Brief Response 2 Lewis Lacook's _This Hallowe'en_ etc

» _mez_ - Brief Response 2 Lewis Lacook's _This Hallowe'en_ etc

I am slightly confused with lewis lacook's point here:

"After all, what template is this? Text. Text presented in a static manner on a screen, which is awful derivative of text presented in a static manner on a page. The awesome potential of the net medium (net is short for network, and a network connects nodes together, such as client and server, user and artist, audience and work) doesn't figure into the gallery here, which is not to say that these artists have failed in any way."

..this assumed critical leaning on _text_ negates the fact that the wurks [& i do refer 2 this in the intro, but perhaps should have made it clearer?] exist in their primary incarnation as net/code.wurks, that [even though the very manifestation thru the online gallery itself, even the simple actualities involved in getting 2 the html page which houses this so-called _small text anthology_ involves the minute x.changes of data??] r m.mersed in the net...the so-termed "static" labelizing erases the actions of the click, the nuances of the data-swivel & p][acket][ivot - of not 2 mention the layerings of both the symbolic nature|latent functionality of the code itself & the format of the wurks as either email header/subject/date-stamp structures etc....simulcra & dynamically simulcrated via projected potential states...its really strange 2 read this coming from lewis, who i assumed has developed sense of the collusive nature of the net.wurk, its x.tensions & tendrillic realities..also, the idea that the html works r LL-percieved simply as text rather than even simply acounting 4 the browser mechanism, not 2 mention wurk[s] such as jodi's complete reworking of the quake game.......in terms of reducing the show down 2 a manageable, diet-critique lvl yr summation is understandable, but it truly saddens me that the other, more n][et][uanced works where left unvalidated by such concentration......

-- posted by _mez_

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» _mez_ - Re: Brief Response 2 Lewis Lacook's _This Hallowe'en_ etc

lewis + i have been continuing our discussions on a public mailing list, the below is a transcript of this. lews has his dialogue in ">" segements, my responses aren't:

Subject: Re: This Hallowe'en
To: WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

At 09:32 PM 18/08/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Sol's right here===i did mention in the article that I
>was probably not looking at the thing right...& i
>especially love sol's characterization of the gallery
>as a "trace"====
>
>mez====this was not meant to shock you, or insult you,
>you whose work i do admire quite a bit===i was simply
>doing the critic's job====

heya Lewis Lacook,

..can u e.laborate on yr view of wot a critics job is? and i'd be keen 2
kno if u perceive the code.wurks i send to this list r just static text as
well? wot _do_ u admire about my work if it, too, is equally conceived [by
u] as static text dressed up in networked drag?

>when i read your
>introduction, which is quite good, i was taken aback
>by the claims of newness===and when i viewed the
>gallery, and thought about the gallery, i came to
>conclusion nothing there was really new per se, nor so
>far from the "academic"====which is not to say the
>work there wasn't good, or the artists assembled great
>(i would have liked to have seen more work from people
>i wasn't already familiar with, though)====
>

lewis, this n.capsulates wot i c as the fundamental flaw in yr [critiquer]
assertions....at no point when curating the gallery did i claim that the
works selected where "new"....

let me cutNpaste from the intro:

"These entities
[as they cannot always be adequately defined in a geophysical,
visceral sense] shift & pulse data via infinite network variations.
These _artists_ [or net/code.workers] revel in the fabric of
connection modes and core elements that represent the actualities
of the net in all its functional glory. The code/net.workers selected
for inclusion here engage in production of [artistic] output that
employs and mirrors the very blueprinted mechanisms of the net
itself."

..the important point here is that the works illustrate a method of working
that is dependant on the net itself 4 construction, dissemination, &
collaboration, & not dependant on previous models 4 its actualization, not
that they echo a brand-spanking new .ism.......

u assert in yr article:
"Of course, these works are mostly text; they could just as easily occupy
space in a physical book, and most of them (despite the very high quality
of the work presented) are only interactive in the vaguest of ways. What
Mez has assembled here for the most part is a small text anthology, not a
collection of net art."

lewis, yes some of these wurks could occupy space in an offline, physically
printed book, but if they were 2 be printed in such a way, it would
fundamentally alter the nature of the wurks themselves [a point u don't
seem 2 understand].....u can't just rip these works away from the net
infrastructure in which they r dependent, in which they reside.....try
clicking on an authors name in a book & getting a potential communication
channel there??? yr idea of interactivity as being vague makes me assume
that u r quite happy 2 equate interaction with overt actionality; click N
point interactivity which is only 1 [a highly forced pathway-dependent]
version of wot constitutes interaction.......

>so....my critique may have been "simplistic and
>reductive," but so is viewing the majority of this
>work as anything other than text====

well, if u choose 2 completely discount the architectonics & contextual
nuances of net/code.wurks such as these, and persist in ignoring the very
mechanics that allow these wurks 2 function [ie engaging in browser usage,
packet + code driven exchanges etc] as well as the potentialities via which
the wurks can unfold then that's yr choice........but it unfortunately
smaks 2 me of post-hoc defensive reasoning, s.pecially from some1 as
intelligent as u.......

>whether it's
>displayed in a browser or not whether it was culled
>from lists or not, hell, even if it was
>computer-generated, it's still text (which is quite a
>complicated thing to be after all)===

..at base lvl, yes the wurks do function as characters in a document [yes,
in a document, not in a page; another fundamental network|text
difference!!]. the point u seemed 2 making in yr article was that these
net/code.wurks [can] function as purely _static_[offline,
printable-yet-maintaining-their-s.sential-form] texts, which is untrue &
misleading, not 2 mention ridiculous when considering their construction &
code dynamism....

>my point: to view them as anything but text is
>literal...as i said...i believe you're falling into a
>kinda platonism here, code-ideal against
>surface-illusion===
>which is valid and true, after all,
>BUT----what happens in my brain when i read a book? &
>how is the handshake of client-server relations so
>markedly different from that? how is this NEW?

..lewis, the point here is that the net/code.wurks on display in the
gallery rn't professing 2 align themselves along a old-new axis......in
relation 2 how these works differ from books, again i'll refer 2 the intro
itself;

"....these works
fundamentally exist in echos and [band]widths of a projected
space. They are not designed to concretely reflect economic,
narrative, linear, or even [traditional] artistic value. Their creators
are more reflective in relation to the nodes/strands inherent in
network dissemination, and incorporate net conventions and
multivalencies in order to fabricate works that conflate
informational/contextual manipulation [eg via infofictionalised
texts/personas via various email lists].

The selected code.worker projects are also concerned with the
warping of computer language/systems into referential, aesthetic
or conceptual compositions that are replicated/sequenced in
burgeoning incremental waves, resulting in the weave & flow of
accented and disruptive code-emulations. Some are web-based,
some are post-game [mangled] patches, and some are caught in
net-based circulation and avatar adoption[s]. JODI, joe keenan,
Integer/Netochka Nezvanova, ted warnell, and brian lennon
rewrite the underlying notion[s] of code as functional/accessible via
blatant infrastructural rewiring that encourages the redirection of
an absorbers [ie interactors] typical meaning gaze/gauge."

>i was disturbed simply because of that====you put a
>big sign on this stuff saying "hey, this isn't all
>that academic model bullshit, this is new" and then
>gave me what for the most part was a text
>anthology....

......the works offered _DO NOT_ constitute a text [as in print] anthology,
with all of its structural institutionalized segmentative order.....i am
equating yr use of static text 2 mean offline print, & if u cannot factor
in the very fact of the netwurk in the construction & conception of wurks
such as these, then *y* not continue publishing yr work offline lewis? wot
is the drawcard here 4 u? r the works that u create and send 2 lists such
as this only mere static texts in yr opinion? does the network offer u
nothing but spam-like ego-perpetuating allure? i hope not, but am curious 2
perceive just how u align yr work practice here......

..also, if u did yr research [which i assuming all competent critiquers
like 2 do] then u'd realize that i _curated_ the gallery, but did not
_design_ the gallery. if i'd had my way, the design of the gallery would
have been much more reflexive of the primary context from which the wurks
came [ie linkage 2 the mailing list archives rather than just the lone
email displays that r listed].....wot troubles me is that u cannot perceive
this; that these works are profoundly m.mersed in the weave of x.tended
data-marrow, & even if the gallery was so obviously representational of
this fact u *still* would not b able 2 glean the differences between these
wurks & static, anthologized texts.......

also, y limit & hone yr critiquers eye on this fact? if yr content that the
majority of the wurks on offer in the show r static text in essence, then y
didn't u concentrate on [rather than give less than a passing mention]
those wurks that weren't? i'm yet 2 read yr opinion on jodi's game
devolution, or did u not x.plore the other works + relegate them to
marginalised status? as a critiquer i'd be quite unkeen 2 just point out
those works that adhere 2 this s-called template that u c most of these
text perpetuating; how about some opinion regarding those that don't?
wouldn't that offer some type of balanced perspective?

>my point was, server mechanism aside,
>this was still the old model....

if u perceive static text in these works, & use this as a universal
indicator-stamp 4 any work printed in character format, then that's all
u'll get out of them.

>i have this ideal, which probably doesn't apply
>here::::i want a net art that communes with the user,
>that takes advantage of both the computer and the
>network, that could exist in no other space than the
>net, that depends on all of that to manifest
>itself===a work that cannot be reproduced in a book,
>or even approximated...

this work exists already lewis, u just don't let yrself c that it exists,
which is a terrible shame.....yr constant base-line referencing 2 books
indicates much.........

>& that's what i'm looking at
>net art with, that ideal in my head...i can't do it
>yet, but i have seen some works that show promise of
>it...

this x.plains a great deal.

>in any case....this was not meant to harm...don't be
>alarmed...i still love you all...

no, i'm not alarmed anymore, just resigned to my disappointment.

][mez][

. . .... .....
collapsing adj[thr]usting.txt
.
.
app][lick.ation][end.age

www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker/
http://www.macros-center.ru/read_me/inex...
.... . .??? .......

-- posted by _mez_

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions