Re: <eyebeam><blast> (no subject)

[Jason Edward Kaufman <jekauf@ix.netcom.com>]

Hi Gabriela,

I misinterpreted your use of the phrase "too western". Now I better
understand what you mean. But, it seems to me that in each culture there
exist more than one perspective, more than a single form of expression.
[Western art? Latino art? Eskimo art? Chinese art?] I prefer to think
that actually there are as many perspectives as there are individuals.
On the theme of art, I believe that the internet -- like photography,
cinema, video, etc. -  is simply a new material. Each artist can use it
as she or he wishes. Do you believe that the "net" has its own
["western"] structure which limits how one ["others"?] can make use of
it? In my opinion, it is simply a material (medium), and the challenge
is to use it in an artistic manner. (How we define an artistic manner is
a question that merits attention.) Yes, the definition of artistry can
change from culture to culture, as it changes from person to person. But
the opportunities are equal for all. Do you agree?

Please excuse my poor Spanish. We need a translation program!

…

Gilane Tawadros is right. Until I read that message I had no idea this
was supposed to be about art. The two dozen messages I'd read all dealt
with politics, web tech talk, or love-me-I'm-sensitive babble. Who's in
charge of this thing, anyway? Do we have a moderator? Have I missed some
crucial preliminary agenda? If it's about art, have we agreed on a
definition, or are we going to talk in ever widening circles of p.c.
jargon until we're all bored and go out for some fresh air?

…

Mr. Holmes has made some tough observations about my rhetorical
questions.

He begins by generously advising readers to "laugh off" my questions,
and observes: "Those who consider themselves political beings before
being individuals, who have sanctified no foundations, who have made the
open encounter something central in their lives, here need fill out no
identity form." I wonder, does he think I have suggested otherwise?

Mr. Holmes apparently holds in contempt my praise of democratic
government, and suspects my belief in personal responsibility to uphold
what is moral (political or not). Has he an alternative?

I object to the indictment of "the white west" in favor of "the other".
He elides the issue yet sees fit to chastise my notion of community:
"Not to assume or prejudge the 'we' has for me been an experience of
freedom in all its limitations, the very limitations that make
friendship, love, community, social relations and political struggles
the most important things in some people's lives." It must be wonderful,
man. Next time I want to test the borders of the rhetorical "we" --
i.e., all users of the internet -- I'll be sure to use "nous" or
"nosotros" so as not to offend.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to this drivel. I guess
it's that I feel insulted. You know, it seems to me that by laughing off
my questions rather than responding to them directly, Mr Holmes has
clouded this particular doorway, walled it with what he calls (with
ominous sanctimony) "bricks of possessive individualism".

I'm out of here, man.

Jason Edward Kaufman
-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------