Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

274Re: [feyerabend-project] OOPSLA Workshop Invitation

Expand Messages
  • Gross Joshua
    Oct 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Pascal Costanza <costanza@...> wrote:

      > I have only quickly and superficially skipped
      > through their manifesto,
      > but I already don't like most of what they say.

      I have to agree; the current manifesto trend (I'd
      point to Dogme 95 - www.dogme95.dk - as a possible
      point of origin) is getting a bit absurd. It seems
      that the end product of such a manifesto should be a
      collection of work that is noticeably coherent and
      similar as a unit, and that is noticeable dissimilar
      from other contemporary work. Looking at the work of
      the stuckists, it seems to be fairly typical
      comtemporary art. Dogme films, however, are noticeably
      different from their Hollywood counterparts. I would
      argue that this is because Dogme 95 is a real
      manifesto, bound by practical actions and limitations,
      rather than a set of (frankly) pseudo-philosophical
      assertions.

      > Back to the "stuckism": I have the feeling that
      > they're playing the same
      > post-modern game as everyone else. They want to
      > attract attention and
      > want to establish themselves as another subculture
      > in the current
      > diversity of subcultures.

      The stuckists are obviously playing a game, which is
      perfectly normal and natural with art (and perhaps
      software?). The game could be a success; the
      Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood -
      http://www.speel.demon.co.uk/other/prb.htm - was very
      successful. However, I think the whole point of
      stuckism is to self-affirm and other-reject ("Artists
      who don�t paint aren�t artists.", "Art that has to be
      in a gallery to be art isn�t art."). Artists can't
      actually reject innovation wholesale, nor can those of
      us in software; mining the past is worthwhile, but is
      not an end in itself.

      That having been said, it would be interesting to
      write a practical dogma (such as Dogme 95), which
      forced developers to abandon all of the nonsense that
      dominates software development.

      One of the areas of concern (for me) is the
      condemnation of commercial influence. I'm no
      laissez-faire free-marketer, but this notion that
      commercial eq corrupting and non-commercial eq
      creative is patently absurd. I won't insult the
      intelligence of this group by listing, but beautiful
      art has been produced as a commercial enterprise and
      abominations have come out of "pure" environments.
      This applies equally to software.

      I'm all for radical thinking, but I'd like to see some
      practical good come out of Feyerabend. Commercialism
      is an unstoppable force, and we are not an immovable
      object. I believe that commercialism can be exploited
      for good ends as well as bad, and that to exploit
      commercialism is by no means a perversion. Perhaps we
      can be like the Shaolin Buddhist monks; they pursue
      martial arts in an effort to understand and defeat
      violence.

      -Josh

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
      http://sbc.yahoo.com
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic