nettime on Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:23:37 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

porculus: Re: Luther Blissett: 0100101110101101.ORG:art.hacktivism

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
<> is the temporary home of the nettime-l list
while rebuilds its list-serving machine.  please continue to send
messages to <> and your commands to <>.
nettime-l-temp should be active for approximately 2 weeks (11-28 Jun 99).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

From: "porculus" <>
To: "nettime" <>,
        "nettime-l-temp" <>
Subject: Re: Luther Blissett: 0100101110101101.ORG: art.hacktivism
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:19:17 +0200

> Everyone with his own site, everyone with his own domain, everyone with
his own gallery,

this idea for reducing all the artcritique theory to an onomastique and
ascribing a name to an artsomething is the sufficient proof of your
knowledge in art, and to fail in, a sufficient one of your incompetence.
there lays one the great stakes of the art. so imagine the threat the net
can represent for the high trained good taste if it's just necessary for
knowing the name to clic on a artpiece for having the name of its author.
and what could be the mess if when i clic on wellknown whatsit name i have
just another whatsit else ? it's depend to who i am adressing : first
notice how complex could be the onomastique. For instance how good have to
be my report of your 01001orgsomething, and how formalist could be its
orthography. for instance if in a salon i tell about dalli with 2 ll it's
without importance cause the pronunciation is the same but if i write el
salvador dally with 2 ll i am probably an ass but less if i tell about
jackson bollocks to a momma curator. maybe but for the net i have, and
thanks to machine it's easy, to copy and paste your address something for giving it to a friend otherwise i
failed at each time. and so why, for getting shorty, by your specular
hacking site you reintroduce the good manner : problem is to be or not to
be on your hacking site, if not, i am jalous and it's a scandal, if yes i
could make a scandal of my gesticulations of my myselfindividual of
artist, thanks to you. your 010111000bollocks something is a black box for
checking upper competence of the happyfews : so to unname or delocate
artsomething, it is a test, and i have to add to right-name something
again is much more to show its competence it's also to show its desire and
its pleasure. I remember a night in a hotel where the walls were so thin i
had to hear a so boring 'sophie ho sophie, sophie! SoOophiiie!!' by the
guy without name who was supposed to fuck sophie, but at the morning when
at the bar i heard the without name guy calling his named sophie again, i
notice when i see her, the boring rightnamed sophie changed itself in a
becoming incarnated erection in my panz. She was not so extraordinary yet.
001110101yourbollockssomething, is as the 'ass of the celebrity' rubric in
the pornosite ; as i am jalous to not have mine in, i used to go right
away to the zoophile rubric where be sure i am a casanova who could easily
nominate all his conquest :'a goat !' 'a pig' 'an elephant' and sometime i
has to confess i got a huge kick out of to even not knowing my name in
being the goat and especially the elephant. So why the zoophilia sites are
those who are the most expensive and art site the cheapest, and i agree
with meiko in mirroring them, in mixing webart and zoophilia and at last
in making it free for all the earthling would be the terminal and
definitive hack to the word : all the species all over the world need
fusion of self : it's the art the last scandal of the darwin's sex
determination. it's urgent rather to know when the computer science could
exactly reply to this crux victor hugo's question : how many fleas are
necessary for eating a lion