Date:         Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:13:25 -0700
From: lewis lacook <llacook@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: alt.oids\\\\\the curiously strong usenet group!
To: WRYTING-L@LISTSERV.UTORONTO.CA

MEZ:..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?

LL: ][][][][][the critics job is to provoke debate
just like this, which is healthy & should serve to
widen my conciousness, as well as yours, and anybody's
who wishes to listen....

WHAT I ADMIRE ABOUT YOUR WORK:
----i love the design...the multimedia aspect (you use
sound well, you use flash's native button IDE
well...)...i like the questions it raises...

is it text in networked drag? sometimes...but works
like skin code aren't...they DO depend on the user to
enact certain parts...it could not exist as a book...


MEZ: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"....

LL: EXACTLY! i believe i stated this in my critique...

MEZ:..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.......

LL: you're definitely right there, and i believe i
mentioned that these works were born of the network...

MEZ: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.......

LL: but i can rip them away from the browser...mailto
links aside, most of these works could occupy a
book...my point was they don't depend on the network
to the extent that doing so would alter them in any
fundamental way....they aren't liquid...
(there is, however, the social aspect of the
interaction, which i believe you're right about)(could
these works have been WRITTEN without the network?
no)(are they dependent on the network for
manifestation? nocan they be printed? yes)(do they
allow the user to commune with the author, do they
break down the tyrannical hierarchy of authorhood?
no)(depending on the net for distribution is to me a
peripheral fact about many of these works====& please
don't misunderstand me, i do not believe these works
are any less complicated for that fact::::::::i
believe "static" text (((as i so horridly put it))))
is at times more dynamic than any network
art====))))))

point-and-click is low interactivity====as colin moock
once wrote, interactivity achieves its loftiest height
in the form====i believe that when the user must
invest information in the work the degree of communion
is higher than when the user is following an
author-determined pathway or link=====THIS IS WHAT I
MEANT WHEN I POINTED OUT MY OWN FAILURES/////

MEZ: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.......

LL: but other than the initial handshake common to all
html docs, where do packets figure in here? i didn't
see any works that used the serial port...i didn't see
any works that initiated anything serverside other
than the handshake that also happens when i log on to
yahoo...yahoo's handshake may even be more
complicated, as it involves cookies, remembering
state....(once again, this does not make these works
any less interesting)


MEZ:..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....


LL: ====most of the code exists at surface level, and
isn't functioning code...one can print a book of
code...i don't know what you mean by code
dynamism...sure, they play with code syntax, but not
much actual code is there (JODI, of course....& i've
seen Jodi's game elsewhere...other than the fact that
it seems to me to be too self-referential (((i don't
like net art that beats me over the head with the fact
that it's net art)))), it does represent the type of
art i'm talking about as crucial in any discussion of
what art i endemic to the internet...what art DEPENDS
on the internet to manifest.....


MEZ:(from the gallery intro)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."

LL: i have no agrument with this...but the majority
was still text...

MEZ:......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......

LL: How doesn't it? By virtue of the fact that these
same names keep popping up, i'd say that's pretty
institutionalized...
are the works i send to lists static texts?
yes...unless it's a link to an interactive work...&
some do find their way offline into books and literary
journals...i'm drawn to the net because it offers a
way out of the tyranny of authorhood::::a way to
short-circuit the ego-driven dynamics of linear
text....if the work is a text poem it is a static
work, only interactive metaphorically (which is not to
say that text isn't one of the most complicated
mediums there is)===even if the text is produced by a
program i've written, the text itself could (and has)
just as easily occupy book form with no fundamental
change::::the executable itself is not static, and in
some cases these are net works...
====the reason i glorify interactivity is to escape
ego===not to perpetuate it====

MEZ (& previous LL):
 >& 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.

LL: ...hmmmm...so i offer some criticism of a gallery
and you attack my work? ah well...
bliss
l








=====

http://www.lewislacook.com/
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/385/lewis_lacook.html


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com