[syndicate] Re: Re: No Flesh Guaranteed - Internet net cult hit...

[Eryk Salvaggio]

Eduardo;

Why should I be forced to contend with the limitations of "mechanical
objects"? I did not create an object mechanically. I put up a piece of
net.art, on a server that I pay for myself, and I happen to have the ability
to take it down. I decided to make use of that power- some of us would call
it "freedom". Why, oh why, should I limit the degree of freedom afforded to
me by creating the work in a digital medium, which I refused to sell and/or
donate just for this reason? Because that's how we "used to do it" and doing
otherwise is somehow "fascist"? Oh brother. Benjamin was *forced* to live in
a world of mechanically produced dissemination. Now, we have the technology
that leaves it up to an issue of luck. Perhaps someone made an archive, and
they can use my work to further their agenda against my will- the freedom
exercised by thieves.

When an artist is afforded total control over what he or she does, it is the
opposite of fascism, except in the world of knee jerk academics with their
free-floating fascism label, forced onto anyone who dares confront that
sphere with either a) self confidence b) self control c) advocacy. What an
artist creates is the work of the artist and the artist alone- to say that
what an artist creates *must* be left up for the world to interpret as they
will, hands control from the individual to some mass delusion of a
"society". By your definition, "anti fascism" is nothing but shirking
personal responsibility for one's own actions, ("Sure, I could take it down,
but its not my fault if my work is used against me") and a substitute for
critical thought outright ("everyone has something to say and every idea has
some value, and who am I to question anyone's ideas?" ). What PoMo spinsters
stripped from people all over the world: the courage to think clearly and
take responsibility for one's own conclusions, and fear in response to
active debate of those conclusions. To strip people of the power to correct
their course is something on par with fascism, if not more dangerous. If I
am wrong- if taking my work *down* serves some broader fascist agenda than
keeping it *up*, then I want to say now: I'll take full responsibility for
that.

The danger with "stomping out fascism" wherever it may grow is that all to
often it means denouncing the idea of power completely- including on the
level of the individual- as opposed to advocating the careful and
compassionate use of it. Careful thinking on the part of individuals *is*
careful thinking on the part of "society as a whole" and it starts with you.
The solution to fascism comes from that and that alone; you cannot limit
personal freedoms in an effort to eradicate fascism.

-e.






----- Original Message -----
From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo at navasse.net>
To: <syndicate at anart.no>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 3:15 AM
Subject: [syndicate] Re: Re: No Flesh Guaranteed - Internet net cult hit...


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eryk Salvaggio" <eryk at maine.rr.com>
> To: "furtherfield" <info at furtherfield.org>; <syndicate at anart.no>
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 1:42 AM
> Subject: [syndicate] Re: No Flesh Guaranteed - Internet net cult hit...
>
>
> >
> > This is a good question. Maybe you ought to do what I did with
"September
> > 11th, 2001" - I took it down. It's a dead link now; only visible to
people
> > who email me to ask to see it. This works in a lot of ways- 1, it covers
> me
> > for bandwidth costs, and 2, given the subject matter, it keeps the work
> from
> > being utilized for feeding "American Patriot" purposes, which was a huge
> > problem for me personally after the NYT article and could otherwise
> > contribute to GW Bush's vampiric rise to power on the backs of 3000 dead
> > instead of acting as an actual memorial to actual people, which was the
> > whole idea in the first place.
> >
> > I suppose, really, that reason 1 is part of why the Rhizome Artbase is
> > something of a valuable service, but for now I'm still not convinced
that
> > the administrative problems with the artbase have been addressed, (which
> > makes me wonder if they ever will be) so I won't be contributing that
> piece
> > to it. I also had some private investors interested in it, but I am wary
> of
> > that, too, for similar reasons.
> >
>
> See, how much control an artist might try to exercise over the
distribution
> of a work is rather interesting when it comes to net art.  I may sound old
> school in this regard, but I still believe that once a work is presented
for
> cultural discourse, it is the responsibility of the artist to let it go.
> The best the artist can do is write about her ideas of art practice in
> relation to the work, but this will not stop anyone from reconsidering a
> work with an unexpected or even oppositional point of view.
>
> This is the price one pays when functioning in a world dependent on
> mechanical reproduction -- hence why Benjamin so adamantly critiqued the
> dangers that came along with film -- as used by the fascists, etcetera.
But
> even he entered the game of mass disemmination when his work was published
> by his most revered fans posthumously, and it is quite daunting to realize
> how his writing has been used to fulfill agendas around the world.  Why
> should an net artist be any different? Simply because the files can be
taken
> down from the server to show ones control?  At that point one is no better
> than the fascists.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
>
>


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


>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://anart.no/~syndicate
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Shake the KKnut: http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut
> no commercial use of the texts without permission