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: 3.04.05 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 14:42:43 -0800 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: March 4, 2005 Content: +announcement+ 1.Kevin McGarry: Rhizome.org Announces "Raiders of the Lost ArtBase," curated by Michael Connor of FACT 2. Kevin McGarry: FW: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] DATA Browser 01 3. Michael Weisert: SWITCH Journal Issue 19 Released :: Call for Entries, Issue 20 +opportunity+ 4. Kristina Maskarin: Net Art Competition:: Deadline: March 31, 2005 +comment+ 5. Kevin McGarry: FW: [MARCEL-members] Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? 6. Philip Galanter: Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? +interview+ 7. Trebor Scholz: Reflections on Schemas of New Media-Based Educational Models 8. Trebor Scholz: Interview with John Hopkins +thread+ 9. Jason Van Anden, t.whid, Marisa S. Olson, joy.garnett AT gmail.com, atomic elroy, Jo-Anne Green: American Artstar 10. Matthew Mascotte, Jason Van Anden, Kevin Hamilton, ryan griffis, Anthony Craig Drennen, nathaniel hitchcock: Pod Pals (IN Network) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 3.01.05 From: Kevin McGarry <kevin AT rhizome.org> Subject: Rhizome.org Announces "Raiders of the Lost ArtBase," curated by Michael Connor of FACT Rhizome.org Announces Third ArtBase Exhibition FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, March 1, 2005 CONTACT Kevin McGarry, Rhizome.org Phone: 212.219.1288 X220 Email: kevin AT rhizome.org NEW YORK, NY--Rhizome.org is pleased to announce the opening of our third online exhibition curated from works in the Rhizome ArtBase, an archive of over 1400 new media artworks established in 1999. The show is entitled ³Raiders of the Lost ArtBase² and is curated by Michael Connor, Curator at FACT in Liverpool. http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/raiders/ Unlike past exhibitions, ³Raiders of the Lost ArtBase² takes the form of a blog. Connor ³will be tunneling into the Rhizome ArtBase until his eyes bleed, hunting for buried treasures both ancient and new,² selecting works sequentially, over the course of several weeks, and posting them to the ³Raiders² website. Here, viewers may not only browse the evolving exhibition, but also add to it by interjecting comments about the works. Viewers may also receive the exhibition in a live, distributed format by syndicating it or subscribing to its RSS feed: RSS: 0.92: http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/raiders/wp-rss.php RSS 2.0: http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/raiders/wp-rss2.php More about syndication and RSS: http://rhizome.org/syndicate/ The first work Connor has unearthed is ?Zombie and Mummy¹ (2002), Dragan ³Drax² Espenschied (DE) and Olia Lialina¹s (RU) serial comic strip about two ancient misfit-buddies looking for hobbies and meaning on the Internet and elsewhere. Drax is also responsible for the epic design of ³Raiders of the Lost ArtBase,² which is a vertically scrolling tour from the gif-strewn cosmos to the seventh circle of ArtBase hell. ³Scrolling is good,² explains Drax, ³because people need more exercise.² Rhizome Exhibitions is a program begun in November 2004, which invites international artists, curators, and writers to curate online exhibitions from works in the ArtBase. Member-curated Exhibits is a companion program also launched in November 2004, which allows Rhizome members to curate and interlink their own online exhibits from works in the ArtBase, using a web-based curating tool. Links to member-curated exhibits are interspersed throughout rhizome.org via member pages and included artworks. As they are added, member-curated exhibits will also appear here: http://rhizome.org/art/member-curated/ FACT is a £11 million arts centre for artists¹ film, video, and New Media that opened in Liverpool in 2003. Since that time, FACT Curator Michael Connor has programmed a series of exhibitions, screenings, and online programs that include ?Computing 101B¹, a major touring exhibition by artist duo JODI. For more information please contact: Kevin McGarry, Rhizome.org Phone: 212.219.1288 X220 Email: kevin AT rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 3.01.05 From: Kevin McGarry <kevin AT rhizome.org> Subject: FW: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] DATA Browser 01 ------ Forwarded Message From: joasia <joasia AT I-DAT.ORG> Reply-To: joasia <joasia AT I-DAT.ORG> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:53:21 +0000 To: NEW-MEDIA-CURATING AT JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] DATA Browser 01 -- The first book in the DATA Browser series: ECONOMISING CULTURE: ON 'THE (DIGITAL) CULTURE INDUSTRY' http://www.data-browser.net/01 contributors: Carbon Defense League & Conglomco Media Conglomeration | Adam Chmielewski | Jordan Crandall | Gameboyzz Orchestra | Marina Grzinic | Brian Holmes | Margarete Jahrmann | Esther Leslie | Marysia Lewandowska & Neil Cummings |Armin Medosch | Julian Priest & James Stevens | Raqs Media Collective | Mirko Tobias Schäfer | Jeremy Valentine | The Yes Men -- The interaction between culture and economy was famously explored by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer by the term 'Kulturindustrie' (The Culture Industry) to describe the production of mass culture and power relations between capitalist producers and mass consumers. Their account is a bleak one, but one that appears to hold continuing relevance, despite being written in 1944. Today, the pervasiveness of network technologies has contributed to the further erosion of the rigid boundaries between high art, mass culture and the economy, resulting in new kinds of cultural production charged with contradictions. On the one hand, the culture industry appears to allow for resistant strategies using digital technologies, but on the other it operates in the service of capital in ever more complex ways. This publication, the first in the series, uses the concept of the culture industry as a point of departure, and tests its currency under new conditions. -- details: Title: ECONOMISING CULTURE: ON ?THE (DIGITAL) CULTURE INDUSTRY¹ Authors: Various contributors, edited by Geoff Cox, Joasia Krysa, Anya Lewin Publisher: Autonomedia (DATA browser 01) in association with i-DAT Copyright 2004 (all texts released under a Creative Commons License) ISBN 1-57027-168-2 Pages 256, Paper Perfectbound Price $15 To order online visit: <http://bookstore.autonomedia.org/index.cgi?cart_id=6878017.4706&pid=460> Or <http://www.data-browser.net/01/> Distributed by Autonomedia (US) and Pluto Press (UK & Europe). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 3.04.05 From: Michael Weisert <mike AT mweisert.com> Subject: SWITCH Journal Issue 19 Released :: Call for Entries, Issue 20 [SWITCH JOURNAL ISSUE 19] The CADRE Laboratory for New Media at San Jose State University is pleased to announce the launch of SWITCH Issue 19. SWITCH is an online journal of contemporary media culture. SWITCH Issue 19: http://switch.sjsu.edu Issue 19 Features: - Interviews with Cory Arcangel, Alex Galloway, and Jim Campbell - "The Body", by STELARC - Coverage of the Silicon Valley Golf Classic - An urban storefront art show in downtown San Jose at Phantom Galleries - Projects from the Human Machine Interface Class at San Jose State - Fear-Oriented Programming [OPEN CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO SWITCH ISSUE 20] In preparation for the upcoming 2006 ISEA International Symposium of Electronic Arts, SWITCH will be exploring the themes of the upcoming symposium, the first of which being transvergence. Transvergence as the creation of new disciplines from a multidisciplinary model that becomes a hybrid, or departure from its place of origin. More information about "Transvergence" & ISEA 2006 can be found at http://isea2006.sjsu.edu We are seeking contributions in the form of papers, writing, artworks and interviews that effectively approach, as well expand upon the understanding of this topic. Deadline for submissions is April 4th, 2005 All submissions and inquiries should be sent via email to switch AT cadre.sjsu.edu + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 3.01.05 From: Kristina Maskarin <kristina_tina AT yahoo.com> Subject: Net Art Competition:: Deadline: March 31, 2005 International (open to everyone) competition. Projects that experiment with new forms of interdisciplinary collaboration and user interactivity. http://turbulence.org/comp_05/guidelines.htm + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 3.01.05 From: Kevin McGarry <kevin AT rhizome.org> Subject: FW: [MARCEL-members] Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? ------ Forwarded Message From: "Jon Ippolito" <jippolito AT umit.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:20:10 -0500 To: "Jon Ippolito" <jippolito AT umit.maine.edu> Subject: [MARCEL-members] Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? Anyone who wonders how the Internet will die will find one possible scenario in the recent decision by the Internet2 consortium to bring Hollywood into the design process for our next-generation Internet. Hollywood is on a roll. In a fraction of the time that it took the music industry to emasculate Napster, the Motion Picture Association of America has managed to shut down the highest profile file-sharing sites (Suprnova and LokiTorrent) and begun to sue its own share of college students. More importantly, the MPAA recently persuaded Congress to legislate something their fellow lobbyists in the music industry never managed to achieve: a copyright control device in every player. By this July, every DVD player and TiVo box will sniff for a "broadcast flag" that prevents it from copying digital TV broadcasts. This hardware intervention effectively destroys even the possibility of fair use, since artists and educators cannot transform, parody, or criticize what they cannot record. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is mounting a noble campaign to grandfather a compliant tuner before the legislation takes effect [1]--but in the meantime the MPAA has set its sights on its next acquisition: the ultra-high bandwidth Internet2, which runs on the 10 gigabit per second Abilene backbone: "We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time," said Chris Russell, the MPAA's vice president of Internet standards and technology. "Those would go hand in hand." [2] To judge from the statements of Internet2 bigwigs, their technologists have already capitulated before the battle has even begun: "This wraps together the broad interest we have in working with our members and potential members on advanced content delivery," said Internet2 Vice President Gary Bachula. "Obviously we're interested in making sure that's legal and safe." [2] The presentations I've seen to date from the Internet2 consortium, from music classes taught by "master" conductors [3] to biometric and authentication applications for "managing identity" [4], suggest that Internet2 is a broadcast organization in network clothing. While it's doubtful that everyone at work on Internet2 shares this vision, the consortium's choice to "collaborate" with the MPAA could give media conglomerates a chokehold on the 21st-century Internet. The stated goal of this collaboration--to investigate new business models for streaming movies--sounds reasonable until you read that Internet2 is already capable of transmitting a DVD movie from Switzerland to Tokyo in under 5 seconds. (Cut to Jack Valenti choking on a bagel as he reads this in the morning paper. [5]) No Hollywood exec is going to sanction a business model that lets Joe User download a movie onto a hard drive faster than the time it takes to launch his Web browser. Forget streaming video on demand. Hell, that isn't even enough time to watch a BMW ad. The technology behind Internet2 *breaks* anything remotely resembling a broadcast business model, which is why the MPAA will do its best to disarm the technology by installing Digital Rights Management directly in its routers to stop interesting content from ever getting into the pipeline. Now, the idea of "intelligent routers" may sound appealing to the average Congressperson, but the technologists of Internet2 should know better. Internet 1 was able to adapt so quickly to new uses--from email to the Web to IM--because its routers are fundamentally *dumb*. As engineer David Reed and others argued in the late 1970s [6], an indiscriminate "end-to-end" network would allow its users to hook up ever faster and more capable computers to its endpoints, without locking out uses that the network's architects could not have foreseen. Broadway was built for horse-drawn carriages, but since then its level pavement and wide footprint has accommodated Model Ts and Toyotas--precisely because its architecture was not optimized for carriages. Even companies like Disney and Microsoft have publicly recognized the importance of e2e to technological innovation. [7] Yet David Reed already smelled a threat to the e2e paradigm back in 2000, citing among other threats Hollywood's interest in streaming movies. In "The End of the End-To-End Argument?," Reed imagined uses that could not be foreseen by intelligent routers, including "collaborative creative spaces": "With broadband networks we are reaching the point where 'pickup' creation is possible--where a group of people can create and work in a 'shared workspace' that lets them communicate and interact in a rich environment where each participant can observe and use the work of others, just as if they were in the same physical space." [8] Reed's description of emergent collaborations bubbling across the network like so many games of pickup basketball is a world apart from the stuffy master classes of the Internet2 consortium. But it reads a lot like Internet2's stepsister, the MARCEL network of Access Grid communities [9]. If the "official" Internet2 consortium is a symphony orchestra in tails, the MARCEL network is a makeshift performance troupe. Internet2 has 200 university and corporate sponsors; MARCEL has a motley crew of artsy scientists, network performers, and Jitter jocks. Internet2 uses stable high-bandwidth videoconferencing for the privileged participants and netcast for everyone else; MARCEL uses the rickety Access Grid platform, which permits all users to participate at the same level. As MARCEL's Don Foresta has suggested, "efficient use of network resources" will be the argument marshalled by the media conglomerates against creative re-purposing of Internet2, just as the phrase was used justify the commercialization of the airwaves even if it contradicted the physics of electromagnetics. [10] (In Italy fascist apologists vindicated Mussolini by boasting that the trains ran on time.) Again, Reed saw this coming: "The architects who would make the network intelligent are structuring the network as if the dominant rich media communications will be fixed bandwidth, isochronous streams, either broadcast from a central 'television station' or point-to-point between a pair of end users. These isochronous streams are implicitly (by the design of the network's 'smart' architecture) granted privileges that less isochronous streams are denied--priority for network resources." [8] Privileges and networks don't make good bedfellows. For all its talk of community and access, Internet2 seems to be offering a backwards-thinking hierarchic model of culture, a sort of Great Performances meets Reality TV. To be sure, MARCEL has experimented with broadcast models as well, featuring gigs by luminaries such as fractal mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot and Max/MSP inventor Miller Puckette. But these admirable cameos don't reveal MARCEL's true potential; that happens when three students from different continents suddenly realize they are in the same Access Grid "room," and begin trading Max patches or holding pen-and-paper sketches up to the videocamera. In these quotidian, pickup collaborations--as in the beguiling video-composite performances Net Touch and Net Hope organized by Tim Jackson's Synthops lab in Toronto [11]--high-bandwidth networks prove they can be even *more* reciprocal than low-bandwidth networks. [12]. While MARCEL has for some time seemed a promising platform for the interchange of ideas and networked art, only recently have I come to realize that it can also serve a valuable tactical function. Like the EFF's efforts to make room for legitimate uses of digital TV recordings, MARCEL's creative community can develop and showcase remixable network performances--both for their own sake as well as to provide empirical evidence for future court cases to defend the value of end-to-end networks. [13] In so doing its members can promote the vision of a vibrant future for the Internet--one that lets us all play onstage instead of admiring the players from the balcony. Jon NOTES [1] http://eff.org/broadcastflag/ [2] http://news.com.com/MPAA+seeks+Internet2+tests%2C+P2P+monitor+role/2100-1026 _3-5458537.html [3] http://www.nws.edu/NWS_internet2.asp?pg=NWS_internet2.asp [4] http://www.campus-technology.com/print.asp?ID=10405 [5] http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/05122004hearing1265/Valenti1987 .htm [6] http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp?section=paper&fn=endofendtoend. html [7] http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200212/msg0005 3.html [8] http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp?section=paper&fn=endofendtoend. html [9] http://newmedia.umaine.edu/marcel/ [10] http://www.newamerica.net/Download_Docs/pdfs/Doc_File_143_1.pdf [11] http://www.rcc.ryerson.ca/synthops/process.htm [12] Theorist-gadfly Jean Baudrillard pointed out that reciprocality was the key feature missing from Hans Magnus Enzensberger's definition of emancipatory media. http://www.calarts.edu/~bookchin/mediatheory/essays/19-baudrillard-03.pdf [13] Cyberlaw guru Lawrence Lessig laments that a lack of empirical evidence doomed his argument in Eldred v. Ashcroft. http://www.authorama.com/free-culture-18.html _______________________________________________ MARCEL-members mailing list MARCEL-members AT wimbledon.ac.uk http://wimbledon.ac.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/marcel-members + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 3.04.05 From: Philip Galanter <list AT philipgalanter.com> Subject: Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet? A few days ago Jon Ippolito posted a sort of manifesto positing Internet2 as a threat to the kind of internet artists and academics would like to continue to use. I know Jon a bit from my MARCEL involvement and elsewhere. Jon's a really smart guy with a keen gift for deft rhetoric, and I am sure he means well. Unfortunately Jon's post invokes several basic misunderstandings of the related technologies. These confusions are no mere technical quibbles. They are fundamental to the central thesis that somehow the Internet2 effort may bring about the death of the internet. This couldn't be more wrong. I'll let the basic facts, as corrected in the following, speak for themselves. >By this July, every DVD player and TiVo box will sniff for a >"broadcast flag" that prevents it from copying digital TV >broadcasts. This hardware intervention effectively destroys even the >possibility of fair use, since artists and educators cannot >transform, parody, or criticize what they cannot record.* The >broadcast flag does not prevent making recordings for time shifting >or other personal "fair use". This is simply not true. There are hairs to be split, but basically (1) the broadcast flag only applies to over-the-air broadcasts (not cable, satellite, or internet streaming), and (2) it will not prevent copying for fair use. For example, you will still be able to record over-the-air broadcast TV shows at home for later use. The broadcast flag system *will* prevent large scale redistribution, i.e. massive piracy. But this has always been illegal...even in the era of videotape. http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000717032165/ >The technology behind Internet2 *breaks* anything remotely >resembling a broadcast business model, which is why the MPAA will do >its best to disarm the technology by installing Digital Rights >Management directly in its routers to stop interesting content from >ever getting into the pipeline. Again, this is simply not true. Router level digital rights management is not being considered by any of the internet standards bodies. It's not even over the horizon. However, the current worldwide internet upgrade from IPv4 to IPv6 *does* make multicast an intrinsic part of the protocol rather than an add-on. And multicast is *exactly* the technology a broadcast model needs. But multicast also benefits "the little guy" because in principle independent artists will no longer have to pay for increased server capacity as their audience grows. The shared network, rather than the server, will distribute the stream to as many viewers as are interested. So if anything, "broadcast" related technical changes in Internet2 (and eventually other networks) will serve as a democratizing equalizer. And by the way, IPv6 multicast has *no* built-in Digital Rights Management. None. And routers under IPv6 remain "dumb" contrary to implications otherwise. (As a footnote, multicast is also the enabling protocol technology that makes the Access Grid, MARCEL's current platform of choice, possible.) http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IPv6MulticastandAnycastAddressing.htm >For all its talk of community and access, Internet2 seems to be >offering a backwards-thinking hierarchic model of culture, a sort of >Great Performances meets Reality TV. Again...not true. Reasonable people can disagree when it comes to matters of esthetic taste, but contrary to Jon's central thesis Internet2 technology remains both content and application agnostic. Elsewhere he mentions "privileged" isochronous channels. But isochronous channels don't, and can't, even exist under either IPv4 or IPv6 or on either Internet2 or "internet1". The ability to quickly create improvised collaborative groups was recognized as being among the highest application priorities in the earliest pre-planning of Internet2. Application level efforts such as the Internet2 Commons, VRVS, and indeed the very Access Grid technology that MARCEL depends on, are some of the fruit of this early vision. Today on Internet2 non-hiearchical social interaction isn't speculation...it's already well established standard practice. And when it comes to Internet2 *content* people are free to do what they will. If one finds the current crop of artistic efforts to be wanting the best, and entirely invited, response is to go out and create something better. To sum up, there is simply no factual basis for any Internet2 vrs MARCEL conflict. And I personally look forward to working further with both! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 2.28.05 From: Trebor <trebor AT buffalo.edu> Subject: Reflections on Schemas of New Media-Based Educational Models Reflections on Schemas of New Media-Based Educational Models Interview with Patrick Lichty (adjusted by Trebor Scholz) As part of WebCamTalk1.0 http://www.newmediaeducation.org Trebor Scholz: Who influenced your thinking about new-media art education? Patrick Lichty: Henry Giroux's ideas on radical pedagogy influenced me a great deal in terms of electronic communication in education. Although Giroux has not addressed new media per se, his thoughts on radical pedagogy as agent of social change have had an influence in terms of activist writings and media tactics. In this day and age when our rights to free speech are being imposed upon so badly, one must engage in media tactics in order to get a full range of ideas across. What we see in the current mass media is what I would call 'tactical reality,' which is a highly subjective (or speculative), ideological form of reality that gets replicated until it reaches a point of mass acceptance. The question remains: Who shapes this information? Accuracy in reporting and accountability might have evaporated a long time ago, but these issues absolutely belong on the table of the new media educator. Earlier than any work with groups like The Yes Men, I was a member of a subversive pedagogy group called Haymarket Riot. My colleague Jon Epstein and I created multimedia and a series of rock videos that dealt with postmodern sociology, similar to the old 'Schoolhouse Rock' genre but with a hard industrial track and 3D computer graphics. It had two purposesâ??- first, it was intended to test our theories on multimodal learning in light of early 90s media culture. And secondly, it got our message into the classroom. We distributed the tapes widely across universities in the United States. A few students remember the questions about technological determinism that we posed in those tapes today. We just received feedback about these tapes a month ago which was peculiar since the project had been dormant since1999. Another crucial theoretical influence is the Brazilian philosopher Vilem Flusser, who distinguishes discourse from dialogue. In my reading of Flusser discourse is a unilateral transmission of information, hopefully building on prior dialogues. Conversely, dialogue is a multilateral exchange of ideas. Under this model, dialogue should generate more information and knowledge; it is a seed generator and feedback machine. Through a more distributed/less hierarchical exchange of information there is the possibility for greater generation of ideas. Perhaps this is the principle behind the move from lecturer to facilitator in academia. TS: For some time now there has been an increased interest in notions of self-institutionalization, so called anti-universities, and 'free universities.' What can the self-contained institutional apparatus of the university learn from these 'collaboratories'? PL: From a conversation I had with Steve Dietz several years ago on new terms for emerging cultural forms, I have liked to play off of Hakim Bey's idea of the 'Temporary Autonomous Zone' in which individuals agree to create a brief social compact for a common aim. In Beyâ??s case, it refers to temporary communities like Burning Man, but in my conversation with Dietz (the Temporary Autonomous Taxonomy) my thought was to create ad hoc vocabularies for a given cultural situation for better understanding. I am arguing for temporary intellectual zones spinning off Hakim Bay. In this case, I am thinking of a 'Temporary Intellectual Zone' in which groups might be able to create and exchange bodies of knowledge that can keep up with the rapid change of technoculture. These zones can address niche cultures that are so small that institutional organs like journals would not take notice. I am arguing for media such as micro- or on-demand journals, and communal electronic media like Wikipedia. These micro-institutions can manage rapidly changing aspects of culture while maintaining some legitimating functions to ensure the accuracy of their content. In 'Speaking the Multimedia Culture' (University of Maryland, College Park; 1996) I have spoken about media literacy that encompass multiple channels of media transmission/communication in which contemporary culture talks through media and metaphors across many more channels of information than ever before. Although this is not directly analogous to the Temporary Intellectual Zone, one could translate this concept into the potential need for expanded niche groups to address emerging social issues. At the same time there is the danger to drown in a sea of information. The speed of information creation and consumption could lead to a breakdown of the ability to process it. At that point, the acceleration of cultural production would perhaps lead to a form of â??information paralysisâ?? far worse than what we witness already. Useful responses to this problem include information filters such as news aggregators for RSS feeds. TS: Do you think that the productive sites outside the university are morphing faster than academia? A book in the academic publishing cycle, for example, takes about two years to get published. Online you can insert your contribution immediately into a peer-reviewed distributed debate. PL: Absolutely. An unnerving aspect of culture is that the private sector universities such as the University of Phoenix and Capella seem to be pioneering much of the use of social software for learning, although much of it simply relies on adapted news servers and Microsoft Outlook. Their software is basic, but the systems under which they employ connectivity and asynchronous learning have been developed by trial and error over a period of years. The challenge in distributed learning is not technological but has everything to do with the implementation into social systems. As a related note, it is interesting to see the shift in pedagogy from discursive to that of a team-centered learning facilitation approach. This model follows a move from the hierarchical top-down approach to a more distributed one in the classroom. This is another area where I am somewhat uncertain, as the obvious influence of the private sector is obvious here, but the team approach towards learning seems to have some real strengths. I am curious about the long-term effects of this methodology. http://www.uopxonline.com http://www.capella.edu There are other readily available technologies that can circumvent the usual barriers of time and space so that students can get in contact with some of the better thinkers of our time. For example, the use of a basic powerbook and an iSight camera with a decent broadband connection allows for conversation that was only available by teleconferencing before, and was not feasible by webcam before. Products like this are not open source, and by no means free, but at $125 for an iSight camera, one can get a lot of social bandwidth. You can see and hear the person well, and it is easily implemented-- it does not require an elite knowledge that technologies like VR systems still require. However, the upper-end systems there are also dropping in price. For example, an Access Grid node can be set up for less than $25,000 using off-the-shelf parts. The Access Grid (AG) is an open-source Internet 2 consortium of institutions, which have adopted a set of multi-threaded audiovisual, and media net casting standards for distributed information sharing. In addition, there is an open-source Virtual Reality consortium called the GeoWall that was originally based in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) that is again using off-the-shelf resources to create more affordable virtual reality resources. Here at Bowling Green State University, Gregory Little and I are trying to develop distributed Virtual Reality environments through which people will hopefully be able to collaborate. This will be implemented by using common interfaces to examine sets of data, the most common being terrains or avatar-based environments. http://www.apple.com/ http://www.accessgrid.org http://www.geowall.org http://art.bgsu.edu/~glittle/ars Some of the other powerful emerging cooperative technologies include podcasting and text messaging. On a recent visit to the Cleveland Institute of Art, I noticed that their broadcast video class is using a blog for the development of ideas for projects and for the logging of progress. Blogging technology is starting to be adopted in the classroom. Based on this the use of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) news aggregators in combination with MP3 (and soon video, I am sure) attachments could create the ability to have asynchronous models of lecturing for classes. In these models, the aggregators could grab the media files, upload them to the userâ??s personal media device, and then deliver the content, to which the student could respond via the blog or forum. As an educational model podcasting is relatively simple. Texting and SMS are other media that look like good models for information delivery. With urban legends in the media talking about kids texting on their cell phones at speeds of up to 150 words per minute, they are rapidly shooting a lot of information at each other. And while I was annoyed at first when I saw it used by my students, I soon realized that if they are using that social bandwidth so effectively then educators should bring it into the classroom as well. http://www.podcasting.net http://www.engadget.com/entry/5843952395227141/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/02/07/podcasting.ap/ http://www.lights.com/weblogs/rss.html To sum up-- we are in a period of rapid technological change, and although I am against technological determinism, I feel that educators need to be aware and make use of the technological developments happening in the world of their students. From the angle of knowledge creation, social networks as generators of information and ideas have a lot of merit if there are models in which the veracity of the information can somehow be maintained. The question regarding the gatekeepers of knowledge then comes up vis-Ã -vis authority and legitimacy of the information and who gets to regulate it. In the classroom, the move from a top-down to a more horizontal /distributed, facilitated form of learning seems to be increasingly accepted. I think the most exciting part of network culture is the potential to get students closer to relevant knowledge. There is much to consider and we are merely in the process of sorting it out. TS: Thank you for being with us today. PL: Always my pleasure. About: Patrick Lichty is a technologically-based conceptual artist, writer, independent curator, and Executive Editor of Intelligent Agent Magazine. He has also collaborated as part of numerous collectives, including Terminal Time, The Yes Men, Haymarket Riot, ScreenSavers, and others. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 3.02.05 From: Reinhold Grether <Reinhold.Grether AT netzwissenschaft.de> Subject: Interview with John Hopkins Facilitating a Dialogical Platform for Creative Engagement Interview with John Hopkins (adjusted by Trebor Scholz) As part of WebCamTalk1.0 http://www.newmediaeducation.org Trebor Scholz: You have taught all over the world: from Reykjavik and Helsinki, to Bremen and Boulder. Working in between cultures you encountered difficulties finding relevant reading materials in the native language, which led you away from introducing texts and instead you started to focus more on the creation of 'dialogical spaces.' There is also the aspect of new media research texts most often being authored and distributed in English, which comes with the danger of imposing one cultural context onto others. In a previous conversation you said that teaching without using much theory felt liberating to you. John Hopkins: Yes, I would definitely use the word liberating. In 1992 when I founded the new media area at the Icelandic Academy of Art there were no relevant texts available in Icelandic. And I hesitated to assign foreign language readings as this felt imposing, imperialistic even. Often I found my Nordic students to have a better command of English than my Northern American ones -- so that was not the reason I shied away from texts in English. But text governs so much of the hierarchy of control -- to toss this out is a very powerful step. It frees the students up as well as myself to get to their specific issues, which are relevant in relation to their local context. A socially constructed framework such as a text may not speak to the situation at hand despite the widespread perception that if a teacher assigns a text that it must somehow be relevant to the student's life. Often you just do not get to this situation of social, cultural, and geographical relevance when you slog through a mass of critical texts. (But, just to be clear, I do not want to devalue theory. It is one specific type of socially mediated information. But if it appears as a prevailing input that forces discovery into one single focus, then I am highly suspicious of it.) While I do consume mediated information much of the time, I do give higher value to the lived local experience. I could teach theory until I am blue in the face as they say. But unless there is an associated and relevant praxis arising, there would be no point. I did occasionally assign texts by Geert Lovink or David Garcia, both of whom I find very inspirational. I also introduced the first zkp4's* to American students hot off the press in 1997 and they surprisingly engaged with the texts. I have also been known to even assign the UnaBomber Manifesto from time to time. But I find my teaching of texts pointless unless it is on a pathway to a lived practice. TS: Earlier we spoke about Martin Buber's influence on your work and how you mobilize his ideas of dialogical space. JH: I use the term dialogue", borrowed from Buber -- which I define as an energized exchange between the self and the other. A bi-directional exchange, not just verbal but a full exchange of human energies. This is what dialogue is about. Starting from this concept -- talking about distributed exchanges. Martin Buber's essay "Genuine Dialogue and the Possibilities of Peace" deeply struck me as it promotes dialogue as the pathway to a more democratic, caring, just, and sustainable world. He proposes that societal changes are made on a granular human to human level and not on a world political scale. Otherwise, he claims, we are just playing around with social systems. My personal idea of an energized encounter is a full-spectrum dialogue between the self and the other. It requires a shifting into a space modeled by quantum physics, Taoism, and Tibetan Buddhism: the universe as a field of energies. When two people meet and they walk away with more energy than they had prior to this encounter then something has happened. When we engage with the other and an excess energy remains after we part-- that is inspiration. My teaching is a facilitation of open frameworks, of platforms in which these inspirations can grow. I am of course also sympathetic with Hakim Bey's "Temporary Autonomous Zone." With students I designate a time period -- between 6 hours to 24 hours -- in which they first experience each other and then use the available networked technology to express themselves. I may give one student an hour on a stream and they have to curate this time. This could be a poetry reading by a friend or a live performance-- there is no set topical agenda or issue that they respond to, it is entirely a response to their particular local situation. This mostly also involves cooking and eating together. This is very important. To break bread together is a powerful experience. TS: Did you see much of this inspiration unfolding in the universities at which you taught? JH: A lot of full-time faculty get burned out, they lose energy, they are under extremely high degrees of daily stress in a heavy power structure. Thankfully, I can give 15 workshops in a row in different countries and I am in the end still energized because I am open to receiving something -- through energized relationships. And that is because I kept myself open in the teaching situation. Fortunately, I let go of the idea that I am the only source of knowledge and energy, which is a great feeling. TS: What you describe as inspiration coming out of an encounter. In his book "The Third Hand" Charles Green referred to this as the "third body." JH: Yes, there are many models for this and Christianity (among that host of other models) formulates this when Christ says: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." This merely describes the excess of energy that arises when two or three people are in focused engagement. Interaction between self and the other is fundamental -- it is a fact of everyday life. I start all my courses with the task for students to pair up and connect with each for two full hours in a focused and concentrated way. I see this as an anchor with the topic being absolutely open, it is an encounter with a stranger. It is simply two human beings engaging with each other. Engaging with a stranger is of course related to fear -- the uncomfortable engagement with the unknown other. Once you pay attention to these face-to-face encounters then you have a much better understanding of what happens in the mediated, extended, remote, disembodied communication channels. TS: Which open source software tools are you using? JH: First, I seize whichever hardware is available and then I use software such as iChat, IRC, Quicktime/Darwin servers, REAL servers, and Audion. I don't exclusively use open source software but I do try to stay clear of Microsoft products. I refuse to let situations be crippled by a lack of hardware, or a limited infrastructure. I don't walk into a situation and say: "Oh, no, there is no streaming server, I can't do this project..." I always seize what is available. I have problems with techno-prima-donnas who come in and can't "do art" without this or that tool. We can always set up ad-hoc networks -- all one needs for an artwork is two human beings. I never failed to see a group of people to seize their resources and do something interesting. I would never let the technology lead a situation -- that, to me, is a proven concept. Technology needs to follow the human elements and not the other way around. As somebody who comes from deep inside the military industrial complex I have seen the dangers of letting technology lead. We have all seen those results. When has there have ever been something good that came out of a situation where technology led people? Frankly, I could not think of an example. It is critical that people understand that tools mediate human situations and that we understand the loss that comes from this mediating process between the self and other. The more there is a technological mediation between self and other -- the bigger the loss. That is something that is not often addressed in depth. On the other hand I use technology that allows a focused and attentive exchange with an other person. Of course the degree to which people can put up with telecommunication tools varies. Some person accepts this kind of loss on a cell phone but would be critical of the connective possibilities of video conferencing. TS: Earlier you framed your networked practice as art. I am not so interested in grouping the discussion in art or non-art terms. This debate all too often leads to attempted definitions that then stand in as power tools for admittance or exclusion. But I am curious about the emergence of a social aesthetics in the technological channels that we use and I wonder if this can be related to histories of that-- of art. JH: I had a career in science and technology and only then made a formal transition to art. I personally try to shed terms like artist or engineer. I refuse titles. If anything, I would use the term networker. People who are networkers seem to be a little more able to let go of those kinds of frameworks and can imagine what other people's contexts are like. Who is this other person in the network -- what are they about? How can I express empathy for that person? Exchanges here become extremely subjective. All these identities are transitory -- in my practice I do not label people but rather discover them dynamically while engaging with them, not defining them by their social standing or rank. This opens up more possibilities for truly human interactions. The rewards are much greater than the costs. You may irritate people when you refuse a label like "artist." They may even get desperate -- they will do anything to put you in some kind of box. So, art, engineering, science, technology-- these are all important areas that I move across but I found that dropping a reliance on those terms and boxes is necessary to crack situations open. References: John Hopkin's Bookmarks: http://neoscenes.net/links/bookmarks.html Teaching http://neoscenes.net/hyper-text/text/teachphil.html zkp4's http://www.ljudmila.org/nettime/zkp4/toc.htm Tools: http://www.panic.com/audion/download.html + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 2.24.05-3.03.05 From: Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, "t.whid" <twhid AT twhid.com>, "Marisa S. Olson" <artstarrecords AT yahoo.com>, <joy.garnett AT gmail.com>, atomic elroy <atomicelroy AT mac.com>, Jo-Anne Green <jo AT turbulence.org> Subject: American Artstar Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> posted: I searched Google this morning looking for online commentary about the upcoming (US) reality TV show "Artstar". For those of you who have not already quit your day job - I refer you to: www.artstar.tv . The week long open call starts next Monday - picture a long line of bohemian-types smoking and shivering in the cold as they wait to have their life's work ambivalently pecked over by some very well dressed art world dignitaries, Jeffrey Deitch cast in the role of Simon Cowell (or "The Donald"? I dunno, I just read about TV). I envision something like a living "A Chorus Line" but with artists - or "Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire" but with artists - or something. My search revealed that our very own t.whid was the only artist in with a blog brave enough to publicly express a mix of skepticsm and disgust. I am pretty sure we will hear a more about this next week - albeit after the cutting begins - links follow. Good Luck! Jason Van Anden MTAA blog entry: http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/re_artstar_tv.html Google "artstar.tv": http://www.google.com/search?q=artstar.tv Clay Aiken: http://www.delafont.com/music_acts/clay-aiken.htm Whatever happened to "Draw Tippy"? http://www.google.com/search?q=Draw+Tippy + + + "t.whid" <twhid AT twhid.com> replied: if yer interested... index of all my artstar ramblings and rantings here (only 3): http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/index.find?find=artstar&plugin=find plus m.river's take: http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/m_river_art_star.html + + + "Marisa S. Olson" <artstarrecords AT yahoo.com> replied: Hey, all. I actually find this whole debate an interesting one, and it covers some of the topics I've tried to address in my own work and in my curatorial efforts. (I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if you want them.) Reading TWhid's blog entry, below, I feel compelled to ask (of him or anyone here who cares) what comprises this "fine line" between the two extremes of "good Pop Art and a sickening psychophantical homage to the dominant media culture"..? And must all art that appropriates the form and/or content of popular media fall into one or the other of these extreme categories? Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to be highly imitative--and, hence, to some degree, reverent, even if only in the sense of (let's say) what Jameson calls "nostalgia films," which are not necessarily acting in praise... To me, it is this act of shadowing (miming, resulting directly from, yet in contrast and however shape-shifted) that best affords the opportunity for critique. Admittedly, it is sort of an act of relinquishing some of the sense of "value" implied in models of authority (read: authorship), in order to sort of free one's speech, ie to protest. But anyway. I also wonder how TWhid (& MRiver) would situate their 1 year performance project re: reality tv--and if they see similarities, then have they given us "good Pop Art [or] a sickening psychophantical homage to the dominant media culture"? ;) Marisa + + + Jason Van Anden replied: Hi Marisa, Do you think Artstar is parody? MO>(I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if you want them.) Please do. I am glad that I found the American Idol Audition Blog. (took a quick look for now, plan to revist when I have more time) Other links would be super appreciated. Jason Van Anden + + + twhid replied: Hi Marisa, reply here: http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/yet_even_more_artstar_tv.html and below. Take care :) +++++ >MO: I feel compelled to ask (of him or anyone here who cares) what comprises this ³fine line² between the two extremes of ³good Pop Art and a sickening psychophantical [sic] homage to the dominant media culture²..? And must all art that appropriates the form and/or content of popular media fall into one or the other of these extreme categories? >TW: (As soon as I saw my words quoted back at me I thought, ³Psychophantical? That¹s not how you spell sycophantical.²) >MO: Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to be highly imitative?and, hence, to some degree, reverent, even if only in the sense of (let¹s say) what Jameson calls ³nostalgia films,² which are not necessarily acting in praise? To me, it is this act of shadowing (miming, resulting directly from, yet in contrast and however shape-shifted) that best affords the opportunity for critique. Admittedly, it is sort of an act of relinquishing some of the sense of ³value² implied in models of authority (read: authorship), in order to sort of free one¹s speech, ie to protest. >TW: What comprises the fine line? I don¹t know, but I know it when I see it. Parody, it seems to me, is neither Pop Art or ?sickening¹ sycophancy. Good Pop Art doesn¹t seem like straight-up parody to me as it¹s critique isn¹t as implicit. You¹re not quite sure if Warhol is critiquing popular culture or celebrating it. His best pieces (and his life) seem to have a conceptual shimmer. One is unsure of his intentions. Nonetheless there always seems to be a critical text in there somewhere? it¹s just hard to pin down sometimes. I don¹t think Artstar.tv is intended to be a parody. Perhaps I¹m wrong. It also doesn¹t seem to be intended as Pop art. It just seems to be a regular ole reality TV show (which btw will air on the Zoom hi-definition satellite network) using reality TV conventions and grafting them onto the art world. This is only speculation, but there doesn¹t seem to be a critical text or sub-text in sight. >MO: But anyway. I also wonder how TWhid (& MRiver) would situate their 1 year performance project re: reality tv?and if they see similarities, then have they given us ³good Pop Art [or] a sickening psychophantical homage to the dominant media culture²? ;) >TW: 1YPV doesn¹t have anything to do with reality TV or Pop art IMO. Since reality TV is so heavily edited there isn¹t really any formal connection. The closest thing it comes to is the 24/7 web-cams that Big Brother used to have online. Thanks for the discussion Marisa! + + + joy.garnett AT gmail.com added: here: http://www.deitch.com/projects/sub.php?projId=156 + + + twhid added: I need to add, I see why Marisa is interested in these questions due to her American Idol project (http://americanidolauditiontraining.blogs.com/marisa/). Her project seems to walk this line. One is unsure if the project is parody or serious. I think it would be interesting to see other artists explore the reality TV phenomenon from the inside and critically. It's a rich area of popular culture to explore without a doubt. (I could be talking completely out of my ass, but) I don't see any evidence that the producers of artstar.tv are attempting to explore this area critically. They simply wish to provide a keyhole for viewers to peek through at a particular aspect of the art world and probably humiliate a few people along the way. + + + Marisa S. Olson replied: Wow. Good to wake up (West Coast!) to this discussion. Thanks to Jason, TWhid, Joy, et al. I should back up and say that I do not know whether the artstar.tv folks intend their project as a parody, and in my heart i doubt that they do, though I don't know. What I meant to do, in raising the question of parody was to sort of unpack or problematize what TWhid said about everything falling into the two extremes of great pop art vs a "sickening sycophantical homage to the dominant media culture,? with only a fine (and heretofore undefined) line dividing them. I'm selfish. as the creator of a parody spun out of reality TV, I wanted to know where my work fell on that weighty continuum. But, in a larger sense, I wanted to know where parody could be accommodated, in this model. To me, parody is an extremely important act, offering great potential for protest. I won't launch into too much of a quotefest, here, but when I was doing my own personal research on the theory of parody, in the course of my American Idol project, I came across this comment by Linda Hutcheon that really resonated with me: "[W]hat we find in post-modernism is a form of art that is complicitous with the cultural dominants of our age [but] still wishes to retain its right to criticize that culture. That paradoxical politics of being complicitous but critical is characteristic of all forms of post-modernism." (Linda Hutcheon, in an interview with Joseph Pivato, Aurora Online 2001, 20 May 2004 http://aurora.icaap.org/archive/hutcheon.html) I think TWhid's model speaks to this paradoxicality, but I think that his "fine line" is worth defining--and manipulating. Artstar.tv may not be worthy of inspiring this discussion (actually, I kind of like the idea, though when several friends suggested I audition I declined), but it is a discussion worth having, nonetheless. I truly think that, ultimately, in order to make room for parody in this paradox of critique vs participation, we will need to shift some of our basic (capitalist) ideas about what an author is, what a work is, and what the 'market' (and, more so, economy) for that work is... Marisa + + + Marisa S. Olson added: P.S... Jason Van Anden: > MO>(I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if you > want them.) > > Please do. I am glad that I found the American Idol > Audition Blog. (took a quick look for now, plan to > revist when I have more time) Other links would be > super appreciated. Yes, TWhid linked to my AI project: And then, on a curatorial level, I would point mostly to the show POP_Remix, at SF Camerawork, last May-June. This is the only documentation currently online: http://www.sfcamerawork.org/past_exhibits/pop_remix.html and http://www.sfcamerawork.org/journals/spring_04.html Best, marisa + + + Jason Van Anden added: Thanks for the links. I checked them out, as well as your American Idol blog in more detail. I am now even more curious about where you feel parody fits in with artstar. Marisa Olson wrote: >Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to be highly imitative... Best, Jason Van Anden + + + Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> added: I agree with Marisa that artstar most likely does not merit too deep a discussion - except in the context of parody. I have a bunch of thoughts about this as well as her very interesting comments about the fine line between critique and participation. Too little time to pursue the latter at the moment - but in the interest of keeping this discussion alive, here's a few questions that are raised for me if we understand artstar as parody: What is it a parody of? Who is the artist and who is the market? + + + atomic elroy <atomicelroy AT mac.com> added: hi y'all! could this ( artstar.tv) perhaps be nothing more that a publicity stunt by Deitch? albeit with a certain benefit to the "winning artist". or perhaps just another chance to delve into pedantic ambiguity? AE05. + + + t.whid added: Hi all, new development in the artstar.tv area: http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/maybe_notstar_tv.html + + + Jason Van Anden added: It's started shooting at any rate ... Note the big photo of artist-clown (online at least). Nice quote from Jeffery Deitch about how pathetic artists have become. t.whid quoted as skeptic on same page. Reality newspaper: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/arts/television/02reality.html?8hpib Jason Van Anden + + + Jo-Anne Green <jo AT turbulence.org> added: http://www.test.org.uk/archives/002373.html + + + Jason Van Anden added: Was everyone else on line last Monday? Jo-Anne Green wrote: http://www.test.org.uk/archives/002373.html This appears to suggest that Artstar might not be exploitive because Kartoon Kings are involved. Of the cast of characters (listed below) it seems that they would be the only artists in the pecking order that have an opportunity to "wrest control of the artworld's economic hierarchy" - kinda. Artstar Pecking Order: 1.) Collectors with $ to burn who also watch TV 2.) Deitch Projects 3.) Kartoon Kings 4.) Artists (non-self respecting, clearly not from 70's) Why not have an art realty tv show loosely based on "Joe Millionaire" where out of a pool of eligible gallery directors one will be selected for a chance to marry an incredibly wealthy collector? Self-respecting artists of the 00s unite! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 10. Date: 3.02.05-3.04.05 From: Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com>, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, Kevin Hamilton <kham AT uiuc.edu>, ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com>, Anthony Craig Drennen <adrennen AT scad.edu>, nathaniel hitchcock <redredshoes AT popstar.com> Subject: Pod Pals (IN Network) Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com> posted: i'm wondering where the Pod Pals project fits into the overall scheme of things. ok, the project calls attention to the importance of digital gear in our daily lives and is utilizing popular modes of connectivity (podcasts, inNetworks, etc) but is the material recently haked from Ms. Hilton's cell phone Art? As significant (and cool) as Mandiberg and Steinmetz are what is it about their upcoming moblog/podcast and emails that is important? What exaclty are we being asked to contemplate here? Not the content of the project (nothing has been made yet really) and as far as the conceptual plan is concerned I don't see how what they're doing is unique. Matthew + + + Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> replied: Why do you ask? J + + + Matthew Mascotte replied: ivan- I see no difference in how the project is being established and all the other moblogs/podcasts out there both in terms of content and concept. i'm questioning why pod pals has been elevated to the status of art... Turbulence funding and a Net Art News review is what I mean by important it has been contextualized into the Art scene before its even happened and as far as i can tell its gonna operate just like a mom and pop blog. A running critique throughout the project's run (especially a formalist one) would be very interesting indeed... I'm game if you are. respects, Matthew On Wednesday, March 02, 2005, at 04:24PM, Ivan Pope <ivan AT ivanpope.com> wrote: >Is this a question you always ask about art, or does this bother you > for some reason? Why does it have to be 'important'? Why do you think > we are being asked to 'contemplate'? >We can do an online crit if you like, might be fun? >Cheers, >Ivan + + + Kevin Hamilton <kham AT uiuc.edu> replied: Ivan and Matthew I agree that this piece might serve well as a starting point for critique - only I would ask not "How is this art?" but "How is this unlike commerce?" I'm curious about how exactly this work will differ from the dreams of telepresence marketed by the telecom industry. Is 24-7 telepresent connection the pure fulfillment of these dreams, or, like Marinetti's car crashed in the ditch, an absurd manifestation that reveals their inevitable failure? >From the proposal and description, I suspect that it's more the former than the latter - though even with Marinetti it's hard to tell. The project could perhaps learn a bit from Tehching Hsieh and Linda Montano, who lived together for a year tied by a short rope. (I always heard that they ended up requiring legal mediation.) There is plenty sinister in companionship, and plenty of obstacles to connection in even the clearest line. I'll be following with interest. Kevin Hamilton + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: Ricardo Miranda Zuniga's "virtual landscape" is another, much less techno-utopian (yet more theatrical), exploration of the long-distance relationship caused by the required mobility of the culture industry. http://www.ambriente.com/net/mount/mount.html Of course, the techno-utopianism of IN Network is part of its subject matter, the perceived lack of options requiring complete subservience to the IT order. it's "you've got mail" hyper updated to account for the dream/nightmare of 24hr connectedness/separation. it allows them to be "together" only by forcing them to be apart. the family-plan gives the illusion that distance is really closeness. Or as AT&T predicted/ordered, "You will." http://ad-rag.com/114815.php if only shulgin's fuck-you-fuck-me device had been made commercial... http://www.fu-fme.com/ + + + Anthony Craig Drennen <adrennen AT scad.edu> replied: Matthew, I think I agree with you as to the significance of Pod Pals project. It is ostensively presented--if I understand it correctly--as technological application that blurs the boundaries between "art" and "life." I think it's just as likely that the opposite is true, that the perpetual blurring of art and life (yawn) is simply a pretext to support and legitamize new technology products. The intent seems to be a rhapsodic mediation on presence and absence...in the life of middle management academics. Actually I like it better now.... Anthony Craig + + + nathaniel hitchcock <redredshoes AT popstar.com> replied: i dont think that it is about thier connectivity with each other through technology. when they project thier personas into this space, thier personalities are skewed even when they had known eachother as long as they did. it is like the natural space skewing the contiousness of the supernatural. the hyperspace is skewing the contiousness of the natural, or maybe vice versa. + + + Matthew Mascotte replied: We can find a multitude of ways to contextualize and discuss the inNetwork project and I think there has already been some interesting ideas. Joe-Ann Green's recent link to test.org regarding ArtStar has yielded one...after poking around there i found an interesting post called "Are You Awake Are You in Love" (which, if you've been following inNetwork content is an apt title)...the piece looks at three projects that utilize mobile technologies and suggests among other things that "the production and consumption of an artwork can be reduced to the same act." http://www.test.org.uk/archives/000612.html In decribing ROSEN (Real-time Online Sound Environment Network) Brian Lee Yung Rowe states "it becomes necessary to consider existence as occupying more than just space and time; it now also includes virtual space." http://muxspace.com/brooding/rosen/ If virtual space is a component of human existence/a dimension of reality then when will it be time to turn our attention to what is being made there as opposed to a fascination with simply using the infrastructure? This is where Mandiberg and Steinmetz's project falls apart for me. Yesterday there were a total of 9 posts made to inNetwork: 2 photos, 3 podcasts and 4 text messages...hardly a feast for my eyes and ears and brain to chew on in any space-time continuum. respects, matthew + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 10, number 10. 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 |