A very quick response:
I don't personally find Kincaid elite. I'm mostly just arguing for the
sake of argument but it still raises a valid question about elitism.
Where are the limits? What's the measure? What makes one artist elite
and another not?
Some art can be like Wittgenstein's language
Pretty much agree with you here except for the last sentence, where you
say 'in other words' and bring in language. The easiest way out of this
impasse is to say that language can be used to indicate a general
stylistic tendency or some such, as well as formal or natural language
etc. -
We could, for instance say that Impressionism employs a visual
language based not on a flowing gradation of color but a more
segmented, gradual building of color. I don't know if everyone would
agree that this is correct but that's beside the point. The thing is
that a lot of people were so happy
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
We could, for instance say that Impressionism employs a visual
language based not on a flowing gradation of color but a more
segmented, gradual building of color. I don't know if everyone would
agree that this is correct but that's beside the point. The
We're probably applying different terminology to the same things but
it's not uncommon to talk about language in relation to art work.
What I mentioned goes far beyond being just style, these are
different methods of conveying ideas or feelings. Saying that the
difference between Neo-Classicism
I think if you find Kincaid elite, you're really pushing the envelope
there, as if any art-making were a priori elite, from Grandma Moses to
Beuys, whomever. I don't buy into this - I think you art is a language
game in W's sense, and that different groups respond differently in all
sorts
I believe all art does, at some level, require specific knowledge of
specific languages. If we look for instance at the emergence of
Impressionism, it wasn't commonly accepted because people didn't
understand its language. Didn't understand what it was supposed to
be about or what guided the
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
I believe all art does, at some level, require specific knowledge of
specific languages. If we look for instance at the emergence of
Impressionism, it wasn't commonly accepted because people didn't
understand its language.
I don't think art has specific
I think I have to bring things back down to the ground now. After
taking a bit of a break in the country in glorious weather, I see that
this discussion is really going far beyond the work that's being
discussed. Obviously, none of the microcodes that reference other work
(and keep in mind that
I agree with you here, and as usual a couple of points.
If k: Seedbed
doesn't run, can it be said to run as not-run? This isn't trivial; Max
Black discussed it in terms of defining blackbirds as not-this, not-that;
obviously the list is infinite. Certainly 'Seedbed' as a command tells us
Well, actually the perl code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$p = `Seedbed`;
would run without error. $p would contain the not found error. But I
don't feel that it does much in pointing out the significance of the
medium in this particular case. Perhaps if the work was about
something lost or nonexistent, it
And of course it's valid; I actually don't think 'validity' is a
reasonable category in aesthetics - it can be defined in terms of social
groups or language games, but has nothing intrinsic about it. Another
interesting point - Seedbed could be 'directly' experienced, even without
reading
Hi Pall,
I've got to admit that I've had trouble too, understanding your
MicroCodes. Sometimes I think I get it, other times I read what you've
written and think I've been misunderstanding.
The formal interpretation of code is instinctive when I view it, so
trying to read code as something
I think we are slowly converging on the same point.
The workshop looks interesting. I've only skimmed through some of the
documentation on the web but there were a couple of things that jumped
out at me. First of all, I really like this comment attributed to you:
Unlike programming, in the
The most difficult part of conceptual art is sticking to your concept.
Pall
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote:
Hi Pall,
I've got to admit that I've had trouble too, understanding your
MicroCodes. Sometimes I think I get it, other times I read what you've
On 3/7/2009, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote:
The most difficult part of conceptual art is sticking to your concept.
i'm only human.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:20 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote:
Hi Pall,
I've got to admit that I've had trouble too, understanding your
That's why we need computers. Sometimes we're just too human.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote:
On 3/7/2009, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote:
The most difficult part of conceptual art is sticking to your concept.
i'm only human.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
I think we are slowly converging on the same point.
The workshop looks interesting. I've only skimmed through some of the
documentation on the web but there were a couple of things that jumped
out at me. First of all, I really like this comment
On 03/07/09 15:20, james morris wrote:
Hi Pall,
I've got to admit that I've had trouble too, understanding your
MicroCodes. Sometimes I think I get it, other times I read what you've
written and think I've been misunderstanding.
I reviewed Pall's earlier Microcodes for Furtherfield, which
I must say first I really like the review; I have to take issue, however,
with a couple of points which may be central to you -
I, and others, have claimed that artists who use computers need to be
able to program.
- I strongly resist this (not because I can't program - in fact I've
At the risk of stating the obvious, perhaps the problem here is that there
is no one essence of this performance, or any performance for that matter.
While you do say a single 'essence', and not the, to me a major part
of the very idea of performance is to create something which is in excess
of
There isn't any absolute minimum - if you don't know Seedbed, the whole
point is missed. If you've experienced Seedbed, the distance between code
and installation is enormous. Seedbed is absolute minimum:
k2% Seedbed
ksh: Seedbed: not found
which pretty much sums up issues of representation
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the comments. I guess by the essence of the work, I'm
considering the absolute minimum that it takes to bring to mind
Seedbed when looking at the code. In that sense, I think this and
Sleep are among the best Microcodes yet because it doesn't take an
accomplished programmer to
That's a nice approach to the incline. I like that.
Pall
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM, james morrisja...@jwm-art.net wrote:
i don't know perl, so this is c code...
please find a ramp ramping up the cpu usage until it's hot and sweaty...
please find a ramp ramping up and then down and then
Hi Pall, perhaps slightly misunderstanding - I'm aware of what you're
saying at the end, and I wasn't think about machine feeling this or that,
but about the psychoanalytics involved by the user/subject itself - in
other words, the person who is reading the code, and it's here that the
(Sorry to go on at length here.) This is really interesting to me, with
its sense of barriers at both ends, almost pure playing-fields, and then
the burst of (abject) 'content' following the includes - of course it's
all content, the extrusion is extrusion to the extent we're reading it
Hi Alan,
I'm probably just being overly stubborn to make a point. Of course the
idea of the Seedbed code is to play around with the dual meaning in
the line touch $myself. And if I understand you correctly you're
simply pointing out the ways in which words and images evoke emotional
responses even
OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you're take on this. I would
say that my primary concern is with a sort of aesthetic of the code
but it's a much more a conceptual aesthetic than anything else. To me,
the main thing to be considered aesthetically is the concept that has
been embedded in the
I don't think we're far apart at all here; we're both talking about
response. Clearly there's a relationship between your code and haiku,
which appears both transparent and 'askew,' as if something elsewhere's
going on.
I agree to an extent about AI; if an I comes along, it won't be
...revisited electronically. Those who follow the list closely may see
immediately that this was inspired in part by James Morris'
'Microcrudities' a while back. Trying to emulate such human activities
in short code is really interesting.
http://pallit.lhi.is/microcodes/index.php?code_id=29
--
Ahh! I deleted them! But they're archived on the net.
a less clear version of seedbed:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$myself = `id -un`;
$mybody = /home/$myself;
while(1){
`touch $mybody`;
print `ls -ld $mybody`;
print `finger $mys...@localhost`;
}
--
james
On 1/7/2009, Pall Thayer
Yes, I noticed that. I was going to link directly to them but they were gone.
There's is a significant difference between your version and mine. In
your version your program is touching your user (id -un) but in my
version the program is touching itself (realpath($0)). This seemed the
more
On 1/7/2009, Pall Thayer pallt...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I noticed that. I was going to link directly to them but they were gone.
There's is a significant difference between your version and mine. In
your version your program is touching your user (id -un) but in my
version the program is
That notion of the hidden was of course another thing I considered,
again due to the Seedbed reference. You never actually see the
program touching itself but you are made aware of its effects through
the printing of ls -l $myself. I saw this as being similar to
Acconci's performance where people
I knew Vito well back then and visited Seedbed many times - you're missing
the grittiness the compression of the incline - hope you can write them
in! The work was obviously uncomfortable, and anyone on the slope was the
target of his fantasizing, not to mention the reverse as well - Alan
Hi Alan,
One of the primary reasons that I've redone a number of known pieces
by other artists in these Microcodes is more to point out the
difference between code as a medium and other media. So the point
isn't necessarily to emulate the work as closely as possible but
rather to capture a single
Hi Paul,
The essence it seemed to me wasn't self-referentiality or touch (good unix
command too), so much as it was about targeting the ab/use/er, as well as
dirtiness. And code's always clean; even dirty code's clean, so there's
that barrier which is interesting and the question is - which
37 matches
Mail list logo
