Dear Rhizome Discuss Community,
After a few weeks of testing, we have set in place a new policy for the discussion section. All posts containing off-topic advertisements or bogus links are now subject to moderation by the Rhizome Staff. We hope that this policy will prevent unwanted spamming and maintain this section as a forum for critical and creative engagement.
Thanks again for your patience and understanding.
Sincerely,
Nick Hasty
Hi Nick,
Following Derrida, it is worth noting what is being implicitly preferenced here (as opposed to what is being explicitly subordinated):
"on-topic" posts
"non-commercial" posts
"authentic" links (no rickrolling?)
"desirable" unspamming
And what is being implicitly subordinated (as opposed to what is being explicitly preferenced):
uncritical, uncreative non-engagement
The means by which one distinguishes "authentic creative" non-sequitir absurdity from "bogus uncreative" opportunistic spamming might be worth a bit of "critical engagement." According to Barthes, artistic tactics that try to evade the mythologizing of language (tactics like dadaist/surrealist absurdity, essentialist poetry, or precise mathematical language) eventually wind up getting mythologized whole cloth ("E=MC2" as a myth of math itself, "the chance meeting on a dissecting table of a sewing machine and an umbrella" as a myth of absurdity itself). The critical efficacy of these tactics is diluted once they are thus mythologized.
So absurdist jodi.org ascii text passes the filters as approved neo-dada (authentic, desirable, critical, [safe, mythologizable, art-world contextualizable]), but not-quite-on-topic spam is filtered as unapproved commercialism (bogus, undesirable, uncritical, [dangerous, having-already-been-recouped, art-world uncontextualizable]).
The initial 1917 filtering of R. Mutt's "Fountain" was justified (in part) because it was a mass-produced, utilitarian, overtly commercial object.
For great deals on fountains, shop home depot!
Patiently,
Curt
If this is a joke, it's almost funny.
The initial 1917 filtering of R. Mutt's "Fountain" was justified (in part) because it was a mass-produced, utilitarian, overtly commercial object.
I don't think that Fountain had anything to do with those reasons (in part or not) . In fact I am sure of it.
"Our merry Montaigne is a garruolus and gullible old man, neither safe nor scientific."
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/blindman/2/05.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2kYH5UZY0
cf. WSJ: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003972544
That's such a cool scan. I still think that fountain, as per Duchamps own pleading, was a porcelain vagina.
I just like that concept. Immersed in Freud, trying desperately to be contrary, the receptacle becomes the focus of our eyes. Yet our eyes can't experience the pleasure that the function/device demands.
Oh well
On a complete aside.
The analogue begets the digital, where so many think it all ends…, but what will the digital beget?
HAHAHAHAH
yes it's a quandary.
Where is the paper?