Mr. Deis, I congratulate you on the clarity of your essay on assembly as the
essential feature of contemporary digital society. I have not made it through
Manovich's book because I was deterred by its apparent focus on the visual. I
will have to go back into the book. But if indeed he sees variability as the
epitome he is mistaken. The products are variable but the fundamental mechanism
of production is not. I suppose there is a possible reconciliation between your
views and those of Manovich. But it will have to come about by him arguing for
his conclusions as outgrowths of your fundamental conditions. I don't see how
the fundamental position of the factors you discern can be altered.

Given your premises, I am most interested in artistic reaction to the
dehumanizing potential of the logic of assembly. I certainly do not see the
strengthening of the values of individuality as a logical outgrowth of the
essential production method of our present society. Customization is not
individual freedom. Programmed variety is not natural liberty. Quite the
contrary, I see totalitarianism as the logical consequence of the total power
to manipulate digital elements of reality. A very palatable form of
totalitarianism in which the illusion of freedom and choice is maintained by
virtual bread and virtual circuses. And, of greatest concern to me, virtual
art - synthetic art that lacks the traditional human meanings and purposes - in
short, false art. Yes, I will grant that it is art (so as to avoid pointless
arguments about classification) but I will insist it is an enemy of human
individuality and freedom.

I call myself an artist and I intend to practice in the new media in accordance
with my sense of disquiet about the alterations taking place in society. My
first and only work so far is NewZoid. Its main function automatically
assembles false news headlines from samples of daily headlines pursuant to my
programmatic software. My meaning is in it from the beginning and I don't think
its "infinite" future output will alter the meaning.

You have correctly pointed to the virtual absence of limitations on the
assembly of discrete digital elements. But I continue to believe that the
deepest and most important work is that in which, (although the combinations
are infinite), the work product continues to convey in its core the meaning and
intention of the artist who set the process in motion.

If a person sets in motion an assembly process whose meaning is left to be
ascertained in the future as a result of analysis of the product - that is more
science experiment than art. (This line of new media "art" may also be the
consequence of the fashion of postmodern diminution of artistic intention.)

I propose a basic distinction between art that promotes, or acquiesces to, the
social consequences of the logic of assembly and art that opposes social
consequences of assembly. By my logic, art that uses the technology of assembly
approvingly is slave art - or if that seems too pejorative a name, it can be
called "art of the courtier." Art that uses the technology of assembly to
defend humanity against the dangers of that selfsame technology is freeperson
art or "art of the citizen."

I give greater value to oppositional art because it balances the dehumanizing
tendencies of the dominant forces of our time.

Speaking of time it's time for a break. Once again, I thank you Mr. Deis for
you stimulating analysis.

Daniel Young
young@newzoid.com