[Nettime-bold] Re: RHIZOME_RAW: empty net.art

[Terrence Kosick <kosick@sprint.ca>]

Terrence;

Really, An empty communication is as pure as the concept gets. I posted it in
seriousness. There is true meaning to what i did, I consider it a very small
but important gesture. I will contextualize further at a future site .

Since ((o)) has posted his www.emptywebsite.com and is making agressive
unprovoked attacks on my work I will parlay IMO ((o)) s approach is merely
echoing other great works and is perhaps "the original webart empty gimmick". I
mean he goes as far as even registering the site and putting a registered mark
on it. How long did he wait so he could slip it on Rhizome? It is hilarious
really.  His big mistake was dissing my truly serious empty e-mail art work on
this list serve.

Teo did ask for all forms of empty net art. ((o)) behaviour here is
unprofessional and his invalidating is really creepy.

ARTNATURAL




Gustavo Barbosa wrote:

> I agree...
> Besides in Cage's, for instance, there was the whole issue about silence, is
> there such thing and all that... probably not, so it still can be considered
> a piece...
> The digital media/world is much colder so yep, it's empty and that's it...
> nothing more, nothing less, nothing else...
> Well, that's what I think... at least now...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: (((o))) <leegte@xs4all.nl>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: 08 November 2000 19:15
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: empty net.art
>
> i'm afraid i'm not in favor of this approach.
>
> empty work is not just some rational gimmick,
> "who can think of something to do with empty" kind of stuff.
> you could maybe end at a minimal style of work as the only way out of
> expressing your thoughts or feelings you've been gardening.
> that's worth something.
> but the gimmick-art thing going on today, has no soul,
> no emotion, no depth, no communication.
> and it's precisely that what makes good minimal work so beautifull.
> it frightens you out of your wits, slams you on the floor, to let you start
> crying,
> or you walk out pissed off because some artist tried to wedge you out of
> your
> precious projected world, and apparently did a good job at it.
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Terrence Kosick
>   To: (((o))) ; teo@teo-spiller.org
>   Cc: list@rhizome.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 6:36 PM
>   Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: empty net.art
>
>   empty mail art example;
>   _________________________________________________________
>   Subject:
>            EMPTY
>       Date:
>            Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:48:49 -0700
>      From:
>            Terrence Kosick <kosick@sprint.ca>
>        To:
>            list <list@rhizome.org>
>
>   _________________________________________________________
>
>   "(((o)))" wrote:
>
>     http://www.emptywebsite.com
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "teo spiller" <teo.spiller@rzs-hm.si>
>     To: "Rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
>     Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:27 PM
>     Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: empty net.art
>
>     > We knew some practices of "empty" art pieces in 20 th century:
>     >
>     > the Cage's composition of 2 minutes and 53 seconds silence,  the
>     exhibition
>     > of empty canvases, the empty gallery instead of sculptures, the empty
>     sheet
>     > of paper instead of a poem, the book of empty sheets, etc, etc.
>     >
>     > but how would the "empty" net.art look like?
>     >
>     > Here are three examples (which is the right one):
>     >
>     > http://www.teo-spiller.org/empty1/
>     > http://www.teo-spiller.org/empty2/
>     > http://www.teo-spiller.org/empty3/
>     >
>     > You are welcome to find out more "empty" pieces and send the link of
> it to
>     > teo@teo-spiller.org
>



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold