The Rhizome Digest merged into the Rhizome News in November 2008. These pages serve as an archive for 6-years worth of discussions and happenings from when the Digest was simply a plain-text, weekly email.
|
Subject: RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.30.04 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:57:36 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: July 30, 2004 Content: +announcement+ 1. Jessica Ivins: Rhizome.org Organizational Subscriptions Program 2. Marieke Istha: upcoming exhibition: Channel Zero 3. kurt bigenho: Fun With Videophones : The Hookup +opportunity+ 4. Carol Hobson: CRCA/UCSD Job Opening +work+ 5. huong ngo: dream machine 6. Pall Thayer: Proximity Mapper - Matias Arje, Java (M)applet - Pali Thayer (Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland inside and out) +comment+ 7. Color's Torrid Function!: on network art 8. Jim Andrews: "Digital Writing Circa 2004" +book review+ 9. Andrew [unwrinkled ear] Choate: Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the <net.net.net> conference +thread+ 10. Valery Grancher, mark cooley, marc, curt cloninger, trashconnection, ryan griffis, steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org, neil jenkins, Jess Loseby, //jonCates: After net.art on 1998, my personal view... 11. mark cooley, Lemmy Caution, steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org: Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 7.25.04 From: Jessica Ivins <jessica AT rhizome.org> Subject: Rhizome.org Organizational Subscriptions Program To the Rhizome Community: My name is Jessica Ivins, Intern/Assistant with the staff at Rhizome. I?m writing on behalf of Rhizome to seek your assistance in promoting our organizational subscriptions program. Purchased at the institutional level, these subscriptions are offered so that staff/faculty/members can have access to Rhizome without having to pay for individual memberships. Subscriptions are available to institutions worldwide such as museums, universities, art centers, media centers, libraries, etc. As you know, Rhizome depends primarily upon foundation funding and individual membership fees for financial support. Organizational subscriptions help to expand our membership base while earning funding for Rhizome. We are especially seeking colleges and universities to subscribe with us for the upcoming academic year beginning in August/September. A list of colleges, universities, and other institutions currently subscribing to Rhizome can be viewed at the organizational subscriptions page: http://rhizome.org/info/org.php. Please contact me, Jessica Ivins at Jessica AT rhizome.org, or Rachel Greene, Executive Director, at Rachel AT rhizome.org, with any questions regarding organizational memberships. A wealth of information about organizational subscriptions, including pricing and sign-up procedures, is also available at http://rhizome.org/info/org.php. If your organization is in a poor or excluded community, contact me as we can subsidize memberships for qualifying institutions. Please help us expand the ranks of who can use and access Rhizome by passing on this information to colleagues, friends, etc. Regards, Jessica G. Ivins Intern/Assistant, Rhizome.org Jessica AT rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 7.26.04 From: Marieke Istha <istha AT montevideo.nl> Subject: upcoming exhibition: Channel Zero The Netherlands Media Art Institute presents the exhibition: Channel Zero 28 August 23 October 2004 Opening 27 August 17.00 - 19.00 uur Participating Artists: Sergei Bugaev Afrika (RU), Maja Bajevic ( F/BA), Marc Bijl (NL), Heather Burnett (UK), Ritsaert Ten Cate (NL), Nikos Charalambidis (CY), David Claerbout (B), Christophe Draeger (CH), Rainer Ganahl (A), Kendell Geers (SA), Kostas Ioannides (GR), Katarzyna Kozyra (PL), Boris Mikhailov (RU), Elahe Massumi (IR), Personal Cinema (International), Francesco Simeti (I), Eliezer Sonnenschein (IL), Lina Theodorou (GR), Palle Torsson (S), Simone Zaugg (CH) Curator: Katerina Gregos (GR) We live within a culture marked by violence, both real and simulated. In the society of the spectacle where the image exercises an all-pervasive power and everything tends to be reduced to mere representation, images of violence have become commonplace, yet another product for consumption. In the wake of the recent war in Iraq, the international ?war against terrorism¹ and the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this culture of violence seems to be heightened. As a result, it appears we increasingly exist in a state of (almost) constant alert; post-1989 euphoria and optimism have given way to cynicism, pessimism and the return of fear as a very real issue. Invisible walls of terror, ignorance and hate have replaced the walls of the cold war. Within this expanding culture of violence, the relationship between fact and fiction has been conflated, as it is often difficult to distinguish between the two. Real life events involving explicit violence have become the basis of a perverse sort of entertainment in television and the entertainment industry; on the other hand, news casting and journalism have become increasingly formulaic, sensational and less ?neutral¹ and ?objective¹. The barrage and repetition of a specific kind of media-related violent imagery in many cases causes detachment and indifference. The fact is, that calamity (of any kind) remains largely ungraspable and un-representable as we, the audience, increasingly experience the world through the filter of the media. The artists participating in Channel Zero make art that responds to the culture of violence that surrounds us and explore representations of violence in the media, entertainment industry or society in general to analyze, undermine, deconstruct or simply critique them. They examine the social, political, and cultural as well as the personal aspects of violence through film, video, photography, digital media and the Internet. In many ways, this is an exhibition about media using new media. However, apart from being fixated with images of violence and catastrophe Channel Zero will also aim to offer a redemptive alternative, which reflects the ever-increasing desire for a culture of peace and a critique of war-mongering. Through their works, the comment on, counter, and transform the conventions of the mass media which frequently objectifies violence. Sifting through the often-deceptive images created by the media, they point to the heavily mediated perceptual field of the representation of violence and offer alternative readings of them. For more information / Images: Marieke Istha (Communication) +31 (0)20 6237101 / istha AT montevideo.nl Exhibition open: Tuesday - Saturday and the first Sunday of the month 1:00 - 6:00 pm Entrance 2,50 (1,50 with discount) Netherlands Media Art Institute Montevideo/Time Based Arts Keizersgracht 264 1016 EV Amsterdam The Netherlands T +31 20 6237101 F +31 20 6244423 istha AT montevideo.nl www.montevideo.nl + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities.) Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 7.30.04 From: kurt bigenho <kurt AT unfinished.com> Subject: Fun With Videophones : The Hookup July 8, 2004 (San Francisco) Multiverse presents "Fun with Videophones: The Hookup" a live, interactive reality spectacle using (or perhaps mis-using) the marvels of videophone technology. Our two contestants hop from bar to bar trying to score; the imagery is sent back to the gallery via videophones where the audience gets to decide what happens next! *Fun with Videophones: The Hookup* takes place Thursday August 5, 2004, at Rx Gallery. Doors open at 8pm, show begins at 9pm. Rx Galllery, recently voted best gallery by the SF Weekly, is located at 132 Eddy Street, in San Francisco. The premise is simple. During the show, our contestants are sent out accompanied by a "videophonographer" equipped with a video-enabled mobile phone, to capture the action as it unfolds. Each contestant will go "on the prowl", trying to score in bars throughout San Francisco. The crew records the action, then emails it back to Rx Gallery, where the video is displayed. The audience then votes on what happens next: where to go, who to talk to, what to say. Basically, the audience writes the script! "Fun with Videophones: The Hookup" is the first show ever to use video phone technology for the purposes of live entertainment, brought to you in-part by the creator of the Mobile Phone Photo Show. It's reality art! It's a spectacle! It's embarrassing! It's ridiculous! It's fun with video phones! A special afterparty produced by Soda will follow the show, with djs Philip Sherbourne (Soda, Flavorpill) and The Fresh Blend (Soda, Iris Distribution). "Fun with Videophones: The Hookup", is a production of Multiverse, the genre-bending art-party that always keeps you guessing. "Fun with Videophones: The Hookup", was created by Kurt Bigenho and Harmon Leon, with assistance by Hal Philips. Visit the Multiverse website (www.multiverse.tv) for additional information. Kurt Bigenho is a multidisciplinary artist, curator, and designer. More information about his projects and provocations can be found at his personal site, unfinished. (www.unfinished.com). He is the creator of The Mobile Phone Photo Show (www.mpps.tv), the first exhibition in the nation to examine the artistic potential of mobile phone photography, which was exhibited in San Francisco from May 20-June 18th, 2004. A primary on-going project is The Dept. of Shape Research, an organization which is currently hard at work developing many 1000s of completely useless shapes (www.dsr.org). He is the curator of Multiverse, a monthly art-party at Rx Gallery. He has shown work at New Langton Arts, Southern Exposure, four walls, Somarts, the Webbys, Rx Gallery, and the Oakland Museum of Art. He has a degree in architecture from UC Berkeley and consults as a brand, experience, and information strategist through his consultancy Kurt for Hire (www.kurtforhire.com); clients include Leapfrog Toys and Robert Mondavi Wines. Harmon Leon is a San Francisco comedian/writer. Heâ??s the author of the award-winning book The Harmon Chronicles, as well as a writer for Details, Salon, NPR, High Times, Black Book, Cosmopolitan, Wired, Stuff, Maxim, Salon and National Geographic. Harmon has appeared on the Howard Stern Show, and performed solo-comedy shows around the globe, including at The Montreal Comedy Festival, The Edinburgh Fringe Festival and the Melbourne Comedy Festival. Recently, Harmon co-starred with OJ Simpson in a hidden camera show called Juiced. Harmon described the experience as "creepy." His other TV credits include Penn&Teller's Showtime series, the Jamie Kennedy Experiment, Blind Date, as well as writing and performing on the BBC. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 7.27.04 From: Carol Hobson <chobson AT ucsd.edu> Subject: CRCA/UCSD Job Opening The position of TECHNICAL DIRECTOR is open at the UC San Diego Center for Research in Computing & the Arts (CRCA). As the Technical Director and Systems Administrator, this position will implement and manage network and upgrades, support new and ongoing research activities, and participate in planning and implementation of new facilities and infrastructures for the New Media Arts within the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Cal-(IT)2). Applicants should check the UCSD online posting (see link below for job #33614), where you may also apply for the position. NO resumes will be considered sent via email or direct post. You MUST apply via the online system. The filing Deadline is August 4, 2004. The payroll title for this position is a Programmer/Analyst III. http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?cat=new&job_id=33614 http://crca.ucsd.edu/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 7.25.04 From: huong ngo <huong AT huongngo.com> Subject: dream machine Record your dreams : Trade your dreams Share your subconscious as we archive your dreams. Call 773-HUM-9035, and record your dream after the beep. If you leave a phone number, we'll send you another dream from our archive. Call and record as often as you like: immediately after waking, perhaps before you're even fully awake, before you realize it was all just a dream. http://www.huongngo.com/ssri/dream-machine.gif + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded communities.) Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for more information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 7.29.04 From: Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> Subject: Proximity Mapper - Matias Arje, ava (M)applet - Pall Thayer (Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland inside and out) The Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland Inside and Out workshop produced some really exciting projects. One of these projects, the Proximity Mapper by Matias Arje, has now been finished and can be viewed at http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/?readme=51 It was agreed upon that all projects would be released with source-code under the GPL license. Enjoy. More projects to come soon. + + + Another project to come out of the Iceland Inside and Out project, was of course the java map that can be seen on the website. The source code for this has now been made available and can be downloaded here: http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/index.php?readme=53 On the same page you can see and use the applet. More projects coming soon. Pall Thayer -- _________________________________ Pall Thayer artist/teacher http://www.this.is/pallit http://130.208.220.190 http://130.208.220.190/nuharm http://130.208.220.190/panse ----------------------------- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 7.26.04 From: Color's Torrid Function! <llacook AT yahoo.com> Subject: on network art http://art.paultulipana.net/essay/onnetwork/on_network_art.pdf excellent essay on network art by someone you may be familiar with + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use http://rhizome.net/your_account_name). Details at: http://rhizome.org/services/1.php + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 7.30.04 From: Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> Subject: "Digital Writing Circa 2004" "Digital Writing Circa 2004" http://vispo.com/writings/essays/DigitalWritingCirca2004.pdf (139 kb) This is an attempt to say something about digital writing in the current social and political context (and with reference to wider contexts). It was written as a talk for the trAce symposium on "Writing and the Internet" earlier in July. By the time the symposium roled around, I actually had some new hypermedia cooking ("War Pigs", still not finished), so I showed the hypermedia and distributed print copies of the essay for people to read at their leisure. ja http://vispo.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 7/30/04 From: Andrew [unwrinkled ear] Choate <ralphleo AT sbcglobal.net> Subject: Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the <net.net.net> conference Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the <net.net.net> conference NTNTNT is four and one quarter inches wide, five and a half inches tall and one inch thick. It is a book. <net.net.net> was a series of lectures initiated and curated by Natalie Bookchin at the California Institute of the Arts and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. This conference took place under the <net.net.net> rubric from the Fall of 1999 until the Spring of 2000. A visiting artist or artistic collective working with the Internet or via media technology appeared every few weeks. Participants included Vuk Cosic, the Critical ArtEnsemble, Fiambrera, Irational, I/O/D, Cornelia Sollfrank, Alexei Shulgin, AT rtmark and others. Before the project began, Bookchin nursed a desire to publish the proceedings of the interviews and speeches. As the project unfolded, CalArts students disappeared into graduates, transcripts decomposed, the stock bubble burst, and hype about the Internet and its art metamorphosized into an often unchallenged proliferation of gripes. Enthusiasm from two of the students involved in Bookchin¹s original class lingered. Ultimately, Zoe Crosher became the managing editor of NTNTNT and Jason Brown became its editor. NTNTNT, © 2003, sprang from <net.net.net> the way leftovers spring from a meal: by remaining when all else is gone. Three teams of CalArts students assembled and dissolved over the course of the book¹s production, dividing responsibilities, finding/ misplacing/ transcribing the recordings and brainstorming what to do with what remained. What we hold in our hands when we pick up NTNTNT is a montage of the <net.net.net> proceedings, relevant journalism from the time period in question, print reproductions of net.art from the artists featured, and historical texts Benjamin, Borges, Burroughs, Gibson, etc. which provide philosophical and cultural context for the ideas discussed during the conference and presented in the book. NTNTNT is less a document of the <net.net.net> project than it is a trove of cogent fragments. None of the original interviews are presented in full; rather, they are cut up into significant bits, scattered across the book¹s six main sections (there are twenty-seven subsections) and placed within the area of investigation most akin to their respective focus of attention. Excluding the introductory texts essays by Crosher and Brown, and an interview with Bookchin , no sample from the book is over 500 words long. Brown¹s editing determines how we read the book, while the book, in turn, forcefully demonstrates that a collection of framed fragments is more useful and more representative to our time than documentations of ³what happens.² With the history of texts, images and urls at his fingertips, Brown compiled a book of evocative ideas which read much like Henri Michaux¹s Tent Posts or Franz Kafka¹s Blue Octavo Notebooks, except that here we have a lot of people who work with computers talking poetically in a way that incites thought about technology and culture, and these dialogues are embedded within a selection of resonant historical and commercial reproductions. For example, Geert Lovink, in a 9 February 2000 interview with Dee Dee Halleck and Sarah Diamond at MOCA, says ³Europe is in immediate danger of being turned into a sort of reality park where you can go and experience history?Amsterdam runs on the Rembrandt and Van Gogh industry?Culture in Europe is in immediate danger of being reduced to a description of national heritage. (p. 25, 26)² This brief passage from Lovink is included in the MELANCHOLY subsection of the book, which includes four other items: a reproduction of Paul Klee¹s painting ?Angelus Novus;¹ an email from Aureia Harvey to praystation.com regarding the blues of writing code, impermanence and ³the point of it all;² an excerpt from Walter Benjamin¹s diaries interpreting the ?Angel of History;¹ three sentences from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article about the statute of limitations for insider trading as it would effect Silicon Valley inhabitants in the wake of the dot.com boom-bust. By using the power of conjunction as a diagnostic tracking of modern cultural trajectories, NTNTNT identifies the constellation of issues at stake for concerned citizens and agents of the mediated class. Without depending on the accumulative effect of exhaustive analysis for the production of intellectual potency, NTNTNT¹s fragments burst on a subject and reveal it from a fresh perspective, self-consciously divulging the underpinnings of NTNTNT¹s own methodology while illuminating how these processes are at work on larger scales. As the Giorgio Agamben quotation on p. 297 demonstrates: ³Alienating by force a fragment of the past from its historical context, the quotation at once makes it lose its character of authentic testimony and invests it with an alienating power that constitutes its unmistakable aggressive force?[T]he authority invoked by the quotation is founded precisely on the destruction of the authority that is attributed to a certain text by its situation in the history of culture.² Readers inclined to turn to the book for answers to questions like ³what is net.art?² are sure to be disappointed. The 10 page NET.ART subsection is probably the most boring one in the book, as it contains expected repudiations of the term by various conference luminaries and banal digressions on other problematic self-referential semantics. Few of the excerpts are explicitly about net.art, thankfully, but the subject is well-explored when it remains under the surface and in the background of the discussions taking place about more specific topics. Focusing on how software Microsoft Word in particular - programs its users, Matt Fuller¹s May 2000 interview with the <net.net.net> collective penetrates into the heart of the most basic and profound issues regarding human relationships with technology. Picking up the baton from Marx, Fuller begins: ³We (I/O/D) believe that every form of technical innovation affects social composition (p. 193.)² As we use computer technology to express ourselves and construct our society, we become inextricably coupled with this medium. Fuller tracks this process by examining the edifice of Microsoft Word: Word has solidified, in a sense, what word processing ?is.¹ It has become our model of interacting with all kinds of text from love letters to literary texts to resumés? These [templates] lock certain types of language into place. If you look at the grammar checker, it constantly tells you that your grammar is incorrect because you have what they call ?passive sentences,¹ sentences which are not straight sequences of well-formed grammatical objects. You get caught up in it, and this is a negative because people begin to write like computer manuals in order not to be judged as ?passive.¹ (p. 194) Fuller is careful to point out that there is no overarching conspiracy behind the manufacturing of such software; instead, the unfortunate and uncontrollable menace is that the software successfully propagates a standardization of language, especially among uncertain and non-native authors. There is no ghost in the machine, in other words, but the development of language is haunted by programming code. The excerpt from the Unabomber¹s essay ³Industrial Society and its Future² is a crucial inclusion in the context of the internet¹s boom and bust years so serendipitously charted by <net.net.net> and NTNTNT. Kaczynski¹s primary grievance is against the injustices that gush from the fact that ³technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. (p. 108)² This is obvious, especially in hindsight, throughout history. The 9/11 hijackers didn¹t want freedom; they wanted to be sheltered from our technology and the affects it has on people and social arrangements. A sentimental resonance between the people that are the most negatively affected by technology and the people that are its most eminent critics and artists subliminally recurs throughout the book. The dissolution of the Internet bubble is summarily addressed in two pages one white, the other black (pages 19-20). On the left (white) page is a report from internetnews.com documenting the purchase of Flyswat Inc. by NBC Internet Inc. (NBCi) for ³about $100 million in stock.² The bottom of the page features a graph representing the NASDAQ monthly averages from 1994 till late 1999. The right (black) page continues the graph until 2002, while the top of the page includes one sentence from a searchenginewatch.com report documenting the closing of NBCi by NBC. This kind of critical montage expresses the story more accurately and more swiftly than any kind of analysis could, while it also serves the function of balancing the content of the interviews with the immediate history we¹re all familiar with now. Another image containing emotional and practical polysignificance is The Skeletal Remains of Utopia (p. 32), a one-page map of the internet circa 1998 created by the Lumeta Corporation. I can¹t look at this image without feeling nostalgia for my own ignorance and naiveté. All of the interviewees were asked about their conceptions of themselves as artists or as activists. They unanimously agree that the distinction is beside the point, but several articulate vital positions while answering the question. ³The highest level of return that we could obtain as cultural profit is by furthering activism against corporate rights and making that activism known (p. 211)² says ?Raoul¹ of AT rtmark. ?Frank¹ goes on to describe how AT rtmark¹s activities negotiate and challenge the relations between culture and capital, ³We fund sabotage. We attempt to do the worst taboo with money, which is to give it away and not expect a financial return. (p, 212)² ?Raoul¹ elaborates: Our job is publicity and propaganda. Five thousand dollars isn¹t going to change anyone¹s life, but the idea of it can. The fact that there¹s five thousand dollars going to somebody to do something politically active, or one thousand dollars, or even five hundred dollars suddenly it makes it seem serious. (p. 212)² Not only does it make political action and critical sabotage serious, it stimulates neophytes and amateurs to get into the fray. Brown soberly notes in his introduction that the ³notion of activism [is] radically different from post-Seattle 1999 to post-New York 2001, (p. xlviii)² an understatement to which Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) co-founder Steve Kurtz¹ recent arrest can attest. Intelligent, rigorous subversion as practiced by AT rtmark and CAE seems even more necessary and treacherous after the intervening W years. The 2 November 1999 interview with CAE dissects the popular but fundamentally flawed ³Trojan Horse approach to subversion.² CAE pinpoint the inherent paradox at work when artists or activists try to subvert the system from within without becoming who they pretend to be: When I have students who talk about going into business administration because once they rise up through the ranks they will screw the system up, I am [suspicious]. That notion is a complete fantasy, absolute insanity, because the only way you can rise up is when you have been socialized to get into that position, and that is an assurance that you won¹t screw anything up. And to think that you can maintain radical subjectivity while going through that kind of socializing process of grooming for the elite is absolutely naïve. (p. 53) Readers will be grateful that a book filled so precisely with only the most coherent and incisive portions of interviews and paragraphs of sampled text also leaves ample room available for humor. One of my favorite lighthearted, but still appropriate, entries are the Bizhaq Field Data reports from Starbucks #5308; one report publishes the transcript of an overheard cell phone conversation, including the dress, mannerisms, and technical possessions of the subject, and another documents an overheard conversation regarding trade show freebies. Rachel Baker and Heath Bunting, as members of Irational, crop up in five out of the six main sections, but the publication of this April 2000 interview bomb speaks to what makes the book so pleasurable: its only pretensions are toward readability and evocativity. Bunting> Rachel, what are you doing? Baker> I¹ve got sore feet. Bunting> Do you have to pick them into the dinner? Collective> You¹re lovers. You eat her feet. My feet itch too, Rachel. Baker> Do you guys have a bathtub here? Collective> No, there¹s no bathtub. There¹s a sink? Baker> There¹s no bathtub here? Collective> There¹s a shower and a sink. Baker> Oh, that sucks. In a big apartment like this? That¹s crazy. Collective> Pretty weird with all this space you guys have. Collective> Okay, yeah, we¹re going to delete that part. Without a playful spirit to accompany all the scissoring and juxtaposing, NTNTNT would read like a sepulcher of good ideas from vanished times. As a collection and demonstration of ideas and their kernels, NTNTNT is a success. It is not a successful explication or elaboration of these ideas, nor is it a strict documentation of the <net.net.net> conference. It just so happens that the ideas originated in a single project while Brown created their lineage: his editing makes the ideas come alive to share interhistorical force. If the interviews were simply collated and presented, the reader would be left with a hodge-podge of idle talk and enlightened perspicacity, but the fast-snipping editing bestows coherency and impact when there isn¹t any immediately apparent. Brown begins his introduction with the famous anecdote about the first Internet transmission from UCLA to the Stanford Research Center in 1969: due to a bug, the system crashed after three letters were typed. But, on second try, it was fine. He then points us to the 9 September 1947 discovery of an actual moth in the Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator; the moth was saved and taped to a report sheet, now on view in the Smithsonian. ³First actual case of bug being found² was written on the report sheet. NTNTNT ends with a translation of the last line of Guy-Ernest Debord¹s film Hurlements en faveur de Sade: ³We live like lost children, our adventures incomplete.² How we relate to technology whether we try to become the bug in the system or we try to extract it will always be an incomplete adventure, but an adventure nonetheless. NTNTNT retains and manufactures the childlike sensitivity essential to keeping the adventure inspired. Andrew Choate + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 10. Date: 7/25/04 - 7/26/04 From: Valery Grancher <vgrancher AT nomemory.org>, mark cooley <mgc868f AT smsu.edu>, marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org>, curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>, <steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org>, trashconnection <www AT trashconnection.com>, neil jenkins <neil AT devoid.co.uk> Subject: After net.art on 1998, my personal view... Valery Grancher <vgrancher AT nomemory.org> posted: "Webpaintings": 1998-2004 After net.art on 1998, my personal view... If you look art history and how it is dealing with paintings, you can perceive that the main topic is always the subject painted on canvas: From Giotto to today. Paintings has dealt with physical subject, dealt with sometimes narration or no narration, and has interacted with other media like photography or with just its materiality and iconology... For artist from my generation, we grew up with video games and computers. The first iconology I perceived were icons from interface and software. The screen has defined a new window and has killed the camera obscura. The screen is not reflecting and difracting the light like pigment but is generating electronic light. So today how to paint something ? The skill doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint something that nobody painted before you (Miltos Manetas (1)). And in my case, I would like to add: to paint something by defining a new iconoly (painting semiology)... Some peoples from my art public were surprised on 1998 to see that a conceptual artist like me who was one of the first to use internet media on 1994, 4 years later during the time when Net Art was really the most successfull art practice, is taking brush to produce images on canvas ! I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process, a network space where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing with new concept of time and space, and is defining on another way human identity and phenomenolgy. Net art is a process.This media has evolved from 1998 until today to a huge market where we cannot find any TAZ (Hakim Bey (2)) like on 1994 when net art was conceived! The web and internet is today a space where branding icons are bringing a new kind of consumerism (the hyperconsumerism) where also language may be commercialized ("google adwords", C. Bruno (3)) , a new kind of 'pop' with its visual signs, logo, VIP and so on, so on... Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist anymore... But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net art' anymore ! I do and I will also... But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious', 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5), in my case I felt clearly that the only thing to do was to reverse the process: How should be paintings during internet time ? How to use computer iconology in paintings ? I think quite differently than some painters of my generation: I said that we should paint something which was never painted before... that is true... but painting is also a language and is not dealing with just images and subject and that's why I'm talking about iconology. I deeply think that the only way to paint a painting in our internet time should not be to paint computers objects (still life) but what computers has brought in our reality theater, to paint what computer technology has changed in our way of seeing. That's why I choosed to paint website screen, computer screen, computer codes. By doing this, I try to show that the computer iconology is changing all the time and paintings are perfect Flat Dead Things which are freezing the topics painted. The result is that the paintings produced are always reflecting dead icons: The design of the website are changing all the time, the software are changing also, and this is the same for the codes... Otherwise, I would say that the internet screen are little bit like landscape and still life. These pictures are osbsolete, and were used so much that we cannot define anything specific, but at the same we are always fascinated by them. This is like a sunset, this is a stupid and very kitsch 'cliché', but all the time by facing this natural phenomenon we are always fascinated because a specific and undefined detail inside this phenomenon is catching us: Miltos Manetas is calling it "Neen"(6). I will finish by saying that this is the first time in history that human is consuming language and iconology like daily products: I defined my own way of seeing by being confronted to my generation computer iconology, but my son will get another way of seeing by being confronted to other technologies iconology. We jumped from the 'nature' phenomenology based on nature perception to cyber-phenomenology based on technologies interactions with our perception ! Valéry Grancher http://www.nomemory.org http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint http://www.nomemorybazaar.com N.B: This text will be published in my book "internet drawing" on fall 2004 onestarpress editions: http://www.onetsarpress.com + + + mark cooley <mgc868f AT smsu.edu> replied: "Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! (4) it is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist anymore... But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be produced in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net art' anymore ! I do and I will also... But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious', 'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical way: 'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using on the screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5)," At the risk of opening up the "death of net art" debate again. It seems that you are saying that you switched from net art to painting-the-net because the context for net art was dead, but, one could argue that the context for painting was dead when the photograph was developed over a hundred years ago, yet you are calling what you do "Painting." So why do artists who use networks as an approach to making art have to rename the practice? Why not rename what you do something else besides "painting?" Personally, i think this whole "the death of net art" stuff stinks of avant-gardism, which one may think died with Modernism, but i guess both myths are alive and well. the myths vary but often go something like this... declare the practice that you do extinct (along with everyone doing it) and go on to the NEXT LEVEL (which in this case is something much older and arguably out of date than net art) and then declare yourself THE FIRST to do that. but i say art only exists as a simple hierarchical timeline if you want to be reductionist (and a modernist). If the newness of painting exists in the subject as you suggest (painting what has never been painted) then why does the newness of net art exist in the context of the technology? ...and on a related note the whole "Father of Net Art" stuff is so patriarchal and boring. + + + Valery Grancher replied: Dear Mark Cooley, If you read my seconde text egarding my webpaintings, I say after 'post net art' and 'post paintings', for the reason you are mentionning. Webpaintings is also mentionned as an ironical project for the same reason, but on the other hand webapintings is modernist by rversing the modernism process, this is waht is interesting on conceptual level. Of course net.art regarding technology was also a myth and something neverdefined before .... All the art may be symbolized as socks: we may use them sometimes by reversing them, puting inside space outside and aoutside space inside... This is the way I am playing + + + marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org> replied: Hi mark, I agree...with you. I am so bored with all this shoulder jumping via institutionally led propoganda. Yep - Vuk Cosik can say whatever he wants, but it certainly is not reflecting the reality of what is actually going on right now in many of our lives as practicing networked/relational artists, and soft groups. Surely this is all about claiming a section of history, (yawn) yet again, taking away the 'authenticity' of what many of us are actively continuing without the insecure need of institutional justification. Killing and placing a flag on that mythical 'hermitcally sealed' moon, just so one's name can be seen in lights as part of the delusory spectacle, instigated by provincially minded academics, and tired and worn out institutionally dissatisfied dependents. A sad state of affairs indeed. It is a very interesting time - and we can observe now more than ever where people's real intentions lie... We are in the process of setting up a gallery in London, UK called HTTP (The house of technological termed praxis), and we are already filled up with a whole year of artists/soft groups who are actively involved with with net art, sound art and relational art; young and old. We set up this gallery, because we feel that fine art and connected institutions and some curators have failed in democratizing, showing what is of value out there, we are left with no other choice but reclaim what has been taken away from networked creatives by institutionally bound power hungry centralists, with an aim re-balance the ever changing picture out there. And what is great about this is that we are getting a lot of genuine interest from new, independent fine art groups, nationally and locally and people, who would not normally view net art, and things related - so all of this 'trying to kill' is a tactic to place certain people on thrones, and it does nothing that is positive or progressive to open up debate, or even empower the fluidity of the artist, curator or connected creatives, or culture in the wider context. Let those who rode the dot.com boom who are have run out of imagination and fresh verve, fizzle out inside their bursted, restrictive bubble - who in reality were obviously desperately reliant on capitalist-led trappings and a need for historical mirrors to see themselves rather than the larger picture, reflecting a weakness and failure to transcend canon-led protocls - yes, may be they are dead. But there are plenty more who are vibrant and alive, and they are the ones who will teach the so called encased 'heroic period' - DEAD gurus, how to move beyond lip-service. There is a lot going on, and it is linked to non-linear behaviour, flexible manouvering, and beyond the remits of imposed gate-keeping. And yes - history will unfold...and it will not be fine art or singular 'minded', visionless academics who will be looked upon positively as new histories/stories are declared, but the ever flourishing expansionist individuals and groups, who are exploring their, collective, collaborative, and authentic, re-evalutaing progressions of a socially networked, and relationally 'embodied' creative world, beyond institutionally directed mythologies - the real heroes (if there is such a thing anymore). 'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets...' + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> replied: http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/ http://pleine-peau.com/top/ + + + mark cooley replied: i understand that the paintings are somewhat ironic, yet i don't see how modernism is being reversed (rather it is being progressed - so maybe "postmodern" is a better term?) because the subject of painting has changed from so-called landscape, still life etc. to the web, which could be thought of as an extention of still-life or landscape. Whereas much of the history of European/U.S painting can be seen as a celebration of private property (capitalism) whether through representing actual objects (still-life) or landed property (landscape), web-paintings can be seen as a representation of capital in the information economy. you are capturing the icons of global capital (uncritically from what i can gather) - the digital landscape (not as a battleground of different interests and powers) but as stable, static (painting) landed property - google - the final frontier! + + + mark cooley added: very nicely put marc. it is ironic that the essay that sparked alot of this death business "the death of the author" can be read itself as an attack on capitalism, authenticity and avant-gardism. oh well... good luck with the new gallery space - sounds great. + + + steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org replied: I am kind of amused and saddened by all of this. This happened a couple of years ago in the zine community. What it really meant is that one or two of the luminaries decided he (rarely she) kind of woke up one day and decided "the thrill is gone". I know this will sound like sour grapes, but some years ago, well it was around the time of the Loma Preita Earthquake (1989) someone academics mainly art and lit types gave a conference on "cyberspace" and some of us techies submited proposals but none of us got accepted because we didn't fit "Gibson's vision" who was the author William Gibson of Cyberpunk Science Fiction Fame at the time. It certainly did not relate to how "cyberspace" was evolving at the time. Now luckily a local person with better academic art credentials than I produced a pretty good book on how cyberspace as evolving through the local tree structureed(think threaded message mode) computer bulliten boards in the local (Santa Cruz, California 1980s-1990s era). Now I am techie, and I left my academic art side in stasis i.e. I was probably still am a printmaker)...From my world view the technology is finally getting rich enough and powerful enough that really reaaly interesting stuff could be done, so it is hard to say it is dead. In ways it is just beginning, this was why I was/am still so alramed with the intrusion of the federal government into the doings of the the CAE (Creative Arts Ensemble). I was hoping that a full and rich interaction between the arts and biological sciences would start. I dunno whether this whole think of declaring patricarchs is kind of a high arts thing or something. I know that Bill Joy has made all sorts of declarations about technology. I now that Bill Gates makes his statements about technology and Linus Torvaldis and Richard Stallman propose perfectly viable alternatives and no one takes any of their statements as "the last word". But I notice that "X is Dead" is a favourite proclamation of people in the arts and alternative communities. Why would one person presume so much power over things? Seems kind of arrogant to me. + + + Valery Grancher replied: Dear Mark; That is the point ! perfectly understood ! this is the second meaning layer of these project, a way to criticize it as I said in my text: "paintings are perfect dead flat stuff..." they becaome alive through the meaing given by its context, modernism, capital fetichism.... as you said google is the last frontier..... + + + Valery Grancher added: Dear All, As i said net.art is term invented by some guy which is corresponding to one specific context and time which are over today. Like I said in the same text it doesn't mean that produceing art with internet is over also ! but that is emaing that producing art or whatever with or through internet is still alive and doesn't match anymore with 'net.art' as defined by Vuk. There is no debate regarding this jsut an evidence, we shoud be integrist regarding a ghost or a shadow... Since 1998, thing has evolved and art practice with or throough internet is terribly strong today: Website numbers has explosed, same for biennial , festival and so on and so on.... The eaming of my text is to show how 'net.art' defined by Vuk is so much much modernist as was paintings on 19th. By mixing this two practice I show how much that is weird and post painting and post internet on ironical way by producing like i said in my texte "perfect flat dead stuff". By seeing your text I can feel how much I am right, net.art today is much more like a ghetto than an open land. Tell me why paintings should not be net.art for example ? you can say only if you are defing criteria which is defining 'net.art' that is meaning this is a kind of academism: A perfect dead practice like paintings. That's whyu today we are just mixing practice thourgh media... and you should call it whatever... + + + trashconnection <www AT trashconnection.com> replied: VG> A s i said net.art is term invented by some VG> guy which is corresponding to one specific VG> context and time which are over today. Over today? Today of all days I get a message called Net Art News. Possibly is this discrepancy artistically demanding. Does the point between 't' and 'a' make difference? Let's try to translate. (net.art is over today) News Looks like somebody's ironic project I participate in. I feel a bit ****ed over. + + + neil jenkins <neil AT devoid.co.uk> replied: the only 'problem' is the 'dot' and the difference between 'net' and 'network' there are oh so many rules you can tie to a 'genre' 'net' art forever ps: can i get a tattoo done like abe's ? mail me :) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 11. Date: 7/29/04 From: mark cooley <mgc868f AT smsu.edu>, Lemmy Caution <llacook AT yahoo.com>, <steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org> Subject: Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead mark cooley <mgc868f AT smsu.edu> posted: Right-to-Life The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead having never been living) with a living biological body. A so-called computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The virus is not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles), while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with an inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing case in Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the matter by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bounds of mainstream media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology itself. The technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which bodies must obey (or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral (and natural) necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in for God itself. To cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for the body, is seen as cutting the body itself. To kill the machine becomes confused with (and then practiced as) killing the body. Computers are not alive, they are not human, they cannot contract "viruses," they cannot be "attacked," "terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive, unless they are human, unless their "infections," and "attacks" are indistinguishable from human infections, attacks, etc. Techno culture makes it possible for the murder of thousands of humans to be discussed in the language of "surgical strikes," and "smart bomb technology." Techno culture also makes it possible for the pentagon to use the language of "Terrorism" when speaking of a virtual sit-in! , or sim ple hacker prank. Vampirism "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with and to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and often highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that slows the speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of capital, therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to ensure the continuity of power relationships within the system. The blood supply must not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very easily, and often have very little sense of humor. Sweden's not a target Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often) as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia) reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts independent from human social systems, that technology is "out there" working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A hammer or needle and thread are pretty benign in their effects on global power structures, but if they were not we'd have reverse-hammer-engineers and needle hackers. A network "attack" is possible only when the power relationships guarding a network are so solidified, predictable and controlled that anything counter to it is defined as dangerous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent Domination and violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along way toward explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and Sweden's not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and crackers "Joe's homepage" is not. + + + Lemmy Caution <llacook AT yahoo.com> replied: mark cooley <mgc868f AT smsu.edu> wrote: Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and yet a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often) as an irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble are technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more than irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia) reveals a primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts independent from human social systems, that technology is â??out thereâ?? working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). + + + steve.kudlak AT cruzrights.org replied: Fun with words. Can I play?;) After one faux pas a couple more would be fun. My thought it is that "virus" was a reasonable way to look at it, but of course it stretches a whole lot. Although the image is enticing. You have a piece of code that carries instructions that has does act like a biological virus. But in other ways it is vastly different. For example computer viruses often have things like "mailing engines" thar allow it to send out copies of itself and a variety of forms. Or in case of some it can be dormant until activated. This is strange in the bio-image. It is like having a mini-brain that would for example if it existed in the biological world might act like this. Mark catches a virus from Steve. It somehow already has a mini-brain in it that gets mark to write a bunch of letters, sigh them in Steve's handwriting and style or lack thereof;). It might even make Mark's memory work better! The interesting thought which comes into my mind when reading Mark's essay is not whether I agree with it or not. It is the idea thar our society has "electrotechnophilia" and "biotechophobia" . I can easily plan to build all sorts of electronic devices that people interact with and that could change their interactions with the world in all sorts of ways. If I try to do this by some biological or chemical mechanosm, even at a lowest level as we see with the CAE case I am apt to have the authority of the state come down on me in a very intense way. Heaven forbid I should grow certain species of fungi and share them with friends. It is very odd that an embryo that is created to a fertility clinic and will be thrown away anyway can't be used for stem cell research on any piece of equipment that has been bought with one cent of public monies. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin AT rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 9, number 31. Article submissions to list AT rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info AT rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php. Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the site is open to members and non-members alike. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
-RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.12.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.5.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.27.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.20.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.13.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.6.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.30.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.23.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.16.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.9.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.2.08 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.19.2007 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.24.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.3.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.26.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.12.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.5.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.15.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.8.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.1.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.27.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.20.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.13.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.6.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.30.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.23.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.16.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.9.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.2.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.25.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.18.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.11.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.4.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.28.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.14.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.7.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.31.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.24.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.07 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: November 29, 2006 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.29.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.22.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.15.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.08.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 09.01.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.25.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.18.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.11.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 08.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 07.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.30.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.23.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.16.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.02.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.26.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.19.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 05.05.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.28.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.21.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.14.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.07.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.31.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.12.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.24.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.17.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.10.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.03.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.27.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.20.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.13.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.06.06 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.09.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.02.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.4.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.30.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.23.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.16.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.9.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.2.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.07.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.31.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.24.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.17.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.10.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.03.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.26.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.19.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.12.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.05.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.29.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.22.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.15.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.25.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.18.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.11.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.04.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.28.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.21.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.14.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.08.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.01.05 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.26.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.12.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.29.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.22.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.15.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.08.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.01.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.24.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.17.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.03.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.30.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.25.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.18.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.11.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.04.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.28.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.21.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.14.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.07.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.30.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.09.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 04.02.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.19.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 03.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.27.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.20.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.13.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 02.06.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.31.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.23.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.16.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.10.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 01.05.04 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.28.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.21.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.14.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.07.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.31.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.19.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.05.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.29.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.22.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.09.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.17.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.10.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.03.03 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.06.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.29.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.22.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 11.01.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.25.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.11.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.04.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.20.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.13.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 9.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.30.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.16.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST:8.9.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 8.02.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 7.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 6.2.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.26.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.19.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 5.5.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.28.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.21.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.14.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 4.7.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.31.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.23.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.15.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.8.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 3.3.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.24.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.17.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.10.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 2.1.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.27.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.18.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.12.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 1.6.02 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.30.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.23.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 06.29.01 -RHIZOME DIGEST: 12.2.00 |
