on the contrary, i totally gree with you! :) i think that we need to abandon the idea of the possibility of being specific. technology is a new tool just as a brush is technology. and mineral powders to produce color are prime matter just as are bits and bytes. it's just that i love/hate (i feel!) being romantic, and romance is just a little farther away from the screen and a bit closer to the paining or to the sculpture. how was that? "people are people", and it wasn't godard. this screen that i have in front of me, now, forces me to become three or four persons at the same time. i have several websites open in the browser, a directory of alan sondheim's domain to look at pictures while i answer you, your website, a letter from my sister, a project for the european communion talking about a theoric study on the accessibility of mobile applications, adobe illustrtor, fruitiloops, a text that i will never give to my girlfriend. every content is open at the same time, it is hyperlinked in my mind, not on screen, which works as a container. every hyperlink brings another face forward, instead of a webpage. computers allow you to do that as well: you're one person on myspace, you're a totally different identity on facebok, if you want to,just switch window. so, i agree to everything you say -and aknowledging that i even find it so nice and important that you were touched by my small memory the opther day- and i just adore the fact that most artworks we see in this context are not meant for conservation, they do not aim at being conserved. They do not aim at being "objects", as a matter of fact. look at the 2000 911 by alan: they are there not to be read (or, at least i hope they're not :) ) but to be there at something that sits across hypnosis and literature. and they actually don't make any sense if you read that stuff alone. because what he does is more like a psycho-diary tht flows like a broken newsfeed. he continually writes and what comes out is not importnt because of what's written in there, but for the continuity. for the flow. which is totally analog. i guess we found out: alan sondheim is an analog artist, not a digital one. i actually don't think he cares if you delete the messages.
do you alan? :) hugs! b xperimënts ha scritto: > i don't know if i really agree with all what you have written, > > you see, i can't go to the prado museum or mncars (contemporary) because > the rooms are full of security guards and if i sneeze they say to me, > please, sneeze out of the room, the painting can get your cold... > > > ... well, not that... but i've been told lot of nonsense by security > guards in museums and i don't want to pay for living that fucking > experience with fucking guards at my back... > > i'm sensitive to art... which can not be beauty, but powerful... (could > you say that witkin's pictures are beautiful? ) > > > yes, it was a time where lots of brushes and lots of coloured mineral > were used... > > ... but as fas as i know, the woman that i think that is now the great > one in net art is managing other kind of brushes and other kind of > coloured mineral. > > she is a craftswoman too, the craft consists in making things happen in > your screen... which is cheap for most of the people, and a way to live > art and grow with it... at least to me, she teaches me words, she opens > me words, and like she, many other people... james, alan, mez... and you !! > > > so... > > > as godard said, we know a landscape comparing it with another landscape, > > > let's gonna enjoy netbehaviour, > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
