Return-Path: Received: from mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.1.48] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11) for paragram@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:14:04 +0100 (CET) Received: by Mail.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE (Smail3.2.0.98) from n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.105) with smtp id ; Sun, 10 Nov 2002 05:14:41 +0100 (MET) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-64825-19192-1036901679-cantsin=zedat.fu-berlin.de@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n37.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2002 04:14:39 -0000 X-Sender: sondheim@panix.com X-Apparently-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Nov 2002 04:14:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 59051 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2002 04:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Nov 2002 04:14:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.panix.com) (166.84.1.72) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Nov 2002 04:14:35 -0000 Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.1.3]) by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD57488A8 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:14:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by panix3.panix.com (8.11.6/8.8.8/PanixN1.0) with ESMTP id gAA4EZd25695 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:14:35 -0500 (EST) To: webartery@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Alan Sondheim MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list webartery@yahoogroups.com; contact webartery-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list webartery@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 23:14:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [webartery] Fwd: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: "digital p[h]e[ave]tting" vs Reply-To: webartery@yahoogroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UIDL: ?Lo"!`m'"!C/l!!R06!! Content-Length: 4701 What is wrong with ego? And you keep going back to what you like, what you're looking for, etc. - that really doesn't have that much to do with definition, more to do with your own tastes - even the many-to-many model you propose is one you want to see, the collapsed production / product you call utopia, is yours. In some ways, it's oddly reminiscent of the process art and aesthetics of the 70s - for example Robert Morris' continuous transformations at Castelli - The definitions you use are so personalized, they're hard to agree or disagree with. For me, mez and for that matter myself - we _are_ the network - it just may not be in you to see it that way - Alan - thinking also of nn for example, Meskens, solipsis, highland On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Lewis LaCook wrote: > but that leads to ego...i mean, the way i try to look at works is to > isolate the work from whatever i know about the worker////i'm not > looking for a taxonomy of workers, but a taxonomy of working.... > > of course, as with all theoretical claptrap, it's nowhere near > exact... > > but the economy of seeing works that way is to fall into ye olde kult > of personality: as i wondered a few weeks back on the poetics list, > why do we have favorite poets as opposed to favorite poems? > > and me? hell, i'm as guilty, if not moreso, than anyone... > > bliss > l > > --- In webartery@y..., "Talan Memmott" wrote: > > > > > what distinguishes one way of working from another/// [?] > > > > the practitioner.... http://www.asondheim.org/ and http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt older at http://lists.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/internet_txt.html Trace projects at http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm cdroms of work 1994-2002 available: write sondheim@panix.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/