[syndicate] Call for entries 1st WeBudget VideoFormFestival Hellborn/Hoyerswerda

[beate zurwehme]

WE want to sign YOUR work!

WE = http://subjektivation.de/viereinhalbminuten.mov

      [viereinhalb minuten deutschland] 10.06.2006, 4m30s

ein film für cass. mehl.

YOU = do Windows of 95 OS one remember? It would be too simple that to 
see is to say, by him like an apparatus of time. But it is not an 
apparatus of time, because it is now, when I see now certainly profit 
95. Manpower it is not, initially much on seeing. It would become also 
too simple legends it are not much of things, as .mp3 arranges, certain 
Webseiten, .html S, the lightning, Java its, streamings visible. Saying 
these materials do not even exist are simply not precis enough. Only, 
looking at kunstradio? the S side becomes to it more precisely some 
oulipian forced freely than to see is a constraint precisely by win95 
oulipian: respected sometimes constrainment known in oulipian the 
terminology like the beautiful absent one (the bark of Absent). As if 
you consider codeworks the side kunstradio gear box by win95, it is 
completely useless to precisely present what the gear box of radio was, 
which kunstradio concerns to think which is complete on lesquel 
gymnasiopoetry (Sichtpoesie interpreted as gymnastic) Arriga 
Lora-Totino would be useless inside like kunstradio a gear box, since 
that this one, is codework, in the format the .mp3 cannot probably be 
compressed. If one were if naîf which to suppose that it proposes that 
advertisements win95 the beautiful absent one is an anachronism, I do 
not have anything to make however recall to this surface person that 
OuLiPo defined the concept anticipated the plagiarism they are 
long-term before of Bill a barrier, began its fundamental studies. It 
must is pure agreement this one seen by win95 kunstradio? S codeworks 
paginate those codeworks, and the gear box of radio miss very that what 
is, gives it a oulipian to relation. Must not be expert started OuLiPo, 
to understand that there could be a very large difference between 
OuLiPo relation and a oulipian with relation. As a declaration simple I 
refererence private individuals in the future known go. Some people 
could remember netochka nezvanova and their manner of employing men. I 
remember it as anybody very friendly, compared to Jacques Rubaud, the 
member of OuLiPo which he says that its mizantrophy is modest its 
Raymond in Quenau comparison? S, from which it learned, as one becomes 
a mizanthrope. Perhaps him? because of an S this explained mizantrophy 
that I do suppose this one nn? S sides were simple with the access 
which was compared oulipian with the texts, and a feeling premonitive 
it forms me it supposes that one could highlight oulipian a relation 
Pseudo-oulipian basic rules. But that which is of the Raymond Quenaeu? 
Conformément the second Volume of OuLiPian library (the Library 
preceded equality oulipenne of Both by proclamation of François 
Lionnais. Volume II) is of the Raymond Queneau has member of OuLiPo. 
Oulipian Webseite also mentions the Raymond Queneau as a member of 
OuLiPo. Some basic rules of the organization OuLiPo of the Community 
mention which aucuns of OuLiPo and nobody can be excluded to be able 
its or OuLiPo affiliation to shift. So indeed a member of OuLiPo, was 
him, or it is OuLiPo member always. There is only one exception, that 
to improve OuLiPo affiliation constarinment, only one circumstance that 
forms possible to break an affiliation with OuLiPo: the suicide. But 
even the suicide gives of OuLiPo only so freely OuLiPo member to 
affiliation explains in front of a notary testifying to fix oulipian 
suicid the person who is decided, around a suicide, outward journey 
firmly OuLiPo s/he by sucide and definitively conquere, its freedom and 
independence compared to of OuLiPo for the remainder of eternity 
project s/he. Of do Strictness of OuLipo know an affiliation, I 
tighten? T would like all on the equivalence of the list of the members 
of OuLiPo published on oulipian Webseite and the list of the members of 
OuLiPo says published in volume. 2 of Oulipian library, followed Saying 
notices that the number the members of OuLiPo is Queneau-nian numbers. 
That the proclamation of François Lionnais oulipian of Webseite, could 
be oulipian a usual danger was taken again. But there is a secondary 
thing which I can? T refuse that I do not have approximately doubts. 
Samment which one must represent a reason VALID for disturb the members 
of OuLiPo, must me allow that I do not have questions which are 
returned congruency the text of the proclamation of the First LIPO 
which is published on oulipian Webseite and the proclamation of the 
First LIPO which is published in oulipian the library (Library, 1987, 
IV). Obviously, the classification of OuLiPo work is precisely clear, 
and simple, although this one is not obvious the only classification of 
such type. I particularily, the S + 7 part of the list - those one by 
my Lieblingslescures, I would be the happy morning, would be would 
practise it, even if it were not part of this one Queneleieff table. I 
know it might be somehow surprising my non-reaction to a transmission 
of the Kunstradio in February 2005. My only excuse for the non-action 
was the inspiration given by a perhaps too rarely quoted oulipian 
reference, written once perhaps with a vague intention to carry on 
polemics with Lenin? Where we have to go? – Nothing?