James
reading 'the accident of art' by Paul Virilio is a provocative read,
most certainly.
My most immediate attention was on the idea of focus itself.
Taking Paolo Uccello he described the content of the work, 'The Battle
of San Romano', as being the artists use of perspective. He was a
mathematician and painter who in presenting a multi dimensional view of
the world, saw an expression of this view as a reason for the work,
coming as it did, from both an inner compulsion and an organising and
belief system originating from himself.
Virilio then questioned whether the net-artist, in their collage
construction of varied uses of software, not invented by the artists
themselves, was in fact a genuine thoughtful creative process that
could be considered authentic. Is he right or wrong in this? I think
you said that the artist could produce his own software?
I think there is an interesting intelligence in the conversations of
the book and one we should perhaps all venture into because of its
provocative nature.
regards
ken
On Nov 25, 2006, at 20:12, Ken Turner wrote:
hi James good of your to remain in contact
The 'bloke' you refer to is a depiction of Prometheus who breathed
life into mankind and gave them fire because they were so cold and
shivering.
Zeus was angry and chained prometheus to a precipice with an eagle
pecking his liver out. so he's in a bit of pain.
I use the idea as a metaphor and intent to continue this trait into a
performance.
I sometime find emailing people a bit frustrating because people us it
in a fragmentary way and this is what I see as a networking failure.
The three figures at the bottom of the page represent a failure in
communication.
I hope my metaphors and symbolism has a resonance with you.
If not then - anyway these things take time to find common ground and
I'm just trying to do a good job as an artist.
Being an artist is hard work. By the way I have ordered the book
'accident of art' and will let you know how I get on.
All the best
ken
On Nov 23, 2006, at 21:26, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ken,
I had a look at the site a few days ago. The paintings are a lot
different to those I last saw on your blog. The one with the
red/ochre/cyan face, next to the "critically human think I am
therefore" photo, I thought was sticking his fingers up to the viewer,
but eventually saw it's a bloke falling headfirst. That right? Or's it
a umm, thingy like old what'is name, picabia, double image?
The three figures below it are quite entertaining too. It's
interesting
what you mention about the local; familiar territory, and thought.
Ideas
which might be something to do with what I do with art, or maybe just
what I think I do. But whichever, I'm still not quite yet familier
with
them infact to both know exactly what the difference is, and put it
into
practice.
james
On 19/11/2006, "Ken Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi James
One of the issues that Virilio deals with is the idea of speed as it
effects perception.
I think it also effects/infects subjectivity.
If you are interested in painting please see the site below.
http://www.imaginativeeye.co.uk/theoldship.html
cheers
ken
On Nov 16, 2006, at 00:47, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has anyone read "The Accident of Art" by Paul Virilio and Sylvère
Lotringer? It is an "extended conversation" between them. I
generally
find it difficult to understand criticism, the terms used, but by
the
end of the book I think I had a vague idea of what they were talking
about.
It goes something like this: The accident of art, or in fact it
seemed
more general, the accident of globalization/capitalism, is the
correction of perception by machine. And, that we need to constantly
fight against the machine and get inside of it to change it. Anyhow
it
was interesting but I thought that in particularly the way they
talked
about the digital and analogue and the internet, Sondhiem (probably
others do too but I'm not aware of much) goes into greater depth.
But the biggest thing that bugged me was the quick discussion about
software. Initially they spoke of architects and how they should
write
their own software. Then a bit later, they question who are the
programmers? They're sure it's not Bill gates. And they lamented the
fact that no one goes about writing their own software. Me thinks
they
need to research that a little more.
I probably read it too quickly to understand more.
James.
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
