Historiclly, I think yes, art, in particular with a european context in mind - 
has a link with play or playfullness. However, and here am trying to link the 
shaman questions in, we get slightly other-than-mere-play focuses that can be 
linked with art.

Yes, I agree that institutions make something that is beyond play - is it not a 
bit like a shaman that instils within a community their way of How we, 
community X, do the culture play?
..and again, with some sort of link with institutions that connect with art, 
there is the flip-side, the creation of sense of reverence, which tends, i 
think, to restrict play.

However, I think that perhaps the term "play" is not playful enough since it 
creates, possibly wrongly  in my mind - a sense of dualism.
Do we not get, by imagining art as kind of a play, a sense of that which Is 
meant and sone as a playful thing, and that which isn't?

Moreover, I keep having questions regarding the history and the practice of 
playfulness in art. Are we not getting into a history of some mystification of 
being a child and a practice, that even if we remain within the "play" 
paradigm, is perceived as art-linked when it's not entirely or at all playful - 
but when there are evident questions about How we - culture X - might be doing 

Again, perhaps extending the shaman to a druid and a prophet, as art 
maintaining practices in various cultures at different periods, I think there 
is the Time element that art institutions function. In this sense, of time and 
kind of Meta"play" I think the notion you mention it utterly - prophetic.
Prophetic in the sense that a prophesy is to do with perceiving stuff that 
alters slowly or slightly in time. An institution, as an art archiving species, 
may live as long as its hosting culture allows, sometimes even beyond.

Adorno, I suspect might have said something regarding play, art and 
entertainment. Perhaps if we had an adorno-bot, it could make for an 
interesting discussion? Or would it only be limited to some playful 
entertaining quality? Maybe not a quality but some value?
..and at what price? ;)

Here, perhaps am being playful with references from adorno, through to 
memorials, and wilde - however I doubt this are clever enough to infer as to 
How we might be doing such plays.
I think that if it had that How element, the sequence will - despite a certain 
resemblance -  might be something other than "play" indeed.
In that sense, for example, I perceive the way Alan, the way if i may say You, 
make stuff as a process, as having that other element, the element that takes 
the It, that alan-making-species to be in the category - being able to be 
morphed in and out of that species that we might call art, without losing 
(See Category theory Morphism..)

However, going back to the distinction with play and having a similar yet 
different sequence:
think - art is neither a rat not tar, when meanings come to mind.
think - wind and wind(ow), or how would one's mind go had i typed wild rather 
than wild(e)..?

Apologies if am repeating myself, but in context of naval gazing thoughts..
There is a term in japanese for stupid - Baka.
Baka, so the story goes, is linked to an emperor that kept calling a horse - a 
dear, and a dear - a horse..

Have fun and many cheers!


July 17 2017 1:32 AM, "Alan Sondheim" <sondh...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, aharon wrote:
>> Dear Alan, Ruth and all!
> (snip)
>> I think that perhaps online networking alters in way time and timing is > 
>> perceived. Through the
>> morphing of utterances in twitter/fb/etc from > stuff said in time to that 
>> being recorded and
>> archived. Once archived, > the time and timing of utterances alters. Things 
>> can easily come back, >
>> repeat, and so on. This is different to stuff a person might Say and > then, 
>> relatively quickly,
>> the content can fade in time and memory. > Indeed, is it not fair to argue 
>> that even if we were to
>> Control all our > digitalised and networked expressions, we'd still be 
>> dealing with > sensations of
>> time and timing that are very different to how it is when > we network 
>> un-digitally?
> Early on, a number of us were interested in what we might call "internet 
> weather," "network
> weather" - you could sense, by the delays involved, how good your 
> connectivity was. Delay operated
> in a number of ways; it even played a role, I think, in (textual) netsex. 
> Things didn't appear
> immediate, imminent; the network was "felt" in relation to delay. The same 
> thing seems to happen on
> Fb messenger now, for that matter.
> In a sense, I think the body is "besides itself" in this regard -
> - Alan
> (snip)
>> Cheers and all the bests!
>> aharonon
>> xx
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
NetBehaviour mailing list

Reply via email to