Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 02:27:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: p_petiot-AT-euronet.nl (PETIOT_Pierre)
Subject: Re: exhibition-- DREAMS



>Dreams are a good thing to have.

Dreams are the basis of anything real in the realm of human achievements

>This is also why we need print ads in the arts magazines.
>This is why we should (even if it is only a static version of what was IN
>the exhibit when it opened) have a catalogue.

There are hundreds (if not thousands of magazines about the Web which are 
starting business at this very moment and are probably looking for something 
to report abour. They are not Art press, I agree, but if we do it well , we 
should get their pages for free.
Where can we get a list of addresses of these magazines ? Do you think it is 
a possible idea ? Who agrees on working on it ?


> If we neglect the
>norms for real-world exhibitions, we will not open new ground. We will be
>setting ourselves up to be ignored.

That's true, of course. Internet is still a (very very big) ghetto.

>Lynn's discourse suggests that we don't need money all we need is computer
>know-how. This is one of the great myths of new technologies (going back I'm
>sure to the invention of writing.)
>
>...
>
>>> Several people have mentioned artists in terms of new techniques, new 
>>> media, etc., in an attempt to not simply repeat a past exhibition, 
>>> would this mean that we:
>>> 
>>> 1) leave OUT any historical section?
>
>I think this would be a mistake; at the same time the estates controlling
>the work of artists now dead may not be very cooperative. We'll just have to
>wait and see.

Private property is really a shit. Why are we always confronted with the 
necessity to PAY for our own history ?

>It seems we should invite those who would give a contribution to the
>exhibition that would further 'surrealism' in some manner, 

That's the basis

>>Michael B. [and Pierre] had the idea that any new surrealist exhibition
>would >need to express the connections between surrealism and the latest
>scientific >researches. 
>>Well, these researches are online and we can create links to our 
exhibition; a 
>>giant democratic exchange of desires. Somewhere in 'Arcanum 17', Breton 
>>suggested an encyclopaedia of everything; and here we can begin to make it. 
>
>Linking to an article/site is not equivalent to showing a connection. If we
>make this mistake now, it will come back to haunt us later.
>
>[Also, there's a Borges story about a Library of Everything. One of the
>senses this story gives is that such a collection is itself useless...]

Yes, Michael is right.
The (possible) link between some current science trends and surrealism is 
not currently obviously visible to anyone, except and to a limited extent to 
some of us. It has to be made visible and that requires WORK, creativity and 
intelligence.
Showing the perspectives opened by that, is roughly equivalent to building a 
part of the theorical aspects required for the future steps of the 
surrealist movement. This will take years (if ever done).
I just say that it is important, not that it may be ready in time. Now no 
one has done this work yet and no one will do it if we don't. We have to try 
and see if anything comes out of it. I try, and I will show what comes out 
of it.

>>> Will any one of us, or any group of us use any system of acceptance or 
>>> rejection of submitted work, or will we simply accept whatever an 
>>> invited artist decides to send?

Why not use this wonderful occasion to give artists what they like and need: 
full discussion and comments about what they do.
Why not discuss the works HERE and together and as far as possible with the 
authors themselves.
That would mean print the works and send them snail mail to non computer 
equipped people and handle the snail mail answers back on this list.

The obvious limits are the number of scanners (or the number of people 
willing to type the snail mail in if there is not enough scanners)

A very important point is to remember about the old scandinavian (and/or 
greek) democracy.
Voting means hit the sword on the shield, mentionning by this gesture that 
you are ready to work or spend money of get money for it. 

In the capitalist democracy, voting for something means (and only means) to 
buy it. 
Here, voting means commitment to do something for it.

Anything which will happen here will result from our own action, 
might it mean 
- actual work
- providing own money and resources
- finding external money.and resources
- making friends is also a way to solve resource problems.
- there are huge free resources available on the net we just have to find a 
way to know where they are. If there were enough resources to re-write UNIX 
into LINUX (which is just a few man years of work) then there are equivalent 
resources for a surrealist exhibition. 

There is no way out of that, and it is just as well.

WE are in control because WE do.

If you are not ready to move your ass for a poem or painting, why spend you 
time and your youth to show it ?
Now anyone who might be capable of acting should be welcomed to join, 
provided WE may get some assurance that he has some love and conviction for 
surrealism.

In other terms, WE is also possibly a growing entity.

Now we have to put resources and skills in common, and trust each other. 
This means for instance that considering I have no skills to judge about 
painting, I shall have to trust a lot people who have a better sensitivity 
about it, although they might not have all the resources or skilled required 
to fully make what they like available on the Web.

That's life. There is a community here and the result will never be better 
than what this community is capable of doing. The only point is to prevent 
"the rich" to decide for "the poor". That does not happen in a community or 
ot ceases to be a community.

Now I agree that we have to find rules for deciding. I made visible the 
basis for any decisions above.

But any collective decision as such also requires a great deal of scanning, 
duplicating, photographying, typing, recording, emailing, snail mailing, 
discussing and meeting.


>There is a limit to the amount of space available. 

There is a limit to the amount of skilled, manpower, money, and intellectual 
resources available here. That's all there is and there is no way to go 
beyond what we can be(come).

>what we need to focus on to
>make this happen is WHAT WE CAN DO NOW and WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

>There is also a second issue here that I must object to: that the only
>people to be included will be on-line. By doing this we exclude all the
>artists who do not have the money to get on line, which is essentially an
>exclusion based solely upon where the artist lives, who they know that IS
>on-line and how much money they have that they can spend for such toys as
>computers and modems, etc.
>To do this would be immoral, and would hurt us more than it would help.

The only possible answer to exclusion is solidarity.
If we do not make our resources (poor) resources (all sorts of resources... 
A good thief is also a resource) available to those we think are worth using 
them, then we will get what we deserve.
Pierre PETIOT
See also...
http://www.euronet.nl/users/p_petiot/poiein/poiein.html
http://www.euronet.nl/users/p_petiot/index.html