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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + |
-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 |