2011-07-28 [Stephen]: o.O;
2011-07-29 [iippo]: Thanks. How did you end up here? :D
2011-07-29 [SilverFire]: I place bets on the random wiki button. >_> (and now he's totally going to say 'nah, your house. :P)
2011-07-29 [Mortified Penguin]: I wish I knew how I got here myself...
2011-07-30 [Stephen]: I happened to see it on Silvie's fan pages. xD
I DO spam random wiki a lot, though. lol
2011-07-30 [iippo]: Well since you are many (oh, hello Legion), you might as well give an idea as to when I should start this. It needs to have February 2012 in it because 2012 is leap year, so I'll get Feb 29th in there. Should I just start in January, or should I start on the side of this year? For example, I could start it in November at my birthday (so instead of following conventions of human time calculating, I could do my 26th year), or if there is some other day left of this year that would be a good time to start, what would that be? Opinions?
2011-07-30 [Stephen]: I could start it in November at my birthday (so instead of following conventions of human time calculating, I could do my 26th year)
I like that. I think breaking the conventional way of looking at it, and doing it as your literal year, would be cool.
2011-08-23 [All_Most ALLY]: You could start right now.
2011-08-23 [iippo]: I think I'm a bit unprepared to start right now.
I need to decide what kind of things to include in it. Like, should it be things that can be universally applied to the date in question, or just use the stuff that happened that day (I have a problem with the latter because that would make it a perfect day not date)? So saying "today was the perfect date because it was sunny" doesn't apply because that date might not be sunny every year. But saying "today was the perfect date because it was Christmas" would apply because Christmas is always on the same date. The problem with the universality of the date is of course that it's really hard to think of stuff like that.
2011-08-23 [Stephen]: I think the prefect day would work better.
2011-08-23 [Mortified Penguin]: It might, but she'd have to be made a prefect first, which is a whole other issue.
2011-11-11 [Stephen]: Oh, oops. perfect*
2011-11-12 [SilverFire]: This seems to be (at the moment) a mini-essay on perfection. Which is interesting, but are you going (to be able) to keep that up all year? I don't actually know anything that happened on any of the days so far. Is your premise now that since each day only ever occurs once, it must be the most perfect form of that day? Does it only happening once really guarantee ultimate perfection? They might be the best date that they could have been, but that's pretty meaningless when there's nothing to compare...
2011-11-14 [iippo]: I don't know, and I already failed :P
2011-11-14 [Triola]: But does it all have to be done in one year? Can't this go over several years?
2011-11-14 [iippo]: I had thought of that too, that it would just go in a circle.
2011-11-14 [iippo]: Pondering Silvie's comment in more detail:
I don't actually know anything that happened on any of the days so far.
What do you mean? You must know what happened there where you were. Where I am doesn't matter at all, I could be anywhere (and am). So anything could happen, it doesn't seem to matter.
Is your premise now that since each day only ever occurs once, it must be the most perfect form of that day?
This is difficult, because I'm not quite sure what day and date are, and whether they are different and in what ways. Maybe a day happens only once, but maybe date comes again next year, though it all seems very artificial, these divides of time that we work in (is in favour of the perpetual now).
that's pretty meaningless when there's nothing to compare...
Perhaps being incomparable is part of the very definition of perfection.
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: Re final point: that seems like the lazy man's way out. Unique and perfect are not synonyms. You're twisting the meaning of 'incomparable'
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: Also: sure I know whT happened where I was, but then, why do I need to look at this wiki at all?
2011-11-14 [iippo]: That didn't actually even occur to me, that the word "incomparable" is used in that way. I know only one thing that is perfect: God. And he can't be compared to anything or anyone. (Keeping in mind that in the background here we have a complicated deep mormon doctrine of people becoming perfect and becoming gods yet still not being comparable to God etc...) I see similarities with the experience of time and the experience of God, and have as of late been really impressed with... date *is struggling to make sense in head* which is why this thing didn't end up being about "hey something cool happened today, today was a perfect day". I'm not sure what happening/acti
What could a date be compared to? Another date? The other of the same date as itself (so you can compare 8th of November with next year's 8th of November)? To me, in order to compare two things, they should be aiming for the same thing. So in some things people can be compared (athletes and other competing thingies) but in most things they cannot, since I am not trying to be a Silvie, so I shouldn't be compared to Silvie. And so on. But then you just get tangled in the essence and experience of "being" itself and I'm not thinking of that when I bike around the middle of the night :P
Also, it is performance art, not research or philosophy. So bear with me and the rambling, I have stage fright in the beginning here :P
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: "there would be time even if there was no action" is actually a fairly controversial metaphysical claim.
"to compare two things they should be aiming at the same thing" so only things which have a purpose are comparable? Except then I can compare the categories of 'has a purpose' and 'does not have purpose'... And saying you're not comparable to me assumes I have the purpose of being Silvie. Tht i am actually -trying- to be Silvie. Am I/Do I really?
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: I guess my main problem is that I'm not really understanding the link between the format and the content.
2011-11-14 [iippo]: Aye, and I'm not even sure if I agree with it myself. Because everything was put to motion and it is that motion that we can thank for time. So if all action ceased (inc. that motion), time would cease too. At least the progression of time. The perpetual now wouldn't, but does that count as time at all? Existing wouldn't cease either, but is being an action?
I'm not sure there are things that don't have a purpose. Perhaps not all purposes are known to us (maybe I don't know what my purpose is, maybe no one knows what the purpose of a platypus is, or whatever).
2011-11-14 [iippo]: :O An inbetween comment! Curse you :P
2011-11-14 [iippo]: Well who are you that you need to understand or watch the wiki? Are you expecting it to provide some kind of a service or to get something from it?
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: Does wiki = the link between format and content, because if not, that's not what I'm asking about or tryin to understand. Can I only (want to) understand things that give me something or provide me with some service? (and
No, I'm not expecting either of those things from it)
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: Also: who am I that I need to understand this wiki? Who are you making
This wiki without care for water people CAN understand it or not?
2011-11-14 [iippo]: So: format = wiki (or is wiki the material and format the specific layout?) Content = a mini essay about perfection or time or whatever it ends up being. The question = what is the connection between those two? The answer: Buh, contrived I guess, since the two come together on very flimsy grounds (the whole Perfect Date thing started out of sillyness, while the wiki-art thing has been in my mind a bit more). I'm coming at this very much tentatively, the whole project is almost like a sketch, a test. Mixing wiki-art with performance.
Performance art takes a lot of rigour, it's usually about duration and exertion of the performer (and oftenest of viewers too >_> ). So the beginning is kind of like practicing the rigour, I guess... Perhaps the words are of lesser importance, here in the start at least? Maybe it's just art babble >_>
But who is it for? Who is the audience? I hated this question in the MA >.< I never think of the audience before *sucks at professional practice*
2011-11-14 [SilverFire]: no format is the date thing "chapters".
"it's usually about duration and exertion of the performer" I don't really get this part. (I get what you're saying, I just don't get the point of this aspect of performance art) Is there some idea that if it's hard it must be good for you, like medicine or something?
I'm finding the audience question pretty easy so far. <_< People with a sense of humour, linguists, classicists, everyone. People who know and understand Blake. Some of my audiences are pretty niche. <_<
2011-11-14 [Mortified Penguin]: And every good audience needs at least one angry stalker.
2011-11-15 [iippo]: Maybe the duration and exertion thing is like with sports or nature: if you can pull of something really hard, then it's cool and worth a lot and that makes you the person/creatur
I usually make stuff that I (or a person like me) is the main audience. I make stuff that I would like. Which then always does raise the question of "well why should anyone else care?" and I never know why. Perhaps they shouldn't, in the sense that they don't have to. Some people just seem to, and that's cool with me and makes me happy. I am terrible at marketing :P
I see what you mean about the format. It looks like a diary, but doesn't record what happened that day nor have any kind of personal content (and after the failing of keeping up, doesn't even honestly reflect the when the stuff was created... Not that I care for art to be honest (hello Oscar Wilde)). But I can't bring myself to actually state anything about the actual date itself, since mentioning anything that happens that didn't happen at the same time everywhere in the world will make in un-universal.
2011-11-15 [SilverFire]: But the exertion isn't actually important. People don't go into a gallery and say "well, that one looks like it took five hours to paint, whereas this one took ten, so the former must be better'. And I can struggle away at something for 20 hours and still produce a pile of crap. Exertion is indicative of effort, not skill, and it's *skill* that people are interested in - they don't care whether it took you ten minutes or ten days if they can do the same thing. What amazes them about a piece of art is because they *couldn't* do the same thing, either skill-wise or concept-wise. (Can you tell I'm not really interested in process? <_<)
But anything that does happen does happen at only one time, regardless of what your watch or mine says. <_<
2011-11-16 [iippo]: Eh, I disagree about the skill thing. You can be how awesome and skilled as heck, but if as an artist you are either "outsider" or "academic" (which nowadays seems to have nothing to do with art school anymore), the art crowds and the galleries won't care. Like I don't think there shall ever be anything outsider or academic in the Tate. They all run in different circles. There's this almost nasty division in the visual arts where the different cliques just disdain one another, the outsiders (like most folks in ET) just hate the proper art crowd because "this one modern artist put their bed in a gallery and that's art and no one will ever show my stuff in a gallery wahwah I has moar talentz!" and the proper artists hate the academic/comme
But the more I start to think of it, the less I know why anyone - myself included - goes to a gallery. It's not really entertainment or recreation, it's not really education or learning (though you can get all of that out of it). What is it really that you go to see? And even though I can't put my finger on it, I understand how valuable and important it is, as part of my life and lives of tons of others.
2011-11-16 [SilverFire]: You mean I'm never going to be in the Tate? ;_;
Okay, I'll revise slightly: skill is only important if the viewer doesn't "get" the art. Like, they might say 'well I don't really get what this is about, but it obviously took a lot of skill to be able to make, so I'll be duly impressed.'
We go to galleries because we've been sold on a currency of culture. <_<
2011-11-17 [iippo]: You're not an outsider, you're in art school.
And then we add to the mix the people who pretend to get art >_> Many of whom are also found in art school :P
D: I'm trying to remember gallery visits that I really really got something out of. Like 24 Hour Psycho, the revolving tin can at Vivid, the Duchamp retro... But I still don't know what it was that I got out of that.
Maybe to me the audience thing is trying to find one who would really have a thing with it, like I did with the above-mentione
2011-11-17 [SilverFire]: I was calling myself academic, akshually. You mean I'm not that, either? ;_____;
2011-11-18 [iippo]: Not in this sense :P Academic art is the kind of boring stuff, like paintings that all look the same and don't really say anything, they're just pretty pictures. Crowd pleasers. In the 19th century it was all Venuses or idealised Bible topics, and people like the impressionists and the pre-raphaelite
Tate actually has a podcast (in five parts) about academia and art schools and art, and they were mentioning that it's about time we stop being so squeamish about the word academic, and start realising that art can be research and that is what we should be calling academic art, and forget the historical meaning of the word that implied the iron rule of the French academies.
("Tate events, Creative Scholars, Research economies in art and design" is the thingie called in my iTunes)
2011-11-18 [SilverFire]: My art is definitely research. <_< the Iliad projekt feels more like an essay at the moment.
2011-11-18 [iippo]: :3 If I knew how, I'd send you the Tate podcast. Instead, I'll just tell you to look for it in the iTunes store (it's free, yay!)
2011-11-20 [iippo]: Perhaps performance art is the connection between the artists who are obsessed with process and the audience. Since it is a performance, the audience can be there observing the process and perchance get something out of it. In some ways that's at play here, as well as the stuff of the internet where we can read/view/list
2011-11-20 [SilverFire]: Eh. I'm the kind of person who prefers bulk, actually. I tend to leave webcomics to accrue for a few months 'cause I don't find three one-page update per week exciting, I find it tedious. And I much prefer to watch a series of a show all in one go rather than one episode per week. Again, tedious.
2012-01-31 [SilverFire]: -prod-
2012-01-31 [iippo]: I know. -_- I'm just not performy enough for this project. Was a cool idea though. Net-as-place is still worth exploring though. I'll bomb the wiki into something else at some point.
2012-10-16 [Stephen]: /butts in to conversation on a topic almost a year old
I do bulk reading and watching, too. x)
If I find a show I like I never bother watching the currently being aired season, since waiting a week for an episode makes me cringe. (Even moreso if it's a cliffhanger and I want to know what happens.)
I end up using Netflix or something and then watching a season over the course of two or three days.
Same with Webcomics. I'll find one I like, read them all, then forget about it four five or six months then read all the newest updates.