Re: Re: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action taken.
but ... isn't what network solutions does anyway? for the right
price, of course ...
>I advocate the creation of a Network Solutions-like company, a
>quasi-official body that will sell guaranteed access to email
>addresses. That third-party solution would possess a master list
>and database, along with a controlled blacklist. It would audit
>and regulate commercial email, allowing us to bribe our way
>through corporate firewalls. Alternately, we could all use the
>free software (which works) to filter free mail (which works.)
>
>On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, furtherfield wrote:
>
>> This is the type of backward nonsense I am referring to. If the word crappy
>> is seen as offensive sensitive then The American government is imposing
>> limits that are beyond reason. Who has had the same problems - or am I being
>> picked on by some 'cyber bimbo'.
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "System Attendant" <LEE_NT3-SA@LEEPUB.com>
>> To: "'furtherfield'" <info@furtherfield.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:58 PM
>> Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action
>> taken.
>>
>>
>> > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
>> >
>> > Place = list@rhizome.org; ; ; furtherfield
>> > Sender = furtherfield
>> > Subject = RHIZOME_RAW: crappy!
>> > Delivery Time = June 20, 2002 (Thursday) 07:58:49
>> > Policy = Anti-Spam
>> > Action on this mail = Delete message
>> >
>> > Warning message from administrator:
>> > Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
> >
>>
price, of course ...
>I advocate the creation of a Network Solutions-like company, a
>quasi-official body that will sell guaranteed access to email
>addresses. That third-party solution would possess a master list
>and database, along with a controlled blacklist. It would audit
>and regulate commercial email, allowing us to bribe our way
>through corporate firewalls. Alternately, we could all use the
>free software (which works) to filter free mail (which works.)
>
>On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, furtherfield wrote:
>
>> This is the type of backward nonsense I am referring to. If the word crappy
>> is seen as offensive sensitive then The American government is imposing
>> limits that are beyond reason. Who has had the same problems - or am I being
>> picked on by some 'cyber bimbo'.
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "System Attendant" <LEE_NT3-SA@LEEPUB.com>
>> To: "'furtherfield'" <info@furtherfield.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:58 PM
>> Subject: ScanMail Message: To Sender, sensitive content found and action
>> taken.
>>
>>
>> > Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
>> >
>> > Place = list@rhizome.org; ; ; furtherfield
>> > Sender = furtherfield
>> > Subject = RHIZOME_RAW: crappy!
>> > Delivery Time = June 20, 2002 (Thursday) 07:58:49
>> > Policy = Anti-Spam
>> > Action on this mail = Delete message
>> >
>> > Warning message from administrator:
>> > Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
> >
>>
(no subject)
At 3:25 PM -0400 19.6.02, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>If I spraypaint "Nike exploits" on a subway wall, I am subverting
>the company from without.
>
>If I trick Nike into saying "Nike exploits" in their own ad
>campaigns, if I trick them into using their own marketing money to
>distribute this slogan, if I trick them into thinking that they are
>promoting their own brand when in fact they are undermining it -- I
>am subverting the company from within.
This is what I call transgression --subversion from within the
(mythical) structures of power.
>If I spraypaint "Nike exploits" on a subway wall, I am subverting
>the company from without.
>
>If I trick Nike into saying "Nike exploits" in their own ad
>campaigns, if I trick them into using their own marketing money to
>distribute this slogan, if I trick them into thinking that they are
>promoting their own brand when in fact they are undermining it -- I
>am subverting the company from within.
This is what I call transgression --subversion from within the
(mythical) structures of power.
Re: you post modern me modern we both now IMPERALIST
didn't kiki smith already do that? at moma, nonetheless ....
:-)
>Could you collect the pee in a bottle, label it, and send it to me. I am
>collecting bottled pee from laughing or crying.
>
>--
>Joseph Franklyn McElroy
>Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
:-)
>Could you collect the pee in a bottle, label it, and send it to me. I am
>collecting bottled pee from laughing or crying.
>
>--
>Joseph Franklyn McElroy
>Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
Re: Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
> >>>
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>>>>
>
>YEEHAW on #7 especially!
>
>Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
>informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?
>
>I'll join the movement... let's be a radical branch of NEEN!
>
>(joke)
>
I thought we agreed on artware!
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>>>>
>
>YEEHAW on #7 especially!
>
>Are you proposing a movement, describing what is happening right now, or
>informing us of your own personal approach to art & the art world?
>
>I'll join the movement... let's be a radical branch of NEEN!
>
>(joke)
>
I thought we agreed on artware!
Re: what if and tid bits i cry to much
You've been gardening some psychotropics I assume ;-+
God, give it to Kate Southworth to get me out of lurking mode ...
I'll get back to you on this one --I'm busy homeschooling. But one
nugget out there --the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
through a friendship.
It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.
Ok. I gotta go. Monster #2 is asking for his baba.
Topic: Neobaroque Aesthetics.
Talk amongst yourselves.
xoxo
Liza
>
>My response is this:
>
>It has to be rejected because it represents a skewed and restricted view of
>the artist and the production and consumption of art.
>
>I'm calling for a radical aesthetics.
>
>1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
>of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the relationship
>between the production and consumption of artistic activity.
>
>2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
>of art rather than the theory of art.
>
>3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
>understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.
>
>4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
>producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
>world in all its complexity, can be better understood.
>
>5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
>and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
>co-exist.
>
>6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
>explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
>production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of developing
>an alternative model.
>
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>
>8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect of
>the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
>methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
>different forms of art there are different political and ethical
>perspectives being reflected.
>
>9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
>something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that through
>the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the artist
>(and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding of
>the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.
>
>10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and between
>artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.
>
>11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
>aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
>which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.
God, give it to Kate Southworth to get me out of lurking mode ...
I'll get back to you on this one --I'm busy homeschooling. But one
nugget out there --the radical philosophy is not that radical nor
new. It has been around for a while (at least 50 years). It was first
promulgated in Latin America, although Wallace Setevens dabbled in it
through a friendship.
It is an aesthetics that was first applied to poetics but could
easily be extended to any art form: Think Frank Ghery. Deleuze wrote
a fabulous book about it but in reference to Leibniz's philosophy.
Ok. I gotta go. Monster #2 is asking for his baba.
Topic: Neobaroque Aesthetics.
Talk amongst yourselves.
xoxo
Liza
>
>My response is this:
>
>It has to be rejected because it represents a skewed and restricted view of
>the artist and the production and consumption of art.
>
>I'm calling for a radical aesthetics.
>
>1. A radical philosophy of art, that views art not just as the end product
>of creative processes, but sees art as the processes of and the relationship
>between the production and consumption of artistic activity.
>
>2. A radical aesthetics that is relevant to the production and consumption
>of art rather than the theory of art.
>
>3. A radical aesthetics that encourages contradiction as a useful means of
>understanding, rather than as the antithesis of understanding.
>
>4. A radical aesthetics that promotes the role of art, and the role of the
>producer and consumer of that art, as a means by which our contemporary
>world in all its complexity, can be better understood.
>
>5. A radical aesthetic that re-evaluates the relationship between producer
>and consumer of art and perhaps allows for a number of relationships to
>co-exist.
>
>6. A radical aesthetic, that whilst recognising its contradictory nature,
>explores the contemporary and historical relationship between the
>production and consumption of art and the market, with the aim of developing
>an alternative model.
>
>7. A radical aesthetics that promotes art as being as pro-active and
>significant as any other form of knowledge production.
>
>8. A radical aesthetic that acknowledges that depending upon which aspect of
>the world art is investigating, then different tools, techniques,
>methodologies and approaches will be used, and that throughout all the
>different forms of art there are different political and ethical
>perspectives being reflected.
>
>9. A radical aesthetics that recognises the practice of art as just that -
>something that is worked at daily over a life time. A practice that through
>the process of making art (of whatever kind - yes, even painting) the artist
>(and hopefully, the audience of the work produced) grows in understanding of
>the inner and outer worlds and their relationship to each other.
>
>10. A radical aesthetics that promotes debate - between artists, and between
>artists and theorists, and between artists and audiences.
>
>11. A radical aesthetics that takes what it wants from traditional
>aesthetics, and from any other area of academic or non-academic life, and
>which rejects those elements which constrict or hinder it in any way.