Hi Mr. Gere,

I think your idea of art as an information processing system is quite good.
This in contrast to a large warehouse that stores information-rich objects.
There is an analogy here to the change from industrial economy to
information economy, as well as to Wolfram's universal computer ideas. To
make clear the non-novelty of this, it also relates to the Globe theater as
"all the world's a stage" and the Acropolis.

The "uselessness" of art, or art as a non-instrumental "end in itself"
relates to Kant's imperative never to treat humans as means only, and
Adorno's critique of instrumental reason. Blake said, "I see thro my
vegetative eye, not with it."

I wonder what you might think of the hypothesis that we are now in a new
art-historical period, Networkism. One problem facing all artists and not
just media artists is that there hasn't yet really been a widely accepted
declaration from an authoritative, competent source that we are in a new
art-historical period. Thus painters as well as writers and website makers
have the choice only to operate in Postmodernism terms. This holds the most
interesting, compelling questions at bay and reduces the meaningfulness of
the art in all media and genres.

Are you aware of any major declarations that we are in a new art-historical
period, Networkism? I believe that one obstacle to reaching such a
widespread belief is that the technical machinery of the network develops at
a less complicated and human pace than our aesthetic habits, beliefs,
values, preferences, and convictions, which are subject to irrationality and
arthritis-causing inflammation.

With respect to art's distance from the body, is this primarily a physical
or a conceptual distance, and is there a necessary or proper distance in
that you can't jump over your shadow?

Best regards,

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Submissions OK until 9/15
www.geocities.com/genius-2000


+++