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

excuse for beg....


War is just excuse for killing.

DISCUSSION

young


Try to express your opinion short.
MANIK

DISCUSSION

Re: about hypertext


When you first time touch PC,you are part of this Planet.What's your
problem?
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dyske Suematsu" <dyske@dyske.com>
To: "rhizome list" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: about hypertext

> This is a peculiar field. It seems forced.
>
> http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/editorial.html
>
> By reading this discussion of hypertext, I get a peculiar sense of
> pointlessness (not that there is anything wrong with that). The majority
of
> it is dedicated to justifying its own premise. Does hypertext need its own
> form of criticism? Before I would answer that question, I would question
the
> question itself. Where is the question coming from? Why does one even get
> the urge to ask that question?
>
> The criticism on this site seems to try very hard to legitimize its own
> existence and practice. For instance, some of the applications of the
> established critical theories feel forced.
>
> Note this passage from this page:
> http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v03/i03/Higgason/truth.html
>
> <quote>
> As a result, Barthes (1994) suggests that we should forgo the whole search
> for truth in the text. Instead, he states that criticism can be better
> served not in the "decipherment of the work's meaning but the
reconstruction
> of the rules and constraints of that meaning's elaboration". (p. 49) This
> means instead of providing interpretations, or critical readings, about
what
> the work means, a critic should analyze the structures with the text that
> make any meaning possible. For a hypertext critic, such a process could
seem
> daunting. After all, any particular lexia could have multiple contexts.
The
> meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look at
the
> "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
> performance of the text. How can critics illuminate the structure of works
> that do not present an illusion of sameness?
> </quote>
>
> I don't have a copy of this particular writing of Barthes, but from
reading
> the sentence quoted above, I interpret Barthes' argument to be referring
to
> how the meaning of the work is expressed within certain rules and
> constraints of the language (in a broader sense of the term) of the
> artist/writer. The point of this isn't to analyze the medium of the
> communication. The medium itself, in this instance, is reduced to function
> as a device to which the rules and the constraints of the artist are
> applied. Analyzing the rules and the constraints of the medium itself
would
> be misguided. It would be equivalent to analyzing the range of colors that
> is possible with oil paints. The important difference here is whose rules
> and constraints they are.
>
> "The meanings could easily shift, making any attempt at an objective look
at
> the "rules and constraints" a subjective elaboration of an individual
> performance of the text."
>
> This line is particularly troublesome. The fact that the meanings could
> easily shift is not an effect of some unique nature of hypertext, but is
the
> original point of Barthes' argument for not seeking the meaning, which is
> not specific to any medium. The complex facade of hypertext does not make
> the task any more "daunting" than any other medium. The complexity of the
> medium is irrelevant in this.
>
> In similar ways to this, this field of hypertext criticism seems to be
> filled with concerns that are only on the surface, and at a level any
> deeper, it fails to see any rationale for having a discipline of its own.
> Any association with post-structuralism that I came across were forced in
> the same manner as above. For instance, drawing of an analogy between
> Derrida's Dissemination to the Web; this is only possible at a surface
level
> of how the Web happens to "disseminate" in a colloquial sense of the term.
>
> Since I was never even aware of the existence of "hypertext criticism", I
> have not read much of it, but the whole premise of it seems superfluous.
> Would anyone be interested in engaging in this discussion and illuminate
me
> on the issue further?
>
> -Dyske
>
> + 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
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: rally news


how pathetic!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: rally news

>
> > how terrible!
>
> it was actually highly ritualized on the part of both the guy and the
> riot squad, each of which made their respective points. happily, no riot
> ensued, just a lot of yelling, chanting and milling. and the guy yanked
> away in those plastic cuffs.
>
>
>
> + 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
>
>
>

DISCUSSION