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: 'the universal computer' by martin davis
Hmmmm, how about a Wittgenstein maschine??????
bliss
l
--- Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
> Will do. Thanks. Looking for a new book. I'm
> actually muddling
> through Bertrand Russells History of Philosophy at
> the moment, long
> overdue as the book was printed in 1948 (map of
> Switserland printed
> on the inside of the flap -- wonder why -- always
> [stupidly] thought:
> "paper shortage after the war") and I have had my
> copy -- well, for
> ages...
> Anyway, just reached Liebniz...
>
> Cheers
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>
> On 11-jul-2005, at 2:52, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > am muddling through a pretty good book at the mo i
> thought i'd
> > mention: 'the
> > universal computer' by martin davis (subtitled
> 'the road from
> > leibniz to
> > turing'). published in the year 2000.
> >
> > each chapter looks at the work of a particular
> mathematician/logician,
> > starting with leibniz (1646-1716); then George
> Boole (b. 1822);
> > Gottlob
> > Frege (b. 1848); Georg Cantor (b. 1845); David
> Hilbert (b. 1862);
> > Kurt Godel
> > (b. 1906); Alan Turing (b. 1912). With brief
> mention of a few other
> > cats
> > like Charles Babbage (b. 1791).
> >
> > the book traces the contribution of each of these
> logicians to
> > "leibniz's
> > dream" of a machine that can reason. so the book
> has a great deal
> > to do with
> > logic and language. it has a lot to do with
> language since the work
> > of the
> > above logicians can be seen as advances towards
> languages in which the
> > reasoning can take place.
> >
> > this book also looks, toward the end, at the
> unfortunate
> > misunderstandings
> > of searle and penrose. whether or not it is the
> case that there are
> > thought
> > processes of which humans are capable but
> computers are not remains
> > an open
> > question, notwithstanding things like penrose's
> simply fallacious
> > proofs
> > that there are.
> >
> > we be language machines, to some extent, in our
> reasoning/thinking.
> > the
> > degree has not been settled.
> >
> > i would recommend this book to digital artists
> interested in the
> > historical
> > and philosophical/epistemological underpinnings of
> computing. i would
> > particularly recommend it to writers involved
> intensely in the
> > digital,
> > since it concerns the contemporary
> interpenetration of language,
> > logic and
> > reasoning/thinking. digital artists tend to be
> interested in the
> > confluence
> > of arts and media. i suggest that the
> philosophical underpinnings
> > of this
> > confluence concern language in an extrordinary
> manner.
> >
> > martin davis, the author, is a distinguished
> logician and knows the
> > subject
> > well. he is a prof emeritus of the courant
> institute in ny. he has
> > written a
> > related but more technical book on 'Computability
> and
> > Unsolvability' and has
> > put together a book of early papers by logicians
> on 'The Undecidable'.
> >
> > the mathematical background required to read 'the
> universal
> > computer' is
> > minimal.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions
bliss
l
--- Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
> Will do. Thanks. Looking for a new book. I'm
> actually muddling
> through Bertrand Russells History of Philosophy at
> the moment, long
> overdue as the book was printed in 1948 (map of
> Switserland printed
> on the inside of the flap -- wonder why -- always
> [stupidly] thought:
> "paper shortage after the war") and I have had my
> copy -- well, for
> ages...
> Anyway, just reached Liebniz...
>
> Cheers
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>
> On 11-jul-2005, at 2:52, Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > am muddling through a pretty good book at the mo i
> thought i'd
> > mention: 'the
> > universal computer' by martin davis (subtitled
> 'the road from
> > leibniz to
> > turing'). published in the year 2000.
> >
> > each chapter looks at the work of a particular
> mathematician/logician,
> > starting with leibniz (1646-1716); then George
> Boole (b. 1822);
> > Gottlob
> > Frege (b. 1848); Georg Cantor (b. 1845); David
> Hilbert (b. 1862);
> > Kurt Godel
> > (b. 1906); Alan Turing (b. 1912). With brief
> mention of a few other
> > cats
> > like Charles Babbage (b. 1791).
> >
> > the book traces the contribution of each of these
> logicians to
> > "leibniz's
> > dream" of a machine that can reason. so the book
> has a great deal
> > to do with
> > logic and language. it has a lot to do with
> language since the work
> > of the
> > above logicians can be seen as advances towards
> languages in which the
> > reasoning can take place.
> >
> > this book also looks, toward the end, at the
> unfortunate
> > misunderstandings
> > of searle and penrose. whether or not it is the
> case that there are
> > thought
> > processes of which humans are capable but
> computers are not remains
> > an open
> > question, notwithstanding things like penrose's
> simply fallacious
> > proofs
> > that there are.
> >
> > we be language machines, to some extent, in our
> reasoning/thinking.
> > the
> > degree has not been settled.
> >
> > i would recommend this book to digital artists
> interested in the
> > historical
> > and philosophical/epistemological underpinnings of
> computing. i would
> > particularly recommend it to writers involved
> intensely in the
> > digital,
> > since it concerns the contemporary
> interpenetration of language,
> > logic and
> > reasoning/thinking. digital artists tend to be
> interested in the
> > confluence
> > of arts and media. i suggest that the
> philosophical underpinnings
> > of this
> > confluence concern language in an extrordinary
> manner.
> >
> > martin davis, the author, is a distinguished
> logician and knows the
> > subject
> > well. he is a prof emeritus of the courant
> institute in ny. he has
> > written a
> > related but more technical book on 'Computability
> and
> > Unsolvability' and has
> > put together a book of early papers by logicians
> on 'The Undecidable'.
> >
> > the mathematical background required to read 'the
> universal
> > computer' is
> > minimal.
> >
> > ja
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> > subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/
> > 29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
that explains it for me....lol
bliss
l
--- patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> wrote:
> Listen:
> The difference between art and prostitution is as
> follows:
>
> In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
> And with art, people see if they want to pay to see
> you have sex with
> yourself in the gallery.
>
> Simple as that.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org
> [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Lewis LaCook
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
> To: t.whid; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of
> ArtBase 101
>
> So we only make art for other artists?
>
>
>
> --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>
> > Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> > > point?
> >
> > To engage an engaged viewer.
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> > open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set
> > out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
************************************************************************
> ***
> No More Movements...
>
> Lewis LaCook
>
-->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
bliss
l
--- patrick lichty <voyd@voyd.com> wrote:
> Listen:
> The difference between art and prostitution is as
> follows:
>
> In the former, one pays you to have sex with them,
> And with art, people see if they want to pay to see
> you have sex with
> yourself in the gallery.
>
> Simple as that.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org
> [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Lewis LaCook
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:21 AM
> To: t.whid; list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of
> ArtBase 101
>
> So we only make art for other artists?
>
>
>
> --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>
> > Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> > > point?
> >
> > To engage an engaged viewer.
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> > open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set
> > out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
************************************************************************
> ***
> No More Movements...
>
> Lewis LaCook
>
-->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
>
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
"Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
---that's making a huuuge assumption--i mean, gee, t,
we get it and all--boxer has less patience with the
conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems--i
like both works myself, but i can stray into
conceptual work and appreciate it--
one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"--in
which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
IS about time...
---------------
> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
> comments back.
>
> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>
> Philip Galanter wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
> I suspect that a
> > good number of internet artists started out as
> primarily visual
> > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
> internet art is in
> > fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
> >
> > You can see this in the classroom everyday.
> Student painters or
> > photographers who decide to take up video are
> usually (at least at
> > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
> terribly awful.
> > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
> defended in class
> > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
> aesthetic rather than
> > being called what it is...bad filmmaking.
> Interminable static shots
> > are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
> enough. And so on.
> > The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
> becomes the audiences
> >
> > burden.
>
> I can't argue with your point that many video or
> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
> can't remember which one, that made me want to
> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>
> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
> time as a significant element in the work in very
> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
> ways.
>
> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
> how computers and humans are different in a very
> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
> airhead reviewer.
>
> >
> > These problems become multiplied when fine artists
> turn to the
> > internet as a new medium. That time counts
> shouldn't be a surprise.
>
> You seem to be making general points that you might
> make to your students. It comes off a bit
> condescending since you're referencing a specific
> show and a specific review of it.
>
> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>
> >
> > It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
> asks the audience
> > to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
> entire work without
> > satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
> payoff at the very
> > end. Music frequently begins with the
> introduction of compelling
> > themes that give the listener an incentive to go
> further. Good films
> >
> > not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
> along the way.
> > How much internet art does this?
>
> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
> misses the point of most of the work.
>
> >
> > I've seen far too many examples of internet art
> that seem to
> > disregard the element of real time, and thereby
> ignore or
> > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
> be sure the
> > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
> compositional
> > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
> But that's no
> > excuse...that's exactly the challenge the artist
> has willingly taken
> > on.
> >
> > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
> not care a whit
> > for the audience's experience. But don't blame
> the audience, or the
> > critic, if they click a few times and then walk
> away. It's not their
> >
> > fault. It's yours.
>
> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
---that's making a huuuge assumption--i mean, gee, t,
we get it and all--boxer has less patience with the
conceptualism inherent in these works, it seems--i
like both works myself, but i can stray into
conceptual work and appreciate it--
one problem might be this: boxer is applying a
cinematic view of net.art, and not seeing the
conceptual meat of something like "Every Icon"--in
which case Phillip hit the gist of the whole thing: it
IS about time...
---------------
> I've been watching this discussion unfold, but since
> I'm an interested party felt that I should hold my
> comments back.
>
> I think that Marisa's initial post summed up my
> thoughts on the review fairly well. But Philip's
> points are a bit off-base IMHO. below:
>
> Philip Galanter wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Boxer's focus on time is, I think, quite telling.
> I suspect that a
> > good number of internet artists started out as
> primarily visual
> > artists, and have somehow underestimated how much
> internet art is in
> > fact a *time* art, and how important that is.
> >
> > You can see this in the classroom everyday.
> Student painters or
> > photographers who decide to take up video are
> usually (at least at
> > first) bad at editing. By bad I mean really
> terribly awful.
> > Narrative is fragmented and incoherent and then
> defended in class
> > critique as some kind of "higher" fine art
> aesthetic rather than
> > being called what it is...bad filmmaking.
> Interminable static shots
> > are the norm. Fade to credits never comes soon
> enough. And so on.
> > The artist's infatuation for his/her own images
> becomes the audiences
> >
> > burden.
>
> I can't argue with your point that many video or
> other time-based artists have a horrible sense of
> time in their work. There was one of the Cremasters,
> can't remember which one, that made me want to
> murder Mr. Barney. But equating the work in the
> ArtBase show with innane student video does a whale
> of a whopping disservice to the work in the show.
>
> Two of the artworks she takes to task for consuming
> too much of her time are "Every Icon" and MTAA's "1
> Year Performance Video." Both of these pieces have
> time as a significant element in the work in very
> deliberate and (if I do say so myself) effective
> ways.
>
> To brush off Simon's "Every Icon" with, "I don't
> know about you, but I don't have that kind of time,"
> isn't just dismissive, it's just plain ignorant. Yes
> I suppose we can all have a chuckle over her
> oh-so-sparkling bit of snark, but Simon's piece is a
> sublimely beautiful conceptualization of
> computational time; it's gets to the very core of
> how computers and humans are different in a very
> physical way. It deserves a serious observation but
> its essence seems to have completely flown over the
> airhead reviewer.
>
> >
> > These problems become multiplied when fine artists
> turn to the
> > internet as a new medium. That time counts
> shouldn't be a surprise.
>
> You seem to be making general points that you might
> make to your students. It comes off a bit
> condescending since you're referencing a specific
> show and a specific review of it.
>
> I can't think of one artist in the show that seems
> to have been caught off-gaurd by that whole time
> thing. If there is one, please clue me in.
>
> >
> > It is the rare work of music or film or stage that
> asks the audience
> > to take a leap of faith, to struggle through the
> entire work without
> > satisfaction along the way, just to get to a big
> payoff at the very
> > end. Music frequently begins with the
> introduction of compelling
> > themes that give the listener an incentive to go
> further. Good films
> >
> > not only end well, but give the viewer rewards all
> along the way.
> > How much internet art does this?
>
> Short answer: lots. But using cinema as an example
> misses the point of most of the work.
>
> >
> > I've seen far too many examples of internet art
> that seem to
> > disregard the element of real time, and thereby
> ignore or
> > miscalculate the experience of the audience. To
> be sure the
> > nonlinear nature of much internet art makes the
> compositional
> > problems of pacing exponentially more difficult.
> But that's no
> > excuse...that's exactly the challenge the artist
> has willingly taken
> > on.
> >
> > I suppose one can be an artist and do the work and
> not care a whit
> > for the audience's experience. But don't blame
> the audience, or the
> > critic, if they click a few times and then walk
> away. It's not their
> >
> > fault. It's yours.
>
> As a general point, of course you're right. But as a
> specific point to this specific exhibition it just
> doesn't hold up. Most of the work isn't particularly
> musical or cinematic in the show. "Every Icon" and
> "1 Year Performance Video" are more or less linear
> in their time-based component, but neither of the
> pieces expects a viewer to keep watching.. and
> watching.. and watching. Both expect you to get the
> idea and then move on. *But* both expect you to keep
> running the concept in your head long after you're
> gone, something I'm not sure the reviewer is capable
> of.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
don't evade the question...elaborate
--- twhid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> don't be thick
>
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> > So we only make art for other artists?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> >>> point?
> >>>
> >>
> >> To engage an engaged viewer.
>
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- twhid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> don't be thick
>
> On Jul 1, 2005, at 12:20 AM, Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> > So we only make art for other artists?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Lewis LaCook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If the art can't engage a casual user, what's
> the
> >>> point?
> >>>
> >>
> >> To engage an engaged viewer.
>
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101
So we only make art for other artists?
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Lewis LaCook wrote:
>
> >
> > If the art can't engage a casual user, what's the
> > point?
>
> To engage an engaged viewer.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
***************************************************************************
No More Movements...
Lewis LaCook -->Poet-Programmer|||http://lewislacook.corporatepa.com/|||
____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com