I'm with michael on this. The thrill of the unmoderated rhetorical negotiations on rhizome at that time was more important to me (at that time) than the "art" being discussed. Lots of things were put into play and enacted. A kind of anarchic/indifferent post-structuralism was being performed (much to the consternation of some academic post-structuralists who attempted [ironically] to police it, and failed). It was a level playing field (boxing ring? wrestling mat?) into which a (then) non-academic 20-something from the rural US south could throw his rhetorical hat. One remained standing in the ring not via formal, peer-reviewed consensus, or via a past publishing record, or even via logic; but via sheer ingenious ascii-constrained rhetorical acumen, audacity, humility, absurdity, obliqueness, HUMOR, persistence, or whatever else you could muster/rig. For about a year, my own personal constraint was to only "dialogue" using urls or embedded media. Those were some of my favorite "conversations."

Many of the richest flows to me were those hovering right on the threshold of signal/noise. To archive the living vibe of such flows is tricky -- because archivists tend to want to filter out "noise." So such ambivalent flows left a kinf of trace that resists (or simply eludes) its own archiving. such flows are "memorialized" in the lives of those who  performatively negotiated them (filtered them, opposed them, moderated them, lurked through them, collaborated with them, initiated them). 

"
They’ll no’ get him a’ in a book, I think,	
Though they write it cunningly;	
No mouse of the scrolls was the Goodly Fere	
But aye loved the open sea.	
 "

On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:45 AM, Michael Szpakowski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Personally I have derived more pleasure, instruction and  that-thing-that-I-engage-with-art-to-get from Alan Sondheim's work on lists than I have from a great deal of art presented in more "legitimate" contexts. It's not only the work, which is beautifully made, hugely smart and unfashionably vulnerable and human, but  the creative urgency that drives it that is so affecting. This goes to the heart of things - to even dream that this work might present a 'problem' is itself, for me, a huge problem. Are lists somehow finite? Can folk not choose to ignore work they don't care for? Have people heard of filters and folders? Perhaps its the by-passing of the curator that makes a curatorial list jittery.
> On a related note, I came to Rhizome in, I think, 2000 when it was packed with all sorts of nn & other related "spamming", "trolling" , "flaming" and all sorts of non conventional art world and non academic frivolity too and can never recall finding it it other than exhilarating . It's the multiplicity of absolutely democratic ( at least from the POV of the mechanics of posting) voices that is special - a wonderful polyphony. I miss it; I don't think it's passébut that its demise, or more hopefully, eclipse, is connected with the ongoing corporatisation of what were once wide open spaces. Furtherfield and Netbehaviour are to be congratulated on resisting this. The  beautiful, shiny, dead eyed corpse that is Rhizome today is a testament to the worst of it ( it remains, of course, a useful resource). This is not just a historical matter to be observed and commented upon but an ethical one too.
> michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2013 7:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Troll art?
> 
> 
> I consider Alan Sondheim's work an example of list-dependent practice. It's not trolling or flaming but some might consider it spam. If you belong to Netbehaviour be ready to receive at least one (perhaps a few) emails a day from Alan. I find them generally interesting and sometimes illuminating. Every now and then they are very affecting. Some lists would (and did) kick Alan off for this activity but most members of Netbehaviour seem to welcome his posts.
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Oct 2013, at 06:29, Charlotte Frost <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Watching the comments on my Facebook page alone ­ let alone discussion here
>> I am conscious that there are parts of the histories of lists that might
>> never be untangled. Certainly the Syndicate demise caused a lot of pain and
>> I have no wish to drag all that up. Perhaps I can swerve the conversation by
>> asking if anyone thinks there has ever been/is an art to spamming, flaming
>> and trolling? I'll put this question on Facebook and Twitter too to see what
>> comes upŠ
>> 
>> Charlotte
> 
> 
> Simon Biggs
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk @SimonBiggsUK http://amazon.com/author/simonbiggs
> 
> [log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/edinburgh-college-art/school-of-art/staff/staff?person_id=182&cw_xml=profile.php
> http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/simon-biggs%285dfcaf34-56b1-4452-9100-aaab96935e31%29.html
> 
> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/  http://www.elmcip.net/  http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/  http://designinaction.com/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices  http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php