Re: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction
- To: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction
- From: Chris Ashley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=oRcKFukUXrBuyJ3TvCQDT6AvELp77XsELJDyGi2Ti7SB9JI/1CJzAM/ppoBNsPSn3zDjVRVr/a4Vjc57noyp70PIQWE6TNq4WYcyOJ4k5aGuywoQ5P683abfhHcVbsG1S8nTw1q7MZhs934QtWMfVpvZCN5jWyLMvwPQn/bdTo8= ;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
Thanks for answering all my questions- tt must be June
30th already. Man, that was fast. Lots to dig
through, too much to reply to. I hope others will go
through this too.
Normally I'd clip and email this long in the reply,
but I'm going to leave it all below for reference.
--- Liza Sabater <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jun 02 2005, at 04:10, rich white wrote:
> > *What is the art work? The HTML markup? The image
> > the browser makes? The way the image is delivered
> > made by the browser?
> > *Is the image temporary, something always being
> > completely remade, or is it something static? HTML
> is instructions to
> > the browser; does the image exist without the
> Google Butler
> > *The image is made by the browser- is it a
> > reproduction, an endless, infinite reproducible?
> > *Which image is original- the one on my monitor or
> > yours? The one in Dreamweaver, pre-browser? Or,
> is an
> > original even possible? Does it matter?
> art and process
> LS : What bothers me about the word "completing";
> about a piece being
> incomplete is that I don't think that it is
> incomplete; in the sense
> that it is not net.art if it is not in process.
> MN : Right, the natural state of the work is for it
> to be incomplete;
> so, in a sense, it is complete.
> LS :But it is about process. It is not even about it
> being complete or
> incomplete. I like to think of the idea of
> "artware"; of these pieces
> being art machines. They're not art unless they are
> in the process of
> creating; of being an art machine.
> MN: The word isn't "complete", it's "done" and the
> process does not
> necessarily ever have to be done; it's ongoing by
> it's nature.
> LS : And if there is no process, there is no art.
> There is a difference
> between the idea of the artwork being
> complete/incomplete and there not
> being any art unless there is a process. The artwork
> is the process;
> that is what creates the artistic experience. With
> your work, it makes
> so much sense. You are more interested how
> creativity evolves by
> putting together different software elements in
> order to make things
> happen in a creative process. You are more excited
> when you have
> endless possibilities within a creative process than
> when you create a
> static "thing in itself". That's what has made me
> refer to your work as
> artware Ã¦as art machines that only exist within the
> process of art.
> MN : I like the idea of a creative machine. Then the
> user is not
> completing the piece but they are activating the
> LS : Exactly! Maurice Blanchot said that a book that
> has not been read
> is a book that has never been written. Same concept,
> technology. It is not words anymore. It is not paint
> anymore. It goes
> beyond them. It's these mini-machines that you can
> put together. Boom!
> You have the The Shredder. Boom! You have Riot.
> MN : Hmm.
> LS : Riot and The Shredder don't exist unless people
> are activating it.
> Same with p-Soup, same with Feed. The Digital
> Landfill would have not
> existed unless people had not started dumping stuff
> into it.
> MN : Yeah, where I used the word "complete", I think
> "activate" is a
> better word. I'm thinking about a term in painting.
> Back when I was in
> art school, they spoke of the idea of closure; of a
> painting being
> "open" or "closed". "Open" meaning that an image is
> more likely to have
> a multitude of interpretations; not only of the
> subject matter but, of
> how the execution of the image; it's abstraction.
> There are different
> ways you can complete an abstraction. In the case of
> net.art the word
> is not so much closure but "opening." The piece
> opens and starts to
> unfold and evolve based on people's interaction with
> it. The user
> activates the work and ideally, the work activates
> the user.
> > *The network as a distribution model- is it art
> > trucking, and the browser is the loading dock?
> > *Who owns the work? Once on the web I really have
> > control over it. Google and archive.org capture
> > everything- do I own my own work when I can't
> > it, and does that matter? Does Creative Commons
> > actually mean anything?
> > *When others take the work as a screenshot and
> make a
> > GIF or JPEG- is that still the work?
> One has to pay dearly for immortality; one has to
> die several times
> while one is still alive.
> (Friedrich Nietzsche)
> > *Is the code the artifact, or is the image the
> > artifact?
> 11. THE UTILITY OF NON-EXISTENCE
> Though thirty spokes may form the wheel,
> it is the hole within the hub
> which gives the wheel utility.
> It is not the clay the potter throws,
> which gives the pot its usefulness,
> but the space within the shape,
> from which the pot is made.
> Without a door, the room cannot be entered,
> and without windows it is dark.
> Such is the utility of non-existence.
> > *Who would buy this? Is it for sale? How would
> > sell a coded image?
> Really, UO is whatever you make it to be. Decide you
> want to try
> something different? In Ultima Online, you're never
> locked into a class
> or trade. Just start practicing something new, and
> your character will
> grow in whatever direction you choose!
> > *Currently in weblog culture, like much of the
> > content is free. What is the value of free? Is it
> > simply a random act of kindness ;-) Is free art
> > really art? What is the economy of the web?
> > Reputation? Reliablity? Consistency?
> > How is this related to and different from the art
> > world(s)?
> Daily Kos homepage
> © 2005. Steal what you want.
> > *There are a number of ways the drawings are
> > There is often framing in the image. There is a
> > of technologically contextual framing: table;
> > browser; monitor; OS; network; etc. There is the
> > performative framing of the weblog.
> > And there is the weblog as a cultural,
> > frame (in the sense of George Lakoff's ideas about
> > language frames an issue). Another way of
> > to all of this is a kind of layering, but I like
> > term "framing" because for me it fits the use of
> > images better. I'm interested in all of these
> > different kinds of frames, and what they mean to a
> > weblog practice.
> A book is more than a verbal structure or series of
> verbal structures;
> it is the dialogue it establishes with its reader
> and the intonation it
> imposes upon his voice and the changing and durable
> images it leaves in
> his memory. A book is not an isolated being: it is a
> relationship, an
> axis of innumerable relationships.
> -- Essay: "A Note on (toward) Bernard Shaw"
> Liza Sabater
> Blog Publisher
> AIM - cultkitdiva
> SKYPE - lizasabater
> empyre forum
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and