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: 12.17.04 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:30:59 -0800 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: December 17, 2004 Content: +announcement+ 1. Jo-Anne Green: Upgrade! Boston 2. ryan griffis: Red States Journals +opportunity+ 3. Jehanne-Marie Gavarini: Job announcements 4. Faculty Recruiting Committee: UC Davis Faculty Position 5. Ken Strickland: Faculty Position 6. Brooke Singer: Adjunct Needed for Web Class at Purchase College 7. Lisa: Sonic Supper | 718/303-9553 | Open Call for Music/Sound +work+ 8. abe linkoln: new work: my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's 2004 blog mix) 9. Rhizome.org: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Floating Point by Tiff Holmes +thread+ 10. Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine AT fondation-lang, Pall Thayer, Jason Van Anden, Rob Myers, Joy Garnett, ryan griffis, curt cloninger: Questioning the Frame + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 12.13.04 From: Jo-Anne Green <jo AT turbulence.org> Subject: Upgrade! Boston December 10, 2004 Upgrade! Boston http://turbulence.org/upgrade Turbulence.org and Art Interactive are pleased to announce "Upgrade! Boston," a monthly gathering of new media artists and curators founded by Turbulence.org and co-organized with Art Interactive. The Upgrade! will foster dialogue and create opportunities for collaboration within the media art community. At each meeting one or two artists/curators will present work in progress and participate in a discussion. Our spring lineup is as follows: January 25, 2005--Yael Kanarek February--Teri Rueb March--Larissa Harris April--kanarinka Beginning in May, artists/curators who have attended two or more meetings will be eligible to present. Upgrade! New York was started in 1999 by Yael Kanarek. Since March 2000, numerous new media artists and curators have gathered monthly at Eyebeam Atelier in New York City, including Cary Peppermint, Robbin Murphy, Golan Levin, Mary Flanagan, Marie Sester, Martin Wattenberg & Marek Walczak, Christiane Paul, Jon Ippolito & Keith Frank, Margot Lovejoy and John Klima. In September 2003, Kate Armstrong began Upgrade! Vancouver, and on October 1, 2004 Upgrade! Montreal was launched at the Society for Arts and Technology, Montreal by Tobias van Veen. Eyebeam is "very happy with the other locations that are emerging and see them as an informal network with future potential for collaboration and exchange" (Kanarek). The first meeting is on Tuesday, January 25, 7:00 p.m. at Art Interactive, 130 Bishop Allen Drive, at the corner of Prospect Street, Cambridge. Please RSVP turbulence AT turbulence.org URLS: Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade Art Interactive: http://artinteractive.org Upgrade! New York: http://www.treasurecrumbs.com/theupgrade/ Eyebeam: http://www.eyebeam.org/ Upgrade! Vancouver: http://www.katearmstrong.com/upgrade/vancouver/index.html Upgrade! Montreal: http://theupgrade.sat.qc.ca/ Yael Kanarek: http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/01_05YK.html Teri Rueb: http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/02_05TR.html Larissa Harris: http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/03_05LH.html Kanarinka: http://turbulence.org/upgrade/archives/04_05kanarinka.html + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 12.13.04 From: ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> Subject: Red States Journal The Journal of Aesthetics & Protest is looking for some US-based participants in a short, mail-based project. Below is the description. If you're currently in a "red state" and want to participate, reply to me off list and we can arrange to send you a journal. Thanks, ryan The Los Angeles California based Journal of Aesthetics and Protest would like to hear your thoughts, ideas, reflections about the notion of living on the conservative side of the "Divided States of America." What is the truth about your daily life? What's it like for a someone like you to be living in your town? Describe your local scene, where you find community, what sort of interactions you have. What are the local political and cultural institutions that you find meaningful? Which ones do you distrust? Why? What are the social and political conflicts that are happening around you and why? Where do you find common ground with your greater community? Do you think its really all that different from our communities here in Blue California? Do you feel the "redness" when you walk down the street? Who are your neighbors? What is your community like? What's going on that you think those of us in the blue should know about? Are there other color schemes you imagine besides the red and the blue? In this diary please contribute, however you find appropriate, your thoughts and feelings about what it means to be in your "Red State". Contribution ideas: narrative and/or critical writing, drawing, psychogeographic maps, collages, song lyrics and whatever you think is appropriate. Please be aware that others will be writing in this journal after you. This Red State Journal, one of 10 sent to contacts in the Red States, is part of a dispersed project initiated by the Journal of Aesthetics & Protest. You have been specially chosen to contribute either by member of the Journal of Aesthetics and Protest collective member or another participant in the project. When you are done writing within 1-7 days, please pass it on to a person you trust. We hope that when returned to Los Angeles, the Red State Journals will serve as a small window into the life in your town. http://www.journalofaestheticsandprotest.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 12.12.04 From: Jehanne-Marie Gavarini <artfutur AT aol.com> Subject: Job announcements UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL The Art Department 3D Animation/Digital Interactive Media The Art Department at the University of Massachusetts Lowell seeks qualified applicants for a full-time, tenure-track position to teach undergraduate courses in 3D digital animation, interactive digital media and immersive VR photography. The MFA is required as well as an active and growing record of creative and scholarly research, exhibitions and publications. The position appointment is effective September 1, 2005. An interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of 3D animation and interactive media emphasizing conceptually mature sequential narratives is desirable. Applicants must show proficiency in Lightwave, Maya, digital media authoring, video editing and audio, and demonstrate an interest in and an understanding of new media theory and contemporary art and culture. Applicants must also show some experience in Web design and Macintosh lab management. Salary and benefi ts are commensurate with the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor. Responsibilities will include teaching three undergraduate courses per semester, student advising and participation in senior reviews, as well as committee participation at the Department, College and University level. A minimum of three years' teaching in higher education is required and industry experience is preferred. To apply, send a letter of application, resume and portfolio. Please include examples of animation and digital interactive media, examples of student work, teaching philosophy, syllabi, three letters of reference and a SASE and send to: Animation Search Committee, Art Department/UMass Lowell, 71 Wilder Street, Suite 8, Lowell, MA 01854. Web Artist The Art Department at the University of Massachusetts Lowell seeks qualified applicants for a full-time, tenure-track position to teach undergraduate courses in Web-based art and design. The MFA is required as well as an active and growing record of creative and scholarly research, exhibitions and publications. The position appointment is effective September 1, 2005. An interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of Web-based media is desirable. Applicants must show a demonstrated proficiency in JTML, CSS, DHTML, JavaScript and Flash, with ActionScript preferred. A thorough understanding of typography, color theory, interactive design principles, and Web strategy experience is required. Applicants must also demonstrate an interest in and an understanding of new media theory and contemporary art and culture. Salary and benefits are commensurate with the rank of Assistant/Associate Professor. Responsibilities will include teaching three undergraduate courses per semester, participation in Macintosh lab management, overseeing the art department Web site with student assistance, student advising and participation in senior reviews, as well as committee participation at the Department, College and University level. A minimum of three years' teaching in higher education is required and industry experience is preferred. To apply, send a letter of application, resume, online portfolio link, other examples of Web-based media, and examples of student work. Also include teaching philosophy, syllabi, three letters of reference and a SASE, and send to: Web Design Search Committee, Art Department/UMass Lowell, 71 Wilder Street, Suite 8, Lowell, MA 01854. UMASS University of Massachusetts Lowell The University of Massachusetts is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Title IX, H/V, ADA 1990 Employer and Executive Order 11246, 41 CFR60-741 4, 41 CRF60-250 4, 41CRF60-1 40 and 41 CFR60-1,4 are hereby incorporated. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 Kevin McGarry at Kevin AT Rhizome.org or Rachel Greene at Rachel AT Rhizome.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 12.13.04 From: Faculty Recruiting Committee <apply AT cs.ucdavis.edu> Subject: UC Davis Faculty Position The Department of Computer Science and the Program in Technocultural Studies at the University of California, Davis, invite applications for a joint tenure-track faculty position at the level of Assistant Professor. We are interested in the areas of either computer animation or humanâ??computer interaction as they apply to an intersection of computer science and media arts production. We welcome applications from candidates that emphasize innovative and emerging applications that bridge the creative and critical sophistication of Technocultural Studies and the technical expertise of Computer Science. We invite applications at the Assistant level from candidates with demonstrated research excellence or professional creative activity and a commitment to excellence in teaching. The appointee will teach courses in both Computer Science and Technocultural Studies and, thus, must be capable of creatively engaging a wide range of artistic, technical, mathematical and programming proficiencies and interests, including fluency with relevant standard applications for creative production. This position requires a Ph.D. or equivalent. The position is open until filled, but for full consideration materials should be received by February 15, 2005. For complete job posting and application instructions, please consult our webpage at http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/department/employ. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 12.15.04 From: Ken Strickland <kstrickland AT mca.edu> Subject: Faculty Position Memphis College of Art Faculty Vacancy Position: Artist working in Time-Based or Interactive media Full-time, Assistant Professor beginning August 2005. We seek an artist interested in exploring the creative application of digital technologies informed by contemporary practice and theory. A terrific opportunity for an artist actively working in any time-based or interactive practice to be a part of a developing new program. The position is a two-year (renewable) academic year (nine month) appointment. Responsibilities: Teach courses in Time-based and/or interactive media in BFA & MFA programs and collaborate in on-going curriculum development. All f-t faculty are expected to participate in student advising and college community service in addition to active creative research and exhibition, consistent with the mission of a professional school. Qualifications: MFA, or equivalent professional experience. Specialization in any Time-based, Interactive or Digital studio practice. Teaching experience at college level preferred. Evidence of recent professional studio activity and strong communication skills. Application Procedure: Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, statement of teaching philosophy, samples of professional work, and 3 letters of reference (sent directly from referees) to: Digital Media Search Committee Memphis College of Art 1930 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38104. Digital applications are acceptable. Send information as PDF or Word attachments: to kstrickland AT mca.edu Deadline: Position will remain open until position is filled. AA/EOE The College: Memphis College of Art, an independent professional art college founded in 1936, is accredited by both the National Association of Schools of Art & Design and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The school is located within a 342 acre wooded park in Midtown Memphis and is adjacent to the Brooks Museum of Art and the Memphis Zoo. MCA offers BFA degree programs in Fine Arts (digital media, drawing, fibers, painting, papermaking/bookarts, photography, printmaking, and sculpture) and Design Arts (digital media, graphic design, illustration, and photography). An MFA program provides study opportunities in traditional studio practice (painting/drawing, photography, printmaking/bookarts, and/or sculpture), digital media (animation, interactive, and multi-media) or an individually tailored interdisciplinary emphasis. New faculty will join a distinguished body of artists, designers, scholars, and educators who are committed to shepherding and mentoring the next generation of artists who will be shaping the course of artmaking in the 21st century. Memphis College of Art is an equal opportunity institution and will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap/disability, or other unlawful factors in employment practices. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 ++ Through December 31: a free domain with each hosting plan purchased! ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 12.16.04 From: Brooke Singer <brooke AT bsing.net> Subject: Adjunct Needed for Web Class at Purchase College An adjunct is needed to teach Creating Web Documents, a required course for New Media majors and an elective for others at Purchase College. This class is an introduction to web production. Students learn how to handcode HTML, CSS and javascript. The course also covers how the web works, digital imaging for web pages and the legal issues related to online publishing. The course meets 1 evening a week, Tuesdays, 7 to 10:20, starting Jan. 25. Assignments include class exercises, homework, quizzes and 2-3 projects. Students can choose the topic of the projects with the approval of the teacher. To apply, please submit a resume and cover letter to Jeanine Meyer at Jeanine.Meyer AT purchase.edu + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NEW: Rhizome Member-curated Exhibits http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/ View online exhibits Rhizome members have curated from works in the ArtBase, or learn how to create your own exhibit. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 12.17.04 From: Lisa <mcpurrypants AT yahoo.com> Subject: Sonic Supper | 718/303-9553 | Open Call for Music/Sound Sonic Supper seeks sound artists and musicians interested in creating work for our new telephone music project. To be considered just call 718/303-9553 and leave a message with some of your music after the beep. Your message doesn't have to be perfect, the general idea will do. Also, please send an email to ghtkf AT yahoo.com so we can contact you with the dirty details. If selected your sounds will reach over 3000 listeners. There are absolutely no style or genre limitations. Visit http://sonicsupper.org to learn more. Or call 718/303-9553 every week for a friendly new dose of curious music. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 12.11.04 From: abe linkoln <abe AT linkoln.net> Subject: new work: my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's 2004 blog mix) my boyfriend came back from the war (abe linkoln's 2004 blog mix) http://myboyfriendcamebackfromthewar.blogspot.com/ the original http://www.teleportacia.org/war/war.html the remixes http://myboyfriendcamebackfromth.ewar.ru/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 12.16.04 From: Rhizome.org <artbase AT rhizome.org> Subject: Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase: Floating Point by Tiff Holmes Just added to the Rhizome ArtBase ... http://rhizome.org/object.rhiz?29889 + Floating Point + + Tiff Holmes + I created the set of 20 online sketches in the process of creating a large scale audiovisual installation that uses real time water quality data, a single pixel, and one tone to conceptually visualize the quality of lake, river, or drinking water. This work was produced at the ETHZ's Colab in Switzerland as part of the Artist-In-Labs residency. WHY WATER? The future of the world population depends on the availability of a safe drinking water supply. In some countries, drinking water is a scarce resource, while in others vast reserves exist. Freshwater resources are susceptible to a variety of chemical contaminants. Common pollutants include pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and industrial solvents. As global citizens we must become more concerned about potential health risks associated with our drinking water. Water quality tests are conducted by scientists who graph data over time to monitor shifts in concentrations of dissolved solids and chemical pollutants. Such specialists identify changes in our freshwater resources by building visual models that process enormous amounts of data. Familiar techniques include bar graphs and x-y scatter plots. Holmes uses the same water quality data to create conceptual forms of data visualization to communicate vital environmental information to a non-scientific audience. The broader goal of the proposed research is to promote sustainable and ecologically responsible modes of living, and a general awareness of both local and global water quality issues. + + + Biography Tiffany Holmes, 2004 http://www.tiffanyholmes.com Tiffany Holmes is an artist and Assistant Professor of Art and Technology at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Her new media installation work explores the movement of human and animal bodies and creates a visual language to represent that motion. In Follow the Mouse (2001), a real rodent controls the output from the computer while in Fishbowl (2003), a goldfish monitors feed from underwater surveillance cameras. Holmes lectures and exhibits worldwide: J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, Viper in Switzerland, Siggraph 2000, World AT rt in Denmark, Interaction â??01 in Japan, and ISEA Nagoya â??02. With a BA in art history from Williams College, Holmes received a MFA in painting from the Maryland Institute College of Art and a MFA in digital arts from the University of Maryland. Awards include: Michigan Society of Fellows member, Illinois Arts Council grant, and a Swiss Artists In Labs award. Assistant Professor, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 112 S. Michigan, Chicago, IL 60603 Email: tholme AT artic.edu + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 10. Date: 12.16.04-12.20.04 From: Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine AT fondation-langlois.org>, Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is>, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>, Joy Garnett <joyeria AT walrus.com>, ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com>, curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> Subject: Questioning the Frame Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine AT fondation-langlois.org> posted: -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of coco fusco : animas999 AT yahoo.com IN THESE TIMES http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1750/ Questioning the Frame Thoughts about maps and spatial logic in the global present By Coco Fusco December 16, 2004 Terms such as " mapping," "borders," "hacking," "trans-nationalism," "identity as spatial," and so on have been popularized in recent years by new media theories' celebration of "the networks"-a catch-all phrase for the modes of communication and exchange facilitated by the Internet. We should proceed with caution in using this terminology because it accords strategic primacy to space and simultaneously downplays time-i.e., history. It also evades categories of embodied difference such as race, gender and class, and in doing so prevents us from understanding how the historical development of those differences has shaped our contemporary worldview. Technocentric fantasy The rhetoric of mapping and networks conflates the way technological systems operate with modern human communication. According to this mode of thought we are to believe that we live inside the world of William Gibson's Neuromancer and that salvation is only attainable via very specific technological expertise unleashed against the system-i.e., hacking. Consider the heroes of Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters such as The Matrix whose power lies in their knowledge of "the code." It is implied that we operate in networks because computers and the Internet have restructured "our" lives and because global economic systems have turned us into global citizens. Hacking then comes to stand for all forms of critical engagement with preexistent power structures. I'm just a little too old to believe these new media mantras unquestioningly. This rhetoric implies two possible explanations for the difference between the networked present and the non-networked past. The first explanation suggests that no one on the left before the age of the Internet practiced subversive manipulation of existent media, tactical intervention, investigative reporting and infiltration of power structures. It also would seem that before the dawning of the networks, no one knew what being an organic intellectual was about, no one elaborated alternative communication systems and no one was aware of or sensed a connection to geographic regions other than Europe. The second explanation would be that electronic communication has produced a form of networking that is so radically different as to imply a neat break with the past. In either case, these arguments conveniently situate their advocates outside history, since either way tactical media practitioners have nothing of value to inherit from the past. While I can understand that there might be a dearth of knowledge about tactical interventions of previous centuries, I am perplexed by the apparent loss of short-term memory of many cultural theorists now in vogue, who were alive and active in the '70s. Can we forget Daniel Ellsberg's publishing of the Pentagon Papers, the uncovering of the Watergate scandal, the break-in to an FBI office by an anonymous group that led to revelations of COINTELPRO and the Freedom of Information Act, the many Senate investigations of FBI corruption, the widespread solidarity with Third World independence movements, the plethora of underground and alternative presses and global mail art networks-all operated by radical activists, artists and intellectuals? Those of us who can at least recall the ways that these strategic interventions transformed political and cultural life in that decade necessarily cast a skeptical glance at the messianic claims of technocentrists. The shift from Eurocentric internationalism to a more globally inclusive worldview came long before the age of the Internet. It was launched outside Europe and America, and emanated from the geopolitical margins. The process took place across a range of fields of knowledge, culture and politics. This revision of the world picture was catalyzed by postwar decolonization; the Non-Aligned Movement launched in 1961; and civil rights struggles in the developed world, including the Black Power and Chicano movements-all of which invariably affirmed their alliances with Third World revolutions. This political process was expanded upon by a postcolonial understanding that various diasporas shared transnational connections and that these diasporas were produced by the economics and politics of colonialism and imperialism. The historical bases of these movements are consistently obfuscated by the technocentric rhetoric of networks and mapping that emanate from Europe, North America and Australia. Instead of dealing with these histories, contemporary discourses on globalism and new technology tend to dismiss postcolonial discourse as "mere identity politics." They tend to confuse bureaucratic efforts to institutionally separate the concerns of ethnic minorities with what always have been the much broader agendas of anti-racist political struggles and postcolonial cultural endeavors. I am a great admirer of the practice of electronic civil disobedience and have used "hacktivist" software such as Floodnet to engage in online protest actions myself. But I find the willed historical amnesia of new media theory to be quite suspect, and even dangerous. One of the reasons I chose to make a/k/a Mrs. George Gilbert, a video art piece about the Angela Davis case, was because I wanted to reexamine crucial histories that are now being forgotten within the contemporary conversations on globalization. The alienation caused by multinational corporate domination (otherwise known as Empire) that many middle-class young adults in the Global North feel is just the last chapter in a long history of reactions against imperial projects. Mapping mistakes Another issue of concern is the new media culture's fascination with mapping-a fascination that it shares with the military strategists. The news of the Iraq war frequently involves men in uniform pointing to or better yet walking across maps of various Middle Eastern countries-so when I then walk into galleries and cultural conferences in Europe and find more men (without uniforms) playing with maps, I start to wonder about the politics of those representations. In the American media, maps dominate representations of warfare. While realistic depictions of the violence of war via photographs and film have been banned from American television news, maps are acceptable to those in power because they dehumanize the targets. Similarly, in the context of the art world, maps have come to abstract and thereby silence individual and group testimony. New media culture uses maps to read the world in terms of extremes. Contemporary cultural theory is rife with renderings that celebrate macro views and micro views of the workings of the world, both social and biological-which is to say, maps of vast spaces and physical phenomena and maps of the most minuscule thing. We hear over and over again about global systems and panoptic vision on the one hand and genome chains and nano-entities on the other. When I first noticed this phenomenon I was struck by how it complements the resurgence of formalist art criticism's love affair with the grid. By this I am referring to the return in the '90s to the definition of art as a search for "perfect forms," and a celebration of the formal characteristics of objects and surfaces. What I have become more concerned about as time goes on, however, is how this fetishizing of spatial extremes enables the resurgence of Descartes' idea that humans are rational, autonomous individuals and that the human mind and mathematical principles are the source for all real knowledge. However objective they may appear, maps do have a point of view, and that is one of privileged super-human sight, of safe distance and of omniscience. The mapmaker charts an entire field of vision, an entire world, and in doing so he (yes he) plays God. Whether you are beholding the map as a viewer or charting it as the cartographer, you rule the world before you, you control it, and, in putting everything in its place, you substitute a global whole established through pictorial arrangement for an actual dynamic engagement with individual elements and entities. The psychological motive behind assuming that position of power is not questioned, nor is the predominance of white male techno-elites in that discourse seen as anything more than incidental. It is as if more than four decades of postmodern critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly evaporated. Those critical discourses that unmasked the way universals suppress difference, which gave voice to the personal experience of women, the poor and disenfranchised minorities, are treated as inherently flawed by both the progressive and conservative discourses of globalism. Progressive media advocates dismiss these discourses of difference as "essentialist" while Republicans decry them as "the tyranny of special interests." But both provide ideological justification for the dismantling of legislation protecting civil rights. Viewing the world as a map eliminates time, focuses disproportionately on space and dehumanizes life. In the name of a politics of global connectedness, artists and activists too often substitute an abstract "connectedness" for any real engagement with people in other places or even in their own locale. What gets lost in this focus on mapping is the view of the world from the ground: lived experience. What is ignored is the pervasiveness of the well-orchestrated and highly selective visual culture that the majority of Americans consume during most of their waking hours. Most people are not looking through microscopes and telescopes and digital mapping systems to find truth about the world. They are watching reality TV, sitcoms, the Super Bowl, MTV and Fox News, all of which also offer maps of a completely different kind: conspiracy theories that pit innocent Americans against the Axis of Evil, embedded journalists' hallucinatory misreadings of foreign conflicts, allegories of empowerment through consumption and endlessly recycled, biblically inspired narratives of sin and redemption. Going off-grid Finally we should consider what is being left off the maps and why? What has happened, for example, to institutional self-critique in the art world? Why has such examination become taboo in exhibitions or unpopular with artists who gravitate to political subjects? Why in the midst of myriad investigations of corporate control of politics and culture is there little or no attention paid to corporate control of the museums and of corporate influence in art collecting? Why is it acceptable to the art world for an artist to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but not to address the pressure put on the organizers of global art exhibitions to showcase a disproportionate number of Israeli artists? Why is it fine for black artists to celebrate the construction of black style but not to make visible the virtual absence of black people as arbiters in the power structures of the art institutions, galleries, magazines and auction houses where black art is given economic and aesthetic value? We live in a very dangerous time in which the right to express dissent and to raise questions about the workings of power is seriously imperiled by fundamentalisms of many kinds. Now more than ever we need to keep the lessons of history foremost in our minds and to defend the critical discourses and practices that enable differing experiences and perspectives to be heard and understood. There are just too many important parallels to be drawn between COINTELPRO and the excesses of law enforcement brought about by the Patriot Act to be dismissive of history. Socially conscious artists and activists, rather than embracing tactics that rely on dreams of omniscience, would do well to examine the history of globalism, networks, dissent and collective actions in order to understand that they are rooted in the geopolitical and cultural margins. Coco Fusco is an interdisciplinary artist and an associate professor at Columbia University's School of the Arts. Her most recent publication is Only Skin Deep: Changing Visions of the American Self (Abrams, 2003). + + + Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> replied: This is a really strange article. It would be interesting to know what mapping works she's talking about and how much research she did into this type of work in general before writing the article. And what's up with the hacker-bashing? > the messianic claims of technocentrists. What claims might those be? I don't think any of todays "net-savvy" activists think that they *invented* activism aside from the point that she starts out talking about maps and then all of the sudden, without any warning, she's talking about activists as if they're one and the same. Also, she criticizes maps for "...having a point of view"? Well, what work of art doesn't have a particular "point of view"? To suggest that this is a fault of the medium or the artists is ludicrous. I don't think she did a whole lot of research into map based or social artworks for this article. It almost sounds like she's basing this critique on one, maybe two, projects. + + + Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> replied: Wow. Thank you Coco (c/o Dominique). I think that everyone in this forum ought to read this article. It is incredibly insightful and very well stated (I wish I could write like her). This kind of introspection is required no matter what the discourse. The title brings the article perfectly into focus. History is given the license to repeat itself because of "revolutions" that blindly seek to one-up the knowledge that preceeded it. Whether this is motivated by arrogance or ignorance... I suppose does not really matter. Oil paint was "new-media" at some point. Careful: what's old is new. + + + Pall Thayer replied: I agree, everyone here should read this article. But I wouldn't say it's insightful. It's both arrogant and ignorant. I don't think anyone thinks that social networks came into existence via the internet. Hackers are not what she seems to think they are. You don't have to have any special knowledge to be part of an internet-based social network beyond knowing how to use a browser. She criticizes entire movements within the digital arts without mentioning a single piece. How can we take her seriously? Reminding us of some historical facts and issues is fine but to do it in a way that is demeaning to the work that's being done today is wrong. I think she should've done some more research before writing this. + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 09:56PM, Dominique Fontaine <dfontaine AT fondation-langlois.org> wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: On Behalf Of coco fusco : animas999 AT yahoo.com > [...] >Terms such as " mapping," "borders," "hacking," >"trans-nationalism," "identity as spatial," and so on >have been popularized in recent years by new media >theories' celebration of "the networks"-a catch-all >phrase for the modes of communication and exchange >facilitated by the Internet. Sweep that generalization! Which New Media Theories? What is a New Media Theory anyway? Exclusively by New Media Theories? Or have NMT simply soaked up more general humanities buzzwords and themes. Are all New Media Theories the same? Are there any examples or exemplars? Why doesn't the author give any? >We should proceed with caution in using this >terminology because it accords strategic primacy to Notice the primacy given to language, intentions, appearances. This is a critique of form, not content. Of style, not substance. >space and simultaneously downplays time-i.e., history. >It also evades categories of embodied difference such >as race, gender and class, and in doing so prevents us >from understanding how the historical development of >those differences has shaped our contemporary >worldview. Ignoring Einstein's spacetime for a moment, "categories of embodied difference" are themselves atemporal and ahistorical academic fantasies. If you want to actually achieve anything by historical materialist criticism, breaking class relations down into packets of "difference" only gets in the way. >Technocentric fantasy Yes, this is a critique of a technocentric fantasy, but a fantasy on the part of the author, not their imagined subject. >The rhetoric of mapping and networks conflates the way >technological systems operate with modern human >communication. Huh? >According to this mode of thought we >are to believe that we live inside the world of >William Gibson's Neuromancer This would be a polluted, brand-obsessed, corporate-dominated dystopia? >and that salvation is >only attainable via very specific technological >expertise unleashed against the system-i.e., hacking. "Hacking" is an ethic, a mode of activity. Not "skript kiddies" breaking into your PC. Neuromancer is twenty years old, wannabe cultural studies lecturers really should let it go and try some Neal Stevenson instead. >Consider the heroes of Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters >such as The Matrix whose power lies in their knowledge >of "the code." It is implied that we operate in >networks because computers and the Internet have >restructured "our" lives and because global economic >systems have turned us into global citizens. Hacking >then comes to stand for all forms of critical >engagement with preexistent power structures. In fact this is a more criticism of deconstruction and text-based retreat from real work in general. Actual hacking (not in the sense the author obviously misunderstands it) is the *creation* of something, the solving of a problem, a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need, *not* just breaking something down. >I'm just a little too old to believe these new media >mantras unquestioningly. Except to criticise them >This rhetoric implies two >possible explanations for the difference between the >networked present and the non-networked past. == The misunderstanding of a misrepresented and generalised "rhetoric" can be distilled into two straw men. >The first explanation suggests that no one on the left Wtf has this to do with the "left"? Is technoutopianism leftist? Wired-ism tends to be "libertarian" (right-wing anarchistic). >before the age of the Internet practiced subversive >manipulation of existent media, tactical intervention, >investigative reporting and infiltration of power >structures. It also would seem that before the dawning >of the networks, no one knew what being an organic >intellectual was about, no one elaborated alternative >communication systems and no one was aware of or >sensed a connection to geographic regions other than >Europe. Where this judgement on the part of... who exactly? ...has been extracted from I don't know. Who does the author speak for in offering this description of ...someone... 's failings? >The second explanation would be that electronic >communication has produced a form of networking that >is so radically different as to imply a neat break >with the past. As opposed to an explanation that nothing has changed? These are both straw man arguments, ventriloquism without even a dummy. >In either case, these arguments >conveniently situate their advocates outside history, As they are designed to by the author. (That is, it's not that anyone holds these extra-historical postions, it's that the author can neatly isolate these straw men in this way). >since either way tactical media practitioners have >nothing of value to inherit from the past. >While I can understand that there might be a dearth of >knowledge about tactical interventions of previous >centuries, I am perplexed by the apparent loss of >short-term memory of many cultural theorists now in >vogue, who were alive and active in the '70s. Such as the author. >Can we forget Daniel Ellsberg's publishing of the >Pentagon Papers, the uncovering of the Watergate >scandal, the break-in to an FBI office by an anonymous >group that led to revelations of COINTELPRO and the >Freedom of Information Act, the many Senate >investigations of FBI corruption, the widespread >solidarity with Third World independence movements, Sounds like "cracking" (what the author would misunderstand as "hacking") to me! Why would the existence of historical successes undermine or invalidate contemporary efforts? >the plethora of underground and alternative presses >and global mail art networks-all operated by radical >activists, artists and intellectuals? Are these examples of technological or sociological action? If the former, they are weak. If the latter, are these meant to be new? Look at C19th use of (and legislation regarding!) telecommunications networks. Whilst there is nothing new under the sun, the sun didn't first rise in the 1970s. >Those of us who >can at least recall the ways that these strategic >interventions transformed political and cultural life >in that decade necessarily cast a skeptical glance at >the messianic claims of technocentrists. And those with an interest in technology who have done their research cast a skeptical glance over "been there, done that" claims that don't mention precedents older than half a century. >The shift from Eurocentric internationalism to a more >globally inclusive worldview came long before the age >of the Internet. It was launched outside Europe and >America, and emanated from the geopolitical margins. How did we hear of this, then? >The process took place across a range of fields of >knowledge, culture and politics. This revision of the >world picture was catalyzed by postwar decolonization; >the Non-Aligned Movement launched in 1961; and civil >rights struggles in the developed world, including the >Black Power and Chicano movements-all of which >invariably affirmed their alliances with Third World >revolutions. This political process was expanded upon >by a postcolonial understanding that various diasporas >shared transnational connections and that these >diasporas were produced by the economics and politics >of colonialism and imperialism. The historical bases >of these movements are consistently obfuscated by the >technocentric rhetoric of networks and mapping that >emanate from Europe, North America and Australia. So the technology isn't inherently good, it's inherently evil? (Yes, that's a deliberate straw man. It is designed to reveal the flaw in the argument.) This is the very technological fixation the author claims to be criticising. >Instead of dealing with these histories, contemporary >discourses on globalism and new technology tend to >dismiss postcolonial discourse as "mere identity >politics." They tend to confuse bureaucratic efforts >to institutionally separate the concerns of ethnic >minorities with what always have been the much broader >agendas of anti-racist political struggles and >postcolonial cultural endeavors. Instead of dealing with technological change and inequality, of placing it in broader economic or even (gasp) historical context, we should try to return to the safe havens of "difference"? I'm loathe to recommend "No Logo" to anyone, but in this case I'll make an exception. >I am a great admirer of the practice of electronic >civil disobedience and have used "hacktivist" software >such as Floodnet to engage in online protest actions >myself. Never heard of that package. No real hacker would use an off-the-shelf package to achieve their own ends, and none would disrupt anyone else's work using it. "Hacktivism" is embarrasing, a cultural-studies-created misuse of a misunderstood word. >But I find the willed historical amnesia of >new media theory to be quite suspect, and even >dangerous. Try deconstructing it socially or historically rather than technologically and it makes a lot more sense. >One of the reasons I chose to make a/k/a >Mrs. George Gilbert, a video art piece about the >Angela Davis case, was because I wanted to reexamine >crucial histories that are now being forgotten within >the contemporary conversations on globalization. The >alienation caused by multinational corporate >domination (otherwise known as Empire) that many >middle-class young adults in the Global North feel is >just the last chapter in a long history of reactions >against imperial projects. >Mapping mistakes Ah. A *video piece*. Not "New Media", video. Much better. Analogue or digital video? Analogue? Much better. >Another issue of concern is the new media culture's >fascination with mapping-a fascination that it shares >with the military strategists. The news of the Iraq >war frequently involves men in uniform pointing to or >better yet walking across maps of various Middle >Eastern countries-so when I then walk into galleries >and cultural conferences in Europe and find more men >(without uniforms) playing with maps, I start to >wonder about the politics of those representations. Video is also used in war, and still video cameras recently recorded torture. Clearly we should think of Abu Ghiraib when we see the author's work. >In the American media, maps dominate representations >of warfare. While realistic depictions of the violence >of war via photographs and film have been banned from >American television news, maps are acceptable to those >in power because they dehumanize the targets. >Similarly, in the context of the art world, maps have >come to abstract and thereby silence individual and >group testimony. This is fetishism, this is poetics. This is the author mapping their head. >New media culture uses maps to read the world in terms >of extremes. Contemporary cultural theory is rife with >renderings that celebrate macro views and micro views >of the workings of the world, both social and >biological-which is to say, maps of vast spaces and >physical phenomena and maps of the most minuscule >thing. We hear over and over again about global >systems and panoptic vision on the one hand and genome >chains and nano-entities on the other. When I first >noticed this phenomenon I was struck by how it >complements the resurgence of formalist art >criticism's love affair with the grid. By this I am >referring to the return in the '90s to the definition >of art as a search for "perfect forms," and a >celebration of the formal characteristics of objects >and surfaces. What I have become more concerned about >as time goes on, however, is how this fetishizing of >spatial extremes enables the resurgence of Descartes' >idea that humans are rational, autonomous individuals >and that the human mind and mathematical principles >are the source for all real knowledge. This is a chronic failure to consider the social context of the work. Why these interests? Why now? >However objective they may appear, maps do have a >point of view, and that is one of privileged >super-human sight, of safe distance and of >omniscience. Rosalind, is that you? >The mapmaker charts an entire field of >vision, an entire world, and in doing so he (yes he) >plays God. Whether you are beholding the map as a >viewer or charting it as the cartographer, you rule >the world before you, you control it, and, in putting >everything in its place, you substitute a global whole >established through pictorial arrangement for an >actual dynamic engagement with individual elements and >entities. The psychological motive behind assuming >that position of power is not questioned, nor is the >predominance of white male techno-elites in that >discourse seen as anything more than incidental. Whingeing incoherently won't change the author's local situation. It's more balanced elsewhere at grass roots level. >It is as if more than four decades of postmodern >critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly >evaporated. We can but hope. >Those critical discourses that unmasked >the way universals suppress difference, which gave >voice to the personal experience of women, the poor >and disenfranchised minorities, are treated as >inherently flawed by both the progressive and >conservative discourses of globalism. They also work against any shared struggle. Funny that. >Progressive >media advocates dismiss these discourses of difference >as "essentialist" while Republicans decry them as "the >tyranny of special interests." But both provide >ideological justification for the dismantling of >legislation protecting civil rights. Civil rights woiuld be easier to protect if we all acted together, rather than reducing society to dozens of conflicting and romanticized special interest groups as the author does. >Viewing the world as a map eliminates time, focuses >disproportionately on space and dehumanizes life. In >the name of a politics of global connectedness, >artists and activists too often substitute an abstract >"connectedness" for any real engagement with people in >other places or even in their own locale. Hang on. All the successful examples of media intervention given earlier were political acts. It is frankly insulting to refer to them as art. Yet from "New Media Theory", to direct political action, we now turn to the practice of art... >What gets lost in this focus on mapping is the view of >the world from the ground: lived experience. What is >ignored is the pervasiveness of the well-orchestrated >and highly selective visual culture that the majority >of Americans consume during most of their waking >hours. Most people are not looking through microscopes >and telescopes and digital mapping systems to find >truth about the world. They are watching reality TV, >sitcoms, the Super Bowl, MTV and Fox News, all of >which also offer maps of a completely different kind: >conspiracy theories that pit innocent Americans >against the Axis of Evil, embedded journalists' >hallucinatory misreadings of foreign conflicts, >allegories of empowerment through consumption and >endlessly recycled, biblically inspired narratives of >sin and redemption. Most people looking at church art didn't work in heaven. Most people looking at modernist grids didn't live in art galleries. And most would-be critics who compare the aesthetic concerns of art with patronising fantasies of base proletarian interests don't live anywhere near their adopted flock. >Going off-grid >Finally we should consider what is being left off the >maps and why? What has happened, for example, to >institutional self-critique in the art world? It has been very successful commercially and textually but new fads have come along. >Why has >such examination become taboo in exhibitions or >unpopular with artists who gravitate to political >subjects? Because it has no transformative critical power. Because it is complicit with the financial and critical interests that demand it. Because it reflacts the managerial ego rather than questioning it. Because it is a set question with set answers that changes nothing. It is critical form, not critical content. Appearance, not action. >Why in the midst of myriad investigations of >corporate control of politics and culture is there >little or no attention paid to corporate control of >the museums and of corporate influence in art >collecting? Because it was established long ago and everyone knows it. So what do we do next? This is the problem. You can study something until the end of time, but above quantum level obsevation doesn't change things. You need to do something. Actually do something. Not write; do. >Why is it acceptable to the art world for >an artist to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, >but not to address the pressure put on the organizers >of global art exhibitions to showcase a >disproportionate number of Israeli artists? Good question. I think some sort of action would be better here as well. >Why is it >fine for black artists to celebrate the construction >of black style but not to make visible the virtual >absence of black people as arbiters in the power >structures of the art institutions, galleries, >magazines and auction houses where black art is given >economic and aesthetic value? " " " >We live in a very dangerous time in which the right to >express dissent and to raise questions about the >workings of power is seriously imperiled by >fundamentalisms of many kinds. http://www.lessig.org/blog is currently talking about previous reductions in rights. You ain't seen nothing yet compared to World War One. >Now more than ever we >need to keep the lessons of history foremost in our >minds and to defend the critical discourses and >practices that enable differing experiences and >perspectives to be heard and understood. >There are just too many important parallels to be >drawn between COINTELPRO and the excesses of law >enforcement brought about by the Patriot Act to be >dismissive of history. Socially conscious artists and >activists, rather than embracing tactics that rely on >dreams of omniscience, would do well to examine the >history of globalism, networks, dissent and collective >actions in order to understand that they are rooted in >the geopolitical and cultural margins. This essay is confused, poorly argued, and unreflectively polemical. The author is clearly angry about something, although quite what I couldn't say. The techno-utopianism of Wired, currently best represented by the "emergence" craze, is indeed bogus. But demanding that artists reveal Watergates or that we ignore all the women who produce and organise technologically-based art so we can cling to a comforting fantasy of repressions is counter-productive. Worse, demanding an illustratively political art is the kind of failure to differentiate between form and content (and art and life) that means I still think Flash Formalism says more politically than net.art . Wan hem fullap mekem nois, saenem natin. + + + Jason Van Anden replied: Perhaps the communication breakdown here stems from the term "new" attached to "media" and "art". New is the new contemporary is the new modern... We ought to be more careful about what we attach the word "new" to. Often, "new" asserts that a revolution has taken place - that the rules have completely changed in such a way that what occurred before no longer matters. This is the main concern that I responded to, regardless of the hard evidence presented. I would like to propose that we use the word "unfamilar" instead to refer to artistic expressions that implement recently available technologies. "Unfamiliar" is a lot more humble, and takes into account that its existence is simply different from what came before. I actually have the same problem with the word "media" - which seems redundant attached to "art", but I have to get to work on my next unfamilar work of art. + + + Pall Thayer added: Actually, in the context of art there really isn't much new to what's going on and I agree, media along with art is redundant. So it's all just "art" and we are just "artists". Also, not many people in todays world are "unfamiliar" with computers and the internet. + + + Joy Garnett <joyeria AT walrus.com> replied: I think I have to agree with Pall -- and with "MrTeacup" who left an insightful crit. in the comments: >quote< What is this heretofore unknown non-networked past? The very first paragraph of this essay betrays ignorance of what network means. Network theory and in fact, the majority of computer science has very little to do with computers or computer networks. Its true that the Internet is an implementation of these ideas, but it is notable not because it is the first, but because it is extremely fast. As for denial of history, communications networks predate human civilization. The idea that network theorists style themselves as Gibson-esque fantasy characters is laughable considering the rather boring, somber reality of mathematicians in academia who do the heavy lifting and that media depictions of actual hacking dumbed-down for the masses are the object of scorn for real hackers. Ms. Fusco identifies various activities that have occured in the political sphere as evidence of the historical nature of networks. As it is readily acknowledged that social networks are a feature of society itself, this is completely unnecessary. Advances in computing technology have enabled social networks to proliferate across previously established boundaries, and although this is generally the case with all advances from the development of language until now, they all profoundly influence social change, often providing a catalyst. However, there are some things that are unique about our current era. Our understanding of the mathematical principles of networks enables us to be somewhat more prescient about the proliferation of social change. For the first time in history, the theoretical underpinnings of a medium are at least partially understood before its broad implementation. Scientists have been successfully applying this understanding to networking problems that model social problems. While not explicitly network-related, the mathematical principles of Game Theory have been successfully applied to economic problems for decades. As I see it, there are three unique circumstances surrounding digital networks: 1. Advanced knowledge of mathematical networking principles. 2. Rapid and accurate measurement of the network. 3. Widespread deployment of knowledge in the network about the network. In other words, meta-knowledge about the operation of the network that accelerates optimal use. Posted by MrTeacup on December 16, 2004 at 8:45 PM >endquote< + + + Joy Garnett added: rob myers wrote: > This essay is confused, poorly argued, and unreflectively polemical. The > author is clearly angry about something, although quite what I couldn't > say. uh-huh. If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet). but... oh yawn. + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: Pall's comments are right on here (and most of Rob's). But if anyone has read any of the recent writings by Coco on Nettime or anywhere else, this polemic shouldn't be a surprise. Unfortunately, she has a lot of valid criticism on all kinds of concerns that get lost in the unreflexive ranting. This kind of arch O'Reillyism dilutes any substantial points that could, and need to be, made. The discussion between Coco and Ricardo Dominguez is a much more lucid critique of NM: http://www.metamute.com/look/article.tpl? IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=1&NrIssue=23&NrSection=10&NrArticle=241&searc h=search&SearchKeywords=fusco&SearchLevel=0 (URL will probably be broken) + + + curt cloninger replied: Hi Ryan, I'd like to respond to this excerpt from the metamute "interview" (more like a collaborative essay) that you link: ++++++++ Ricardo Domingo: A great deal has changed in the net.art world since 1997. Many museums are now deeply involved in framing net.art for public consumption. You can certainly see a difference rt that was presented at the Whitney Biennial in 2000, which presented work by rtmark.com and fakeshop.com that was both political and performative. In 2002, the focus is on techno-formalist net.artists who are working very hard to become an objet d'art -- and gain a foothold in the market. It is important for those artists working within a critical performative matrix not to be sidetracked by the latest techno-formalist fetish of museums or the gallery system. In the post 9/11 climate, it is more important than ever to push for aesthetic 'voices' that can bear witness to other worlds beyond the ideology of the War on Terrorism. It is not clear whether institutions will take on the task of presenting political net.art beyond simple documentation. This may start to happen if network_art_activism begins to establish stronger ties with the previous generations of artists who have faced the dismantling of the political in art -- both in the North and the South -- so that this very immature form which is net.art can gain a sense of history about institutional critique, in order to develop both a deeper aesthetic and historical knowledge about what other artists have done before history was erased by the digital hype. I really don't see the possibility of cultural support for political net.art works like EDT's Zapatista FloodNet any time soon. But for projects like 'Anchors for Witnessing' -- yes, there is interest and support. For political art projects that are about distribution -- yes, but for projects that 'disturb' -- no. Coco Fusco: So as things now stand institutions want to fund projects that narrow the digital divide, but not ones that subvert the formalist tendencies of net.art from within. Ricardo Domingo: Yes, projects that follow the market drive to plug everyone in, I think, will continue to gain more institutional presence and support. Those works which don't fold into the other end of the market drive for formalist containment, or the pure presentation of code qua code, machines qua machines, like network_art_activism, will be left in the archives, and will never be supported as a live performance. ++++++++++ Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of relevant human activities -- zapatista style political activities and neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble goal of all compassionate sentient individuals. Well what a bunch of crap. Against such assumptions I posit all the projects here: http://deepyoung.org/sister/ but particularly http://mjt.org The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art. Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band secretly pining to get on a major record label. Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never allow itself to be featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a contextualization would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives the MJT its subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and not just in the political world, but in the world world -- the holistic world of human thought and action. Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal hacktivist art -- in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye. [...] I mean Dominguez. And Fusquez. + + + Jason Van Anden replied: Pall, "Unfamiliar" is to "New" as "Contemporary" is to "Modern". "Contemporary Art" does not suggest we are unfamiliar with paint. > Actually, in the context of art there really isn't much new to what's > going on and I agree, media along with art is redundant. So it's all > just "art" and we are just "artists". Also, not many people in todays > world are "unfamiliar" with computers and the internet. > Pall Joy, I noticed that you used last names instead of first names. Is this the correct protocol? I wasn't sure - using first names did not feel right though. + + + Pall Thayer replied: why don't we just call it "Slightly unfamiliar new contemporary (post) modern media art stuff". So that would make me a "Slightly unfamiliar new contemporary (post) modern media art guy". + + + Jason Van Anden replied Works for me. + + + curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> added: I'm just here for the rhetorical prose. Some personal favorites so far -- +++++ rob: Actual hacking... is the *creation* of something, the solving of a problem, a shamanic exercise of personal creative skill to answer a need, *not* just breaking something down. +++++ coco: >It is as if more than four decades of postmodern >critique of the Cartesian subject had suddenly >evaporated. rob: We can but hope. +++++ joy: If I was going to get my hackles up I would say this author is trying to insert her own schtick into something she doesn't quite understand and feels somehow excluded by. (the schtick, it seems, is somewhere between unreconstituted stalinist feminism, early 90s multi-culti politically correct-speak, and something like a bee in a bonnet). but... oh yawn. +++++ + + + Pall Thayer added: This one made me laugh: rob: Ah. A *video piece*. Not "New Media", video. Much better. Analogue or digital video? Analogue? Much better. + + + Rob Myers replied: > Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied > within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," > techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for > any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because > they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of > relevant human activities -- zapatista style political activities and > neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the > artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of > beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something > resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is > that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a > system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble > goal of all compassionate sentient individuals. A would-be materialism that sneers at the proles (and "New Media" practitioners are *workers* in the information economy, New Media Art is their folk art in an age of post-mechanical reproduction) is no materialism at all. It is academicism in the worst C19th sense of the word. Privileging the politically illustrative and confirmatory over the culturally expressive and challenging is a failure of imagination and politics. If anyone wants to see the kind of 70s leftist political "engagement" that is at issue here, watch Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian" and keep an eye out for The Judean People's Front. That inter-factional, nonsensical "struggle" against reality is not a productive use of people's time. See the sites criticised from http://marxist-org-uk.blogspot.com/ for the online equivalent of the JPF. > The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm > hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not > just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but > by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me > is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as > spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it > doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art. Absolutely (cool links by the way). Looking political isn't the same as being political, indeed it's usually the opposite. > Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and > its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't > think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in > any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor > are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art > as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For > another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band > secretly pining to get on a major record label. Heh. I love the way that the current generation of injection-molded teenyboppers are described as "punk" on MTV (which, unlike many who criticise it, I actually watch. Far to much of...). I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it successfully refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to Thatcherism. Not anger, disdain. > Whereas the MJT is its own museum. It would never allow itself to be > featured in a gallery or biennial, because such a contextualization > would undermine the all-encompassing reality that gives the MJT its > subversive cognitively leverage, not just in the art world, and not > just in the political world, but in the world world -- the holistic > world of human thought and action. > Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more > interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal > hacktivist art -- in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. > But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to > skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" > (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than > meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye. And it's "disturbance" is of the easily rehearsed uncritical "criticism" of those who would explain it to the proles in as much as anything else (which, as I say, isn't any materialism worthy of the name). + + + curt cloninger replied: Rob Myers wrote: > I grew up in an age of Goth (second generation, late 80's). The > countercultural and critical mainstream hated Goth because of its > aestheticism. Goth was more political than punk because it > successfully > refused "cultural codes" and created a parallel culture unamenable to > Thatcherism. > Not anger, disdain. "withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy." - michael stipe quoting richard linklatter quoting brian eno + + + ryan griffis replied: Thanks for the thoughtful response Curt. > Like Rob, I smell a straw-man. There is this false dichotomy implied > within net.art of "hacktivism" vs. "techno-formalism," > techno-formalism being some vague derogatory term used to stand for > any form of non-political net art. EDT thinks they're radical because > they are alter-neo-liberal/zapatista, as if there are only two kind of > relevant human activities -- zapatista style political activities and > neo-libaral anti-globalism political activities. Relegated to the > artistically and culturally irrelevant are the activities of > beauty-making, particularly if such activities result in something > resembling an object. The condescending materialist assumption is > that any non-political art is part of the spectacle, reinforcing a > system the opposition of which is implicitly assumed to be the noble > goal of all compassionate sentient individuals. Sure, an uncritical attack on "techno-formalism" is, well, uncritical. i don't think "techno-formalism" can, or should be, equated with "beauty making" however. You (curt) have, for example, criticized the fetishization of certain tendencies in digital art - games, etc. while i don't care to speak for the writers of the essay, i take their attack on techno-formalism as an attack on the prioritization of wiz-bang technology that lends itself to consumer product promotion (i.e. the desire to wire the world with store bought CPUs). i don't think this criticism is an attack on aesthetics itself, but an attempt to look at how aesthetics is "used." i realize that we (curt and i) have widely divergent concerns in this arena, but i don't think it's that any art that doesn't look political is de facto just spectacle. art that uses open source tech is practicing politics differently than work dependent on licensed software/hardware. form carries as much weight as subject matter. and, if you believe, as i do, that all work is already political, it's about the politics practiced, not whether it is political at all that is up for criticism. > The Museum of Jurassic Technology is an across-the-board paradigm > hijack. Talk about changing the world one inidividual at a time, not > just by reconfiguring their understanding of political activity, but > by reconfiguring their understanding of understanding. The MJT to me > is as culturally relevant, as ethically laudable, and as > spectacle-disrupting as they come. It's so successfully "tactical" it > doesn't even read as tactical, political, activist, or even art. the MJT is a rad project, and many self-avowed "political artists" totally embrace it for many of the same reasons you mention. i would say that anyone who has ever visited it would have to recognize just how "tactical" it is. "political work" can be complex and define things in the positive (as opposed to strictly negative critique) > Domingo laments the art world's lack of interest in "hacktivism" and > its increased interest in "techno-formalism." For one thing, I don't > think the art world as a whole has ever been terribly interested in > any form of net.art (hacktivism, tecnho-formalism, or otherwise); nor > are either forms very salable (so his dis of "code qua code" net.art > as intentionally catering to the object market is a lot of wind). For > another thing, why does he care? It's like some punk rock band > secretly pining to get on a major record label. i totally agree with your criticism here. But this doesn't negate the need (as i might see it) to critique the support for certain manifestations of digital/networked art by institutions. > Perhaps alter-neo-liberal hacktivist art is indeed more > interesting/disturbing/effective/of-the-people than mere neo-liberal > hacktivist art -- in the same way that a Toyota is faster than a Yugo. > But the MJT is flying a Concord. There are more than two ways to > skin a cat. There is often more "disturbance" to "techno-formalism" > (read "pretty art that's not overtly performative or political") than > meets the materialist-indoctrinated eye. maybe, but i think "materialism" provides some good tools for avoiding the tunnel vision you're pointing out. materialism demands dealing with context and relationships in a way that attempts to avoid speculation (though i'd concede that's next to impossible). + + + curt cloninger replied: > Sure, an uncritical attack on "techno-formalism" is, well, > uncritical. > i don't think "techno-formalism" can, or should be, equated with > "beauty making" however. You (curt) have, for example, criticized the > fetishization of certain tendencies in digital art - games, etc. > while > i don't care to speak for the writers of the essay, i take their > attack > on techno-formalism as an attack on the prioritization of wiz-bang > technology that lends itself to consumer product promotion (i.e. the > desire to wire the world with store bought CPUs). i don't think this > criticism is an attack on aesthetics itself, but an attempt to look > at > how aesthetics is "used." It's hard to tell what they mean by "techno-formalism" because the phrase is used so pejoratively and vaguely. But I'm guessing they are dissing a contingent of the bitforms crowd ( http://bitforms.com/artists.html ) because Dominguez's position includes a critique of artists attempting to make code into salable object. So that would pit them against Casey Reas, Golan Levin, Martin Wattenberg, Mark Napier, and a bunch of people who are using the net in much more culturally-relevant and inventive ways than a denial of service attack on the Mexican government. I think it's a case of folks getting into the nuances of what they are into, and lumping everything else. Code artists are going to get into the distinction between reactive and generative. Political artists will get into the distinction between anarcho-post-marxist communes and neo-liberal event-based sit-ins. Whatever. It's the moral high-ground and the condescenscion I take issue with. If they really give a rip, let 'em move to Chiapas instead of concerning themselves with white-box curatorial critique. I agree with Coco's position (stated in the map article) that art needs to about humans rather than technology. But her critique of new media mapping is overly convenient and facile. To abstract data and display it on a macro or micro level is hardly equivalent to the using a map on CNN or in a pentagon war room. She sees the visual surface of the media and makes a seemingly profound insight (no photographs of people = no interest in idividuals). But she's missing the poetic implications of the procedural nuances of new media mapping. There is a big difference between a real-time generated data map or an interactive/scalable data map vs. a time-shifted video power point map on a newscast. A real-time generated map is all about time. An interactive map is all about giving the power to the people (cf: http://theyrule.org ). In addition, new media mapping allows cross-media transformations that are ripe with political critical implications and tactical potential. But there's this built-in bias against the aesthetic of the object. If the new media map has the appearance of graphic design or something built on a grid-based system, then immediately they all cry foul and trot out the scarlet "M" (modernism) and the scarlet "F" (formalism). But it's a shallow/surface, old-media-based critique, rooted in a kind of "media studies" when "media" meant "television news." It ingnores the importance of how these artworks function and focuses on what they look like. As far as their critique of galleries (in the metamute article), it's less a case of curatorial bias against tactical media, and simply a case of inherent media differences. For instance, how far can we really push the network to a state of hypertrophy until it becomes malleable enough for us to make it what we want? To a point, and then simple restrictions of bandwidth and technology (not to mention man-made extra-technical rules and laws) come into play. Perhaps this is too overtly McLuhanesque, but I find that media come with built-in, inherent limitations. These media limitations may have political implications (what doesn't?), but fiber-optic cable in and of itself doesn't have a sinister agenda. A white-box gallery has limits. So why try to fit everything in a gallery? Why even bemoan the fact that it won't fit? A city-wide protest march won't fit in a gallery (except as an archived, media-translated event). And why should it? Why perform theatre in a gallery? Why show a film in a gallery? (There may be legitimate reasons for both.) More to the point, why have a computer in a gallery set up with denial of service attack software connected to a corrput government? If the tactic is to shut down the government's server, then why wait for some gallery patron to walk by, read the artist statement, and decide whether or not to click "send?" That's pretentious and stupid. The click need not come from an elite gallery patron to have its effect. The click just needs to come from a bunch of different online machines (connectivity and ownership are "preferenced." for shame!), and once the software starts running, it's all automated. To try to present such a "hacktivist" event in a gallery setting may even be exploitive. It's using the cause of "disenfranchised" people as conceptual currency for the artist. > art that uses > open source tech is practicing politics differently than work > dependent > on licensed software/hardware. This is such a bogey I'm amazed it continues to get the mindshare it does. After I showed some of my work at FILE this year I was asked if it was "open source." It's HTML and JavaScript and gifs and jpegs. I used BBEdit to write the code, I used a Fuji camera to take some of the pictures, I used Google to find some of the pictures, I used Adobe Photoshop and ImageReady to prepare the pictures, I used a Macintosh OS to support the software, I used a WebStar modem to upload it all via a Charter Cable ISP, and I hosted it on a Unix box leased by Media Temple. Uh yeah, I guess it's "open source." You want open source art? http://www.sculpture.org.uk/image/504816331403 > form carries as much weight as subject > matter. and, if you believe, as i do, that all work is already > political, it's about the politics practiced, not whether it is > political at all that is up for criticism. By the same argument, all art is religious. All art is about the senses, all art is conceptual, all art is about marital relationships, all art is about migratory bird patterns. The question is, need all art always be viewed and preferenced and criticized and evaluated through a political grid? It's the very thing that is so annoying about legalistic Christians. Every artwork is initially, primarily, and inordinately evaluated on whether it's "orthodox," regardless of what context the art itself might be trying to establish. It's the exact same thing that's so annoying about Marxists, Materialists, Feminists, Anti-Globalization Activists, etc. Really, who gives a shit whether http://turux.org was made using open-source Java or proprietary Macromedia Director? Care if you like, but it's almost totally tangential to the purpose of that artwork. You're imposing you're critical agenda on the artwork. Barthes and Derrida say this is OK/inevitable/happening anyway, but they've yet to convince me that such carte blanche agenda-imposition makes for pertinent, insightful art criticism. + + + ryan griffis replied: > It's hard to tell what they mean by "techno-formalism" because the > phrase is used so pejoratively and vaguely. But I'm guessing they are > dissing a contingent of the bitforms crowd ( > http://bitforms.com/artists.html ) i'm not sure they're targeting particular artists (though this probably just reflects my interest in what they have to say). if there's any thing pointed at, i would say it's more systemic in nature. i don't think there's much value in an attack on the artists' works you mention, but there is (for me) in critiquing the valuation by institutions on certain forms of work, and how that work is framed and utilized by such institutions. i'm assuming you disagree pretty much. again, i don't really have any investment in defending that interview's content, i just think some of it's "charges" are more defined that Coco's mapping essay. > I think it's a case of folks getting into the nuances of what they are > into, and lumping everything else. Code artists are going to get into > the distinction between reactive and generative. Political artists > will get into the distinction between anarcho-post-marxist communes > and neo-liberal event-based sit-ins. Whatever. It's the moral > high-ground and the condescenscion I take issue with. If they really > give a rip, let 'em move to Chiapas instead of concerning themselves > with white-box curatorial critique. talk about your vague and pejorative criticisms. this sounds an awful lot like "if you really hate this country so much, then why don't you leave it." are you honestly suggesting that people can't care and make statements about things outside of their neighborhood? And to say that artists - whatever their concern - shouldn't feel free to criticize the arena they happen to be a part of, if they don't think it addresses things they find important... > I agree with Coco's position (stated in the map article) that art > needs to about humans rather than technology. But her critique of new > media mapping is overly convenient and facile. no argument here. i haven't talked to one person that has read/heard her speak about this that hasn't said the exact same thing, including me. and btw: most of the people i know involved in "political" mapping projects utilize very "designy" visuals, very effectively (IMHO). but i have read critiques from the establishment art world about the threatening take over of art by design. not something i'm too worried about. > If the tactic is to shut down the government's server, then why wait > for some gallery patron to walk by, read the artist statement, and > decide whether or not to click "send?" That's pretentious and stupid. many people say the same thing about most "web art," not to mention "conceptual art" that seems to be only concerned with moving colors and sampled sounds. but i guess "pretentious and stupid" is a valid criticism... > The click need not come from an elite gallery patron to have its > effect. The click just needs to come from a bunch of different online > machines (connectivity and ownership are "preferenced." for shame!), > and once the software starts running, it's all automated. To try to > present such a "hacktivist" event in a gallery setting may even be > exploitive. It's using the cause of "disenfranchised" people as > conceptual currency for the artist. the exploitive argument has been used against people working with representation of the "other" forever. that doesn't mean it's not a needed argument, but it doesn't mean much without specificity to me. How does one decide when the benefit of the artist isn't matched by the benefit of a generated discourse for the represented. As for the utilitarian argument, most artists practicing the work in question position it in a symbolic realm, as a form of cultural statement, not legislative or militaristic. >> > This is such a bogey I'm amazed it continues to get the mindshare it > does. OK - maybe i didn't make my point clearly. i agree with your general sentiment, but i said that work reliant on "open source" tech practiced politics DIFFERENTLY - not necessarily better. and i also meant the generation of "open sourced" work - public domain and all that. i merely meant to suggest that a political position could be taken by the choice of tools used as well as the overt content created. i guess this is another way of saying that materials and processes matter politically. personally, i'm interested in the politics of tools, but am so far invested in commercial technology. > By the same argument, all art is religious. All art is about the > senses, all art is conceptual, all art is about marital relationships, > all art is about migratory bird patterns. The question is, need all > art always be viewed and preferenced and criticized and evaluated > through a political grid? It's the very thing that is so annoying > about legalistic Christians. Every artwork is initially, primarily, > and inordinately evaluated on whether it's "orthodox," regardless of > what context the art itself might be trying to establish. It's the > exact same thing that's so annoying about Marxists, Materialists, > Feminists, Anti-Globalization Activists, etc. Really, who gives a > shit whether http://turux.org was made using open-source Java or > proprietary Macromedia Director? Care if you like, but it's almost > totally tangential to the purpose of that artwork. You're imposing > you're critical agenda on the artwork. Barthes and Derrida say this > is OK/inevitable/happening anyway, but th! > ey've yet to convince me that such carte blanche agenda-imposition > makes for pertinent, insightful art criticism. this reads like so much too-cool-for-school criticism. you can take whatever interests you disagree with, slap a label on it - particularly one that's loaded with the disdain that we seem to have for anything "academic" - and dismiss it as insignificant to art, or culture period. sure there is dogma in just about any ideological position, and some don't get beyond what you have to memorize to be part of the "group." but you seem to be attacking these things (marxism, feminism, etc ) as ideological, as if you're own relationship to art (and whatever else) is somehow outside of ideology! how do you not impose your "critical agenda" on work when you look at/criticize/evaluate a work? and finding tangential relationships in work is, honestly, what makes art interesting for me. obviously, we continue to disagree. interestingly, we have similar tastes in visual aesthetics (and some in music). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 50. 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 |