it is only hilarious to me in a kind of quixotic way. This is not to say
that our exchanges about structure, information carried in our choices of
tools, etc (in my camp they are all interwoven) are unimportant.
But why I am reading this list is to learn how I may better "exchange
information directly through dance". It won't have to be lots of words to
make a difference-sometimes a recipe for a networked interface could be
it, perhaps it will be in someone else's application of probability
theory. It will definitely NOt be in jargon for its own sake...hm as i
write that I think even that might be fair game...I guess foolishness has
to be allowed under the circumstances (of being human, even among
since they are too).
Well you asked for response..glad to know you are there working,
kasey rios asberry
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Doug Rosenberg wrote:
> "The discussions going on concerning form/content issues are hilarious.
> I don't think the discussions are hilarious at all, in fact very useful.
> Critical discourse on the work of art is invaluable, however the
> tendency to speak about post modern tools and methodologies in a
> modernist framework negates the context of the work of art in question.
> If this list server is simply a way to trade anecdotal information
> about each of our discoveries vis. a vis. new technology then perhaps I
> am writing this for no reason. However as an artist practicing in the
> post modern era, I am very concerned with issues of content and context
> as well as the political implications of any new or emerging technology.
> The privliging of technology is at the expense of a wholistic
> discussion of the work of art within the culture it springs from. Any
> Douiglas Rosenberg
> UW Madison