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: 02.24.06
From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:48:31 -0800
Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org
Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org

RHIZOME DIGEST: February 24, 2006

++ Always online at http://rhizome.org/digest ++

Content:

+opportunity+
1. Alison Sant: Reminder: SoEx OFFSITE proposals due Feb. 28
2. Kangok Lee: CALL FOR ENTRY : Seoul Net Festival 2006
3. Lauren Cornell: Smith seeks artist-in-residence

+announcement+
4. Marjan van Mourik: VIPER NTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL FOR FILM VIDEO AND NEW
MEDIA
5. zanni.org: MAXXI Museum, Rome - Art and Virtual Identities
6. lmartin AT sfai.edu: New Museum Curator Laura Hoptman Gives Public
Lecture at SFAI
7. Marjan van Mourik: Sonic Acts XI - The Anthology of Computer Art

+thread+
8. Jason Van Anden, Pall Thayer, T.Whid, rob AT robmyers.org, Jim Andrews,
Lee Wells, jeremy, netwurker AT hotkey.net.au, Zev Robinson

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships
that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions
allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without
having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students
or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to
Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools
to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering
subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor
or excluded communities. Please visit http://rhizome.org/info/org.php for
more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell AT Rhizome.org

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1.

From: Alison Sant <ali AT alisant.net>
Date: Feb 20, 2006
Subject: Reminder: SoEx OFFSITE proposals due Feb. 28

CALL FOR PROPOSALS: SoEx OFFSITE

An opportunity for emerging artists to develop and create new public works
in San Francisco that investigate diverse strategies for exploring and
mapping public space.

SOUTHERN EXPOSURE OFFSITE:

Southern Exposure's 2006-2007 Exhibition and Artists in Education programs
will move beyond the gallery walls in order to present new forms of work
in public space. Southern Exposure will temporarily relocate in the summer
of 2006 so that the building that we have always called home at Project
Artaud can undergo a seismic retrofit and upgrade. Southern Exposure is
utilizing this unique opportunity to extend our programs into the public
realm. Southern Exposure, founded in 1974, has a long history of
presenting community-based projects. Through this new program, Southern
Exposure has a goal of encouraging artists to work experimentally in
public space, enabling artists to develop new works that could not
otherwise be realized, and generating a critical dialog about emerging
creative practices.

ABOUT THE PROJECT:

Southern Exposure will commission a series of public art projects that
investigate diverse strategies for exploring and mapping public space.
Artists selected through this open call will be commissioned to produce
new work.

This project is informed by the legacy of the Situationists, an
international artistic and political movement that emerged in the 1950s
and 1960s. The Situationists sought to radically redefine the role of art
in society with a particular interest in everyday experiences in public
space. They developed key concepts such as the derive -- the practice of
drifting through urban space - and psychogeography -- the study of the
effects of the geographic environment on the emotions and behavior of
individuals. In addition, a goal of these projects is to reconsider the
Situationists' strategies in light of new technologies such as Global
Positioning devices and wireless communication, which have fundamentally
transformed our ability to navigate public space.

This series will feature a range of projects that utilize strategies such
as simple acts of walking and note taking, to projects that employ
high-tech and technological apparatuses as a means to fuse virtual and
real experiences or to disseminate geographical and historical
information, to performances, actions, or events. These projects may
involve the audience's participation, enabling the public to engage in
acts of urban mapping and reflect on their own experiences in public
space.

Southern Exposure seeks proposals for artwork in various media including
1) artwork with a physical presence such as: installation, sculpture, or
public intervention; 2) ephemeral and participatory artwork such as:
performance, tour, walk, discussion, or lecture; 3) technology-based work
such as new media or sound art; or 4) projects that combine the above
categories. Projects will be presented between September 2006 and Spring
2007. The duration of the projects can range from a single performance to
repeating events or a long-term installation. Selected artists will
receive an honorarium and production budget ranging from $500 - $5,000
depending on the scope of the project. Southern Exposure will work with
artists to provide support, promote their projects, and will create a
publication that documents the program series after the projects have been
presented. Southern Exposure will also provide a home base for artists to
work, with space for information about the projects to be accessible to
the public.

APPLICATION & REVIEW PROCESS:

The proposals will be reviewed by several members of Southern Exposure's
Curatorial Committee. We are seeking proposals from artists who
demonstrate a potential for creative growth working in the public realm,
or artists who would like to extend their practice into the public realm
but have yet to work this way.

Please mail or deliver your proposal package to Southern Exposure.
Southern Exposure does not accept electronic submissions.

SoEx OFFSITE
Southern Exposure
401 Alabama Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

Application Deadline: Materials must be received at Southern Exposure's
office by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 (this is not a postmark
date). Hand deliveries will be accepted.

Notification Deadline: Artists will be notified by later no later than
March 31, 2006. Please do not call before this date.

INQUIRIES:

You can find all of this information and more at www.soex.org in the SoEx
OFFSITE section. If you have questions regarding the application process,
please contact us by email: programs AT soex.org. Subject heading of the
email should read: "SoEx OFFSITE."

About Southern Exposure
Southern Exposure is a 31 year old, non-profit, artist-run organization
dedicated to presenting diverse, innovative, contemporary art, arts
education, and related programs and events in an accessible environment.
Southern Exposure reaches out to diverse audiences and serves as a forum
and resource center to provide extraordinary support to the Bay Area's
arts and educational communities. Activities range from exhibitions of
local, regional, and international visual artists' work, education
programs, and lectures, panel discussions, and performances. Southern
Exposure is dedicated to giving artists--whether they are exhibiting,
curating, teaching, or learning--an opportunity to realize ideas for
projects that may not otherwise find support.

For more information go to www.soex.org or call 415-863-2141.

This program is made possible through the generous support of the National
Endowment for the Arts and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts.
Submission Application: SOEX OFFSITE

ELIGIBILITY:
Open to local, national and international artists, with a focus on
supporting San Francisco Bay Area artists.

WHAT TO SUBMIT:
Please complete the following form and submit it with your application:

NAME:
______________________________________________________________________________
ADDRESS:
__________________________________________________________________________
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
____________________________________________________________________
PHONE:
_____________________________________________________________________________
EMAIL/WEBSITE:
_____________________________________________________________________



1. Submit up to TWO forms of visual support material:

up to twelve digital images -- saved as JPEG files. (May not exceed 800 x
600 pixels 72 dpi). Each image file should be labeled or saved with your
name and a number that corresponded to an annotated image list (see
below). We are not accepting slides.

one DVD with up to three works or three excerpts of works. We will view up
to five minutes of work.

one VHS tape, cued. We will view up to five minutes of work.


2. Annotated image list of your support materials:

indicate artist name, title, year, medium, brief description of each work
(digital image or video).


3. Artist statement, no more than one page in length.

4. Current resume, including name, address, phone number and email address.

5. Proposal. In 300 words or less, describe the project that you would
like to develop, include:

the form your project will take (i.e. public sculpture, performance,
action, event, etc)

the motivations for the work and concepts behind it

suggest possible locations, types of locations, or a specific location you
intend to use. OPTIONAL: You may include a schematic or visual example of
your project.

6. Preliminary budget in narrative form estimating material costs and
required production time.


7. A self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE) large enough to return
submitted materials and containing the correct amount of postage.

MATERIALS WITHOUT A SASE WILL NOT BE RETURNED AND WILL BE DISCARDED AFTER
2 MONTHS IF THE ARTIST HAS NOT CONTACTED SOUTHERN EXPOSURE
***** Please include 3 copies of items #'s 2- 6. Do not submit binders,
folders or original artwork. *****

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

2.

From: Kangok Lee <program3 AT senef.net>
Date: Feb 22, 2006
Subject: CALL FOR ENTRY : Seoul Net Festival 2006

CALL FOR ENTRY : Seoul Net Festival 2006

The 7th Seoul Net Festival is open for entries in Digital Express
(International Competition) in both categories respectively : <Web-Work>
and <Cinema 4 Net>. Seoul Net Festival, organized by Seoul Moving Image
Forum and presented by Seoul Film Festival Executive Committee, is trying
to introduce talented visual artists all over the world and their
brilliant works and to lead the new audio-visual experiences based on "the
Internet" and "New Media". We sincerely hope you consider this an exciting
opportunity to show your great endeavors in the digital convergence era.

WHEN : May 15 - September 24, 2006

- May 15 - July 31 : screening of competition section and
out-of-competition section

- August 1 - September 24 : screening of award-winning works

WHERE : www.senef.net / Mobile and DMB

SEOUL NET FESTIVAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE : April 8, 2006

ELIGIBILITY
For the official competition section, only works completed after January
2005 may be submitted to the Festival. Submissions should be creative
works produced or adopted through digital technology. There will be no
restrictions regarding the genre, length or subject matter of the work and
all types of works, including fiction, documentary, experimental, music
video, animation, motion graphic, flash animation, game, web-art, etc.
will be accepted.

MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSIONS :

1) Completed application form (can be downloaded from www.senef.net)
2) Preview material
- By Post : DVD / DV6mm / CD / VHS (Seoul Moving Image Forum - Program
Dept. of Seoul Net Festival, 1308 Woorim Bobo County, 75-8 Samsung-Dong,
Kangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-870, Korea)

- By FTP Server (under 300 MB) : FLASH / WMV / MOV / AVI / MPEG
* For File-Transferring indications, please mail to program3 AT senef.net

- By E-MAIL : URL address to program3 AT senef.net
3) Complete script in English (.doc)
4) Photo of the Work (.jpg) : more than 300 dpi
5) Photo of the Artist (.jpg) : more than 300 dpi
6) Any other publicity materials related to the submitted work (optional)

* Application form and photos can be submitted by E-MAIL.
* Resolution should be more than 640 * 480.

Contact
Seoul Moving Image Forum - Program Dept. of Seoul Net Festival
1308 Woorim Bobo County, 75-8 Samsung-Dong, Kangnam-Gu, Seoul 135-870, Korea
program3 AT senef.net / Tel. : +82-2-518-4332 / Fax: +82-2-518-4333

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire

http://rhizome.org/hosting/

Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year.

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!

About BroadSpire

BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting
a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as
our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans
(prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a
full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June
2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3.

From: Lauren Cornell <laurencornell AT rhizome.org>
Date: Feb 24, 2006
Subject: Smith seeks artist-in-residence

Smith College is seeking an artist-in-residence for each of the next three
academic years. We seek a practicing artist whose work bridges the arts
and technology in innovative ways and who has the ability to share her/his
talents as a teacher and practitioner. The artist will bring a
collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to scholarship, teaching,
exploration and creation. We encourage applications from performing or
installation artists in theatre, dance, and/or music; and visual artists,
including those working in film, video, and sound. We especially encourage
artists who practice in interdisciplinary combinations of the arts and
technology and who can help current faculty develop a vision for this
emerging field at Smith College.

Qualifications:
* A terminal degree in the arts and/or technology.

Responsibilities:
* Develop, coordinate and facilitate activities to promote the
intersection between arts and technology.
* Identify, invite and host for campus visits other guest artists
exploring new directions in the arts and technology.
* Teach half-time (2 courses over the course of the year.)
* Present personal work to local community.

Application Deadline:
* March 15, 2006 (include note on end of search)

Please do not send portfolios at this time.

Smith College is a four-year liberal arts college in Northampton,
Massachusetts. Smith College seeks to attract individuals who are
committed to our mission of providing the highest quality education
to women. Smith participates in a five-college consortium with Amherst,
Hampshire, and Mount Holyoke Colleges, and the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.

Please send a letter of application, a resume, and three letters of
recommendation to:

Professor Gary Niswonger
Chair, Search Committee
Art Department
Smith College
22 Elm Street
Northampton, MA 01063

Smith College is an equal opportunity employer encouraging excellence
through diversity.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

4.

From: Marjan van Mourik <webmaster AT targetfound.nl>
Date: Feb 18, 2006
Subject: VIPER NTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL FOR FILM VIDEO AND NEW MEDIA

VIPER is forum for innovation and creativity - as one the leading
internationally renowned festivals dedicated to supporting and mediating
qualitatively outstanding and innovative works and projects VIPER presents
for five days recent productions from all over the world: interactive
fillms and installations, video essays, net art projects, VJ-events and
performances.

25TH VIPER | GRAND OPENING
Thursday, 16 March 2006 | Kunsthalle Basel | 8:00 P.M.

Traditionally the major focus is on the moving image. Thereby VIPER's
unique profile includes works, which are positioned in the field of fine
arts as well as film works. On the occasion of the festival the parallel
leads of both genres indicates the numerous references and makes evident
that cinema's visual heritage and mass media's impulses of TV, video and
Internet that have permanently grown in public awareness are creating an
explosive reservoir of visual innovation. From one of the most vivid
fields of activity in contemporary art, the authors present highly
sovereign positions: With an observant view on society's phenomena,
between documentary and imaginative staging, they develop authentic
image-worlds and narratives. VIPER mediates the most exciting positions
and celebrates its 25th anniversary with the presentation of more than 200
works and projects from over 26 countries.

VIPER presents with the 25TH VIPER | SCREENINGS a counter position to the
filmic productions a la Hollywood. In their playful use of filmic codes
and new narrations the authors lay a manifold foundation for tomorrow's
cinema: Betulius and Merz, Marika Chernikova, Erika Fraenkel, Harald
Holba, Oliver Hockenhull, Pascal Marquilly, Els Opsomer, Rack and Muskens,
Hito Steyerl, Peter Tscherkassky, Laura Waddington, Susanne Winterling,
Marcia Vaitsman et.al.
Programmes: Passage Cinema, New Narratives, Challenging Tradition,
Con/Frontal Views

The 25TH VIPER | EXHIBITION with its accompanying authors' symposia
present amongst others the following Swiss and international positions:
BIT (Bureau of Inverse Technology), Elli Ga, Alexander Hahn, Adad Hannah,
Sven Konig, Ine Lamers, Cecilia Lundquist, Galina Myznikova/Sergey
Provorov, Astrid Nippoldt, Nicolas Party, Andrea Polli, Annelies Strba,
van der Haak/ Rem Koolhaas /Silke Wawro. On the occasion of its 25th
anniversary VIPER puts with SWISS MEDIA ART | NO PEAK NO VIEW an
additional special focus on Switzerland: today internationally renowned
authors will be personally present in Basel and show and discuss their
work with the audience: Emmanuelle Antille, Hubbard and Birchler, Zilla
Leutenegger, Yves Netzhammer, Marco Poloni, Studer van den Berg et.al.

The 25TH VIPER | FORUM NEXT GENERATION is a pulsating platform for young
practitioners and media pioneers - here the advanced scene around wireless
art, design&interaction, social software and gaming culture will present
itself and are theory and practise standing under the sign of exploring
new knowledge and activity zones.

The VIPER | JAPANESE CONNECTION launches a display for its Japanese
partners - in their inimitable attitude towards adapting and transforming
foreign influences with elements of tradition, an entirely own culture of
independent artistic filming has been established.
Presented will be works by: Yusuke Sasaki, Kei Oyama, Isamu Hirabayashi,
Mika Seike and others

http://www.viper.ch/viper/content/main.php

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Rhizome ArtBase Exhibitions

http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/

Visit "Net Art's Cyborg[feminist]s, Punks, and Manifestos", an exhibition
on the politics of internet appearances, guest-curated by Marina Grzinic
from the Rhizome ArtBase.

http://www.rhizome.org/art/exhibition/cyborg/

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

5.

From: zanni.org <cz AT zanni.org>
Date: Feb 19, 2006
Subject: MAXXI Museum, Rome - Art and Virtual Identities

MAXXI Museum, Rome

http://www.maxximuseo.org


The fourth installment of NetWebArt / Net Archives: Art and Virtual
Identities
curated by Eleonora De Filippis and Elena Giulia Rossi
opens on the 23rd of February.

Invited artists are:

-1.Juliet Davis, Pieces of Herself, 2004
http://www.julietdavis.com/studio/piecesofherself/

-2. Reinhald Drouhin, Des Fleur, 2003
http://www.incident.net/works/desfleurs/desfleurs.html

-3. Cristopher Joseph, Inanimate Alice, 2005
http://www.inanimatealice.com

-4.Glenn Ligon, Annotations, , a project commissioned by Dia Art
Foundation for its series of artists' web projects ,2003
http://www.diacenter.org/ligon/

-5. C.J.Yeh, My Data My Mondrian, 2004
http://www.cjny.com/mydata/

-6. Carlo Zanni, 4 Untitled Portraits, Net Art Commission of
Kunstznetnrw.de, 2003-2004
http://www.zanni.org/4untitled/

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Rhizome.org 2005-2006 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 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected
to create original works of net art.

http://rhizome.org/commissions/

The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the
Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the
Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and
the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has
been provided by members of the Rhizome community.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

6.

From: lmartin AT sfai.edu <lmartin AT sfai.edu>
Date: Feb 21, 2006
Subject: New Museum Curator Laura Hoptman Gives Public Lecture at SFAI

New Museum Curator Laura Hoptman Gives Public Lecture at SFAI

Location: Lecture Hall, SFAI, 800 Chestnut St., San Francisco
Date: March 1, 2006
Time: 7:30pm
Website: www.sfai.edu
Cost: free and open to the public
Public contact: 415.771.7020
Press contact: Lucy Martin, lmartin AT sfai.edu, 415.749.4507

Description:

As curator of two highly regarded exhibitions--the 2004 Carnegie
International exhibition in Pittsburgh and Drawing Now: Eight Propositions
at the Museum of Modern Art, Queens--Laura Hoptman has visibly expressed
her interest in artwork that explores big questions: those of life, death,
and the meaning of the universe. "At this moment in the United States,"
she wrote in her introduction to the Carnegie exhibition, "our undeniable
taste for the banal does not quash our need for art that is not merely
extracted from aspects of the everyday, but rather wholeheartedly
participates in it by wrestling with its fundamental mysteries." Hoptman
will discuss related themes in her SFAI presentation.

Hoptman is currently Curator at the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New
York. Previous to this position, Hoptman was Curator of Contemporary Art
at the Carnegie Museum of Art. She has also served as Assistant Curator in
the Department of Drawings at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, from
1995 to 2001; as Guest Curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago,
from 1993 to 1995; and Curator at The Bronx Museum of the Arts, New York,
from 1987 to 1990. Hoptman has organized numerous exhibitions on
contemporary art, including the re-installation of the Carnegie Museum of
Art's permanent collection in 2003; Hello, My Name Is..., which was
co-organized with Elizabeth Thomas also at the Carnegie Museum of Art; and
Drawing Now: Eight Propositions, at the Museum of Modern Art, Queens. At
MOMA, Hoptman co-curated Love Forever: Yayoi Kusama, 1958-1968 and curated
Project #60: John Currin, Elizabeth Peyton, Luc Tuymans. Both of these
exhibitions were cited as belonging to the ten!
best exhibitions of 1997 by Artforum. Among Hoptman's recent publications
are Drawing Now: Eight Propositions (Museum of Modern Art, 2002) and
Yayoi Kusama (Phaidon Press, 2000). She was also the co-editor of Primary
Documents: A Sourcebook for East and Central European Art since the
1950s, jointly published in 2003 by the Museum of Modern Art and MIT
Press. Her articles have appeared in Parkett, Flash Art, Harper's Bazaar,
and other journals.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

7.

From: Marjan van Mourik <webmaster AT targetfound.nl>
Date: Feb 22, 2006
Subject: Sonic Acts XI - The Anthology of Computer Art

Sonic Acts XI - The Anthology of Computer Art

23 - 26 februari 2006 - Paradiso / De Balie, Amsterdam

The eleventh edition of the Sonic Acts Festival will be held from Thursday
23rd to Sunday 26th February 2006 in Paradiso and De Balie in Amsterdam.
Entitled Sonic Acts XI - The Anthology of Computer Art, the festival will
include a three-day international conference, three evenings and nights of
live performances, an extensive film programme and an exhibition. A DVD
and a book on the festival theme will also be published to coincide with
it.

The three-day conference will provide a multifaceted and penetrating
overview of computer art. International speakers from computer arts, film,
the fine arts, music, the academic world, literature and art history will,
from the perspective of their own background, discuss the historical
developments, present the current position of computer art, and consider
its future. Jasia Reichardt (UK) opens the festival at February 23 2006
with a Keynote lecture.

Reichardt is writer and curator and made history in 1968 with the exhibit
Cybernetic Serendipity. Speakers at the conference include Lillian
Schwartz (US), pioneer in the field of computer-generated art and computer
films; Curtis Roads (US), composer and author of the influential Computer
Music Tutorial; Stephen Wilson (US), professor of conceptual design at the
SFSU and author of the authoritative Information Arts, Intersections of
Art, Science, and Technology; Joost Rekveld (NL), artist, produces
abstract films and kinetic installations since 1991; Ben Fry (USA),
artist, who's current research involves the visualization of genetic data.
With Casey Reas he is developing the open source programming environment
Processing; Manfred Mohr (US), computer artist since 1968 and considered
as one of the pioneers; Frieder Nake (DE), professor interactive
computer-graphics in Bremen and one of the three artists in the first
computer art exhibitions (1965, Stuttgart). A key-person in the field of
computer art and information aesthetics since then; Andreas Broeckmann
(DE), artistic director of the international media art festival
Transmediale in Berlin. In texts and lectures he deals with post-medial
practices and the possibilities for a 'machinic' aesthetics of media art;
Matthias Weiss (DE), studied art history and philosophy and is considered
an authority in the field of net-art; John Oswald (CA), composer and
sound-artist. Became famous in 1990 with his Plunderphonics; Rob Young
(UK), editor for the music magazine The Wire; Golan Levin (US), artist,
composer, performer and engineer, develops new forms of interaction with
audiovisual systems; Joan Leandre (ES), also known as Retroyou, artist
working with modified games; Wolf Lieser (DE), curator and founder of the
Digital Art Museum; Erik van Blokland (NL), designer and co-founder of
Letterror. Arjen Mulder (NL), Casey Reas (US) and Rutger Wolfson (NL) will
moderate during the conference. The festival will start with performances
by Granular Synthesis (AT) and Curtis Roads & Brian O'Reilly (US).
Granular Synthesis, renowned for its monumental and impressive
audio-visual performances and installations, will perform Areal. Curtis
Roads & Brian O'Reilly will perform their international acclaimed
octaphonic audiovisual piece Point Line Cloud.

The Friday programme is being compiled in collaboration with Jace Clayton
(a.k.a. DJ/rupture), founder of Negrophonic and Soot Records, and will
include: The Bug feat. Ras B (Rephlex, UK), Beans (Warp, US), Ghislain
Poirier (Chocolate Industries, CA), Vex'd (Rephlex, UK) , DJ /rupture & No
Lay & G-Kid (Unorthodox, UK), Team Shadetek presents: Heavy Meckle feat.
Matt Shadetek, Sheen, Jammer, Chronik &
Ears (Warp / Jah Mek the the World, UK/US), Hrvatski (Planet Mu, US),
Aaron Spectre (Death$ucker, US), Ove-Naxx (Adaadat, JP), Scotch Egg (Wrong
Music, JP), Doddodo (Adaadat, JP), Drop the Lime (Tigerbeat6, US),
Filastine (Soot, US), Nettle (theAgriculture, ES), 2/5 BZ (G?zel, TU),
Gustav (Mosz, AT), Planning to Rock (Twisted Nerve, DE), Toktek & MNK
(NL).

On Saturday Performances by: Matthew Dear (Spectral Sound, US), Reinhard
Voigt (Kompakt, DE), Ada (Areal records, DE), TBA (Max Ernst, DE), AGF &
SUE.C (Orthlorng Musork, DE/US), Portable (Scape, ZA), Fe-mail (NO),
NotTheSameColor (AT), SKIF & Bas van Koolwijk (US/ NL), Moha! (NO),
OfficeR(6) (NL/US/NO), Jason Forrest (Cock Rock Disco, US),
TinyLittleElements (AT/DE), Anne Laplantine (FR), Boris &
Brecht Debackere (BE), Nancy Fortune (Viewlexx, FR).

The film programme will look at purely digital film art with a number of
historical overviews, documentaries and contemporary computer films. Work
will also be shown from the archive of the Institut National Audiovisuel,
Groupe de Recherches des Images. In two programme series work will be
shown from filmmakers such as: Raymond Hains, Jacques Brissot, Nicolas
Sch?ffer, Caroline Laure, Marie Claire Petris, Peter Foldes, Robert
Lapoujade and Piotr Kamler. Much of this material has never been seen
before in the Netherlands: it offers a wealth of historical material
related to abstract film and musique concr?te. There are two filmmaker in
focus programmes: Lillian Schwartz and John Whitney; there is one
programme with very early computer films by filmmakers like Michael A.
Noll, Chuck Csuri and Stan Vanderbeek; there is a programme with early
'computer aided design' works and there is a programme with works from
SIGGRAPH.

The exhibition will include a number of key-works from the pioneers of
computer-art, including works by Ben Laposky, Manfred Mohr, Edward Zajec,
Frieder Nake, Tony Longson and Vera Molnar. Also works will be shown from
the Sonic Acts 2006 DVD, by artists such as: Bart Vegter, Semiconductor,
Effekt, Telcosystems & Jason Haas, Martijn van Boven, C.E.B. Reas, Meta,
Driessens & Verstappen, Karl Kliem, Chris Musgrave, Peter Luining, reMI,
Scott Pagano & Keepadding, Kurt Ralske, George Issakidis and Daniel Perlin
& Dj /rupture.

Sonic Acts XI
Thursday February 23 - Sunday February 26 2006
Paradiso, Weteringschans 6 - 8, Amsterdam, +31206264521
De Balie, Kleine-Gartmanplantsoen 10, Amsterdam, +31205535100

Conference passepartout: ? 45,00 (Thursday February 23, doors 20:00, start
20:30, location: Paradiso; Friday February 24, Saturday February 25 &
Sunday February 26, doors 12:30, start 13:00, location:
De Balie) - The passepartout is also valid for the performance programme &
the Keynote lecture on Thursday February 23.

Live Performances: ? 12,50 incl. (Thursday February 23, doors: 20:00,
start 20:30, Friday February 24 & Saturday February 25 doors: 20:00, start
21:00, location: Paradiso)

Films: ? 6,25 (Thursday February 23, 19:30 & 21:00, Friday February 24,
19:30 & 21:00, Saturday 25, 16:00, 19:30 & 21:00)

Conference tickets are available from January 7 2006 via De Balie
(+31205535100 between 14.00 and 17.30 during weekdays), AUB and online
via:
http://www.amsterdamsuitburo.nl/dsp_productie.cfm?prodid=90F7423E-AAC1-924F-FF8B049630F4DE16

Live Performance tickets are available from January 7 2006 via AUB and
online via:
http://www.ticketmaster.nl/html/searchResult.htmI?keyword=sonic+acts&l=EN&x=0&y=0

Film tickets are available from January 14 2006 via De Balie (+31205535100
between 14.00 and 17.30 during weekdays)


For more information: www.sonicacts.com

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

8.

From: Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, Pall Thayer
<p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca>, T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com>, <rob AT robmyers.org>,
Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, Lee Wells <lee AT leewells.org>, jeremy
<studio AT silencematters.com>, <netwurker AT hotkey.net.au>, Zev Robinson
<zr AT zrdesign.co.uk>
Date: Feb 22-24, 2006
Subject: Naked Code

+Jason Van Anden posted:+

Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
code in order to receive financial support?

I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of
they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't
assume that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the
requirement that I find a strange and upsetting trend.


+Pall Thayer replied:+

I see it as very positive. They ensure that the fruits of their funding
will potentially benefit many artists (and others) rather than just the
grant recipient.

Can you tell us what grant it is?


+T.Whid replied:+

Great subject.

I'm curious what grants made this a requirement... I think Eyebeam does
for their residencies, are there others?

I think it's a great thing. I've never been a funder of art, but I would
guess that folks that run organizations that fund art see their mission as
a sort of way to make a gift to the culture at large. They fund artists,
dancers, writers and etc so that works get made and enter the culture. If
one is funding new media, one way to have this gift make even more of an
impact is to require that any software developed for the project becomes
open source.

There is a downside however. New media artists are a crafty lot. Sometimes
their work has multiple purposes; software developed under a grant from a
cultural institution could be a seed to build a business venture or vice
versa. Perhaps this business venture would require that the code be
closed, if that is the case then you could exclude some very talented
programmers and artists from the grant procedure.

It's good that some new media funders are requiring it, but it shouldn't
be everyone. Creative Capital doesn't require it and I don't think the
Rockefeller new media grant requires it either.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Hi Pall,

I thought you would see it that way ~ here are a few questions:

How do you see this benefiting other artists? Examples?

Does this mean that you think that all funded work should require its code
be open?

I would prefer not to discuss which grant - but there have been more than
one - all have been listed here on Rhizome over the last year.


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?

No, I think it's a very good thing. Now we just need to get traditional media
grants to require that preparatory work for applications be copylefted and
we're almost there. ;-)


+Jim Andrews replied:+

Hi Jason,

There are various reasons why one might not want to make ALL of a project
open source. One might want to use code that's proprietary. Or one might
feel that some of the code is neither of any use to anyone and/or it's
spagetti or not readable or whatever.

But to make some part of a project open source, perhaps even a relatively
small part, seems like it could be interesting and hopefully useful also.

I'm not interested in perusing a 300 page code project that's unreadable
(or even one that *is* readable), but reading something short, sweet, and
useful, I'd like that. Something I wouldn't mind stealing. Something with
interesting code ideas.

An insistence that the whole thing be open source, erm, that'd be kind of
constrictive.


+Pall Thayer replied:+

> I thought you would see it that way ~ here are a few questions:
>
It's my 'thang' :-)
>
> How do you see this benefiting other artists? Examples?
I think that anything that reveals the processes and methods employed by
artists can potentially benefit other artists. You don't have to keep
re-inventing the wheel.
>
> Does this mean that you think that all funded work should require
> its code be open?
We should never say that "everything should be this way". Diversity is
always a good thing. But I definitely don't see this as a negative
requirement. Of course, ideally, funding wouldn't come with any strings
attached.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

So in a perfect world, funders would require painters to document how they
applied the strokes and mixed the paint, so that others can create
derivative works from this?

+Jason Van Anden added:+

Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:

1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well documented
- which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
Perhaps its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable
others to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I
being funded to be a teacher or an artist?

3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to
tinker with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I
don't want to share it? Its mine. As far as I am concerned - I share the
output - the process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of
my code publicly available - not that anyone was really that interested).

These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
it should be a requirement that we share it.

Is the art not enough?


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

> Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:
>
> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well
documented -
> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
Perhaps
> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you soon,
and this will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again
for another grant.

> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable others
> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being
funded
> to be a teacher or an artist?

You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the community.

> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to tinker
> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't want
> to share it?

Don't apply for public funding then.

> Its mine.

Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with
medicinal leeches and cave art.

> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code
publicly
> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
>
> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
> it should be a requirement that we share it.
>
> Is the art not enough?

Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
genius to deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is not
a good use of funding.

+rob AT robmyers.org added:+

> So in a perfect world, funders would require painters to document how they
> applied the strokes and mixed the paint, so that others can create
> derivative works from this?

You've heard of preparatory work. The details of a work's preparation are
vital for scholarship, renovation, and yes derivation. Cartoons,
sketchbooks, rough work, notebooks (some artists do keep them) are all
useful.

This isn't alchemy.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Hi Rob,

The tone of your email sounds like you are a little disturbed with my tone
- hopefully this will clear things up:

jva> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out,
open
jva> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well
documented -
jva> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
Perhaps
jva> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

rm> If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you
soon, and this
rm> will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again for
another grant.

I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.

jva> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable
others
jva> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being
funded
jva> to be a teacher or an artist?

rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the community.

Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?

jva> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to
tinker
jva> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't
want to share it?

rm> Don't apply for public funding then.

I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.

jva> Its mine.

rm> Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with
medicinal
rm> leeches and cave art.

No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
code for public consumption requires. It is not as if I do not contribute
- I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write, and
I invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought
about an art form I am devoted to.

jva> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
jva> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code
publicly
jva> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
jva>
jva> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
jva> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable
language
jva> it should be a requirement that we share it.
jva>
jva> Is the art not enough?

rm> Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
rm> genius to deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is
not a good use of
rm> funding.

I think my response to leeches and cave art above covers this.


+Pall Thayer replied:+

> Is the art not enough?

That's my point. The art isn't enough. If I find the work truly
compelling. I want to see how it's done. What's involved. I don't want to
be mystified. Of course, often I can more or less see what processes and
methods are involved, but not always and in those cases, secrecy is a big
turn-off. To me, it's just like when I see an interesting painting. What I
do after admiring it a bit, is go closer to see how it's painted. I'm sure
there are people who enjoy being mystified. Imagining that the artist is a
magician capable of performing unexplainable acts. But as a fellow artist,
I want to know what's going on. If I were a painter, I would go visit
other painter's studios, grabbing glimpses of their work and methods along
the way. It's not that easy in our online community of netartists. So I
propose sharing source code as an alternative. I personally fail to
see the benefits of NOT sharing code.


+Lee Wells replied:+

Sometimes they make you give them some of the art.


+T.Whid replied:+

I think that drawing analogies btw sketchbooks or whatever and source code
is deeply flawed.

I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
making... except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template for a
print?

That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream of
allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries would be
produced.

Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.


+jeremy replied:+

I think that once you liberate the code, you put yourself in a place where
you are forced to become more creative and move beyond the original idea.
There are 2 ways to think about this: you can hold on to your idea, and it
will only grow out of your own experiences with it. Or you can let it go,
and be inspired by how other are using your creation.

At the root, it comes down to respecting the idea. If it is not ready to
be shared, then it should not be shared. Once it is ready, I think you
have to let it go, and enjoy it's effects on the world around you. This is
true for any medium. It is about having respect for your idea. I agree, it
is a very hard switch to make, especially with code, because it feels like
people can copy what you have done much more easily than a painting. You
can always get a Creative Commons License on it that specifies that the
person interested in using part of, or all of your
code, contact you first - but that it is open to use.

The greatest thing about technology is that it fosters collaboration of
ideas.... and to think that collaboration is not part of your process,
then you had better not look at the source code of a nice site/piece ever
again, or for that matter, stop thinking about process altogether. Code is
about copying & pasting - it is remixing what the person before you has
done with what you have done. This is also true across all mediums.

How well have you taken the ideas of the past, remixed them, and made them
new again?

I think it is also important to look at why your piece is successful. Does
your piece rely on you knowing something about programming to fully enjoy
the piece? If your piece relies on the fact that you made some genius
little script to 'wow' the viewer, then that leads me to think that your
code could be considered part of the art.

these are just a few ideas...


+netwurker AT hotkey.net.au replied:+


> Here are some cost/benefit analysis thoughts on the subject:
>
> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out, open
> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well
documented -
> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
Perhaps
> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.

n.credibly disappointing.orientation.

[u.r.discoun.ting(le): slip.pages+uberness.of.the _accident[all.code]]

> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable others
> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being
funded
> to be a teacher or an artist?

ur.share.share.ethic:OFF.

[such.high.individualisationism.is.unattractive+des.truc(k.in.acollaborative.china.shoppe)tive]
[artistic.n.deavours.may.be.n.structive//share_trajectoried]
[cultural.stances.rn't.formed.thru.the.cult.of.the."i"]

> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to tinker
> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't want
> to share it? Its mine. As far as I am concerned - I share the output -
the
> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code
publicly
> available - not that anyone was really that interested).

"I" "I" "I"

_such.ego.manifestering.reduces.collaborative.input+any.adjusting.2.non-capitalistick-tocking_

how.do.u.learn.thru.such.self.glorification.parameters?

> These are mostly personal - but so is making art.

+ the output of making.art? is it just for u alone?

>Why is new media
> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable language
> it should be a requirement that we share it.

so sad this obsession with ownership. cutting of the collective
hands.2.smite.the.code.face.

hi-lights.political.fascistic.ends.seeded.in.greedy.liberalism.

just.....*sigh*

> Is the art not enough?

Is ur ego just.2.much?

non-I'ingly,
][mez][


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

I think I was just scolded but somehow I feel honored by the mez post.

>From mez and jeremy's posts I gather that if I prefer not to expose my
code I am either incredibly selfish or insecure. That the artist who
chooses to create art that requires programming has the added
responsibility to the community of sharing your code - and that if you are
unwilling to comply you should be disqualified from receiving funding.

Doesn't this give more value to the code than the resultant art?


+Pall Thayer replied:+

Hi Jason,
You're doing a lot of generalizing to make other's comments sound absurd
when they really aren't.

Are you really afraid of derivative work? Can you honestly say that your
own work isn't in some way derivative? That's just the way the artworld
works and has always worked, and it's a good thing.

Sure you love your code. I love my code, but when I release it, I hope
that it will be of use to someone. I hope that someone will create
derivative work. I can't imagine that someone will end up using it to
create projects identical to anything I'm working on and haven't made
public yet because, as you said, art creation is a very
personal process. I just can't imagine that someone will just happen to be
considering all of the same things that I am at the same time.

Let's say you think your code may have some market potential. If that's
the case, then perhaps you should be looking for investors rather than art
grants.

Art grants always come with strings attached. That's why you apply for
some and not others. But it looks to me like most of us consider the
open-source string, a noble one rather than an inhibiting one.

I think that deep down, this really touches on the questions of why we
make art and who for (did someone already mention this?). Aren't we all
perpetual teachers and students? Isn't that the whole idea behind
maintaining a community such as we have on Rhizome? We feed off each
others ideas. We learn from each other, we teach each other and we
influence each other. This has been going on for several years, yet
there's still a lot of diversity in the work being created by our
community. If I generalize on your comments the way you've been doing with
other's, then by now, we should all be caught up in such a tight circle of
derivative work that it should be nearing the point of being identical.
But that's not the case.


+netwurker AT hotkey.net.au replied:+

> From mez and jeremy's posts I gather that if I prefer not to expose my code
> I am either incredibly selfish or insecure. That the artist who chooses to
> create art that requires programming has the added responsibility to the
> community of sharing your code - and that if you are unwilling to comply
you
> should be disqualified from receiving funding.

--qs break.down--re:guard.ing.my."assessment":

Q: how du u n.tegrate the use of communally.disseminated.n.structive.data [ie
using a programming language not constructed.by.u with functions
not.structured
by u] with ur need 2 own.ur.own.code?

A: <n.sert here pls>


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Hi Pall,

I did not realize I was generalizing - thanks for pointing this out. I
don't think the other posts are absurd at all - I am really grateful for
this though provoking thread.

I share Ethan Ham's re: re: (pasted here to make it part of this thread):

<ethan_ham>

Is there a bug in message board? Jason's posting text is readable when I
(or rather, my project emailerosion) receives it, but is gobbly-gook here
on the rhizome website.
<comment>I don't know why this happened but its kind of funny in the
context of the thread</comment>

My two-bits worth:

I don't have a particular problem with a grant requiring any resulting
code to be open-source. It's their money, and if I don't want to
open-source the code on the project I don't have to apply.

However, I also agree with Jason sentiment that it shouldn't be a general
expectation that artists who program should be automatically expected to
publish their code. That seems to be confusing (as Jason suggests) the
process with the result (i.e., the art).

I don't think this is ungenerous. Frankly, if anyone wants to know how I
programmed a particular project, I'm happy to give pointers, sample code,
etc. But would feel more hesitant about turning over my entire source
code... I certainly respect artists who feel differently, I guess it's
just a matter of where one's boundaries lie.

</ethan_ham>

I especially like the last paragraph - I am totally into sharing
techniques and code snippets that show how something is done - in fact I
would be psyched to do so if anyone expressed interest in seeing something
I have made. This is different than being obliged to publish the entire
source code for an art piece (which as I originally posted - creeps me out
a little).

I get that you like to look at code. Perhaps this is another bad analogy
or sweeping generalization, but I liken this to a musician who will look
up the sheet music when he hears something that interests him. When I see
something that interests me, I look at it like a puzzle, and I get a kick
out of trying to figure out how to build it myself. Nothing wrong with
either approach.


+Jason Van Anden posted:+

A: Am I to assume this same logic is what compels you to use your "own"
language to express your "self"? Does an author who uses words created
communally by his culture not have the right to own his story? Am I
generalizing again?


+netwurker AT hotkey.net.au replied:+

....am more.than.happy.2.chat. re:_self_x.pression.motivators + logic
_after_ an actual response 2 my ini.[*]ial Q.....am x.tremely curious as 2
how u n.ternalise ur code.ownership claim[s] whilst m.ploying programming
languages not.developed.by.ur.own.self.

chunks,
][mez][


+rob AT robmyers.org replied:+

Heya Jason. Thank you for your considered response.

Quoting Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>:

> I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
> will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
> experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.

This goes against current wisdom on code archaeology, and my personal
experience. If you do not suffer this problem then you are very lucky. :-)

> rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the
> community.
>
> Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?

What is the work of art? And what is its role and responsibilities? If it
is to be more than a consumer fashion item there are issues of its
maintenance and its position and use within the artworld and society that
do not stop at the compiled binary.

> rm> Don't apply for public funding then.
>
> I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.

That's reasonable. :-)

> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
> code for public consumption requires.

Leonardo's written note books must have required some effort. For artists
today, it is at least as much his notebooks as his few surviving finished
works that make Leonardo such a towering figure.

During our inevitable yearly debate on whether code is art, I usually
bring up the comparison source code == sketchbooks. :-)

Imagine if Leonardo had destroyed his notebooks. This would not just have
denied us their amazing cultural wealth, it would have seriously reduced
his own reputation.

This, self-interested, reason is another argument in favor of releasing
source IMHO.

> It is not as if I do not contribute -
> I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
> compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write,
and I
> invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought
about an
> art form I am devoted to.

Car manufacturers advertise their wares as well, and they spend millions
of dollars to do so. This doesn't excuse them from their environmental
responsibilities (which have very little to do with the immediate
experience of
driving a car).


+rob AT robmyers.org added:+

> I think that drawing analogies btw sketchbooks or whatever and source
> code is deeply flawed.

Leonardo's notebooks. More comments than code. :-)

> I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
> making... except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template
> for a print?

Notebooks. Preparatory sketches. All the stuff you were meant to show at
art school to illustrate your thinking processes.

> That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream
> of allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries
> would be produced.
>
> Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.

You haven't made it in the art world until you're popular enough to be
forged.
That's what authentication committees are for. :-)


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

mez,

For the record - I love your language.

[....]

Clearly answering your question with a question is not going to be
sufficient. Fortunately Ethan Ham and Eric Dymond took the night shift
for this open sourced thread (albeit as re:re:re:s so I have reposted
these below as part of this thread with my pseudo system of pseudo xml
tags to indicate who said what). It's a relief, they are both better
writers and we are on similar wave lengths. I was beginning to feel like
a prude at Mardi Gras, with everyone pressuring me to show them my stuff.

To answer your question without repeating Ethan's answer, let me elaborate
on what my question/answer was supposed to illustrate ... If you distill
the parts of any technology to its origin, be it language, agriculture,
electronics, paint, etc... then nobody owns anything. Whereas I can agree
with this communist ideal in principle, in practice it only works if
everyone joins the party. Historically this seems to go against human
nature. I can appreciate that others might want to take a look under the
hood, and sometimes I think my code might be interesting for others to
look at, but this is not what motivated me to make the art to begin with.
Shouldn't it be my choice to include the code as part of my art, or not?

<Ethan Ham>

Hope I'm not being too presumptuous to answer questions you're posing to
Jason, not me, but I'm finding this a very thought-provoking discussion.

<jason>not at all</jason>

I think there's a difference between tools & applications. People who
write programmings tools want them to be used to write programs... that's
there intention. However, the applications created using those tools
aren't necessarily meant to be used as a programming source. I really
don't see a conflict there.

<jason>totally</jason>

And frankly, allowing for proprietary uses of programming languages, etc.
is a benefit to the language. It would be easy enough for a language to
come with a licensing requirement that all uses of it be open-source--but
that would greatly hinder the life of the language.

<jason>ditto</jason>

In my current project's case, my project would be very vulnerable to
hacker-vandals if I had to make my server-side code available.

</Ethan Ham>


<Eric Dymond>
I can add that I believe, most of the institutions and well intentioned
organizations are deeply out of touch with current technologies. For most
of them they are used to dealing with stand alone apps that don't require
networked elements, and if they do , they are simple action scripts or
basic cgi programs. The art technologies have evolved past the technical
knowledge of the granting institutions, and the pace is accelerating.

Comment your code well, but keep it to yourself.
<jason>ditto</jason>

Maybe a pseudo-code model, UML diagrams would be enough for them.
<jason>great idea - but it ought not be compulsory</jason>

</Eric Dymond>

+Jason Van Anden added:+

Funny thought about Leonardo ... didn't he train himself to write his note
books backwards to prevent other people from reading them? Doesn't this
suggest that he did not want anyone to be read them, at least in his
lifetime?

I like the idea of his note books even though I have never actually read
them. I suspect that many advocates of open source for art relate to this
ideal. They don't actually sit down to read a rousing batch of source
code - they just like the concept. Maybe requiring the source code be
placed in escrow would be a better solution.

I can totally appreciate how this kind of requirement would be important
for a science grant - because in this case the intended product is
knowledge, very different from art, who's product (IMO) is emotion.

With respect to Pall's comment that I am generalizing ... I have decided
not to worry too much about this at the expense of sidelining myself - you
will just have to trust me, its not my intention to be disrespectful or
dismissive to anyone who cares enough to contribute their thoughts.


+T.Whid replied:+

I'm going to attempt to reel this in a tad, i think it's gotten a bit off
track with folks implying some communist intent to OSS and whatnot.
Replying to the original question from Jason:

On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com> wrote:
> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?

Jason is 'creeped out' but in the discussion that followed admitted that,
of course, no one's forcing him to apply for grants that require source
code to be open. (Of course one could argue that in the US where the
funding for arts is extremely paltry, one is almost forced to try to get
any grants that are available and one could also argue that in the new
media art world, where the market for the work is so small, grant awards
are one very important way to polish one's resume, but I wont)

I still don't get why he's creeped out... the only reason I am reluctant
to os my code sometimes is because I'm a shitty self-taught programmer and
I don't think anyone could really glean anything from my pathetic
meat-cleaver code anyway... but nonetheless I try to do it. Who knows who
it will help? Perhaps it will provide at least some amusement for
someone...

>
> I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of
> they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't
assume
> that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the requirement
> that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>

I don't think it's fair that Jason says this trend exists but fails to
make the case for a trend. I think I know a bit about funding for new
media and I can think of only one that requires this: Eyebeam's fellowship
program. If this is a *trend* then there must be more than ONE. What are
they? Two of the biggest new media grants, Creative Capital and the
Rockefeller new media grant (can't remember it's new name) don't require
this.

But even if it were a trend, which I'm not sure it is, I'm curious to know
what'st upsetting about it? You really haven't voiced why it makes you so
uncomfortable, except that it's yours and you don't want to and alluding
to the notion that there could be some commercial applications for it.
(There could be ways around it by closing off
some of the source and using it as a component or something: black box
it.. but that would be extra work obviousely.)

But to be fair to Jason, he's worked on some of his code for years. It
does seem somewhat unfair that he be forced to give up all that
intellectual property for what could amount to a relatively measly amount
of money. Perhaps you should look into these (mystery) grants more
closely. Most funding agencies MTAA has worked with have been extremely
open and liberal. They might only want you to os the code that was created
exclusively for the project they're funding...


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Let's reel it in even more - eliminate the word "trend" from the
discussion as well as any personal feelings an artist may have that might
make him uninterested in exposing his code.

By initiating this discussion I was hoping to get feedback about the logic
(and fairness) of requiring an artist who is applying for funding to make
art (that uses technology) to abide by the terms described here
http://www.opensource.org/ simply because the material they use (code)
allows this to happen.

It sounds to me like some of us feel its fair and good - and some do not.


+T.Whid replied:+

I think it's fair. Especially if the grants are for research projects as
opposed to production projects.

They two grants that I know of that require this are both research grants.
They are funding the development of IP and being charitable non-profit
types of orgs, want to share that IP. This seems completely reasonable to
me.

Other granters that fund production don't have these requirements. They
understand that they are funding an artist to create a work and it would
be unreasonable to require this if that would diminish significantly the
value of the final work.


+Zev Robinson replied:+

[....]

to expand on this point, for Leonardo et al, there was a studio system in
place where artists would go from the age of about 11 or 12 for a very
rigourous training into the techniques of making art. They would know the
technique inside and out, working with, for and beside their masters. Both
the master and the student knew that technique, while necessary, didn't in
itself make an work of art good. both Leonardo and Michelangelo surpassed
their master while very young but neither they nor Picasso nor Van Gogh
could have done what they did without access to the code, as it were.

I'm not sure how far you can take the analogy, since one can copy and
paste and tweak code in a way you can't with a painting. It has to do
with a lot of other issues, whatever one's stance on them is, such as
control,
ownership, copyright, reproduction, and the ego of the artist, and
sometimes money.

it is worthwhile remembering that there was much more than technique/code
to Leonardo's, or Picasso's or Van Gogh's art.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

If I was smarter I would probably take T.Whid's earlier advice and lay off
analogies since the mediums are so different.

That being said ... I have taken on art and programming interns (nothing
like the apprentice system, but the closest experience I have had). There
is a big difference between publicly releasing source code and sharing it
with interns in a teacher/student relationship. The intern relationship
is personal - built on trust and respect. i might add that during
Leonardo's time, there was a transaction taking place, the apprentice's
labor was in exchange for food, clothing, shelter and the modern day
equivalent of an MFA.

As T.Whid also pointed out (in so many words), this discussion may be
making a mountain out of a mole hill since at this point, most funders do
not require open sourcing of technology in exchange for support.

It seems to me it has evolved into what are the actual costs/benefits to
the artist and public of OSS code created to make art. I expressed some of
my misgivings in earlier:

1.) the added burden proper documentation requires
2.) questionable return for the artist
3.) personal need to maintain a feeling of privacy

This does not mean I cannot see the positive that can come of it. This
thread has me considering how I might go about this in the future. I
liked the idea of posting snippets that would be useful to others. I
recently wrote a very cool sound mixer in java that I would happily share
if it did not require I sit down and translate it for others to be able to
use (be it an API, or comments) - since I have a lot on my plate right
now. Perhaps I should enlist an intern to do code documentation.


+Jim Andrews replied:+

when people want to make at least some of the code of an art project
public, they might do so out of various motives.

one of the more interesting possible motives would be out of curiosity
about how the code (or part of the code) of a project could contribute to
the piece as a work of art.

there are various ways how this might happen.

i suspect that we might be able to divide these ways into two groups (not
mutually exclusive).

the first way concerns the poetry of natural language, the poemy poetry of
natural language, however un-poemy or tortured it might be as natural
language. for the most part, this would be in comments and perhaps in the
naming of the variables.

the second way concerns the poetry of mathematics, engineering, and code
ideas. for instance, the code idea in 'oeil complex,' discussed in
http://turbulence.org/curators/Paris/durieuenglish.htm , is crucial to the
poetry of the piece at all levels, but the beauty of the code idea is not
expressed or expressable in the poetry of natural language.

to appreciate the code idea, you do not have to understand the mathematics
of the geometry, but if you do, there is considerably more to appreciate.

i think it would be unfortunate were it *necessary* to expose *all* the
code of a project, but to need to expose *some* of it may further inquiry
into the question of how the public portion of the code of an art project
might contribute to it as a work of art.

ja


+Zev Robinson replied:+

Analogies are good ways of understanding things, and there are always
differences in the things compared.

as I understand it, there is an offer for some funding being made that one
can take or leave, no one is saying that one *has* to give all their hard
work up to the public domain. if anyone doesn't want to, or has a better
offer on the table.

I'm not a coder, so I can't share anything in that realm with you, but
I'll share my video editing technique - I cut everything up, and then put
it back together again.

my point is that there is a difference between the technology and the art
with which it's produced.


+Jason Van Anden replied:+

Mez,

What I love about your language is its compelling syntax - I am not sure
if it is because I program that I attempt to parse meaning from it - but
when I do I get a thrill similar to what I get when I solve a problem in
code. In the context of this chat - I imagine your language as software
intended to reprogram me - which I think is pretty cool.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

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 Marisa Olson (marisa AT rhizome.org). ISSN:
1525-9110. Volume 11, number 7. 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.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +