manik vauda marija manik nikola pilipovic
Since 2002
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Belgrade artists Marija Vauda and Nikola Pilipovic have been
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.

Discussions (1017) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

MANIK'S NEW WORKS ON SEECULT


On SEEcult(South-Eastern Europe Portal)you can find 16 new MANIK'S work.
This work's dedicated to handicap people.
http://seecult.org/v-web/b2/index.php?cat=7

MANIK
Belgrade,January 21,2006

DISCUSSION

"YOU ARE RIGHT"SERIAL


Hi Rhizomers,
Almost three years MANIK work with "you are right"statement.Also we use thi=
s statement to show loyalty to somebody(Rhizome
for example),and tighten undermine positions.Or when somebody find that we =
don't speak English proper,that we are different,that we are
kind of schizophrenic phenomenomenon on Rhizome_Raw,that we don't belong,th=
at we belong but on wrong way.This statement point in very mild form on pro=
blems which schizophrenic person must faced day by day,every hour,minute...=
Everybody's right,our good will hang in the air
all around and make this world better,for few sec.as much as this statement=
last when you read.
Yours
MANIK

Happy new year.Of course you are right.
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Simoni" <justin@skazat.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Cc: "manik" <manik@ptt.yu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: strict chapters, spagetti poedry

Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: You're right.

You're right.
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:28 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I believe in it.

I believe in it.
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:18 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Yes indeed

Yes indeed
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Yes.

Yes.
You're right.
----- Original Message -----
From: patrick lichty
To: 'manik' ; list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 4:22 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course

Of Course!

I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right
----- Original Message -----
From: "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course

I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course

On 8 Oct 2004, at 20:06, manik wrote:

> I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Myers" <robmyers@mac.com>
> To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Of Course

----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 8:42 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: > excellent!

> excellent!
I'm very intrested in what you say .I think you are right.

----- Original Message -----
From: "bensyverson" <rhizome@bensyverson.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Yes indeed

----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:34 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: me too

me too
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:01 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: congratulation!

congratulation!
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:47 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I LOVE RHIZOME

RHIZOME IS MY LIFE
I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.

MANIK

-------Original Message-------

From: Jim Andrews
Date: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:22:53 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: why so little discussion?

I've really enjoyed the work you posted to Rhizome, Manik. Please post mo=
re.
It's great stuff.

ja

I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.

MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "ryan griffis" <grifray@yahoo.com>
To: "manik" <manik@ptt.yu>
Cc: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: why so little discussion

Dirk,I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.
MANIK

"manik" <manik@ptt.yu>

1/20/06 4:24:31 PM

<LIST@rhizome.org>

RHIZOME_RAW: Dirk,you are right

DISCUSSION

Dirk,you are right


Dirk,I'm very interested in what you say .I think you are right.
MANIK

Schizophrenia is important issue! We know that every topic on Rhizome last =
about one day(unfortunately),which is to short time to make something good =
for sick people.
To bad for them and for us.Maybe we could do something...
MANIK

Dirk wrote:
>Sorry Manic, i don't care 1 teedly bit if it's 'opportunist' to 'fool
around' with you or not. I don't have anything to sell or promote here. Now
if you want others to reply to your posts more often, you might want to try
using less abusive language, better English and a more thoughtfull attitude.
People are known to avoid the kind of noise you make at times. You may
deplore these facts, the requirements of politeness, understandable English
and an engaging attitude out of some artistical or ideological motivation (i
don't think i'd be likely to share such a motivation), but they will remain
facts. For one thing, the language problem is something i would find worthy
of further consideration, but not by us, rather by the American community
who maintains this thing for us, and i'm sure they do.

Now i take this list for what it is: an opportunity to discuss things that
matter to me with people who are likewise engaged in a search to position
themselves artistically or otherwise simply socially interact because they
know they can learn something in the process.
We do this publicly because however foolish or weak or whatever we may be as
individuals, we all represent a point of view that is valuable as such, and
the fact that we know these things might get read by many others makes us
aware that we need to write on the limit of our knowledge, as Deleuze used
to say, to do our best to say things that could matter to other people:
"On n'ecrit qu'a la pointe de son savoir, a cette pointe extreme qui =
separe
notre savoir et notre ignorance, et qui fait passer l'un dans l'autre."
(Avant propos to Difference et repetition, p 5, i never got much furt=
her in
that book. Yet.)

Surely these are hard, harsh criteria to uphold for anyone, and not
applicable to your everyday post to list@rhizome.org , but its a nice ideal
you might want to cherish, in the back of your head. It's an exercise, if
anything, and we're likely to fail every minute of it, but I'm gratefull for
that: it's not every day that you get the opportunity to chat with a
professional mathematician on things that matter to your practice of art,
for instance.

So i firmly objected to you and Miklos misquoting what i wrote in order to
make some points of your own. i think i was right in doing so, however
unimportant the issue. Simply because it's not fair, not to me, but more
importantly, not to Nad, to the conversation we were having, to the list and
what it stands for, in my very humble opinion anyway, as such.

dv
_____

Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens manik
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 januari 2006 2:07
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: schizoanalisys for beginners II

People who have no courage to appear with own(although weak belief and
knowledge)
we call "egg thief".He/she know that for this small offense could earn,in
best case, kick
in ass.
This fuchsia below,this private fawning have bad connotation because repeat
really filth practice
of not so small number of Rhizomers who send private compliments,but
strictly avoid to
mentioned MANIK in Rhizome_Raw!Yes MANIK'S belong to other side,he/she is
other/same,different,far and close same time,one who disturb idyll&communal
spirit
and we suppose it's not
opportunist to fool around with him.
No private mail,please.
MANIK

Second Vekermans letter's so dilettante and confused,that I have no time
to discus such fantasy.
Find this Deleuse mistake,prove that if you can,and good-bye.
What can I expect tomorrow,new theory of Universe?

dv@vilt.net>
1/19/06 2:03:16 PM
deleuze
Hi Manik,
Thanks for the fanmail :-[]
As a matter of fact i don't remember exactly which kind of mistakes Deleuze
made when talking about science. I remember reading an article in the French
'Magazine Literaraire' somewhere around 1996 about Deleuze going wrong on a
topic in either physics or mathematical topology. Can't find the mag
anymore, i'll admit so much in my next answer to Nad.

Got most of Deleuze's work too, actually finished reading three of them..

Am at work now, can't get in the list from here, so you won't get an onlist
answer this time....

g*dspeed,
dv

Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.

Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:

"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"

To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:

"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."

Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.

dv

DISCUSSION

schizoanalizys for beginners III


Hi Marisa,
We lend term schizoanalizys from Deleuse&Guattari's capital work"Anti-Oedip=
h".
We never find schizophrenia,as you lucid explained to us as a kind of"sexy =
alternative to 'reality."
Our friend,singer,have this hard illness several years and we know how thi=
s it look like.
Also MANIK find every topic open,including natural resources which find man=
ifestation in many mental,intellectual,education...etc. difference&contrast=
which
are often expression of difference between culture which bring polyphony/he=
terogeneous world considered "art"and creativity.This is well known as"Theo=
ry about guest",develop in Deleuse/Guattari book"What's Philosophy?"In thei=
r word philosophy actually grown from this meeting(north-south,east-west),a=
nd those meetings are base for Ancient Greece,which mean West civilisation.=

Where's ethic line over nobody mustn't pass?List(Rhizome_Raw) is Rhizomati=
c creation.So far membership was able
to define principle of self regulation.Rough but not rude.At least MANIK th=
ink so.
We believe in Rhizomers and their capability to keep and develop high inte=
llectual and creative level of List.
Sincerely
MANIK

Marisa wrote:
I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to chip in
about a subject very important to me...

I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped in
psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
farce.

Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that any of
us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not to
entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.

IMHO!
marisa

DISCUSSION

schizoanalisys for beginners II


People who have no courage to appear with own(although weak belief and know=
ledge)
we call "egg thief".He/she know that for this small offense could earn,in b=
est case, kick
in ass.
This fuchsia below,this private fawning have bad connotation because repeat=
really filth practice
of not so small number of Rhizomers who send private compliments,but strict=
ly avoid to
mentioned MANIK in Rhizome_Raw!Yes MANIK'S belong to other side,he/she is o=
ther/same,different,far and close same time,one who disturb idyll&communal =
spirit
and we suppose it's not
opportunist to fool around with him.
No private mail,please.
MANIK

Second Vekermans letter's so dilettante and confused,that I have no time
to discus such fantasy.
Find this Deleuse mistake,prove that if you can,and good-bye.
What can I expect tomorrow,new theory of Universe?

dv@vilt.net>
1/19/06 2:03:16 PM
deleuze
Hi Manik,
Thanks for the fanmail :-[]
As a matter of fact i don't remember exactly which kind of mistakes Deleuze=
made when talking about science. I remember reading an article in the Fren=
ch 'Magazine Literaraire' somewhere around 1996 about Deleuze going wrong o=
n a topic in either physics or mathematical topology. Can't find the mag an=
ymore, i'll admit so much in my next answer to Nad.

Got most of Deleuze's work too, actually finished reading three of them..

Am at work now, can't get in the list from here, so you won't get an onlist=
answer this time....

g*dspeed,
dv

Come on guys & girls, i was just referring to some mistakes Deleuze
(supposedly) made when describing highly intricate scientific theories that
were evolving in his time. I have this from a French magazine article i read
some ten years ago, Magazine Literaire it was i think, and it seemed to make
sense to me at the time i read it. I can't refer to it because i can't find
the darn thing anymore, nor do i remember what were the scientific topics
involved. I used this vague memory in an argument while chatting with Nad
about being able to cope with ones own mistakes in order to proceed into
fields that would otherwise remain shielded , hidden from discourse in
technicalities while the implications of those theories do stretch to where
that discourse is , again supposedly, relevant.

Now if you want to interpret that as a critique of Deleuze, be my guest.
I'd be glad to sent you a tonload of pre-processed cut-ups of sentences i
ever typed so you can use those to prove your point as well. Hell you could
even sell it, grow little glowing worms of fame on it, the nueva-nada-new
thing in intellecto-bubblewood:

"Dirk said: [add your nonsense here]"

To be sure, if you can't manage the 19 word exceeding sentences above,
here's what i really wrote:

"Deleuze, the philosopher, has been known to make some serious mistakes when
venturing outside his own field of clarity, into the realm of hard-boiled
science. Mistakes like that are inavoidable. But his willingness to go
there, and be serious about it, has been enormously rewarding for everyone."

Now excuse me, i don't have time for these silly games, i do need to get
some work out or i can't pay my bank the money i own them at the end of the
month. If you want a statement on the ponderous, awesome materiality without
understanding exactly how Foucault uses the term discourse, there's one for
free to get your businesses started.

dv