274Re: [feyerabend-project] OOPSLA Workshop Invitation
- Oct 1, 2002--- Pascal Costanza <costanza@...> wrote:
> I have only quickly and superficially skippedI have to agree; the current manifesto trend (I'd
> through their manifesto,
> but I already don't like most of what they say.
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
> Back to the "stuckism": I have the feeling thatThe stuckists are obviously playing a game, which is
> 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.
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
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>