Well as these things seem to do, perhaps the "flame war" or argument between
people and Kandinskij/Karei/D42/Death may be winding down. He told numerous
people their art and ideas were not so good, and made some valid points
about "protesting" as the way to solve the world's problems.

I'm personally glad he was willing and able to weigh in. Clearly artists
have not been able to "make problems go away" by making art very often in
history. Why would internet art or digital art be any different?

The world faces a ton of problems, and "protesting" them won't make them go
away. Protest is often self-serving, caught up in vain delusions about its
own effectiveness, and ultimately futile. Protesting stuff has become
little more than an exercise in self-absolution in many cases. There is no
need to look any further than the next SUV with a "free Tibet" sticker on it
you see. Such displays are personal entertainment, a denial of
responsibility, and little more.

There is no simple answer to this problem. Yet it comes down to something
like "protest against your own fondness for SUV's, to yourself, and try to
influence your own behavior–don't shirk and avoid by protesting actions of
others."

Certainly all of this resides in an enormous gray area. We can all think of
cases in which protest seemed to work. It is theoretically possible, of
course, that a number of excellent websites against war on Iraq could
prevent the war. I find it unlikely however, and this is why the question
is important.

We should also remember that Kandinskij ought to have the right to say harsh
things on a list. It would be quite hypocritical if Rhizome were to say "we
have a consensus here on the value of protesting the war with Iraq, and
those who denigrate the protest must be kicked off the list." It might
appear at first that K is a jerk, evil, rude, pompous, etc., but who has the
right to decide such a blanket matter? I am glad that he was able to say
what he said, despite the perceived rudeness toward myself and others.

I actually think that K's posts have been fair-minded and germane, if blunt,
and pose important questions about art under Empire.

K hasn't posted this much about his own beliefs as long as I've been on
Rhizome. It's interesting to hear, though some of what he says is ugly to
me, and despite my doubts about "him" and suspicions that he may be "the
devil." I appreciate his willingness to go to the trouble of posting here
even when everyone calls him names–he could just as well have not bothered.
That said, my own thinking on the nuances and "real dynamics" of the time
has benefitted from hearing him. Even if I change my mind later, I'm glad
he was free to speak/type unhindered by arbitrary measures. I don't think
I'll reject his ideas lightly, certainly some of them are quite valid to me
now and a welcome influence or revision of some of my own "beliefs" and
"attitudes."

Artists, to be worthy of the name, ought to work primarily on their own
faults. That is the way to achieve good art.

Why doesn't K fall under his own critique? After all, he arrived here and
wrote of the faults of others–myself included. I take this as a sign of
respect and not of meddling. Herein lies the important and difficult
question. One must always consider, when seeking to point out someone
else's errors, whether that person is ready to hear criticism. Will it
help? Is the person, in fact, already seeking to articulate such a
question, and able to benefit from criticism? If not, to chide them is mere
pedantry and flatulent blather. Ignorant. Self-serving. A performance
intended to impress others with one's correctness and uprightness, i.e.
self-righteous ego-delusion that only drains energy from the hearer. False
preaching. Other such things.

Therefore I am grateful to have read what Karei typed, for Rhizome Raw as a
place where he could type to me without being censored, and for my own
incredible capacity to listen and learn. (Just kidding sweet stuff.) It
goes to show I am not the exclusive fount of Genius 2000, a fact often lost
on me when in the throes of my listserv proselytizing and
meager-laurel-seeking. I am happy to have had yet another chance to see
this.

I would like to be able to concisely articulate precisely what Negri/Hardt
mean about not resisting Empire, but going beyond it, and how or whether
this recommendation relates to Genius 2000. That will take me some time
however, and I am only allowed limited access to my present computer. It
will also take WORK which I have admittedly not yet done. (Factually my
plan is to relieve my almost totally overtaxed mind, so easily influenced,
by taking a brief internet hiatus to work on a book. Once that is done, I
can hopefully come back with a clearer, stronger, better genius for myself
and all.)

In lieu of a more substantive meditation, please allow me to offer the quite
crude and perhaps incorrect idea that humans need to evolve in order to go
beyond Empire. Evolving can be reduced neither to resisting Empire, nor
enforcing it. It is something else. I take this to be at the heart of what
Kandinskij has been saying. As Curt says, "let them who have ears to hear,
hear."

As for K picking on Eryk or Fahey or the others, they're tough champs; they
don't need no mothering from fluffer2k–sweet lords and ladies above,
imagine if Max Herman was your mother! No darker fate could be wished on
any.

If a body catch a body,

Max Herman
genius2000.net
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/perfidy.JPG

++





\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com