ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Mez Breeze is the Creative Director of Mez Breeze Design, an agency which provides boutique digital product and design services (including illustration, transmedia, text, games, interface design, and responsive media). Recent and past Clients include the British Branch of Appreciative Inquiry, CloudGraf, Brandaide, Brecely Studios, GeekGirl, and The University of Technology Sydney. Mez Breeze Design has recently partnered with Dreaming Methods to produce a set of mobile-oriented projects that have been showcased at "Chercher le texte: manifestation internationale de littérature numérique” 2013: one of their joint projects was also nominated for the 2013 Digital Humanities Awards in the "Best DH visualization or infographic" Category. Mez is an Advisor to The Mixed Augmented Reality Art Research Organisation and is currently Senior Research Affiliate with The Humanities and Critical Code Studies Lab.
Mez has exhibited her ground-breaking creative works widely, including at The Brooklyn Academy of Music 2001, “Playengines” Melbourne Australia 2003, “Arte Nuevo InteractivA” Mexico 2005, the “Radical Software” Show at Turin Italy 2006, DIWO at the HTTP Gallery London 2007, New Media Scotland 2008, the Laguna Art Museum California and Alternator Gallery Canada 2009, Federation Square Melbourne and Arnolfini Gallery Bristol 2010, Netherlands Media Arts Institute 2011, “Remediating the Social” Exhibition in Scotland 2012, “Network Art Forms: Tactical Magik” in Tasmania 2013 and Jeu de Paume 2014. Her awards include the 2001 VIF Prize (Germany), the JavaMuseum Artist Of The Year 2001 (Germany), 2002 Newcastle New Media Poetry Prize (Australia), co-winner of the 2006 Site Specific Index Page Competition (Italy) and the Burton Wonderland Gallery Winner 2010 (judged by Hollywood Director Tim Burton). Her works reside in Collections as diverse as The World Bank and the PANDORA Electronic Collection at the National Library of Australia. Duke University have recently extended to Mez an invitation to develop a comprehensive career archive of her works, associated documents, correspondence and papers to be housed there at the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library.
Mez has exhibited her ground-breaking creative works widely, including at The Brooklyn Academy of Music 2001, “Playengines” Melbourne Australia 2003, “Arte Nuevo InteractivA” Mexico 2005, the “Radical Software” Show at Turin Italy 2006, DIWO at the HTTP Gallery London 2007, New Media Scotland 2008, the Laguna Art Museum California and Alternator Gallery Canada 2009, Federation Square Melbourne and Arnolfini Gallery Bristol 2010, Netherlands Media Arts Institute 2011, “Remediating the Social” Exhibition in Scotland 2012, “Network Art Forms: Tactical Magik” in Tasmania 2013 and Jeu de Paume 2014. Her awards include the 2001 VIF Prize (Germany), the JavaMuseum Artist Of The Year 2001 (Germany), 2002 Newcastle New Media Poetry Prize (Australia), co-winner of the 2006 Site Specific Index Page Competition (Italy) and the Burton Wonderland Gallery Winner 2010 (judged by Hollywood Director Tim Burton). Her works reside in Collections as diverse as The World Bank and the PANDORA Electronic Collection at the National Library of Australia. Duke University have recently extended to Mez an invitation to develop a comprehensive career archive of her works, associated documents, correspondence and papers to be housed there at the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library.
->[dus]T.rial Pro.file<-
/*
* b.lack cauls + [cor!]vine wanderings
* white speech shot with silk l[r]ust
* my.hands.shake.with.endings.
* living.s.tain[t]ed.in.cloned.[br]other.laughing
* discrete glue[d] + [ham]string [+ lung bath] test[osteroned]ing
*/
>_Dev[il] Pro.filing_<
[n.dus]t.rial screaming
context cracking & d.Bat[aill]e shuffling
blown air-gunning & tending dam.aged g[ood.s(l)]uts
knot_death mass.[ticate] + n.tice tears
[r]IP[ped] peaks + ova[ry].grown echos
>_R[(i)B]e:lated Links_<
www.langu.age.is.not.my.text.com
www.move.ment.patterning.is.st[w]retched.2.boiling.point[er]s.net
www.damp.with.relationship.moss.org
>_Ad[con]d.itional Files_<
velve[da]t[a].rot.zip
complicity.ship.ping.zip
new.anced.swirls.zip
shift[ctrl].bomb.ing.in.yr.character.ear.zip.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
* b.lack cauls + [cor!]vine wanderings
* white speech shot with silk l[r]ust
* my.hands.shake.with.endings.
* living.s.tain[t]ed.in.cloned.[br]other.laughing
* discrete glue[d] + [ham]string [+ lung bath] test[osteroned]ing
*/
>_Dev[il] Pro.filing_<
[n.dus]t.rial screaming
context cracking & d.Bat[aill]e shuffling
blown air-gunning & tending dam.aged g[ood.s(l)]uts
knot_death mass.[ticate] + n.tice tears
[r]IP[ped] peaks + ova[ry].grown echos
>_R[(i)B]e:lated Links_<
www.langu.age.is.not.my.text.com
www.move.ment.patterning.is.st[w]retched.2.boiling.point[er]s.net
www.damp.with.relationship.moss.org
>_Ad[con]d.itional Files_<
velve[da]t[a].rot.zip
complicity.ship.ping.zip
new.anced.swirls.zip
shift[ctrl].bomb.ing.in.yr.character.ear.zip.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
Fwd: Re: [_arc.hive_] "digital poetry" vs net art
>From: Peter von Brandenburg <blackhawk@thing.net>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: _arc.hive_@lm.va.com.au
>Subject: Re: [_arc.hive_] "digital poetry" vs net art
>
>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:33:30 -0500
>
>Dear Lewis,
>
>Interesting, I'd not have imagined you'd go here...
>
>lewis lacook wrote:
>
> > oh, ideally it is left at that! but lately i've been thinking about the
> > differences and similarities between works, thinking in taxonomic
> terms/////and
> > with net art, one distinction i've made is that between functional
> works and
> > decorative works//// 1.) functional works]]]]]use code toward some
> end///high
> > degree of user-interaction
> > 2.) decorative works]]]]use almost no code///no interaction
>
>I doubt this will work. For starters, you need another word. Those of us
>who are
>critical veterans of the late '70s all too well remember the ill-use the term
>"decorative" was put to. Its demonization by late-formalists, & the
>response; a
>reassessment of critical terms by feminists who attempted to heroicize the
>term in
>changing the field of contest for curatorial classification (& in so doing
>reflecting a larger struggle) -- & simultaneously the meta-critique
>provided by
>early post-modernists who argued that there was no essentialism in the face of
>intent & utilization, & that "decoration" was a means rather than an end, thus
>obviating the distinction in the realm of a view of practice which allowed
>directed
>recontextualization (as presaging the nearly free recontextualization we have
>now). In short, it's still a really dirty word & you better have all your
>ducks in
>a row if you're going to use it -- not that you can't yet rather that you
>are able
>to adr the historical & critical baggage, a bit of which I re to above.
>
> > one is open to the user, the other is closed//// and these two classes,
> like all
> > art, are indicative of political minds//// i see functional works as
> more open,
> > as democratic...with true software art being the ultimate expression of
> > this///the work is a tool///the work is (hopefully, if the artist has
> her head on
> > straight) freely available.....the work is a means of production in the
> case of
> > software art///in any case, in any functional net artwork, the user can
> > collaborate with the work, leaving authorship in the air...the user
> becomes the
> > author, is empowered///or at least the user contributes literally to the
> > manifestation of the work///
>
>I'm not following this on *several* fronts. First off, there is an excellent
>argument to the fx that "decoration" is indeed "functional" (in sociocultural
>terms). Second, where do you get off dragging democracy into this? Do
>you think
>you're living in one? I don't, I think I'm living in a plutocracy which
>masquerades as a democracy, just like Augustus' Rome maintained the legal
>& social
>trappings of the Republic. The vote has been changed from an expression of
>political will to something as significant as a Yahoo Group member's "pref
>pg" -- a
>process advertising itself as an "envoxing" which is in reality a
>data-harvesting
>scam in the service of marketing. You think the very nature of a work as
>allowing
>or disallowing user i/a is a reflection of superior political ideology? I
>beg to
>differ, these are superscriptions which can be reduced to 'toon-like critical
>figures according to the schema of the work in Q. Given the preceding,
>you will
>not be surprised when I take slight umbrage at your according to yourself the
>privilege of saying whose head is perpendicular, & whose askew. You do
>not know
>the markets the artists are competing in or what resources are available
>to their
>peers or their audience, nor have you (that I know of) any means by which
>you might
>predict what an artists' needs are in this re -- w/out these things I
>argue that
>you are in no position to say what should be available & what should be
>restricted
>(how much less so when the restriction itself might be a proper part of
>one of the
>work's aesthetic vectors?) or what utilization of source material should
>be made
>according to whether it was open-source or proprietary. Next you seem to be
>conflating "software art" w/ "net art", please tell me you're not doing
>this (&
>while you're at it, please clarify your statement). This idea that i/a is
>always
>coincident w/ "collaboration" is also completely bizarre -- I know you've been
>doing a lot of reviews lately, & I've enjoyed some of these pieces, but that
>doesn't make you an "instant expert" & you may need to reconsider your
>grounding
>here in the face of those critical lineages which can adr analog & digital art
>practice simultaneously. Or perhaps it's just really fuzzy writing (which
>I know
>you are not restricted to), since if I parse this at its most basic
>reading you
>seem to be finger-painting w/ some of these critical figures. The first
>"collaborative" works of this nature may have been those by Laurie
>Anderson way
>back when -- but that was according to the prevailing critical
>distinctions of the
>time. Since then authorship has been steadily moving, from writing to
>editor, from
>text to link, or (as I wrote elsewhere recently), from river to
>bridge. If ones
>art allows all who exp it to "be artists" then what does that make
>one? Another
>artist? I think not. That is a teleological impossibility. The Users become
>artists in context & *in* *terms*, if this is not allowed then the
>alternative is
>to call them all plain old "artist" & call the one who so empowered &
>employed them
>something else... meta-artist? Super-artist? Poietron? Contexts change,
>that's
>their nature, art made in local terms may have to face different sets of
>terms in
>time... there is no such thing as making art in terms which are
>irrevocably fixed
>(tho some may be relatively long-lasting, like formal religious art for
>instance).
>The bottom line is that in NO CASE is authorship left "in the air" just as
>collaborative systems can be authored, are you making a distinction between
>art-making & authorship? Perhaps you should, & it's important because the
>"social
>sculpture" once a projective cognitive figure of Broodhaers (& Beuys) is now a
>common modal of sodality on the Net. But does that mean all such are art?
>Certainly not, some are, most are not. Contribution to the work is not a
>consideration any more than it would be for the hoards of slaves who died
>building
>the pyramids. Lewis, this stuff has already *happened*, the distinctions
>you make
>(& do not make) therefore seem either rudimentary, superficial, & needlessly
>idealistic. Practical & theoretical critical taxonomy require far
>more. [& I'm
>not asking for a fucking dissertation, I know you have the rare gift of
>being able
>to render complex figures in compact form]
>
> > decorative work is simply decorative///it's closed, ego-centric,
> doesn't allow
> > silence to be silence, doesn't let the user in, the user is passive and
> unable to
> > become empowered....
>
>Ridiculous. Decorative work (which by definition is not "art" to begin w/
>{unless
>& until its mediumistic complexity is subsumed w/in its de facto critical
>appurtenance [w/ or w/out the hand of Mammon a la "the art of the "x"]})
>changes
>the modus of i/a w/ the thing decorated. It is not closed & if it's about
>ego then
>everything from the precision of its design, to the joy of creation can be
>transferred from artisan to User; motive is irrelevant in this case. If
>you want
>"suchness" then eventually you may see that decoration does not prevent
>this (even
>if the artisan wouldn't let a clay pot be a clay pot) -- but you can
>always go w/
>the undecorated fttb. If the User is trapped in passivity then it's their own
>bloody fault & it means they don't know how to appreciate aesthetics (let
>alone
>u/stand them) to begin w/. I'm sorry, you sound like a "poet" here, not
>an artist
>or critic (& yes, either may use poetic figures but that does not affect their
>dedication). Now if we go back to my orig plaint, that you're using the
>wrong word
>here to describe digital work which is not i/a then I will repeat the
>foregoing w/
>even greater fervor. Don't tell me that the loss of self (or merely "place")
>required for the proper sensate appreciation of a Pollock is not
>empowering -- just
>as he knew when the white box & frame would become purely referential
>figures &
>vanish, the skillful d-artist can make the telemetry vanish as well (or
>continually
>re to & reify it in a way which reveals something hitherto unseen in its
>nature).
>Do you deny that "passive" contemplation can be a stimulus to transcendent,
>ecstatic, or meta-referential states? What are YOU doing when you are
>listening to
>that "silence"? I would hazard to guess that your language is betraying a
>lack of
>synchronous between your political & spiritual values.
>
> > of course, i prefer functional works////and i'm afraid my own bias
> there colors
> > my perception of decorative
> > works////which are often quite beautiful and intriguing///
>
>...& are in no way "decorative". I'm sorry, you really, really need to
>re-think
>this whole thing. Cannot one author a work which, among its elements,
>some are
>random? & if those random elements are provided by User i/a, or a pigeon
>alighting
>on this roof or that, or a specific parsing of a data-stream running a
>course on
>the Net... what then is the empirical value of User i/a? Isn't it simply
>a means
>to provide the prescribed element w/in the work, this regardless of
>whether or not
>for the time they were i/a'ing w/ it, the User "felt like an artist" or not?
>
> > Ideally, intent should play no part in a user's experience of a
> work////in the
> > end, the work stands on its own, and ideally the user must look at the work
> > isolated from any intent the author had====but if the author is
> successful, the
> > intent's there, and the user feels it...
>
>Who the hell was talking about the *User's* intent? I was of course
>speaking about
>the artist. Early on in this place you & I had a difference about User
>intent & as
>I recall, I made my point. [11/21/01] Please consider your accession at that
>time, the issue is not so different now. On the other side of the ledger,
>the User
>*cannot* "look at the work isolated from any intent the author had" (oh, I
>*love*
>that; ANY intent) -- for one thing it's teleologically & hermeneutically
>absurd, &
>for another, w/out a comprehension of both context & intent of the work
>experienced
>substantial portions of it may be invisible. I have been working on a
>text which
>outlines a critical formulation for how intent can be obviated in art
>experience
>but this relates to the theory of the Ready-made & the Dispensation of
>Eden (power
>over the material world by virtue of "naming all things"). To connect
>that to my
>earlier remarks, we will all be artists when we can all see art which was
>made by
>no one... a pretty sunset, sure; a piece of industrial machinery? Maybe
>that takes
>a deeper vision. Maybe that takes an artist's eye. & so if the artist is not
>required to "make art" then their status will be found inscribed in that
>place...
>the eye.
>
> > it's all warmed over new criticism really...
>
>I'm afraid it's past the point of "lukewarm" by now. I seriously hope
>I've grossly
>misread you here (& that would be both our faults), but it seems to me you're
>rapidly heading out of your depth (not that you won't be there at some point).
>There is a deal of push & pull required to practice functional critical
>taxonomy --
>the model will work when it can no longer be easily broken (just like
>s/ware) -- so
>grab the lab-keys & just call me "Doolittle". In any case, you're a very good
>writer & a fine "practical critic" (for the literary side of that), but
>non-academic theoretical criticism is a whole other animal.
>
>best,
>
>Blackhawk.
>
>_______________________________________________
>_arc.hive_ mailing list
>_arc.hive_@lm.va.com.au
>http://lm.va.com.au/mailman/listinfo/_arc.hive_
>This list is proudly supported by VA. http://www.va.com.au
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: _arc.hive_@lm.va.com.au
>Subject: Re: [_arc.hive_] "digital poetry" vs net art
>
>Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:33:30 -0500
>
>Dear Lewis,
>
>Interesting, I'd not have imagined you'd go here...
>
>lewis lacook wrote:
>
> > oh, ideally it is left at that! but lately i've been thinking about the
> > differences and similarities between works, thinking in taxonomic
> terms/////and
> > with net art, one distinction i've made is that between functional
> works and
> > decorative works//// 1.) functional works]]]]]use code toward some
> end///high
> > degree of user-interaction
> > 2.) decorative works]]]]use almost no code///no interaction
>
>I doubt this will work. For starters, you need another word. Those of us
>who are
>critical veterans of the late '70s all too well remember the ill-use the term
>"decorative" was put to. Its demonization by late-formalists, & the
>response; a
>reassessment of critical terms by feminists who attempted to heroicize the
>term in
>changing the field of contest for curatorial classification (& in so doing
>reflecting a larger struggle) -- & simultaneously the meta-critique
>provided by
>early post-modernists who argued that there was no essentialism in the face of
>intent & utilization, & that "decoration" was a means rather than an end, thus
>obviating the distinction in the realm of a view of practice which allowed
>directed
>recontextualization (as presaging the nearly free recontextualization we have
>now). In short, it's still a really dirty word & you better have all your
>ducks in
>a row if you're going to use it -- not that you can't yet rather that you
>are able
>to adr the historical & critical baggage, a bit of which I re to above.
>
> > one is open to the user, the other is closed//// and these two classes,
> like all
> > art, are indicative of political minds//// i see functional works as
> more open,
> > as democratic...with true software art being the ultimate expression of
> > this///the work is a tool///the work is (hopefully, if the artist has
> her head on
> > straight) freely available.....the work is a means of production in the
> case of
> > software art///in any case, in any functional net artwork, the user can
> > collaborate with the work, leaving authorship in the air...the user
> becomes the
> > author, is empowered///or at least the user contributes literally to the
> > manifestation of the work///
>
>I'm not following this on *several* fronts. First off, there is an excellent
>argument to the fx that "decoration" is indeed "functional" (in sociocultural
>terms). Second, where do you get off dragging democracy into this? Do
>you think
>you're living in one? I don't, I think I'm living in a plutocracy which
>masquerades as a democracy, just like Augustus' Rome maintained the legal
>& social
>trappings of the Republic. The vote has been changed from an expression of
>political will to something as significant as a Yahoo Group member's "pref
>pg" -- a
>process advertising itself as an "envoxing" which is in reality a
>data-harvesting
>scam in the service of marketing. You think the very nature of a work as
>allowing
>or disallowing user i/a is a reflection of superior political ideology? I
>beg to
>differ, these are superscriptions which can be reduced to 'toon-like critical
>figures according to the schema of the work in Q. Given the preceding,
>you will
>not be surprised when I take slight umbrage at your according to yourself the
>privilege of saying whose head is perpendicular, & whose askew. You do
>not know
>the markets the artists are competing in or what resources are available
>to their
>peers or their audience, nor have you (that I know of) any means by which
>you might
>predict what an artists' needs are in this re -- w/out these things I
>argue that
>you are in no position to say what should be available & what should be
>restricted
>(how much less so when the restriction itself might be a proper part of
>one of the
>work's aesthetic vectors?) or what utilization of source material should
>be made
>according to whether it was open-source or proprietary. Next you seem to be
>conflating "software art" w/ "net art", please tell me you're not doing
>this (&
>while you're at it, please clarify your statement). This idea that i/a is
>always
>coincident w/ "collaboration" is also completely bizarre -- I know you've been
>doing a lot of reviews lately, & I've enjoyed some of these pieces, but that
>doesn't make you an "instant expert" & you may need to reconsider your
>grounding
>here in the face of those critical lineages which can adr analog & digital art
>practice simultaneously. Or perhaps it's just really fuzzy writing (which
>I know
>you are not restricted to), since if I parse this at its most basic
>reading you
>seem to be finger-painting w/ some of these critical figures. The first
>"collaborative" works of this nature may have been those by Laurie
>Anderson way
>back when -- but that was according to the prevailing critical
>distinctions of the
>time. Since then authorship has been steadily moving, from writing to
>editor, from
>text to link, or (as I wrote elsewhere recently), from river to
>bridge. If ones
>art allows all who exp it to "be artists" then what does that make
>one? Another
>artist? I think not. That is a teleological impossibility. The Users become
>artists in context & *in* *terms*, if this is not allowed then the
>alternative is
>to call them all plain old "artist" & call the one who so empowered &
>employed them
>something else... meta-artist? Super-artist? Poietron? Contexts change,
>that's
>their nature, art made in local terms may have to face different sets of
>terms in
>time... there is no such thing as making art in terms which are
>irrevocably fixed
>(tho some may be relatively long-lasting, like formal religious art for
>instance).
>The bottom line is that in NO CASE is authorship left "in the air" just as
>collaborative systems can be authored, are you making a distinction between
>art-making & authorship? Perhaps you should, & it's important because the
>"social
>sculpture" once a projective cognitive figure of Broodhaers (& Beuys) is now a
>common modal of sodality on the Net. But does that mean all such are art?
>Certainly not, some are, most are not. Contribution to the work is not a
>consideration any more than it would be for the hoards of slaves who died
>building
>the pyramids. Lewis, this stuff has already *happened*, the distinctions
>you make
>(& do not make) therefore seem either rudimentary, superficial, & needlessly
>idealistic. Practical & theoretical critical taxonomy require far
>more. [& I'm
>not asking for a fucking dissertation, I know you have the rare gift of
>being able
>to render complex figures in compact form]
>
> > decorative work is simply decorative///it's closed, ego-centric,
> doesn't allow
> > silence to be silence, doesn't let the user in, the user is passive and
> unable to
> > become empowered....
>
>Ridiculous. Decorative work (which by definition is not "art" to begin w/
>{unless
>& until its mediumistic complexity is subsumed w/in its de facto critical
>appurtenance [w/ or w/out the hand of Mammon a la "the art of the "x"]})
>changes
>the modus of i/a w/ the thing decorated. It is not closed & if it's about
>ego then
>everything from the precision of its design, to the joy of creation can be
>transferred from artisan to User; motive is irrelevant in this case. If
>you want
>"suchness" then eventually you may see that decoration does not prevent
>this (even
>if the artisan wouldn't let a clay pot be a clay pot) -- but you can
>always go w/
>the undecorated fttb. If the User is trapped in passivity then it's their own
>bloody fault & it means they don't know how to appreciate aesthetics (let
>alone
>u/stand them) to begin w/. I'm sorry, you sound like a "poet" here, not
>an artist
>or critic (& yes, either may use poetic figures but that does not affect their
>dedication). Now if we go back to my orig plaint, that you're using the
>wrong word
>here to describe digital work which is not i/a then I will repeat the
>foregoing w/
>even greater fervor. Don't tell me that the loss of self (or merely "place")
>required for the proper sensate appreciation of a Pollock is not
>empowering -- just
>as he knew when the white box & frame would become purely referential
>figures &
>vanish, the skillful d-artist can make the telemetry vanish as well (or
>continually
>re to & reify it in a way which reveals something hitherto unseen in its
>nature).
>Do you deny that "passive" contemplation can be a stimulus to transcendent,
>ecstatic, or meta-referential states? What are YOU doing when you are
>listening to
>that "silence"? I would hazard to guess that your language is betraying a
>lack of
>synchronous between your political & spiritual values.
>
> > of course, i prefer functional works////and i'm afraid my own bias
> there colors
> > my perception of decorative
> > works////which are often quite beautiful and intriguing///
>
>...& are in no way "decorative". I'm sorry, you really, really need to
>re-think
>this whole thing. Cannot one author a work which, among its elements,
>some are
>random? & if those random elements are provided by User i/a, or a pigeon
>alighting
>on this roof or that, or a specific parsing of a data-stream running a
>course on
>the Net... what then is the empirical value of User i/a? Isn't it simply
>a means
>to provide the prescribed element w/in the work, this regardless of
>whether or not
>for the time they were i/a'ing w/ it, the User "felt like an artist" or not?
>
> > Ideally, intent should play no part in a user's experience of a
> work////in the
> > end, the work stands on its own, and ideally the user must look at the work
> > isolated from any intent the author had====but if the author is
> successful, the
> > intent's there, and the user feels it...
>
>Who the hell was talking about the *User's* intent? I was of course
>speaking about
>the artist. Early on in this place you & I had a difference about User
>intent & as
>I recall, I made my point. [11/21/01] Please consider your accession at that
>time, the issue is not so different now. On the other side of the ledger,
>the User
>*cannot* "look at the work isolated from any intent the author had" (oh, I
>*love*
>that; ANY intent) -- for one thing it's teleologically & hermeneutically
>absurd, &
>for another, w/out a comprehension of both context & intent of the work
>experienced
>substantial portions of it may be invisible. I have been working on a
>text which
>outlines a critical formulation for how intent can be obviated in art
>experience
>but this relates to the theory of the Ready-made & the Dispensation of
>Eden (power
>over the material world by virtue of "naming all things"). To connect
>that to my
>earlier remarks, we will all be artists when we can all see art which was
>made by
>no one... a pretty sunset, sure; a piece of industrial machinery? Maybe
>that takes
>a deeper vision. Maybe that takes an artist's eye. & so if the artist is not
>required to "make art" then their status will be found inscribed in that
>place...
>the eye.
>
> > it's all warmed over new criticism really...
>
>I'm afraid it's past the point of "lukewarm" by now. I seriously hope
>I've grossly
>misread you here (& that would be both our faults), but it seems to me you're
>rapidly heading out of your depth (not that you won't be there at some point).
>There is a deal of push & pull required to practice functional critical
>taxonomy --
>the model will work when it can no longer be easily broken (just like
>s/ware) -- so
>grab the lab-keys & just call me "Doolittle". In any case, you're a very good
>writer & a fine "practical critic" (for the literary side of that), but
>non-academic theoretical criticism is a whole other animal.
>
>best,
>
>Blackhawk.
>
>_______________________________________________
>_arc.hive_ mailing list
>_arc.hive_@lm.va.com.au
>http://lm.va.com.au/mailman/listinfo/_arc.hive_
>This list is proudly supported by VA. http://www.va.com.au
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
Re: Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs
At 03:30 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium...i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself...
lewis,
....u persist in isolating + ignoring n.stances of epigenetically-produced
dataFlow [net.wurks]+ the qualities that this [potential 4 wunder.barrish]
psychasthenia produces: i'm replying with.in the boundaries of how u d.fine
[w].here. i really wish u'd wurk on X.pansion rather than re[N]duction.
--dis.[UR]Locata
> >hi marisa...
> >
> >i agree that "digital poetry" is often a romantic term...
> >
> >what i'm looking for is perhaps this...i've been thinking lately
> >about the distinction between functional and decorative, and how
> it >applies to art on the web...a lot of the "digital poetry" crowd is
> >comprised of artists who make animations of words--at best, the
> >reactivity and interaction required of the user is touching rollover
> >buttons===which in flash, we know, takes almost no knowledge of code
> >at all...these works seem to me to be remaking cinema, which, as you
> >and i know, we already have...
> >
> >i guess it boils down to this: what's the difference between say, a
> >piece by mez and the recent gogolchat by jimpunk and christophe
> >bruno? because it's here i see the distinction most
> >clearly...gogolchat is highly functional:::it explores
> >user-interaction...it requires the network in order to manifest
> >itself (that being for me one of the true signs of a pure net
> >work...mez's connection to the network, at least in regards to her
> >multimedia works, is less tangible////the work does require the
> >! network, but in a passive way, that is, it requires email list-servs
> >for distribution, and takes much of its language from a kind of
> >pantomime of code itself...///it's more interactive than digital
> >cinema, but less so than a work like gogolchat (or chris fahey's
> >ada1852)----
> >
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium...i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself...
> >
> >bliss
> >
> >l
> >
> >
> >
> > "Marisa S. Olson" wrote:
> >
> > >Are "digital poetry" and net art two distinct genres? And, perhaps
> > >more importantly, should they be?
> >
> >lewis,
> >
> >an interesting question, though i do wonder if "digital poetry" isn't
> >a romanticization of work (text-based or otherwise) constructed
> >and/or experienced in/with digital media.
> >
> >! of course you know that your question involves defining the
> >"products" of two practices that tend to defy
> >definition--particularly among these object-oriented lines. however,
> >i would most certainly say that there is a "poetics" of "net art," in
> >the sense that there are specific rhetorical, narratological,
> >structural conditions under which the work is made, represented,
> >distributed, accessed, interpreted, etc.. the means, modes, and
> >vehicles by which it signifies....
> >
> >marisa
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium...i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself...
lewis,
....u persist in isolating + ignoring n.stances of epigenetically-produced
dataFlow [net.wurks]+ the qualities that this [potential 4 wunder.barrish]
psychasthenia produces: i'm replying with.in the boundaries of how u d.fine
[w].here. i really wish u'd wurk on X.pansion rather than re[N]duction.
--dis.[UR]Locata
> >hi marisa...
> >
> >i agree that "digital poetry" is often a romantic term...
> >
> >what i'm looking for is perhaps this...i've been thinking lately
> >about the distinction between functional and decorative, and how
> it >applies to art on the web...a lot of the "digital poetry" crowd is
> >comprised of artists who make animations of words--at best, the
> >reactivity and interaction required of the user is touching rollover
> >buttons===which in flash, we know, takes almost no knowledge of code
> >at all...these works seem to me to be remaking cinema, which, as you
> >and i know, we already have...
> >
> >i guess it boils down to this: what's the difference between say, a
> >piece by mez and the recent gogolchat by jimpunk and christophe
> >bruno? because it's here i see the distinction most
> >clearly...gogolchat is highly functional:::it explores
> >user-interaction...it requires the network in order to manifest
> >itself (that being for me one of the true signs of a pure net
> >work...mez's connection to the network, at least in regards to her
> >multimedia works, is less tangible////the work does require the
> >! network, but in a passive way, that is, it requires email list-servs
> >for distribution, and takes much of its language from a kind of
> >pantomime of code itself...///it's more interactive than digital
> >cinema, but less so than a work like gogolchat (or chris fahey's
> >ada1852)----
> >
> >me, i just want a net art that is truly an art fitted to its
> >medium...i want a net art that literally requires the net work in
> >order to manifest itself...
> >
> >bliss
> >
> >l
> >
> >
> >
> > "Marisa S. Olson" wrote:
> >
> > >Are "digital poetry" and net art two distinct genres? And, perhaps
> > >more importantly, should they be?
> >
> >lewis,
> >
> >an interesting question, though i do wonder if "digital poetry" isn't
> >a romanticization of work (text-based or otherwise) constructed
> >and/or experienced in/with digital media.
> >
> >! of course you know that your question involves defining the
> >"products" of two practices that tend to defy
> >definition--particularly among these object-oriented lines. however,
> >i would most certainly say that there is a "poetics" of "net art," in
> >the sense that there are specific rhetorical, narratological,
> >structural conditions under which the work is made, represented,
> >distributed, accessed, interpreted, etc.. the means, modes, and
> >vehicles by which it signifies....
> >
> >marisa
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
[Up.]Dated Sun.day, November 8th, 2002
__________[Up.]Dated Sun.day, November 8th, 2002______________________
- re:placed the new.Nce re.C#.[Ever.crack[l]ing]ding! with a ripped
[double] blind.
- re:moved all references 2 L.[747]boeing yr way in2 the sense.less.
- d.bugged [not happy]jan.re:cauling & yr passi[e]ve][+a.dam][.printLoad.
wanderings
- s.witched ab.sor[e]ption modes 2 "Sau[fi]ssureStunNRun" or
"NeedANetWurkingSerialNumberQuickAnyHelpwillbeAppreciated"
- stripped disLocate modules + toggle mode is now operational un.duh these
sett[l]ings:
1. my mind is codeDark & S[en.s][t][ory]D[eprivation]blank.
2. i canKnot re:align.
3. u push my buttons + run[::end].
4. i'll squ[ID]eal, i will!
5. u stink of code piss.
6. let me wind u down //[grindMode].
7. s.wing_shifting my fluid way in2 yr organ_head.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
- re:placed the new.Nce re.C#.[Ever.crack[l]ing]ding! with a ripped
[double] blind.
- re:moved all references 2 L.[747]boeing yr way in2 the sense.less.
- d.bugged [not happy]jan.re:cauling & yr passi[e]ve][+a.dam][.printLoad.
wanderings
- s.witched ab.sor[e]ption modes 2 "Sau[fi]ssureStunNRun" or
"NeedANetWurkingSerialNumberQuickAnyHelpwillbeAppreciated"
- stripped disLocate modules + toggle mode is now operational un.duh these
sett[l]ings:
1. my mind is codeDark & S[en.s][t][ory]D[eprivation]blank.
2. i canKnot re:align.
3. u push my buttons + run[::end].
4. i'll squ[ID]eal, i will!
5. u stink of code piss.
6. let me wind u down //[grindMode].
7. s.wing_shifting my fluid way in2 yr organ_head.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
Re: [webartery] Re:"digital poll[uting]" .verse.s. [_net.work poll.en_]
At 02:50 PM 9/11/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>don't misunderstand me too quickly!
.hoarse
.-[quarterer N]
.-drawn
.&
.print
.echo
.s.pin[e]al
.[s]t[r]apped............
>i don't want nor believe they SHOULD be distinct forms...BUT it all too
>often seems to me that they are...
.seams
.2
.me[me[
>there's a fundamental difference between, say, 'the dreamlife of letters'
>and jimpunk/bruno with their gogolchat....and all too often, looking at
>works that tout themselves as 'digital poetry,' i'm
>disappointed...disappointed because there's so much potential in the
>medium not being used...too often i see nothing more than text that
>moves...which is great, but no different than cinema, and not indicative
>of a new artform...or i see works that use rollovers as their only source
>of user-interaction, which, while justifying their presence on the machine
>and network, and introducing some reactivity to the work, is still pretty
>basic stuff (and with the tools used, require no writing or understanding
>of code)...
.these
.wurks
.r
.[k]not
:.
.d|[con]fined
.bi
.yr
.own
.d[efinition]box
.u[se]
.unda
.write
.with
.out
.C++.ing
>all of which is fine, really (some of these works are quite beautiful and
>intriguing)...but i hunger for more (as usual, being American, which is
>probably why we screw the world up so often)....
.&
.mis
.
.match[ing]
.my
.re:[4]ply
.weaves.
.the
.[s]sense
.of
.soft+hard.
.w.here.
.net.wurked
.in
.w.here[?].
.
.XXssed
.+
.broken.
>i want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less cinematic...
.a.gain[st]
..
....
......
.yr.
.printLo[x]a[n]d[N + yoke]
.grain
.u
.do.NT.
>why can't a digital poem do what gogolchat does, or what chris fahey's
>ada1852 does? is there work out there like that? where can i see it?
>because i desperately want to see it...
.dis.[UR]Locate
.
..
...
.ur-locate
.if
.u
.can.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......
>don't misunderstand me too quickly!
.hoarse
.-[quarterer N]
.-drawn
.&
.echo
.s.pin[e]al
.[s]t[r]apped............
>i don't want nor believe they SHOULD be distinct forms...BUT it all too
>often seems to me that they are...
.seams
.2
.me[me[
>there's a fundamental difference between, say, 'the dreamlife of letters'
>and jimpunk/bruno with their gogolchat....and all too often, looking at
>works that tout themselves as 'digital poetry,' i'm
>disappointed...disappointed because there's so much potential in the
>medium not being used...too often i see nothing more than text that
>moves...which is great, but no different than cinema, and not indicative
>of a new artform...or i see works that use rollovers as their only source
>of user-interaction, which, while justifying their presence on the machine
>and network, and introducing some reactivity to the work, is still pretty
>basic stuff (and with the tools used, require no writing or understanding
>of code)...
.these
.wurks
.r
.[k]not
:.
.d|[con]fined
.bi
.yr
.own
.d[efinition]box
.u[se]
.unda
.write
.with
.out
.C++.ing
>all of which is fine, really (some of these works are quite beautiful and
>intriguing)...but i hunger for more (as usual, being American, which is
>probably why we screw the world up so often)....
.&
.mis
.
.match[ing]
.my
.re:[4]ply
.weaves.
.the
.[s]sense
.of
.soft+hard.
.w.here.
.net.wurked
.in
.w.here[?].
.
.XXssed
.+
.broken.
>i want a new art form, a new form of digital poetry that's less cinematic...
.a.gain[st]
..
....
......
.yr.
.printLo[x]a[n]d[N + yoke]
.grain
.u
.do.NT.
>why can't a digital poem do what gogolchat does, or what chris fahey's
>ada1852 does? is there work out there like that? where can i see it?
>because i desperately want to see it...
.dis.[UR]Locate
.
..
...
.ur-locate
.if
.u
.can.
. . .... .....
pro][tean][.lapsing.txt
.
.
www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/display.myopia.swf
.... . .??? .......