Re: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction

[Chris Ashley <chrisashley@yahoo.com>]

Hey Liza,

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.

Thanks,

Chris

--- Liza Sabater <blogdiva@culturekitchen.com> wrote:

> On Jun 02 2005, at 04:10, rich white wrote:
> > *What is the art work? The HTML markup? The image
> that
> > the browser makes? The way the image is delivered
> and
> > made by the browser?
> 
> CSSZenGarden
> http://www.csszengarden.com
> 
> 
> > *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
> browser?
> 
> Google Butler
>
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-03-15-n77.html
> 
> 
> 
> > *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
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000024.html
> 
> 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 æas 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
> piece.
> 
> LS : Exactly! Maurice Blanchot said that a book that
> has not been read  
> is a book that has never been written. Same concept,
> different  
> 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?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser
> 
> 
> > *Who owns the work?  Once on the web I really have
> no
> > control over it.  Google and archive.org capture
> > everything- do I own my own work when I can't
> control
> > it, and does that matter?  Does Creative Commons
> > actually mean anything?
> 
>
http://weblog.burningbird.net/archives/2005/05/20/the-copyright-theme/
>
http://www.corante.com/betweenlawyers/archives/2005/05/24/
> 
> dennis_re_the_sincerest_form_of_birdery.php
>
http://weblog.burningbird.net/archives/2005/05/25/creative-commons-
> 
> followup/
> 
> 
> > *When others take the work as a screenshot and
> make a
> > GIF or JPEG- is that still the work?
> 
> 
>
http://www.painterskeys.com/auth_search.asp?name=Friedrich%20Nietzsche
> 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?
> 
>
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcstan3.htm#11
> 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
> one
> > sell a coded image?
> 
> http://www.uo.com/ageofshadows/viscent.html
> 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
> web,
> > 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? 
> Generosity?
> > How is this related to and different from the art
> > world(s)?
> 
> 
> Daily Kos homepage
> © 2005. Steal what you want.
> http://www.dailykos.com/
> 
> 
> > *There are a number of ways the drawings are
> framed.
> > There is often framing in the image. There is a
> kind
> > of technologically contextual framing: table;
> page;
> > browser; monitor; OS; network; etc.  There is the
> chronological,
> > performative framing of the weblog.
> > And there is the weblog as a cultural,
> medium-specific
> > frame (in the sense of George Lakoff's ideas about
> how
> > language frames an issue).  Another way of
> referring
> > to all of this is a kind of layering, but I like
> the
> > 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.
> >
> 
>
http://www.themodernword.com/borges/borges_quotes.html
> 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
> www.culturekitchen.com
> 
> AIM - cultkitdiva
> SKYPE - lizasabater
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>