<nettime> 1001 [=2] uses for a bunch of 1s and 0s digest (z, real)

[nettime_degree_zero <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

z@apiece.net
     Re: 0100101110110101.org opensources 0100101110101101.org... 
real@xs4all.nl
     Re: RHIZOME_RAW: 010001 ehhhh... 0100101110110101.org opensources 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: z@apiece.net
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:29:30 -0400
Subject: Re: 0100101110110101.org opensources 0100101110101101.org... 
     and pull the plug

i have registered 0200202220220202.org  it actually does not look as
nice as 0100101110110101.org.

alas.

z

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: real@xs4all.nl
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 01:11:16 +0200
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: 010001 ehhhh... 0100101110110101.org opensources 
     0100101110101101.org... andpull the plug

somehow this subversive act did bring in mind the famous
opening of terry gilliam's movie brazil where the names
buttle and tuttle were switched by i believe a cockroach
falling into a machine. the consequence of this act had
finally a disasterous effect on the life of harry tuttle.
just one letter made the difference here.

interesting ofcourse are the mechanisms FC's strategy uncovers and
that have in my eyes even wider implications then the work of the
original (forgive me the word) 0100101110110101 group. because in
this case who is who and who acts like who and who is it 
that put's up questions, and what i think in this case
is also important in the field of (net)art who delivers a 
certain quality of work, and who determines what quality is.
as florian points out:

> If "dates" and "opensourcing rhizome.org"
> would not have had the 01 label, but unknown signaturw, I doubt
> anyone would have cared about them. This tells of course about the
> institutionalization, self-gratification and self-historification in
> this community which the original 01 project addressed as well.

in fact it is that they  ("dates" and "opensourcing rhizome.org") 
are now both accepted as works of art, but how do the critics and 
"fans" deal with this. will this work historically just be seen as 
response to 0100101110110101.org that had their own strategies 
(for once) turned against them, or can this project by FC be 
seen as a more fundamental thing? Something that criticizes 
the proces of institutionalization and stardom itself. I myself 
would opt for the last, this because acting like the real thing 
is in all it's radicality is what FC did. though it still is 
ofcourse a response on a response. 


ok, the good thing about this "hoax" is that it shows that everyone 
who really cares should be aware of mechanisms FC points at, 
especially in the field of art that plays with concepts as
originality. or should we hold that orginality is an obsolete
concept and that everyone who wants for example to be a part of
0100101110110101 registers another serie of digits and becomes
part of the concept and being ofcourse at least equal to the
founding group...
 
 
peter
real@...



snafu wrote:

> 0100101110110101.org opensources 0100101110101101.org and pull the
> plug.
> Snafu interviews Florian Cramer
> Bologna, Digital is not analog, 27-5-2001
 <...>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net