo.com
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> 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
> >
>
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
> have been the same if
> they piece had included references to something like
> Lewis Carrol or TS
> Eliot?
yes! "Lewis Carrol" and "T.S. Eliot" are words...
Granted they are literary examples and
> Beadrillard resides in the
> area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
> Tao Te Ching or
> Revelations?
1) I'm not so sure there's that big a gulf between
literature and philosophy---hasn't been since
nietszche--
2) I would still have had problems with the
piece--regurgitation is regurgitation---and my
problems with the work involve the work as a whole,
anyway---like i said, it's just OK---
How much
> stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
> artist and isn't "handed
> down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
> much.
--i would say nothing at all, really///but the
exciting stuff happens in the mix...and there's no mix
here, no new angle from which to see it///it's like
reading "Baudrillard for Dummies"...
A common problem with the artist these days is
> that in the rejection of
> "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
> can "pick and choose"
> from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
> "like". It's not true.
> If an actually powerful system of thought is
> designed from scratch it
> requires paying attention to its totality- progress
> happens in the bits and
> pieces we don't "like."
bullshit--part of the freedom of being human is being
able to synthesize, which means that i can take what i
like and i can discard the rest//what i like will
collidge with other things i like, and eventually a
"system" of thought will be born (i dislike that,
actually...and i would stand behind what kierkegarrd
said about systems and their insufficiency---ack, here
i am referencing kierkegaard! )
it's not an easy way out either////the work comes in
making those bits and pieces you've gathered fit
together in some meaningful way into your life, into
your daily practice...we don't really need a "system"
of thought---systems of thought have gotten us nothing
but war and genocide///
bliss
l
--- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Would your problem with the Beaudrillard references
> have been the same if
> they piece had included references to something like
> Lewis Carrol or TS
> Eliot? Granted they are literary examples and
> Beadrillard resides in the
> area of philosophy, but what if the piece quoted the
> Tao Te Ching or
> Revelations?
>
> I'm not entirely sure that quoting Beaudrillard
> actually is designed to
> "illustrate intellect". For many people, quoting
> philosophers is done for
> reasons aside from simply proving that one can quote
> a philosopher. How much
> stuff in art do we see that actually comes from the
> artist and isn't "handed
> down?" I would venture to guess the answer is not
> much.
>
> A lot of art is a conduit for ideas or an
> interaction with ideas. You can
> quote the source directly, or create a mishmash of
> ideas and call it
> "independant creative energy." I don't mean to say
> independant creative
> energy does not exist, but jamming a series of
> philosophies together isn't
> it. A common problem with the artist these days is
> that in the rejection of
> "hierarchy" it has become falsely believed that we
> can "pick and choose"
> from areas of philosophy/religion/psychology that we
> "like". It's not true.
> If an actually powerful system of thought is
> designed from scratch it
> requires paying attention to its totality- progress
> happens in the bits and
> pieces we don't "like." You should not change your
> therapist when they say
> some of the blame lies with the patient. It's not an
> excuse for dogma or
> fundamentalism, either, but rather, it's humility.
> If your "truth" about the
> system is there it will become apparent and changes
> can take place. I just
> worry that a lot of faux "independant thought" is
> precisely the opposite,
> it's a total choosing of the easiest elements of
> various philosophies which
> contributes to diluting the potency of all of them.
>
> If this seems like rambling, it's not, in in regards
> to the "chinese
> whispers" effect that you talk about. I think that
> what you call the
> "regurgitation" of ideas can really be called a
> distortion of mediation, in
> this regard the words are presented in thier
> totality, so there is no
> distortion of information by the medium it is
> departed in. Had they
> presented ideas as thier own which were half
> imagined and half "simulation
> and simulacra" by Jean Beaudrillard then you might
> have a case for
> distortion, but what's interesting is that this
> would usually pass for
> "independant creative thought" whereas adding
> color/art to a text which
> serves as a distinct and seperate *interpretation*
> is written off as
> pretentious.
>
> -e.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>
> To: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>;
> <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:46 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: dream7 piece
>
>
> > I have no issue with the medium used really, each
> to their own creative
> > process - yet I have a problem much more with the
> clich'e Baudrillard
> > references.
> >
> > Using such references instantly declares an almost
> illustrational
> intellect,
> > using ideas/notions handed down via educational
> protocol is not
> necessarily
> > an imaginative thing to do. In fact, it works to
> show more what one has
> been
> > informed of by other people, rather than what one
> carries as a creative
> > entity; thus chinese whispers being regurtitated
> and displayed as
> art/design
> > = information.
> >
> > What I also find is interesting is what is not
> being communicated in their
> > work. The function or act of their 'Exformation',
> what they are not saying
> > or doing. For therin lies a more interesting set
> of ideas and 'embodied'
> > experience that connects them, their true essence.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >
> > > i hate to disagree here, but this piece is just
> okay---nothing
> > fabulous----
> > >
> > > it's a bit simple and predictable, and the
> flashwork---aggghh!! i'm not
> > usually a big fan of overly-smooth cinematic
> flash, but this is like flash
> > 101 when it comes to animation and code...and
> conceptually, it treads the
> > same very tired track...
> > >
> > >
> > > great discussion arising out of it, though...
> > >
> > > bliss
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > l
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes it's a nice piece.
> > > > I like the way that it feels net idiomatic but
> without
> > > > recourse to having the viewer click for the
> sake of
> > > > it.
> > > > There is a kind of genre of
> > > > noninteractive-"movies"-for-the-net which
> don't seem
> > > > to have the kudos amongst the big hitters of
> things
> > > > like pieces about surveillance cameras and the
> like
> > > > and which hence feel a bit marginal, but which
> I find
> > > > consistently exciting and interesting and
> which I
> > > > suspect will turn out in the big scheme of
> things to
> > > > have rather more importance than they are
> accorded
> > > > now.
> > > > The visuals in themselves are very satisfying
> > > > -obviously thought and care went into them.
> > > > I do wonder whether the Baudrillard text adds
> anything
> > > > at all though- it feels like a belated nod to
> > > > orthodoxy.
> > > > best
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > http://www.dream7.com/bioready/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some good work I haven't seen mentioned
> here, dream7
> > > > > and fakeshop.
> > > > >
> > > > > -e.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains
> is for the use is that
> > > > of the sender and does not bind the
> precautions to minimise authority
> > > > in any way. If you copy or distribute this by
> software viruses email.
> > > > We have taken the risk of transmitting
> software viruses, but we advise
> > > > that you carry out your own virus attachment
> to this message. Internet
> > > > email that you observe this lack is not a
> secure communication
> > > > medium, and we advise of security when
> emailing us. District
> > > > Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > > > http://search.yahoo.com
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> 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
> >
>
=====
NEW!!!--sondheim.exe--artware text editor for Windows
http://www.lewislacook.com/alanSondheim/sondheim.exe
http://www.lewislacook.com/
tubulence artist studio: http://turbulence.org/studios/lacook/index.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com