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: 4.29.05 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:29:39 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: April 29, 2005 Content: +announcement+ 1. Kevin McGarry: FW: UBERMORGEN.COM in Japan 2. Rachel Greene: Fwd: CRISIS - commissions & residencies at ISIS Arts - web & project launch 3. Pau Waelder: EDUARDO KAC- ART AND BIOTECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP 4. Rachel Greene: A Goodbye of Sorts 5. Rachel Greene: Rhizome Names Lauren Cornell as Executive Director +opportunity+ 6. Kevin McGarry: Call for New Superusers! +work+ 7. Rachel Greene: Fwd: Mongrel launch AROUNDHEAD and LUNGS - Sat May 7th, Southend +thread+ 8. curt cloninger, Plasma Studii - judsoN, ryan griffis, Michael Szpakowski, Patrick Simons, Matthew Mascotte, Pall Thayer, Jim Andrews, Jason Van Anden, Dirk Vekemans: Net Art Market 9. Plasma Studii - judsoN, Jonathan, Matthew Mascotte, Rob Myers: Boxer's Trouncing of the Boston Cyberarts Festival + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org 2005 Net Art Commissions The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via panel-awarded commissions. For the 2005 Rhizome Commissions, seven artists were selected to create artworks relating to the theme of Games: http://rhizome.org/commissions/2005.rhiz The Rhizome Commissioning Program is made possible by generous support from the Greenwall Foundation, the Jerome Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and the National Endowment for the Arts. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 4.25.05 From: Kevin McGarry <kevin AT rhizome.org> Subject: FW: UBERMORGEN.COM in Japan ------ Forwarded Message From: Hans Bernhard <hans AT ubermorgen.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:29:37 +0200 To: killer AT insekt.com Subject: UBERMORGEN.COM in Japan NTT ICC - Inter Communications Center Tokyo Open Nature Exhibition Curated by Yukiko Shikata http://www.ntticc.or.jp/Schedule/2005/Opennature/ Psych|OS, Digital Cocaine - Children of the 1980s http://www.hansbernhard.com/X/pages/video/ Artists Talk, 29 April 2005 -- Other current exhibitions... -- The Premises Gallery Johannesburg / South Africa GWEI / Google Will Eat Itself - Exhibition Slideshow http://www.gwei.org/pages/thepremises/slideshow/ -- Lentos Museum of Modern Art Linz / Austria "JUST DO IT!" Exhibition http://ubermorgen.com/exhibitions/foriginals/LENTOS_JUST_DO_IT_2005/ -- Stay off them tech drugs say... lizvlx and Hans Bernhard UBERMORGEN.COM ------ End of Forwarded Message + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 4.28.05 From: Rachel Greene <rachel AT rhizome.org> Subject: Fwd: CRISIS - commissions & residencies at ISIS Arts - web & project launch Begin forwarded message: > From: Michelle Hirschhorn <michelle AT isisarts.org.uk> > Date: April 27, 2005 7:34:45 AM EDT > To: Michelle Hirschhorn <michelle AT isisarts.org.uk> > Subject: CRISIS - commissions & residencies at ISIS Arts - web & > project launch > CRISIS > Commissions and Residencies at ISIS > > LAUNCH - THURSDAY 28 APRIL > http://www.isisarts.org.uk/crisis > > ISIS Arts is pleased to announce the launch of the CRISIS website, showcasing > 6 new web and moving image works by laurie halsey brown, Rob Kennedy, Manu > Luksch, Sophia New, Spencer Roberts & Anneke Pettican, and Miranda Whall. Also > featuring documentation from recent artist/curator joint residencies with > Sarah Cook & Saul Albert and Ange Taggart, Chris Graham & amino (Ben Ponton > and Lee Callaghan). > > ***For those of you in Newcastle, please join us from 5 - 7pm at ISIS Arts for > drinks & nibbles to celebrate*** > > CRISIS is a programme of new media commissions and residencies at ISIS Arts. > Launched in 2004, the pilot programme combined a series of production-based > and discursive activities that brought together artists, curators and > technical resource. CRISIS supported the process of artistic production and > the engagement with ideas surrounding interdisciplinary collaboration and > creative possibilities. > > The programme sought to increase the ways that artists engaged with the > organisation in its new city centre premises, as previously, much of the > programme was delivered away from base. > > CRISIS was centred around the process of production - the concepts and > activities that take place between the spark of an idea and the finished art > product. This complimented the other strands of ISIS' programming (new media > training, mentoring, arts in education, residencies) and lack of exhibition > space. Another integral aspect included peer to peer training and exchange > between regional, national and international participants, as a way of sharing > skills and facilitating new partnerships. > > The 12 month programme included 6 small commissions and short residencies, 2 > two-month joint artist and curator residencies, 3 evening networking events at > ISIS and 2 presentation events hosted for visiting international artists. > CRISIS was supported by the Arts Council England, North East and Newcastle > City Council. > > Programme curated by Michelle Hirschhorn > > > ISIS Arts > First floor > 5, Charlotte Square > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE1 4XF > > t: 44 191 261 4407 > e: isis AT isisarts.org.uk + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 4.28.05 From: Pau Waelder <pau AT sicplacitum.com> Subject: EDUARDO KAC- ART AND BIOTECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP EDUARDO KAC ART AND BIOTECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP 18-21 MAY 2005 VENUE : EXPERIMENTAL ART FOUNDATION Lion Arts Centre, North Terrace at Morphett Street, Adelaide, South Australia Since the early 1960s the social impact of computer technology has been a dominant issue and since the early 1980s the digital revolution has been provoking profound changes in the way we live. Now, in the twenty-first century, we realize that the next frontier of artistic investigation is biotechnology. The field of biological studies is changing from a life science into an information science Biosemiotics, for example, is an interdisciplinary science that studies communication and signification in living systems. Biotechnologies are introducing complex ethical issues, such as the patenting and sale of genes from foreign peoples. Genetic engineering is transforming forever how society approaches the notion of "life." A few contemporary artists have been responding to this change and are already working with transgenics, interspecies communication, cloning, tissue culture and hybridization techniques to redefine the boundaries between the artwork and living organisms. This workshop will discuss the complex and fascinating relationship between biology and art in the larger context of related social, political, and ethical issues. PROGRAM 18 May 1:30-4:30pm A Brief History of Art and DNA Presentation (slides, video) and discussion Questioning the Ideology of Biology Participants will be asked to read before the beginning of the workshop the following texts: "A Reasonable Skepticism", "All in the Genes?", and "Causes and Their Effects" in: Richard C. Lewontin: The doctrine of DNA : the biology of ideology (London; New York : Penguin, 1993). Participants will be expected to discuss these texts. 19 May 1:30-4:30pm Art and Ecology Presentation (slides, video) and discussion 20 May 1:30-4:30pm Art and Genetics Presentation (slides, video) and discussion 21 May 1:30-4:30pm Consciousness in Non-human Animals and Plants Screening and discussion of "Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry". Discussion will be based on the following texts: Thomas Nagel. "What is it Like to be a Bat?" in Philosophical Review October 1974, pp. 435-450; R. H. Bradshaw. "Consciousness in Non-Human Animals: Adopting the Precautionary Principle" in Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol. 5, N. 1, 1998, pp. 108-114; Alexandra H. M. Nagel. "Are Plants Conscious?" Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol. 4, N. 3, 1997, pp. 215-230; Daniel Dennett. "Animal Consciousness: What Matters and Why" in Social Research 62 (3), Fall 1995, pp. 691-710. REGISTER The Workshop is FREE. Travel and accommodation is at cost to the participant. There is limited capacity. Workshop texts will be available from the EAF and can be distributed via email. Register your interest in attending the Workshop by Thursday 5 May providing contact details and brief resume: Email: biotech AT eaf.asn.au - "Biotech Workshop" Post: Experimental Art Foundation, PO Box 8091, Station Arcade, South Australia, 5000 Fax: +61 (0)8 8211 7323 Phone EAF Director, Melentie Pandilovski, for further details +61 (0)8 82117505 Eduardo Kac's residency in Australia has been made possible with the assistance of the South Australian Government through Arts SA's Artist in Residence Program. -- EXPERIMENTAL ART FOUNDATION curates its exhibition program to represent new work that expands current debates and ideas in contemporary visual art. The EAF incorporates a gallery space, bookshop and artists studios. Lion Arts Centre North Terrace at Morphett Street Adelaide PO Box 8091 Station Arcade South Australia 5000 Tel: +618 8211 7505 Fax +618 8211 7323 email: eaf AT eaf.asn.au bookshop email: eafbooks AT eaf.asn.au web: http://www.eaf.asn.au Director: Melentie Pandilovski Administrator: Julie Lawton Program Manager: Michael Grimm Bookshop Manager: Ken Bolton The Experimental Art Foundation is assisted by the Commonwealth Government through the Australia Council, it arts funding and advisory body, by the South Australian Government through Arts SA, and through the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of the Australian, State and Territory Governments. The EAF is proudly smoke-free. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 4.29.05 From: Rachel Greene <rachel AT rhizome.org> Subject: A Goodbye of Sorts To Everyone in the Rhizome Community, As the Executive Director of Rhizome for almost the last two years, I have been privileged to work with a very talented core staff in an environment -- the New Museum -- that has doubly inspired me. The people I work with make art and artists their number one priority and I hope you are all as proud of their commitment as I am. I have met so many terrific Rhizome members and enthusiasts; it has been almost ten years of seeing mind-blowing art and being part of an emerging new lifestyle and art scene. It has been a real pleasure. I am writing to announce that I will be stepping down as Executive Director in the few weeks to develop some individual projects before starting a family. There will be a new model for Rhizome usability announced soon, and I have worked hard over the last year to make it practical and scalable. The fine points are still being finalized, but keep your eyes peeled for a more open community system coming soon! I will leave Rhizome in very capable hands, in fact, in the hands of my friend and colleague Lauren Cornell. I always admired and saved all of Lauren's press releases for Ocularis -- a cinema/video organization she put on the cultural map here in NYC -- and I always hoped we could lure her here to work with Francis Hwang, Kevin McGarry, and me. We succeeded. As this is a public annoucement, I want to thank the amazing, professional and supportive Board of Rhizome as well as all the Trustees of the New Museum. Rhizome's Board -- Saul Dennison, Bob Wyman, Paul Schnell, Chris Vroom, David Ross, Mark Tribe, Lisa Roumell and Lisa Phillips -- a deep bow for giving Rhizome safe haven when we needed it most. We would have been lost without you. Most of all, thank you to all the individuals who continue to make Rhizome relevant and meaningful by sharing their ideas, art work, and with their support. See you soon I hope, online or off. I will be around at Rhizome events of course! Sincerely, Rachel Greene Rachel Greene Executive Director, Rhizome.org Adjunct Curator New Museum of Contemporary Art 210 Eleventh Ave, NYC, NY 10001 tel. 212.219.1222 X 208 fax. 212.431.5328 ema. rachel AT rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 4.29.05 From: Rachel Greene <rachel AT rhizome.org> Subject: Rhizome Names Lauren Cornell as Executive Director FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Rhizome.org Names Lauren Cornell as Executive Director NEW YORK, NY, April 28, 2005 - Rhizome.org, the leading online resource for new media art, today announced that it has named Lauren Cornell as its next Executive Director, effective May 2. Cornell has strong management, fund-raising and curatorial experience in the media arts. She will replace Rachel Greene, who has been Executive Director since 2003 and with the organization since 1997. Under Greene's leadership, Rhizome transitioned into residence at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, expanded the breadth of its constituency through a host of new programs and organized exhibitions on- and off-line. In collaboration with the Rhizome staff, Greene has developed new usability plans for Rhizome which Cornell will implement in the near future. Cornell previously served as Executive Director of Ocularis, a nonprofit media arts organization in New York. She has curated exhibitions and screenings at venues throughout New York and internationally and has written about contemporary art and emerging technologies for a wide range of publications, including Rhizome. According to Rhizome Chairman Mark Tribe, "Lauren Cornell is a capable leader with a deep commitment to new media art. She has the skills, energy and vision to lead Rhizome into the future." As Executive Director, Cornell will be responsible for overseeing and growing all aspects of the organization, and will report to Rhizome's Board of Directors. "I have long admired Rhizome and have enjoyed getting to know the organization better as a contributing writer over the past year," Cornell said. "I am thrilled to work more closely with the staff and board as well as the network of individuals who make Rhizome such an exciting and vital resource." About Rhizome.org Rhizome.org is an online platform for the global new media art community. Our programs support the creation, presentation, discussion and preservation of contemporary art that uses new technologies in significant ways. We foster innovation and inclusiveness in everything we do. Rhizome.org takes its name from the botanical term for an underground stem that connects plants into living networks, a metaphor for the organization's non-hierarchical structure. Widely considered to be the world's leading online resource for and about new media artists and their work, Rhizome.org connects, supports, and educates the new media art community through a wide range of on- and offline programs. CONTACT: Rachel Greene Executive Director Rhizome.org 210 11th Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Email: rachel AT rhizome.org Tel: (212) 219-1288 x208 Fax: 212.431.5328 URL: http://rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 4.26.05 From: Kevin McGarry <kevin AT rhizome.org> Subject: Call for New Superusers! Call for New Superusers: The central column of content showcased on the Rhizome website is published by Rhizome's volunteer editors or "Superusers." As such, the Superusers play an important role in the Rhizome community specifically, and in the process of historicizing new media art more generally. Becoming a Superuser is an ongoing responsibility: we're asking for a commitment to archive a minimum of 5-10 texts a month. We're looking for participants who have some time and focus. If you're intrigued by all this and want to volunteer, then please get in touch. Send an email with the subject 'SUPERUSING' to Kevin McGarry (kevin AT rhizome.org), and include around 2 sentences why you want to get involved. We hope to hear from you soon! Kevin McGarry Content Coordinator Rhizome.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 4.26.05 From: Rachel Greene <rachel AT rhizome.org> Subject: Fwd: Mongrel launch AROUNDHEAD and LUNGS - Sat May 7th, Southend Begin forwarded message: > From: "richard" <richard AT jelliedeel.org> > Date: April 26, 2005 8:03:13 PM EDT > To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> > Subject: Mongrel launch AROUNDHEAD and LUNGS - Sat May 7th, Southend > Mongrel invites you to the launch of two new projects at the Jelliedeel Shed > in Southend-on-Sea: > > "AROUNDHEAD" and "LUNGS" > > 18:00pm to 21:00pm > Saturday May 7th, 2005. > ----------------------------------- > > "ARoundhead" > Oliver Cromwell's head is passed around the telephone system of a Scottish > mental hospital. A telephony installation first developed for the staff of > the Royal Edinburgh psychiatric hospital, commissioned by Artlink for > Functionsuite. > > "Lungs" > A software poem memorial to the slave labour that worked in the ex-munitions > factory in Karlsruhe during WWII. By computing the vital lung capacity of > these forced workers, the program emits their last breath of air. First > commissioned by ZKM, Karlsruhe for "Making Things Public". > ___________________________ > > The Jelliedeel Shed, > Unit 38, Grainger Road Industrial Estate, > Southend-on-Sea, > Essex, SS2 5DD. > T: 01702 460590 > http://www.jelliedeel.org > > Getting there: > Trains from Liverpool Street to Southend Victoria. (15, 34 and 55 minutes > past the hour, journey time - one hour). > Grainger Road estate is 5 mins walk away - turn left out of the station, > across the B&Q car park and take the right fork at the corner shop into > Milton Str. Grainger Road is first on the left. > http://www.jelliedeel.org/images/jelliedeel-map.jpg > > RSVP to: admin AT jelliedeel.org > > ======================== > Supported by Arts Council England. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Spring Hosting Special from BroadSpire https://www.broadspire.com/order/rhizome/bundlepack.html Want to consolidate multiple domains? Rhizome members can sign up for a Bundle hosting package that allows for up to five separate domains under one Broadspire hosting contract -- through May 9. Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other plan, today! + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. Date: 4.24.05-4.29.05 From: curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>, Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org>, ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com>, Michael Szpakowski <szpako AT yahoo.com>, Patrick Simons <patricksimons AT gloriousninth.com>, Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com>, Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is>, Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> Subject: Net Art Market (Part 2) (continued from a thread published in the 4.22.05 Rhizome Digest) curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> posted: judsoN wrote: > art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting > what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic, cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object. + + + Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. >This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic, >cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist >economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a >celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a >heart of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty >cold (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and >worship to unconscious self-serving activity. I object. ok, and that's cool. i would too at first. it definitely turned me off about psychology only until recently. but it's kind of like assuming computers can't make art because they are cold and heartless. (so are paint brushes. but both are just tools.) you may be assuming "what we want" and "celebration" are incompatible? but we can still be driven by a desire to be happy . you could also say we're driven by an addiction to the chemicals released in the brain. but that's a method not an end. that doesn't say happiness can't be spontaneous, that explains what differentiates happiness from non-happiness technically, just not poetically. And a poetic calibration isn't useful technically (though it's all over the US legal system). it's not that these free-will vs. reaction arguments are ever right or wrong. it's that often, they can be the same thing. for instance, how does a god end up making happiness in people and have them want to keep trying to attain it? do it with dopamine. it's just a tool! arguing against "self-serving" motivations is like saying masturbating is a sin. ok, some people love their hang ups. i can't expect you to agree, but may suspect we'd be saying the same thing if it weren't clouded by centuries of repressed and displaced taboo motivations. + + + ryan griffis <grifray AT yahoo.com> replied: >> art only exists as a solution, a vehicle, for getting >> what you really want, be it respect or a new pair of shoes. > This kind of statement always riles me. It's so materialistic, > cynical, and overly simplistic. It's like something a marxist > economist would teach to freshmen. What if making art is a > celebration? What if it's play? What if it's worship out of a heart > of thanksgiving for the mere fact that we exist? It's pretty cold > (but not at all uncommon) to reduce play and celebration and worship > to unconscious self-serving activity. I object. curt, i understand your response to the above statement, which i object to as well... i agree with many of your contributions to the discussion on selling net art, etc. but to label that above statement as similar to a marxist position might as well be red baiting. marx was not anti-play. and the notion that someone would work as something other than an artist, then spend leisure time engaging in creative activity in order to create something aesthetic, participate in a community, or learn more about something is entirely a marxist one. i would replace "marxist economist" in your response to "classical economist" or if you want to be more specific, possibly a "free market economist." viewing work as a means to obtaining shoes (unless you're making your own shoes) is the position of capital, not marxism. Ryan + + + Michael Szpakowski <szpako AT yahoo.com> replied: Absolutely! This Marxist at least Curt, has no problem accepting your characterisation of at least some of the roots of art. Marx wouldn't have either. Ryan is spot on, too, on who actually does sound like that -ie. the free marketeers; and, admittedly, also those who have drunk deep of the poisoned well of academic Marxism as it descends from Zhdanov and Mao -although given the political evolution of many of those, at least in the UK, it's quite difficuly to tell the two camps apart. I hear, for example, New Labour, loud and clear. best Michael + + + Patrick Simons <patricksimons AT gloriousninth.com> replied: To take this further, isn't the very idea of producing work which is beyond the commodifying process, of making something which has some resonance for other people, but has no possibility of being reduced to capital just magnificent and life re-affirming? Patrick + + + Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com> replied: once the market catches up to electronic art production, when aquiring digital art is as common as buying painting you all will be clamoring for a piece of the action...and no one will hate you for it and it won't mean that your work has been sacrificed in any way...the fact that getting grants for work like this now is so intnesely competitive has already established a "market" for certain types of production and influences things considerably. so we're already there... i just cant get behind the utopian vibe "has no possibility of being reduced to capital" as if works that sell are somehow sell-outs... or if an artist strives to be commercially successful they're some how sacrificing artistic integrity. warhol has taken care of this for us... media art necessarily intersects with commericial production...the very fact that consumer electronics are required to create and witness these works is an example of this. respects, Matthew + + + Patrick Simons <patricksimons AT gloriousninth.com> replied: Hi Matthew Why would you want to suggest that I would "clamor"? and what would the "action" be? and loads of people would hopefully hate me for it AND I imagine there is a whole chorus (massed) behind the "utopian vibe" humming ecstatically. And Andy Warhol... didn't seem to be able take care of himself, never mind taming the bastard art market AND "media art necessarily intersects with commericial > production" Just sounds like something the Borg would say.. Im off to look at some brilliant free work. Patrick + + + Pall Thayer <palli AT pallit.lhi.is> replied: That statement, "clamoring for a piece of the action", implies changing what you were doing and customizing it for this expected market. I would hate myself for doing that. No thanks. I'll just maintain my pace and if the art market doesn't catch up while I'm living, perhaps it will after life itself has stopped my progress. Having a "day job" that provides me with whatever I need actually gives me a sense of artistic freedom. I don't have to worry about whether or not someone's going to give me money for my art, although I don't mind it when they do. But my next meal doesn't depend on it. Pall + + + Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com> replied: i agree calmoring was poor wordsmithing...but i think the landscape for funding is so slim and competitive that artists "clamor" for what little there is. i wonder for example how many of the game proposals that were sent in last year for a Rhizome commission were done so by artists whos practises are solely engaged in game art...i think we saw plenty of proposals by artists that would never have ordinarily worked on gaming projects in their studios in isolation. respects, matthew + + + Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> replied: i wonder how the different financial pressures different places exert on people shape attitudes to art, and what is 'viable' and 'of value'? on a related though slightly digressive note, we are having a great television hockey season. much like the net (not the one with goalposts). i watch tv by no schedule, channel surf sporadically. i might find a game from the swedish league on. or one from the junior leagues. or even more junior--this season i've seen a championship pee wee game (12 year olds). and have seen international 'under 17' games. and AHL games. And the Canadian women's team. And local hockey on TV. And it's just as interesting to watch as NHL games. Moreso in certain ways. It isn't bloodsport. The best game I've seen this year was the Canadian University championship game. Excellent! I like the net approach to televised hockey: diversity. When professional dominance of the media fails, we discover the televised game in a fresh way and are able to see the relevance of the professional is highly constructed, artificial. once the strike is over, this diversity of televised hockey will diminish, no doubt, to the previous state. but that is not so much because it's what people want as what the machines of capitalist media prefer as high octane fuel (to make and take money). ja http://vispo.com + + + Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> replied: Matthew Mascotte brought up last year's Rhizome videogame art commission as an example of artists "clamoring" for crumbs. My proposal, Farklempt! was proposed as a way to break a creative loop I was stuck in. Luckily it was selected by the community - and this brings the discussion full circle. Farklempt! received a lot of press after its release last January. Tens of thousands of visitors from all over the world came and interacted with it. This was tangible evidence to me that net art has legs. There are plenty of working models of self sustaining ephemeral media. Movies, Radio, TV, WWW, videogames, iTunes and NetFlix come to mind ... I am guessing that these models are based upon the publishing industry that preceded them. Speaking of books, on my commute I am currently listening to "The Speed of Sound, 1926-1930" by Scott Eyman. This is an interesting history of sound in film. It starts out describing several failed attempts at sound before "The Jazz Singer" captured the public's attention and completely changed the rules. .. stay with me a sec ... I recently finished "I Bought Andy Warhol" by Richard Polsky and "Emmergence" by Steven Johnson. The former recounts the author's personal odyssey to own a Warhol Silkscreen - and in the process describes some of the inner working of the gallery system. The latter is an easy read about emergent systems. Connecting the dots ... I suspect net art will be supported by the public, eventually. I am not sure the current top down "brick and mortar" gallery system is built for this. Bottoms Up. Jason Van Anden www.smileproject.com + + + Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> replied: That's probably what it boils down too, & it kinda takes the whole point from underneath this discussion: if you see the media as a gigantic scanning device looking for money everywhere it can, and getting more refined at it every day, you don't need to worry about to sell or not to sell or even about how to sell, it's just a matter of you being picked up by it or not. In fact, trying to get sold could be disadvantageous to your profit, 'cause you might be pushing up the wrong parameters to the system. It doesn't do away with the very real problem of how to finance making the kind of art no large supporting or commercial institute is interested in, though. You still have to bend & twist that in all directions just to be acceptable, it's dicatorial: i mean you can write poetry with a piece of paper and a pencil,you don't need any money, if you want to make net art or installation art or anything involving computers, you will need your basic infrastructure and lot's of time for research/learning. I could manage pretty well writing/working regular jobs and have some nice results, not caring about any commercial pressure at all and i'm pretty sure i would have written different things when i did care about getting published within the existing publication media. As it turned out, i have far more people reading my poetry than i would have the traditional publishing way, plus i've written stuff that i'm actually happy about. Of course, the kind of poetry i'm talking about doesn't have any commercial value at all, it's not exactly the love & romance stuff song texts are made of... I'm finding it very hard doing the writing/developing/net art/working combination without starting to bend my highly poetic notions into some stuff that's sellable. I don't like that because i feel i'm wasting time with that kind of detour, I would like to do it the same way like i used to do when writing & not change anything because it would give me money. I just can't maintain my strict division of this i do for money and this i do because it fullfills my artistic needs (i really don't care why I have those, i have 'm so i have to do sth with it). And i do believe that i have some meaningful things for others to say & do in this field, that couldn't be done by people who haven't gone to the depth of how language can be turned into poetry. It's a rather unknown perspective, but if you'd care to check out some of the stuff that my compatriot and much better writer Peter Verhelst is doing with Crew Online at http://www.crewonline.org/crew.html , you'll see that the very same perspective can lead to some amazing and very relevant art. Well, heck, i'm just starting out with net art , i'll find a way to ram it up the system anyway. dv http://www.vilt.net/nkdee + + + Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> replied: "Encapsulation of type is thus achieved when there is an abstract class with derivations (or an interface with implementations) that are used polymorphically. " Alan Salloway & James R. Trott , Design Patterns Explained. A New Perspective on Object-Oriented Design, Boston: Addison-Wesley (2004), p.121 Quote of the day at http://www.vilt.net/nkdee Objects to RAM into society: Artistic freedom. Artistic freedom is thus achieved when no abstract class can be thought of or generated that has derivations (or an interface with implementations) that are used polymorphically in order to encapsulate your artistic process and make money from your art when you don't want it. Capsule: any living process reduced to an object by commercial systems to make it managable & profitable. Process to RAM into society: Transcoding of programming concepts into society needs critical and artistic analysis and a counterbalance building upon that analysis. Priority: none. I'll probably change my mind about this again tomorrow. Or rephrase it. Processes don't work the RAMMING way. There's no need for revolutions. If you make art, deny it's art. Destruction is an essential part of creation. Love's function is to create unknownness. My body is the car I drive. The vehicle inside me contains a person. I am caught in the trap of life. I know only how I make it. A tree is not a tree. Silence is not equal to absence of speech. I could go on like this for ages, but I have a commercial deadline to meet. In fact I'm dead already. dv http://www.vilt.net/nkdee + + + Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: if you see the media as a gigantic scanning device looking for money everywhere it can though eventually folks have figured out how to make most media marketable, media isn't at all designed to find that market? probably, "media" is just a vague term, but do you mean media as art on computer screen versus print, delivered via web versus a truck, or stored on a disc versus stored on a tape? some of these differences have been gotten used to, are now mainstream, while some still foreign. many are just getting used to the idea that storage on disc is just as "real" as storage in a box. but it's taking a lot longer to get used to the delivery methods. >I'm finding it very hard doing the writing/developing/net art/working >combination without starting to bend my highly poetic notions into some >stuff that's sellable. I don't like that because i feel i'm wasting > time with that kind of detour from another point of view, one could also say : my criteria is always most important to me because, well, it's mine. it's my baby. i developed it. giving it up sucks. but i also want to get as much (reward, even if it's just appreciation or joy delivered) for what i do as possible. so people often assume there's a choice between them. but appeal isn't really even related to any particular criteria. for instance, harpo marx, who wasn't really saying anything of public interest (wasn't saying anything at all!) but his interests (in the harp!?) became mainstream. not because of what his interests were specifically, but because of the WAY he shared them. and you may even say because he was so excited, it was infectious. later we wonder "why did anyone sit through those harp solos?", because we missed the pitch. mostly, we really just sell salesmanship, out attitude, our presentation. people get excited about and forget the actual aesthetics so easily they aren't even relevant. get em excited and they'll buy a used kleenex. the work has nothing to do with it. getting in touch with what gets people excited is a separate skill/gift. that alters peoples' memories and perceptions of the product. the question then isn't how can i make a painting that is good by my criteria, or saleable by another one, but how can i word the description of it, that raises buyers blood pressure. may sound pessimistic, but only if you think the old way is good and the new bad. neither, just different, and probably more suited to what peoples' brains are capable of. and then if you literally think of the sales pitch as a sales pitch. SO, ultimately, selling out has less effect than starving, but feeling good about your integrity has better effects on your "pitch" than feeling like your aesthetic is of no interest to others. whatever lets you work/sell the most comfortably is the only ideal. + + + Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> replied: JudsoN, When I used the word media it was in the general sense of anything that broadcasts information, organised in commercial companies and competing to make the most money from anything they can pick up as content. Internet used to escape most of that infrastructure, it is now getting to be increasingly a functioning part of it. You don¹t really exist as a website, unless you get listed by it¹s infrastructure. Eg: if you develop an internet game on your own, you stay offline with its potential unless you get commisioned, inscribed, talked about in the ?media¹. We Dutch ponies use the word in that sense constantly J Your Harpo example is well chosen, also because it illustrates that an essentially poetic process, your ?pitch¹, is shown to be a more mundane process than most people tend to think, that it can be dependent on external, and therefore changeable, dynamic ways of perceiving things. Whenever people get carried away by something like that they often say sth like¹it had a very poetic feeling about it¹ and they usually refer to the logic that is behind a complex of evocations of parts of reality. If you deal with poetry intensively, you learn how to spin that logic, make it a repeatable process, a working method. Correlating those kind of methods to programming practices is what I¹m after, but I find that I need to find new ways of programming because I don¹t see our current practice of OOP very effective in this area, although it is a proven technique with great results elsewhere. It¹s so much of a succes no one wonders any more that it still is a choice that is being made?So it¹s not a critique in the meaning of saying Object Oriented Programming is bad, it¹s very good actually and I don¹t see how you could claim it to be other, but it could turn out to be not the right way of programming for artistic purposes. It¹s just a haunting idea I have, based on what I know from ontological discussions, and I want to investigate it. Oh well, o, sorry, I got on my pony again. Anyway, you¹re probably right that i overestimate the importance of the sales wrap that you see as the main divergence. Perhaps I overestimate it because in what I was doing the subject was and is a very sensitive one. It¹s so sensitive because the amount of work you put into writing ?serious¹ poetry is never gonna be met with any respect or respons you could expect. You might write your guts out in a manner of speakin and still gain less respect than any third rate novelist. It¹s not a bad situation though, because you know all of that when you start doing it. On the other hand I watched myself going through the first building stages of my first net art project and I noticed that from the moment I started applying for commisions and such, there were heaps of microdecisions that I let be influenced by the very fact that I applied for those commisions. Knowing that I hardly stood a chance of getting any (it would have been a small miracle), I still didn¹t want to blow my changes and I was very prudent about lay-out decisions, exact wordings and such. I got increasingly annoyed by this, in so far that I now am very glad I didn¹t score anywhere and I feel freed now, back to square 1, free to not care about anything else and just let the process grow on itself. Somehow I seem to have made the project¹s not-for-sale part an essential basis of it. The only thing I do sell is what I call dead processes, objects, garbage that is left after the act. But that¹s more of a joke, critisizing today¹s ?traditional¹ art market prizes, where the value of a painting is decided by whether your work is taken up in the elite circle of commercial speculation objects or not. Once you are there, you can scribble away anything you want, it will still fetch prizes a tenfold of the allready exuberant prices I ask for my horridly amateuristic varnish covered layers of water paint. Traditional painting in that respect is a prime example of how commercial structures and value attribuations dictate the market, in so far it has nothing to do with art anymore imho. Painting is pretty much killed by the painting market and financial speculation there. So yes there is a difference if you add up all the small choices to how a net art work comes into being, especially so with net art ?cause you get immediate feedback: your economic value is as good as equal to how many pageviews you get, and you can watch new users clicking away from you if you add or delete an element that does or does not ?compile¹ in your viewers conception of your work. Off course this is true also when you¹re not focussing on economical value, but you I think are more easily satisfied with something that scares some of your audience away, when you don¹t focus your pageviews. I deal with my project as something that changes every day, so I just can¹t let the sales wrap take over. I think I just lost my ?pitch¹ as you call it the moment I started applying for commissions, it made me think too much, and hesitant. Don¹t know if this is still clear or even related to what you were saying. I¹m sorry that I keep referring to my own work, but it¹s the only thing I feel I can make general remarks about that make any sense Greetings, dv + + + oliver scott <os AT koept.net> replied: a bit off subject here... in reference to this... > 2. As for collecting. People collect everything and > anything. So yes...it will eventually happen that > people collect net art on a large scale. It just seems > that now, before it happens, we have a chance to mold > the way it happens. i am not so sure of this statement. people will definatelly collect, but... as people started to collect music in the mp3 format they could get so much and 'have it all' [well, at least what they wanted]. I now know of people deleting thier whole collections. there is so much new, so often on this huge scale that people are giving up collecting music. listening to online radio instead. i think that poeple will collect but the unexpected will show its face soon enough. the networked approach to collecting means maybe there is no need to collect? [i am obviously talking of ripped-off music, but i am refering to the collecter in us all.] + + + Jason Nelson <newmediapoet AT yahoo.com> replied: Dearest All, Excuse the overblown and awkwardly worded subject line, but it does point towards..ahem...my point. Perhaps I can make a slightly askew statement and say that idea of supporting ones self through their art can be tied (not solely but related to) two other factors (again not the only factors): One (yes I like to list), the generation of larger audiences for our work, and Two, more and more diverse and more personalized engagement with our audience. First the second: people collect prints (copies of paintings or photographs) often because they are signed, because they know that the artist they admire, that touches them, has touched, has added to the print. So ....how can we....being all creative and intelligent and quirk-handsome, how can we devise new methods to make our work both universally available and personalized? Perhaps there needs to be some type of signing? Perhaps work can have additions, like variants of the work (which we do already)? Perhaps the work could be tied to the physical object the work contains. Like much of my work is ficto-biography. So could I create artifacts to compliment that work? Secondly the first: of course, you say in a gurgling mad voice, of course we need larger, more varied audiences. Yes, but then what is being done to gather those audiences? Most of us shoot for the Ars Elec or the Siggraph or the Tate or whatever. But the audiences there are largely ourselves. Poetry has the same problem. But poetry does better then we, despite it being doomed to small sections of bookstores, and we with the entire web, and the skills to manipulate said environment. I suppose my call should fall to myself, but I am just a displaced country boy who forgets the punch line at fancy parties. cheers, Jason Nelson + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. Date: 4.29.05-4.30.05 From: Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org>, Jonathan <violinz AT hotmail.com>, Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com>, Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> Subject: Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org> posted: > Boxer's trouncing of Boston Cyberarts festival > is at: >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/arts/design/27cybe.html it's sad because she's totally right. stuff that the creators probably thought was so cool or didn't matter, was all the same stuff she thought was annoying or fundamentally a sign the thing even works. sad because she's now been taught that when she detects a work is particularly techno, she'll hate it, before she even tries it. conditioned to think all interactivity is intrinsically bad because most of the examples she's seen are. sad because it's hardly unusual. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/99/99fnickburns.phtml (not particularly funny, but a good portrait from both sides) artists and audiences can argue if something is a feature or a bug, but whoever wins, the artist gains nothing and the audience goes away, slightly disappointed. if we want things like collectors and price tags, the first step isn't re-conceptualizing a market. the first step is making stuff somebody else might be interested in. it's just using some much needed social skills. we have plenty we CAN still change. if we made anything they were into, all these excuses for the work not being buy-able would just be ignored, forgotten. one way, is to put in more effort on these productions to HIDE the computer-ness/quirks we love. a real skill that takes up probably 90% of the work. (tailors do the same thing, making their work, interesting to themselves, invisible to the world) even if we're talking about computers (like a book about books, if you're not into books, you won't read it. but you may even enjoy a painting of a book). boxer's stuck at a party full of geeks shouting at her about things like transporter beam anomalies. the subjects would even be tolerable, maybe even fascinating, if they made more pleasant conversation and actually paid the slightest attention to the other person. computers demanding idealized input from the real world, may be an unimportant side effect to working with these cool toys to some. but to others the toys are kinda boring, particularly if they only seem to be talking about and only work in a few rigidly selected cases. + + + Jonathan <violinz AT hotmail.com> replied: i am participating in the boston cyberarts festival with my installation particle playground (video at http://www.jonathanzalben.com), and i was upset about the reaction in the nytimes article. i cannot speak directly to those pieces mentioned, but i think you can see from the video of my piece (which contains touch sensitive monkey bars) that young children really enjoyed the interaction. there was learning and coordination involved as well. i noticed that older participants regardless of whether they liked the piece, were more interested in content and function than interaction with media, which is ultimately an essential part of what this art is about. i think it is difficult to separate out content and interaction and arrive at a meaningful experience. i am not sure what the age divide is and whether it is dependent on technological awareness, but i thought it would be interesting to point out how age in this particular case is a significant factor in enjoyment of art. + + + Matthew Mascotte <mascotte AT mac.com> replied: jonathan- an interesting point you make. i curated a solo exhibition for Daniel Shiffman at the Savannah College of Art and Design in February of 2004. http://www.shiffman.net/scad/ I was amazed at how naturally it seemed for children to engage Shiffman's interactive video pieces. I think most adults feel embarrassed and uncomfortable interacting with work in gallery settings...that uneasy feeling one has when you're selected from an audience to go on stage at a performace. I like your piece at BostonCyberarts perhaps we're seeing glimpses of future interactive art collectors in the making!!!! respects, Matthew + + + Plasma Studii - judsoN <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: your observation, albeit a pretty subjective one, seems right on. but i'd hardly say the phenomenon describes interactivity vs. content, as much as about kids have fun playing, particularly learning from things that react to them differently than expected. adults' curiosity/method of exploring often shifts from tactile/visceral to more cerebral/observing. (i'd be curious how older people react to interactive pieces? like 60-80 year olds.). i suspect, with these larger installation/interactive works, what you are seeing are kids focusing on the activity, what they do, watching how the thing behaves (which does seem like the heart and soul of interactivity). but the adult, who may like some abstract pieces better or worse (not automatically love or hate all non-figurative work), will judge the quality of the piece by how good (in their esteem) the thing ends up looking. if they can then improve the way it looks in some way by interacting. they look at things like the color combos. the arbitrary blends that include a very linear mix from a standard red to a standard purple are just not gonna be visually stunning. if it's for adults, they expect to register something sensually (or conceptually) compelling. but more power to you. completely legitimate to make a toy (not decoration), a work for kids to play with. but to put anything in an art show is going to open it up to being scrutinized by adults. adults who have really different expectations/criteria, don't have the same impulsive curiosity, and particularly see the noun as opposed to the verb. maybe you just like playing, are more of a kid. matthew had a good point about people who resist interactivity when he cited ...that uneasy feeling one has when you're selected from an audience to go on stage at a performace. + + + Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> replied: On 29 Apr 2005, at 23:32, Plasma Studii - judsoN wrote: > but i'd hardly say the phenomenon describes interactivity vs. content, > as much as about kids have fun playing, particularly learning from > things that react to them differently than expected. I've been taking Liam (4) to shows at PDA in Peterborough since he was 2, and he loves any kind of interactive art. Particularly projections, and physical spinner or slider type kinetic/optical pieces. He also likes talking about what he's seeing/doing and trying to work out what's happening, so he's being "cerebral" about it as well. The current show of static paintings really upset him. I had to take him out. Don't underrate play. :-) It's how we learn socially. One problem with interactive art, and with hypertext, is the demands it makes on the viewer. Giving the viewer "free rein" but with a corresponding demand that they "do the right thing" risks the artwork disappointing the audience, or the audience disappointing the artist. This is part of the moral territory of interactivity, and is a feature, not a bug. :-) - Rob. + + + Plasma Studii <office AT plasmastudii.org> replied: >Don't underrate play. :-) It's how we learn socially. sorry if you thought i was. just the opposite. in fact, see toys probably having more of a legit function then art. but since the function of art is so astoundingly unclear, it's hardly a worthwhile issue at all. meanwhile, interactive pieces can easily have several essential qualities, usefulness, as art, and as a toy. it's just often programmers aren't thinking of all those things, and really just how the actual gizmos themselves work. fine, but not everybody's interested in the gizmos. >One problem with interactive art, and with hypertext, is the demands >it makes on the viewer. Giving the viewer "free rein" but with a >corresponding demand that they "do the right thing" risks the >artwork disappointing the audience, or the audience disappointing >the artist. agree. it's always a helpful notion to make the very first and constant thought of interactivity is "what do they get for their effort" then. avoid programming so any effort could be construed as "the wrong thing", just whatever input, gets variant output. that's just basic interface work. the real world just behaves how it does, no wrong/right, it's just harder to account for. we can fall short in accounting for it, but the world isn't always going to cover for our short comings. we can't realistically expect that. > This is part of the moral territory of interactivity, and is a >feature, not a bug. :-) sorry, rob, but this conclusion seems like it came from outer space. have no idea how you got there. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome ArtBase Exhibitions http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/ Visit the third ArtBase Exhibition "Raiders of the Lost ArtBase," curated by Michael Connor of FACT and designed by scroll guru Dragan Espenschied. http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/raiders/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 18. 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 |
