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: 06.02.06 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:35:17 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: June 02, 2006 Content: +opportunity+ 1. amanda mcdonald crowley: Electrohype 2006 2. [vChannel]": Call for videos: image vs. music 3. Andrew Hutchison: Call for Papers - The Future of Digital Media Culture 4. Colleen Tully: Pixel Pops! in Praque 5. eb AT randomseed.org: Call for artworks - INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition +announcement+ 6. carlos katastrofsky: Media Ontology - Mapping of Social and Art History of Novi Sad 7. Sreshta Premnath: SHIFTER 8: Rules & Representations 8. Christiane Paul: jihui digital salon presents Ken Feingold -- Thurs. June 8, 6 PM +thread+ 9. Curt Cloninger, Michael Szpakowski, Marisa Olson, marc, Patrick May, Rob Myers, Alexis Turner, Eric Dymond, Ryan Griffis, Dirk Vekemans: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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: amanda mcdonald crowley <amc AT autonomous.org> Date: May 29, 2006 Subject: Electrohype 2006 Call for entries. Electrohype 2006 ? the fourth Nordic biennial for computer based art Deadline July 3rd 2006 ? material via ordinary mail should be postmarked by this date. Electrohype is pleased to announce this call for entries for the exhibition that will be a follow up to the previous large Electrohype exhibitions in 2000, 2002 and 2004. The exhibition will take place in Lunds Konsthall from December 9th to January 7th. This year the exhibition will be in both a new venue and a new city. Lunds Konsthall is located in the central part of Lund, in the south of Sweden. Lund is approximately 20 km north of Malmo where previous Electrohype exhibitions has been presented. Lunds Konsthall, built in 1957, is a beautiful exhibition spaces in late functionalist architecture style. The exhibition space has a flexible semi-open layout with a total exhibition surface of approximately 600 - 800 square meters. The annual number of visitors in Lunds Konsthall is 95 000. The exhibition will present works by 8 ? 10 artists or artist groups. The concept of the Electrohype biennial is that it shall be a Nordic exhibition but this does not exclude works by artists from outside the Nordic region. To give the exhibition a broad perspective we are usually working with a 50/50model, 50 percent from the Nordic region and 50 percent from the rest of the world. Since the decision to realize the exhibition was made just recently we have not yet decided on a theme or topic for this exhibition. This also explains the short deadline. In addition to the main exhibition there will also be an exhibition with the topic ?electronic art in public space? at the Museum of Sketches in Lund, a museum dedicated to public art. Most of the artworks in the museum are in the form of models, visualizations and sketches. This exhibition will be presented during the same period as the main exhibition. This call, and the application form, does not include this exhibition, however if you have knowledge of, or have realized a project you think we should know of feel free to send us a short description (maximum 1/2 page) and link to a project page. Please write ?public? in the subject line. Important dates Deadline for this call for entries July 3rd 2006 Exhibition opening December 9th 2006 Exhibition closing January 7th 2007 Please feel free to re-distribute this call. What kind of art are we looking for? Electrohype has since the start in 1999 focused on what we choose to call computer based art. Art that runs of computers and utilizes the capacity of the computer to mix various media, allow interaction with the audience, or machines interacting with each others etc. in other words art that can not be transferred to ?traditional? linear media. This might seem as a narrow approach but we have discovered that it gives us a better focus on a genre that in no way is narrow. We are not looking for ?straight? video art (even if it is edited on a computer) or still images rendered on computers and other material that refers to more ?traditional? media forms. Forms were the traditional tools have been replaced with computers and software. Practical An online application form and a PDF form can be found on this address: www.electrohype.org/2006 NOTE: Please do NOT send documentation material as attachments to e-mail and do NOT send 8 pages CVs. Put your material online and send us the url or ftp address or send us a CD in the mail. Please read the form and follow the guidelines. We receive a large amount of proposals and all of them are reviewed closely. To be able to do this we ask you to follow the structure in the application form and the topics mentioned above. Financial We are still working on the fundraising for the exhibition. We will hopefully have final numbers sometime during this summer. We will have to adjust the final selection of works for exhibition according to the financial situation. This is unfortunate but it is also necessary, art is beautiful but financial reality is harsh. We will encourage everyone submitting material to look for possibilities for local funding to help cover costs for transport, travel and rent of technical equipment. In previous exhibitions we have managed to keep a high level both in artistic content and exhibition design, even on a modest budget. It is therefore very important for us to avoid unpleasant surprises, so please keep this in mind when filling out the various posts in the form, especially when it comes to technical requirements, transport weight etc. We are looking forward to see new and interesting works of art. Best regards from the Electrohype team Anna Kindvall and Lars Gustav Midboe For additional info please visit our web site at: http://www.electrohype.org/2006 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ELECTROHYPE Drottninggatan 6A 212 11 Malmö SWEDEN +46 40 18 26 90 http://www.electrohype.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. From: [vChannel] <virtu AT kulturserver-nrw.de> Date: May 31, 2006 Subject: Call for videos: image vs. music Call for propsals Deadline 1 July 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------------. VideoChannel http://videochannel.newmediafest.org videochannel AT newmediafest.org organiser of 1st Cologne Online Film Festival (CologneOFF) http://coff.newmediafest.org featuring film & videos on the theme "gender identity". is now planning the 2nd Cologne Online Film Festival (CologneOFF) to be launched in October 2006 in the framework of KlangDrang Festival Cologne (6-7 October 2006) www.klangdrang.org and to be screened in the framework of VideoChannel screenings during the festival --------------------------------------------------------------------- VideoChannel is looking for digital films/videos dealing with the interaction of image & music/sound, a theme which is referring to the character of the festival of sonic art (KlangDrang) # Film and video are basically visual media. Even if used and recognized as an important component, has music in this context mostly rather a colorizing and atmospheric character. The films/videos VideoChannel is looking for should give image & music an equal or music even a dominating status, which may be worked out in most different ways, for instance---> music as the theme of the story, films reflecting music through images and viceversa, the visalization of music, and much more. # There are no restricting categories, the submission of experimental works is encouraged. The call is inviting artists to submit up to three proposals. The deadline is 1 July 2006 # The entry information can be found on http://netex.nmartproject.net/index.php?blog=8&cat=54 but can be also downloaded as PDF http://downloads.nmartproject.net/videoCHANNEL_call_image_vs_music.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------- Visit also the online collection of VideoChannel http://videochannel.newmediafest.org VideoChannel started recently a complete reconstruction and will be relaunched in September 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------- VideoChannel is a joint venture between Cinematheque at MediaArtCentre http://cinematheque.le-musee-divisioniste.org and [R][R][F] 200X - global networking project http://rrf200x.newmediafest.org ---------------------------------------------------------- Released by NetEX - networked experience http://netex.nmartproject.net powered by [NewMediaArtProjectNetwork]:||cologne www.nmartproject.net - the experimental platform for art and New Media operating from Cologne/Germany. . info& contact info (at) nmartproject.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. From: Andrew Hutchison <a.hutchison AT curtin.edu.au> Date: May 31, 2006 Subject: Call for Papers - The Future of Digital Media Culture Call for Papers - Please distribute to relevant forums perthDAC 2007 - The Future of Digital Media Culture 7th International Digital Arts and Culture Conference 15 -18th September 2007, Perth, Australia. http://www.beap.org/dac KEYWORDS - computer games, hypertext theory and literature, new media narrative, streaming media, interactive and networked performance, digital aesthetics, interactive cinema, theory, art, bio-art, nano-art, augmented reality, cyberculture, electronic fiction, electronic music, electronic art, games culture, games system design, games theory, interactive architecture, cinema and video, MOOs, MUDs, RPG, virtual reality, virtual worlds. ABOUT perthDAC perthDAC is the seventh iteration of Digital Arts and Culture. DAC was the first conference to attract and present the work of researchers, practitioners and artists working across the field of digital arts, cultures, aesthetics and design. In September 2007, DAC will be hosted as the key international conference in the public program of the Biennale of Electronic Arts Perth (BEAP) in Perth, Australia. BEAP celebrates and critiques new and novel technologies (digital, bio, nano, other) by showcasing artworks made with, or that are about, new technologies. perthDAC's conference program will be closely inter-woven with BEAP's exhibitions. perthDAC's academic programme is being developed with the close co-operation and support of the fibreculture forum, who will also be active on the perthDAC conference steering committee. CALL FOR PAPERS Papers are sought for PerthDAC 2007 that will illuminate both the near and long term Future of Digital Media Culture. Papers which present research outcomes, track trends or developments, describe case studies or works in progress, are speculative projection, challenge existing paradigms or record a history, are all welcome. Submissions are encouraged from any professional, craft or scholarly field that relates to communications art/design, cultural expression, practice and aesthetics, and the technical means by which they are enabled. perthDAC 2007 accepts submissions from fields such as the humanities, social sciences, human-computer interaction and computer science studies, as well as those working both practically and theoretically in specific areas such as: digital/interactive art, digital/electronic literature, game studies, online communities, new media studies, affective computing, experience design, virtual environment design, etc. Topics of interests may include, but are not limited to, computer games, hypertext theory and literature, new media narrative, streaming media, interactive and networked performance, digital aesthetics, interactive cinema, theory, art, bio-art, nano-art, augmented reality, cyberculture, electronic fiction, electronic music, electronic art, games culture, games system design, games theory, interactive architecture, cinema and video, MOOs, MUDs, RPG, virtual reality, virtual worlds. Artists, early career scholars and PhD students are particularly encouraged to submit. All abstracts and then full papers will be double blind peer reviewed by an international panel, and will be published in the proceedings. Some papers will be published as a special themed journal edition. Dates for the submission of 500 word abstracts and then full papers are: Abstracts: 14th August 2006 Full papers: 4th December 2006 See the perthDAC website 'method' page for more details on the abstracts, papers and presentations process. perthDAC website http://www.beap.org/dac + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. From: Colleen Tully <colleen.tully AT recol.com> Date: Jun 1, 2006 Subject: Pixel Pops! in Praque Pixel Pops! Submission Deadline Extension and Exhibition Date Change - New Deadline: 8 July 2006 Call for Submissions - Pixel Pops! International exhibition in October 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic. This is an artist-organized exhibition, coordinated by Natalia Vasquez (Miami, US), Michal Blazek (Prague, Czech Republic), and Joan Sanchez (Barcelona, Spain). There are no fees to enter. This will be a juried show based on work submitted. We will arrange to display a variety of digital works. All work must show evidence of extensive computer manipulation or be otherwise highly digital. Acceptable Formats: ---Web-based Works (No live Internet available for exhibit, all work should be self-contained. See information below.) ---Short Videos & Animations (1-3 minutes preferred, will accept up to 7 minutes) *Upload a tiny file (180x120 is OK) for jurying. *It is important that you also send us a file that is big enough for display (up to 10megabytes by email) by the 8 July deadline. *Also send a DVD with your work by 22July (this will ensure high quality resolution for projection) * see shipping address below ---Interactive Works (Flash, Director, MaxMSP/Jitter) Interactive works can be "recorded" and uploaded up to 10megabytes. Interactive works must have an additional auto-run mode. Information: *All submitted work must be able to run locally (on a hard drive) in a web browser such as Netscape or Firefox. Please submit by sending an email to poppingpixels AT gmail.com with an attachment or web link to your work. *Attach a brief artist statement and a description of your work (up to 1 page) as a word document. Texts accepted in English, Espanol, Francais. *Copyright Info: All artists accepted for this exhibition will retain ownership of copyright and all other rights to their artwork. We retain the right to use images of accepted artwork for promotional reasons concerning the exhibition or future projects. *Multiple submissions are accepted and encouraged! *All participating artists will have their work added to the Popping Pixels site. http://www.poppingpixels.org (Last year's exhibition: New Haven, CT, US- Coordinated by artists Cynthia Beth Rubin and Colleen Tully) *Artists interested in selling your work, please specify with your submission. We will have a list and will connect you with the interested buyer. We will NOT handle sales directly! *********Digital Photographers- this will not be a photography exhibition, but if you've made any remarkable slideshows, videos from stills, or have made your images interactive, please submit! Accepted entries will be announced on Friday 18 August 2006 SUMMARY: -SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 8 July 2006 -SUBMISSION E-MAIL: poppingpixels AT gmail.com (Subject: SUBMISSION) -ATTACH: ∑ Submission(see above for formats) ∑ Artist Statement ∑ Description of your work. -CD/DVD DEADLINE: 22 July 2006 Shipping Address: Natalia Vasquez Ondrickova 7 130 00 Praha 3 Czech Republic *Please note that shipping time from the U.S. to the Czech Republic is approximately 2 weeks. Mark your package "No Commercial Value" and use the value of actual CD or DVD (approximately 5USD or Euros)* + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. From: eb AT randomseed.org <eb AT randomseed.org> Date: Jun 2, 2006 Subject: Call for artworks - INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CALL FOR ARTWORKS - please forward ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERFACE and SOCIETY a project by Atelier Nord http://anart.no exhibition Nov.10th - Nov.19th 2006 at Henie Onstad Kunstsenter Oslo Norway. http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/ Atelier Nord is looking for artworks/installations concerning the transformation of our everyday live through electronic interfaces (see details below). APPLICATION DEADLINE 1st July 2006. Please apply via email to sense AT anart.no subject: INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition with the following information: 1) Project name / year of production 2) Artist name(s) + email / contact information 3) Short project description 4) Project URL + URL for online documentation (pdf, pictures, video) 5) Short CV Alternatively you can send the requested information via snailmail to: Atelier Nord Lakkegata 55 D N-0187 Oslo Norway ad: INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERFACE and SOCIETY In our everyday life we constantly have to cope more or less successfully with interfaces. We use the mobile phone, the mp3 player, and our laptop, in order to gain access to the digital part of our life. In recent years this situation has lead to the creation of new interdisciplinary subjects like "Interaction Design" or "Physical Computing". We live between two worlds, our physical environment and the digital space. Technology and its digital space are our second nature and the interfaces are our points of access to this technosphere. Since artists started working with technology they have been developing interfaces and modes of interaction. The interface itself became an artistic thematic. The project INTERFACE and SOCIETY investigates how artists deal with the transformation of our everyday life through technical interfaces. With the rapid technological development a thoroughly critique of the interface towards society is necessary. The role of the artist is thereby crucial. S/he has the freedom to deal with technologies and interfaces beyond functionality and usability. The project INTERFACE and SOCIETY is looking at this development with a special focus on the artistic contribution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERFACE and SOCIETY is an umbrella for a range of activities throughout 2006 at Atelier Nord in Oslo. Read more at: http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Exhibitions The GIF Show, open May 3-June 3, at San Francisco's Rx Gallery, takes the pulse of what some net surfers have dubbed ?GIF Luv,? a recent frenzy of file-sharing and creative muscle-flexing associated with GIFs (Graphic Interchange Format files). Curated by Rhizome Editor & Curator at Large, Marisa Olson, the show presents GIFs and GIF-based videos, prints, readymades, and sculptures by Cory Arcangel, Peter Baldes, Michael Bell-Smith, Jimpunk, Olia Lialina, Abe Linkoln, Guthrie Lonergan, Lovid, Tom Moody, Paper Rad, Paul Slocum, and Matt Smear (aka 893). GIFs have a rich cultural life on the internet and each bears specific stylistic markers. From Myspace graphics to advertising images to porn banners, and beyond, GIFs overcome resolution and bandwidth challenges in their pervasive population of the net. Animated GIFs, in particular, have evolved from a largely cinematic, cell-based form of art practice, and have more recently been incorporated in music videos and employed as stimulating narrative devices on blogs. From the flashy to the minimal, the sonic to the silent, the artists in The GIF Show demonstrate the diversity of forms to be found in GIFs, and many of them comment on the broader social life of these image files. Become MySpace friends with the exhibit! http://www.myspace.com/gifshow + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. From: carlos katastrofsky <carlos.katastrofsky AT gmx.net> Date: May 29, 2006 Subject: Media Ontology - Mapping of Social and Art History of Novi Sad Media Ontology - Mapping of Social and Art History of Novi Sad Curated by Zoran Panteli? and Kristian Luci? Opening: Wednesday, 31. 05. 2006, 7.00 p.m. Symposium and book presentation: Thursday, 01. 06. 2006, 2.00 - 6.00 p.m., "On Media Ontology", moderated by Georg Schöllhammer (springerin, documenta) With Cosmin Costinas (documenta Büro Wien), Vuc ?osi? (Netart Veterane), Kristian Luki? (Museum of Contemporary Art Novi Sad / Eastwood ), Zoran Panteli? (kuda.org / Apsolutno), Felix Stalder (Openflows Networks Ltd.). Presentation of the book "The Absolute Report", edited by Association Apsolutno, in cooperation with Inke Arns, Andreas Broeckmann, Lev Manovich, Geert Lovink, u.a., published by springerin/revolver Duration of the exhibition : 01. 06.- 21. 06. 2006 Monday - Friday, 2.00 - 6.00 p.m. Place: Galerie ArtPoint Universitätsstraße 5, 1010 Vienna A Project by: KulturKontakt Austria in cooperation with springerin - Hefte für Gegenwartskunst and documenta-office Wien Admission free! ________________________ Mag. Sabine Hochrieser KulturKontakt Austria Culture + Sponsoring Exhibition Coordination Universitätsstraße 5 1010 Wien/Vienna t +43 1 523 87 65-45 f +43 1 523 87 65-50 sabine.hochrieser AT kulturkontakt.or.at <<KudaKarte.pdf>> www.kulturkontakt.or.at + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. From: Sreshta Premnath <rit.premnath AT gmail.com> Date: May 31, 2006 Subject: SHIFTER 8: Rules & Representations SHIFTER 8 Rules & Representations Mauro Altamura Igor Baskin Chris Bors Cammi Climaco Ben Colebrook Sunoj D Michael Eddy Seth Ellis Curtis Evans Swetha Gowri Benjamin Grasso Alina Viola Grumiller Vandana Jain Sonia Jose Misako Kitaoka Miranda Maher Alisdair McRae Anne M. Platoff Ana Prvacki Kamya Ramachandran Dan Levenson Nora Schultz Ruben Verdu Anna Vitale Bethany Wright Joe Zane Editor: Sreshta Rit Premnath Associate Editor: G?nner Heiliger Von L?gen Critical Advisor: Pieter DeHeijde Design + Copy: IF www.shifter-magazine.com When the Committee on Symbolic Articles Related to the First Lunar Landing (Apollo 11) convened, they discussed the technical difficulties of planting the American flag in the absence of an atmosphere. They devised a horizontal beam to hold up the still flag, and prevent it from hanging limp. The flag as a signifier depends on certain contextual (environmental) properties in order to function - in fact its performative meaning is completely dependent on its ability to wave and hence a prevalent wind. The emptiness of a displaced signifier is a preoccupation in this issue. Possibilities: 4) Can rules that have been formulated for a specific purpose be appropriated, salvaged and put to unforeseen uses? What happens to this appropriated structure/ language? What is its relationship to the source structure/ language? 1) (How) Does the represented Subject use the rules of their given symbolic space to find and articulate their subjectivity within the rules of that space. Raising the question of where within the homogenized spheres of production and consumption in this globalizing society, are there spaces for subjective articulation? In the performance of everyday life? In revolt? 2) If the Subject is (I)tself constituted as a representation of these rules, are its articulations also a representation of the same rules? If so, must we remove the term 'Subject' from the previous sentence? 3) If the Subject is amputated from language, who speaks? And who is spoken to? 5) >>About Shifter Magazine >>Shifter's nature is such that it changes every issue. What worked in the previous issue doesn't work anymore. What failed may be substituted with new deficiencies. >>Push-pull. Friction implicates touch. A gathering/ forced together. A bunch. A collection of a hunch. Almost. Neither/Always, Nor/Already. >>Text points to image, image points to text, text points to text, image points to image, text points to itself, image points to itself, text is image. Text is equal to image. >>A Shifter's nature is such that it is nothing except for its pointing; to itself, to its surroundings (context). It presumes the body, it's meaning in relational, like a dislocated vector it moves from 'here' to 'there.' A Shifter is void if dislodged, it knows this, while acknowledging this it searches for its framework, self-reflexive, yet dependent. How to look for the stratum that constructs it when the looking is structured by the very same framework. >>Neither questions nor answers. Only enunciations and then waiting to see. Only relations and in-betweens. Points of contact. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. From: Christiane Paul <Christiane_Paul AT whitney.org> Date: Jun 1, 2006 Subject: jihui digital salon presents Ken Feingold -- Thurs. June 8, 6 PM jihui Digital Salon in cooperation with The Project Room AT Chelsea Art Museum presents Ken Feingold Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6-8 PM Chelsea Art Museum, 3rd Floor 556 West 22nd Street New York, NY 10011 http://agent.netart-init.org http://www.chelseaartmuseum.org Ken Feingold will discuss his recent works involving computer-generated performances, including new works not yet shown in New York. These pieces, which the artist refers to as "cinematic sculptures," often include extremely realistic, speaking animatronic human heads that talk and respond to viewers ("Sinking Feeling," 2001; "Lantern," 2005) or to each other ("If/Then," 2001; "You," 2004; "What If?," 2005). The listening and speaking figures - digitally and pneumatically activated silicone portraits - explore the unpredictability and complexity that language and mind create between people. The dialogs are not pre-recorded and are always different, generated in real time by computer programs written by the artist. Feingold uses technology to give each figure a personality, a vocabulary, associative habits, obsessions, and other traits of personality that allow them to behave as if in different takes of a scene in a film, acting out their role over and over, but always changing. However, Feingold is not involved with artificial intelligence as a scientist might be and these works are not intended to create a literal simulation of a human being. He employs metaphors of the artificial to get to what we understand about the real, how we communicate, and how meaning often is elusive or transient. http://www.kenfeingold.com KEN FEINGOLD (USA, 1952) has been exhibiting his work in film, video, objects, and installations since 1974. After first studying at Antioch College (Yellow Springs, Ohio), he received his B.F.A. and M.F.A. degrees in ?Post-Studio Art? from California Institute of the Arts (CalArts), Valencia, CA. Among the numerous awards and honors Feingold has received are a Rockefeller Foundation Media Arts Fellowship (2003) and a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship (2004). He has taught at Princeton University and Cooper Union, among other institutions. His work "Interior" (1997) was commissioned for the first ICC Biennale '97, Tokyo; "Seance Box No.1" was produced by the ZKM Karlsruhe and shown in the exhibition "net_condition" (1999?2000); and "Head" (2000) was commissioned for the exhibition "Alien Intelligence" (Feb-May 2000) by the Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art, Helsinki. His work "If/Then" (2001) was included in the Whitney Biennial 2002, and three of his installations were in the Corcoran Biennial 2002. "Self Portrait as the Center of the Universe" (1998 ? 2001) was shown at Tate Liverpool in "Art, Lies and Videotape: Exposing Performance" (2004), and a "mid-career survey" of his work was on view at Ace Gallery in Los Angeles between October 2005 and February 2006. His works are in the permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art (Film Study Collection), NY; Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris; Kiasma, Helsinki; ZKM Center for Art and Media, Karlsruhe, and others. He has traveled widely, living for extended periods of time in India, Japan, and Argentina and working for shorter periods in many other countries. He lives in New York City and is represented by ACE Gallery, New York/Los Angeles. CURRENTLY ON VIEW AT THE CHELSEA ART MUSEUM: Timetrackers, a new body of work from celebrated French artist, Champion Métadier. This is the first time that this series of sixteen large-scale paintings and drawings will be shown in America. The exhibition, which runs from May 11 to July 15, is curated by Julia Draganovic, Director of the Chelsea Art Museum. jihui (the meeting point), a self-regulated digital salon, invites all interested people to send ideas for discussion/performance/etc. jihui is where your voice is heard and your vision shared. jihui is a joint public program by NETART INITIATIVE and INTELLIGENT AGENT http://www.netart-init.org | http://www.intelligentagent.com THE PROJECT ROOM is a special projects and education program that brings together international artists, curators, cultural, educational and corporate organizations. Producer / Curator: Nina Colosi + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. From: Curt Cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>, Michael Szpakowski <szpako AT yahoo.com>, Marisa Olson <marisa AT rhizome.org>, marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org>, Patrick May <patrick AT rhizome.org>, Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>, Alexis Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org>, Eric Dymond <dymond AT idirect.ca>, Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis AT gmail.com>, Dirk Vekemans <dv AT vilt.net> Date: May 27, 2006 12:43 PM Subject: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura + Curt Cloninger posted: + Walter Benjamin says that people used to attach an "aura" (roughly, sense of awe) to the scarce, original unique, physical art object. Benjamin observes that since everything is now infinitely reproducible, we've lost this aura. As an artist not making one-of-a-kind objects, where can I relocate the aura? To answer ,"In the network" is like answering "in the air," or "in time," or "in existence." I need a more specific, behavioral/tactical description of this new locus of awe and aura. Designer Clement Mok says designers should describe their practice not in terms of media deliverables ("I make websites"), but as doctors and lawyers do, in terms of services performed and results achieved. A doctor doesn't say, "I make incisions." A lawyer doesn't say, "I generate paperwork." This seems like a better way for a "new media artist" to describe her art. (Note: Even the term "new media artist" describes her in terms of media deliverables.) She shouldn't say, "I make net art." Better to say, "I cause x to happen. I orchestrate x. I'm investigating x." Thus in describing "where" I relocate the aura, I should avoid saying, "It's in the podcast, weblog, RSS feed, wearable mobile computing device, etc." As an artist, my self-imposed mandate is to increase a more lively dialogue with the Sundry Essences of Wonder. If wonder is akin to awe is akin to aura, I'd better figure out where to relocate the aura. ++++++++++++++++++++++ There are four places I can house the aura that seem interesting: 1. In the destabilized/variable event/object. Generative software makes this possible. My bubblegum cards are a personal example ( http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/ ) Cage and Kaprow are precedences. The aura is embedded in the chance and variability that the artist invites into the destabilized/variable performance. 2. In the perpetually enacted and iterated act/stance/position. My ongoing [remix] series of posts to rhizome RAW are a personal example. Ray Johnson's life/death and mail art, Joseph Beuys pedagogy, and D.J. Spooky's perpetual remix as talisman are precedences. Even Howard Finster, Daniel Johnston, and Henry Darger qualify, albeit in a less consciously tactical capacity -- prodigiously outputting without thought of object uniqueness/scarcity/worth/market value. The act of perpetual creation is the art, and the output is (to greater or lesser degrees) incidental ephemera. William Blake almost qualifies. The stream is perpetual; it becomes the new "event object;" and in this stream the aura is embedded. Note: This approach takes lots of energy. 3. In the boundaries of context. Our Deep/Young Ethereal Archive ( http://deepyoung.org ) is a personal example. Precedences and co-examples are: http://www.mjt.org/ , http://www.grographics.com/theysaysmall/small/RotherhitheUniversity/ , http://www.museum-ordure.org.uk/ . http://www.thatwordwhichmeanssmugglingacrossbordersincorporated.com/ , http://www.dearauntnettie.com/gallery/ . This approach necessarily involves disorientation and re-orientation. The contextual frame is soft, and the aura is embedded into this soft frame. Keeping this frame soft is a delicate matter. It requires a heightened, sometimes schizophrenic sense of performative awareness (cf: Ray Johnson, David Wilson). It may require the artist to alienate "real" art institutions wishing to fit the art into their frame. As the artist of such work, I can't overtly foreground the soft contextual frame as my intended locus of aura. If I do, the soft frame I'm working so hard to construct and keep soft immediately solidifies and is in turn meta-framed by a much more solid, didactic, "artist statement" frame; and the aura flies away. Note: Warhol well understood that an object's scarcity was a silly contemporary place for the aura to go. Instead, he ingeniously embedded the aura in the foregrounded concept of the object's scarcity. His deep awareness of this ironic relationship may explain why his art objects now sell for so much. (cf: http://www.dream-dollars.com/ ). 4. In human relationships. Personal examples might be http://www.lab404.com/data/ and http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/ . Co-examples might be http://learningtoloveyoumore.com , http://www.foundmagazine.com/ , and some of Jillian McDonald's performance pieces ( http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/performance.html ). You could describe this as "network" art, but compare it to Alex Galloway's Carnivore, which is also network art, and you realize "network" is too broad a term. This human relationship art is not about the network as an abstract monolithic cultural entity. It is about humans who happen to be interacting with each other via networks. The aura is embedded not in the network, but in the human relationships that the art invites. As with locus #1 (In the destabilized/variable event/object), this locus necessarily involves chance, because human relationships necessarily involve chance. These four places for housing the aura are not mutually exclusive. Conceivably, a single artwork could house the aura in all four places. This warrants further artistic investigation. + Michael Szpakowski replied: + HI Curt I *love* Benjamin, but I do think he is best read as a species of poet rather than as a exponent of logical argument, which stuff is frankly fairly thin on the ground in his oeuvre. A lot of the time he was just plain *wrong* factually, but *right* poetically & I think this was the case re the question of "aura". The sense of rightness, of the sublime &c, put it how you will, actually seems to me to be independent of epoch or medium. So, for me, Kentridge, Tarkovsky, Nauman <multiples>, just scream "AURA, AURA, AURA!" whereas Vettriano, Hirst < physical, one of a kind> kind of whisper "DUD, COMMERCE, DUMBING DOWN, FLATTERY, DUD." + marc replied: + I suspect the 'aura', has changed into something else now, and perhaps, if we are open to it - we can find it not only in art but also in the everyday, rather than through objects alone, posing as unique. For 'unique' is not necessarily a signifier of what is beautiful, or the 'aura'. If one was genuinely interested in 'feeling' what could be 'authentic', then one is at least closer to the essence of something special or of value, but to contain it as art or as anything else for that matter, more reflects a desire to contain the sublime and control what is untouchable... + Marisa Olson replied: + Hey, guys. This thread is interesting. My two cents... I don't really think that the loss of the aura is such a bad thing--or something that Benjamin necessarily laments. I read the aura as 'stuff that gets in the way' (ie perceived phenom of a distance), or moreover, as the immaterial (but weighty) presence of history, hegemony, and aesthetics. I think that, in Benjamin's discussion of property systems, and particularly in his citation of Marinetti's futurist proclamation that "war is beautiful," that he's call for us to relieve ourselves of aesthetic models that impose certain negative relationships between works and individuals. I believe he's saying that these same models inscribe our subjectivity--as traced by our models of consumption--as victims of the property/fascist system(s) that have beget our aesthetic systems. In this vain, "war is beautiful" is not such a confusing statement. A fascist system begets an aesthetic system that says X, Y, and Z equal beauty; ergo war equals beauty. It's a way of seeing how violent the aesthetic "regime" (to perhaps overdo it a bit) has become... Anyway, I'm travelling and don't have the book with me so I can't offer any relevant quotes, but it's something I've also been thinking about lately, so I wanted to chime in. + Curt Cloninger replied: + Hi Marisa (and all), It is interesting how historical context can so color a theorists writing. Here's a classic irony: Greenberg once associated kitsch with the academy. He likened Beaux Arts academic aesthetic-by-numbers to what would now be the equivalent of a faux Roman columnar bird bath at Home Depot. The irony is, after the rise and fall of Greenberg, the academy is now back to liking kitsch, but the context is totally changed from 1939. I'm starting my MFA this summer, so I'm trying to think more like an artist and less like a critic. My notes on aura were written from the perspective of my own artmaking. My art doesn't want to be overtly political. As such, I'm less concerned with whether Benjamin himself was glad at the loss of aura or sad about it. It seems he was more ambivalent toward it than you are reading, Marisa, but I've not read enough of him to argue this convincingly. Benjamin was there at ground zero to realize that industrailized media was changing something about the art object, and he was able to give this "something" a name -- aura. I'm guessing most folks read (or are assigned to read) "the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction" less because of Benjamin's particular marxian perspective, and more because he was historically one of the first theorists to put his finger on this shift regarding the art object (although Duchamp was already exploiting the shift two decades earlier). But what was once liberating for Benjamin in 1936 (democratization of the formerly aestheticized object) has led to certain artistic vacuums today that are hardly exciting. Without lamenting the loss of "aesthetic" (lest I rouse the rote response of "who's aesthetic"), some forms of contemporary art, liberated from the "bonds" of the spiritual and mystical, have lost something. I'd like to call that something awe and wonder. Benjamin's "aura" is not perfectly synonamous with what I'm talking about, but it seems related. Note the difference between incarnation and reification: with incarnation, spirit enters body and the two are enmeshed but still distinct; with reification, an idea becomes an object. (Perhaps) Benjamin merely sees the unique art object in terms of marxist commodity. I see the unique art object from a more incarnational perspective -- a physical body "wherein" something spiritual resides. Michael S. implies that Benjamin was wrong to associate the aura so strongly with an object's singularity, and maybe this is so. But I'm enough of a graphic design historian to get all sexed up about a potential visit to the library of congress rare book reading room where I'll be able to leaf through one one of the few extant copies of William Morris' Kelmscott Press Chaucer. And I didn't spend an hour in Sao Paulo looking at Bosch's "Temptation of St. Anthony" triptych simply because of the subject matter and the brushwork. I'm willing to concede that the "aura" is not housed exclusively in the object's singularity, but some of it definitely accumulates there given enough time under the bridge. Assuming Hirst's sheep doesn't rot, and barring another Satchi fire, even that dumb thing will have accumulated some aura in 200 years. Anyway, maybe "aura" is too entrenched in a frankfurt school historical context for me to take it and use it to mean "awe and wonder." I'm testing out the implications of such a reappropriation. As an artist, I'm personally more interested in "where" such an "aura" might be tactically relocated, now that there's not an art object any"where." Call it a subjective inquiry into non-objective incarnation. ++++++++++++++ [Warning: I am about to use the terms "good" and "bad" quite freely.] Regarding the connection Benjamin draws between aesthtics and fascist control, even that connection is colored by the era in which he lived. In this, Benjamin and Greenberg have something in common -- a reaction against a Nazi-sanctioned, state-approved art. The irony is that something like Hirst's sheep -- a work that Benjamin, Greenberg, and Hitler could all have agreed to dislike (although for radically different reasons) -- is now state-approved art. What can we infer from this? Correct politics don't always lead to good art. Intelligent art criticism doesn't always lead to good art. Why? Because there is more to art (and life) that intelligent criticism and correct politics. There is a Sex Pistols documentary called "The great rock 'n' roll swindle" which is itself a Malcolm McLaren swindle. I'll call the following proposition "The great dialectic swindle": Nobody wants to get duped. Heaven freaking forbid you get duped. All ideologies are suspected as tools to control the minds of the proletariat/disenfranchised/duped to keep them from rising up, claiming their due, and getting unduped. Thus the goal is to ever suspect and critique -- proving yourself intelligent, free, radical, enlightened, and above all, not duped. To quote T. Rex, "You won't fool the children of the revolution!" Of course, the only ones able to recognize that you are not duped are the few free souls also not duped. Anyone unable to recognize your lack of dupedness must themselves be duped. (They may have read Derrida, but they didn't read him in French.) I propose that this inordinate fear of being duped is one of the biggest dupes of all. If the human soul exists, if a spiritual realm exists, if God exists, if certain objective truths exist, if certain universal aspects of human nature exist apart from historical materialism -- then those who suspect such things as being "duping constructs" are getting meta-duped. This is indeed a thorny, catch-22 mindfuck -- to suspect as duping constructs the very things that could free you, all the while being duped by the very safeguards you think are keeping you from being duped. (Couldn't my own suspicion of the meta-dupe be an even bigger meta-meta-dupe? So says Derrida in French.) peace, curt + Michael Szpakowski replied: + Couple of things: I think when Benjamin talked about aesthetics & fascism he was doing something very simple - warning us not to forget real life, not to be too insular, to be too delighted with the *formally attractive & seductive* - I can imagine the Nuremburg rallies were immensely exciting events to be at, carefully choreographed by people who were *evil* but *not at all stupid* & in addition understood a thing or two about art. I remember having a great night out a few years back at the son et lumiere show at Stone Mountain near Atlanta -exhilaratingly atmospheric, especially as we'd just climbed the mountain (wonderful!) & then caught the last cable car down to catch the show but..also..profoundly disquieting.. not because it sought to *justify* slavery/confederacy but because it sought to *neutralize* them in spectacle.. As for Benjamin's Marxism ..well..it's a very odd species of Marxism.. Adorno was able to pick formal holes in it with ease.. *but* of course when it came to the test of supporting student anti racist, anti war activism in the 60's Adorno failed it miserably. I do not believe Benjamin, bookish, naive, unlucky in life & love, would have failed such a test. For me, politically, Benjamin was in general *deeply confused* in one, the formal, sense. *But* there is something about him, a deep humanity, which resonates with the humanism of an untainted ( by Stalinism, academicism, sometimes -eg Althusser- one and the smae thing, always related) Marxism. In this combination of confusion and humanity he resembles Brecht, with whom he had a strange & tense friendship.. I feel there are two ways of rescuing *positions* from Benjamin -one is a retreat into the academicism of the disappointed & ageing generation of 68, whose retreat from engagement with life continues to poison philosophy, critical theory &c -the other is to read him as *literature* in which somehow ( in the same way as Proust, or Melville or Joyce) some kind of truth is embedded. Read the essay on Kafka & tell me you're not exhilarated..*then* precis it for me :) + Curt Cloninger replied: + Dirk Vekemans suggested a fifth place in which to locate the aura -- in the psychologically constructed "space" of the non-linear narrative. I hate to use the phrase "virtual space" because that seems like VRML and Poser avatars, and that is way too limited (and techno-dorky) a definition of this kind of mindspace. What I'm talking about is more like the unconscious mental architecture that you naturally construct while "surfing" a "site." There's a way to hijack this mental architecture and embed an aura into it via disorientation. In such works/spaces/places, the "site architecture" isn't there to support the the "content" of the "plot." Instead, the opposite is true -- the "plot" is the architecture itself, and the content merely serves to give the architecture form. I call such spaces "fugal narratives": http://deepyoung.org/permanent/fugue/ . Mine is here: http://lab404.com/plotfracture/ . Another favorite is http://www.silverladder.com/links/badscary/intro.htm Dirk's cathedral is here: http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/ and this from http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/presence.jsp : In order to build the game i need to create a universe here first . Now i don't have the time nor the budget to go about it the Star Wars way so it's gonna be a rather simple universe. Not a model of the universe, just a space with places in them, so there's gonna be a lot of fiction involved. I don't like the 'page' metaphor for files that are accessible by requesting them, i prefer a fictionalisation into 'place'. + Patrick May replied: + First I thought we ought to forget about the aura / author, then I was amused by the role of the "scriptor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author + Curt Cloninger replied: + "[The scriptor] is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the subject with the book as predicate." (Barthes) A fairly accurate description of several actionScript programmers I know. cf: http://www.markamerika.com/filmtext/ + Rob Myers replied: + "[Relational Art] is auratic. Because without the aura of management - uh- art, what differentiates the social and aesthetic incompetence of RA from just actual social and aesthetic incompetence?" http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/04/21/relational-aesthetics-the- institutional-theory-suspension-of-judgement-radical-commitment-via- rhizome-raw/ This is the aura of value, of the addition of value through management of human relations, which is a managerial aspiration. + Alexis Turner replied: + "Awe and wonder" are attached to the novel. The curve is an interesting one - up to a point, the pleasure derived from such an experience increases with the novelty of the object; however, once that certain point of novelty is reached, the experience exponentially plummets into an unpleasurable one. People's minds are tickled by a level of difficulty, but when the object becomes too foreign, complex, or new, it is met with revulsion and anger. In other words, Benjamin's "aura" and "awe and wonder" are really just a metaphor for learning, and the concept can be applied to anything, not just art. A little bit of a challenge in an object is pleasurable precisely because it creates this learning experience and awakens curiosity. If the understanding of an object is too far out of reach, however, the person cannot "get it" and thus lashes out. It becomes "stupid" or "boring" or "wrong." How many times have you heard that in a classroom/gallery/concert/world affairs? So, in this regard, Benjamin (and your mission) is wrong - the locus of the aura is not the object, it is the mind of the person experiencing the object, and aura, as an experience, can never be lost if a person exists who hasn't seen or learned everything there is to know. One person may fail to express wonder at an object if it is familiar to them, but to another it represents something they've never fathomed. Likewise, the person bored by the first object will find others intriguing. I use the computer, and I make art, to discover (better?) (new?) ways to teach and create understanding. + Eric Dymond replied: + I wonder if we have a collective time for auras today. They pop up in personal time, but I think an aura as a shared aspect of an artwork is counter productive and outside of any time-frame I can imagine in the current state of art. I have a fear of these things anyway, it's not rational, but it's there. "war is beautiful" was a celebration of the increasing speed of machines. For me it's always been one of those unintended but accidental truths. In one short phrase it demonstartes how machines can act as a prosthesis and at the same time, turn into governor (in the classic cybernetic sense) when used. The design of the machine in the hands of malacious designers makes it more dangerous, and more inviting. Summer days.... indeed. + curt cloninger replied: + Hi Rob, I assume this is referring to proposed aura relocation locus #4: "In human relationships." Yes? This from Susanne Lacy's 1993 essay on "new genre public art:" "What exists in the space between the words public and art is an unknown relationship between artist and audience, a relationship that may *itself* become the artwork." Emphasis on the words "unknown" and "may become." What if the aura is not embedded didactically and managerially by the artist into these relationships? What if situations are constructed by the artist and then observed to see what aura might arise from these relationships? I liken it to generative art. The artist/author has a modicum of control, but if he's in total control, it's not generative art. The paradigm is one of research rather than auteur artmaking. Do you deny that such art is possible? + rob AT robmyers.org replied: + Quoting curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com>: > I assume this is referring to proposed aura relocation locus #4: "In > human relationships." Yes? It's in relation to one of the current major descriptions of art (Relational Aesthetics) and #4 is a good description of that so yes. :-) > What if the aura is not embedded didactically and managerially by the > artist into these relationships? The aura is not at the level of the precise variation of content. I am not talking about a blue or red aura, I am talking about the presence of a coloured aura, and what the preence of a coloured aura means. The managerial aura is at the level of the class of work (Relational Art) and how such works are structured. The artist doesn't have to be didactic and the managerial element is immanent to the nature of the work, not a chosen stance of the artist. > What if situations are constructed by the artist and then observed to > see what aura might arise from these relationships? They will have the aura of managed situations and evaluative observation motivated by the creation or extraction of value, which is managerial. > I liken it to generative art. The artist/author has a modicum of > control, but if he's in total control, it's not generative art. The > paradigm is one of research rather than auteur artmaking. Do you > deny that such art is possible? Given my generative background, not really. ;-) This is an interesting comparison. Certainly in both instances we have an artistic system of constraints and (claimed) non-artist agency. But in the case of generative art these are instrumental, whereas in relational art they are the art. Relational art is more like push polling that scientific research (or soft reseearch like market research). Relational Art gives (claims) results (aesthetic phenomena) at the level of human relations. The nature of these relations may vary (and it doesn't matter whether they are positive or negative, emergent or imposed). But they are still relations. What gives these relations value is not their precise nature but their general existence as part of a class of phenomena, and their existence has been encouraged and identified as valuable by the artist. This creation of value by directing human relations for institutions in this way is managerial. + curt cloninger replied: + That seems like a pretty open definition of "managerial," almost to the point of being tautological. You say the nature of the human relations may be positive, so may I infer from this that "managerial" is not always negative? Is the circus managerial? Is http://mjt.org managerial? What kind of art is not managerial? Are you one who believes that to enter into dialogue is always an attempt to control another? If so, it seems any form of output or social engagement is inherently managerial. Even generatiive/reactive art that uses chance agency as a formal instrument still traffics in human relationships once a user begins to interact with it. Regardless of what the generative artist says about his own work and intentions, it can be easily argued that a modicum of "art" (or "aura") exists between the user and the artwork (simply because the artwork is purposefully reactive rather than static). I see an analogy between the generative art I make ( http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/) and the networked/collaborative art I "make" ( http://www.playdamage.org/quilt ). Both invite chance. The former invites chance to play amongst formal elements and artifacts of personal memory. The latter invites chance to play amongst human releationships on the network. I don't ever know how either are going to turn out. My hope is that both turn out to the benefit of all involved, but this is not always the case. For example, some of the iterations of my Bubble Gum Cards are not always as well composed as I would like. And sometimes there are unscripted negative side-effects to my networked projects (cf: http://lab404.com/getty/ and http://lab404.com/misc/obits/ ). If the artist whose art is primarily embedded in social relationships stopped calling what she does art, would it be any less managerial? Is it the art-whoring and institutional sanctioning of human relationships that you are critiquing? Playing in punk bands, we always hoped that our music would affect somebody, but we nevertheless continued to play even after everyone had stopped their ears and left the room. If the "art" of your art is dependent upon social engagement, and everyone leaves the room, then I guess you stop playing. Which does seem kind of contrived to me. Also, the idea of putting some random passerby in an awkward, "artistically constructed" situation and then filming him to prove that your art put him in an awkward situation, thus extracting "your art" from the situation -- I see how that is exploitatively managerial. But what if you just put a random passerby in an awkward situation and then don't film it or call it art? Malcolm McLaren filmed it and called it art. But John Lydon would not be so easily commodified. Debord, the San Francisco Suicide Club -- there must be ways to do it right. + curt cloninger replied: + Hi Ryan, We weren't bad or unrehearsed, we were just loud and perpetual. I'm thinking of one particular instance, a Voodoo Bar-B-Q reunion circa 1990. We hadn't played together in two years, and we were all back in town for Christmas. We played an hour-long version of "Sister Ray." After 15 minutes, the "audience" had adjourned to the neighbor room. We kept playing because we were celebrating existence. It was veritably transcendental. ryan griffis wrote: i don't know about the contrived arg though... affective sincerity and the "doing it for you" attitude can be just as contrived and delusional. now, don't get me wrong, i don't say this in a cynical way to disavow sincerity and "doing it for yourself," but if you happen to believe that communicating and dialogue, or even conflict, are what you're into, then why would you keep playing after everyone's gone. of course, it's better if you practice and actually get some kind of enjoyment out of what you do. + Ryan Griffis replied: + On May 31, 2006, at 12:57 PM, curt cloninger wrote > > That seems like a pretty open definition of "managerial," almost to > the point of being tautological. You say the nature of the human > relations may be positive, so may I infer from this that > "managerial" is not always negative? i'm with curt on this question... > > Playing in punk bands, we always hoped that our music would affect > somebody, but we nevertheless continued to play even after everyone > had stopped their ears and left the room. If the "art" of your art > is dependent upon social engagement, and everyone leaves the room, > then I guess you stop playing. Which does seem kind of contrived > to me. i don't know about the contrived arg though... affective sincerity and the "doing it for you" attitude can be just as contrived and delusional. now, don't get me wrong, i don't say this in a cynical way to disavow sincerity and "doing it for yourself," but if you happen to believe that communicating and dialogue, or even conflict, are what you're into, then why would you keep playing after everyone's gone. of course, it's better if you practice and actually get some kind of enjoyment out of what you do. but i wonder what Rob's response to Warren Sack's take on the "managerial" criticism of conceptual art (via Buchloh) http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/publications.php http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/Publications/wsack-network- aesthetics.doc as i understood it, he's attaching a critical function to the adoption of the bureaucratic (or managerial as you call it), since it 's being used in order to create "intimate bureaucracies." and his crit also contains arguments against RA (as Bourriaud champions it) since it's about denying conflict and difference. So, he arrives at an "aesthetics of governance" in which not all relations are equal, and can be evaluated aesthetically and politically (well, he uses "ethics" but i have problems with "ethics" as a discourse). But, as Sack suggests, the "managerial element" can be a chosen stance of the artist, at least it can be acknowledged. while you may argue that the nature of the relations doesn't matter, i think it can equally be argued that it does. + curt cloninger replied: + Hi Eric, I agree that there are different learning styles. Maybe I over-described my approach, skewing it toward those students who learn by doing. The goal is to do whatever it takes to cause learning to occur, student by student. Even with those who like rigour, at some point they still have to own the material themselves. I teach in a program that's interdisciplinary, so I get art students and programmers. Teaching programmers graphic design is always a challenge. Teaching painters code is usually easier. The aura in a podcast is in locus #2: In the perpetually enacted and iterated act/stance/position. A perpetual stream from a consistent perspective replaces the object as the locus of aura. + Alexis Turner replied: + Sorry, I still have to say that it is about as useful to describe an object as having an "aura" as it is to describe it as having honest-to-goodness "magic." Historically, the art that awed, impressed, and created wonder was the art that explained something fundamental about human nature or the world. It showed people something they already knew (but in a new way), it improved upon their existing body of knowledge, or else it exposed them to something they had never realized was possible. For art to do this, however, it must have 3 things at a minimum, and all ultimately go back to the mind and how it processes said art: the work must be experienced, must have meaning, and must have effect. None of these are magic. That said, I suspect the reason current art has no "aura," as Benjamin feared, is because current art has no meaning, insofar as it seems no longer to be produced with the idea that it can inform or change the people that make it or view it. Instead, it is just "stuff" produced by a bunch of post-modern wankers who like the romantic idea of what it means to be artists, and so sit around and hope that if they explain what they are doing in pretty enough words (even if what they are doing is simply pooping for a peephole), that somehow THAT makes it, not just art, but BETTER art and it will thus awe people in accordingly bigger and better ways. Fetishizing an object or an act simply because it exists (a podcast) or because of an intrinsic quality (it takes a long time) does not imbue it with meaning, and the viewer is certainly adept enough to understand this at a fundamental level, even if they might not be able to put their finger on it. In the end, the art fails to spark the mind, or have "aura." -Alexis PS: Your problem with the idea of the viewer engaged with their mind, instead of their "feelings" (the whole Myers-Briggs diversion) is semantic only. Feelings and the mind are inseparable. While one may respond more logically or more emotionally to an object, the response is nonetheless informed by a person's history and understanding of the world. I use mind loosely to mean understanding. + curt cloninger replied: + Just because a bunch of sucky contemporary artists waste their time delineating the nuances of a bunch of scatalogical theory that ultimately doesn't amount to a hill of beans or make their art any less sucky, this doesn't prove that all theoretical dialogue is bullshit. Merely asserting that something seems like shit from your perspective doesn't really dismantle that shitty something. You assert that current art has no aura because it has no meaning. But art can have an aura without having meaning. A rock can have an aura without having artistic meaning. If certain pieces of contemporary art have no meaning, it's simply because they have no meaning. Yet they may still have an aura. My understanding of humans also assigns thoughts and feelings to the mind. I further understand humans to operate out of a heart/core/will/spirit. Then of course there is the body and the social relations. All of these aspects are integrated into a single being. The integrating aspect is the soul. So goes my understanding of humans. You assert that successful art must have three things: "all ultimately go back to the mind and how it processes said art: the work must be experienced, must have meaning, and must have effect. None of these are magic." I disagree. Successful art need not have "meaning" per se. Furthermore, experience and effect don't solely happen in the mind. There is something "magical" about how we experience art and how it effects us (although magic connotes alchemy and a selfish manipulation of nature. I would say "spiritual.") Explain instrumental music's effect on a listener in terms of mere psychology. For one thing, instrumental music has no "meaning." Is it effective because the mathematical relationship of the rhythms and melodies produce an ordered and harmonious effect that is interpretable psychologically? I've heard all that argued and don't buy it. Instrumental music has both psychological and spiritual characteristics. Of course, neither of us can prove that it does or doesn't, so we disagree. Music aside, I definitely agree that good art is going to be about something other than merely its own mechanism of transference. That is hopefully a given. Nevertheless, regardless of genre and subject matter, there is something different about object art and non-object art. I'm not saying that this difference solely constiutes all there is to the art. I'm just saying this difference exists, and I'm thinking about it. Is there not something different about a book from the library that has been checked out and read by a bunch of people and the exact same book new from Amazon? It's the same content, the same subject matter, but the library book has a kind of history and provenance. Is that provenance psychologically ascribed to the library book by the reader, or does it emanate from the spiritual history of the library book itself? Whichever it is, the library book is somehow different than the new book. + Alexis Turner replied: + Reply-To: Alexis Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org> To: list AT rhizome.org Date: Jun 1, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura Not to piss off the one person on the list who on occasion actually agrees with me...but... Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the aura of MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was, and so many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. If you are truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should really take up oils. On the other hand, if you truly want to retain the aura in digital art, then you must give Mr. Walter a kick in the pants and rethink the thing altogether, not just sort of half-assed moving it around. Until you are willing to do that, I do not believe you will find the answer to your question. At the very least, you must decide if you want the aura the thing, or if you would be content to illicit the effect of the aura, which you did actually seem kind of interested in, as your first post mentioned some level of desire to create "awe and wonder" in your viewer. I have simply posited that a more appropriate locus is in the viewer, as it allows you to both have your cake and eat it, too (and please, I will personally beat to death the first person that brings up that damn Marie Antoinette thread again...MANIK). You get to say there is an aura involved with the piece, as well as illiciting appropriately giddy responses in the viewer. Not to mention, as Eric pointed out, that the meaning of an object and the artist's place as clever educator is just SO much more interesting than the artist as a producer of things that people want to have sweaty fantasies about. Nonetheless, this is no doubt hard to swallow, as in order to do this I have just taken all the magical, fetishistic, cultish power away from non-living art objects and put them into the human mind. A book is a book whether from the library, the rare book room, or Amazon, notwithstanding my *personal* preference for the politics of the first, the feel of the second, and the smell of the third. Having said all of that, I am perfectly content to have you believe my opinion is crap, but I really do refuse to enter into a debate about the soul of a single, perfect, waving blade of grass. -Alexis + Dirk Vekemans replied: + > Is there not something different about a book from the > library that has been checked out and read by a bunch of > people and the exact same book new from Amazon? It's the > same content, the same subject matter, but the library book > has a kind of history and provenance. Is that provenance > psychologically ascribed to the library book by the reader, > or does it emanate from the spiritual history of the library > book itself? Whichever it is, the library book is somehow > different than the new book. Patina <it. patina [kind of lacquer, blacking for leather, oxidation on bronze] <lat. Patina,patena[flat shallow pan] from patere; being open, accessible In a Cathedralic confusion of leibniz/deleuze/derrida the dual cycle goes like aura<absence<aura | | patina<absence<patina It's not that it happens beneath or above the human action/thinking level, it happens because the initiating energy has made the book, and afterwards it's just secreting/sacri-fying itself. Sure it's a death/decaying process but what isn't? That is a personal choice, how you want to look at it. There's always another side, and another... When you have this kind of aging, you get a material fold, a visible referent of the same act spread in spacetime. But you need the basic, initial inscription first. You can't inscribe running code. That's the flattening aspect of the net, i suppose, turning us into geeks. >From a literary point of view (the only one i'm a bit sure of)it's a basic lack of digital/screen arty stuff you can't have this material link, all the timely tiny inscriptions of all the people mostly beating their own souls out of the book(thinking it's the book's soul, i think it's an aggregate, nothing primary like a stone's soul, or an organism), 'cause these things serve as a hook/handle for each new reader/reading, so you gotta find/construct other ways of hooking up your audience. Instead the net offers you different waves to connect to, but it's hard to find the right rhytm. I make 'm scroll, so if i only got 3 seconds, at least i know what they are doing. I don't like netvideo too much because i feel you're throwing away the opportunity you have to connect rhythmically, making them sit back again. Immersive games are a bit the same for me in the sense that they don't need or automatically use the net thing. The hybrid thing that it is/wants. Things will change a bit when we get screens that you can actually look at instead of these light sources, i suppose. The net thing is too important not to be trying to pour aura into. Click. Poor aura. We'll need plenty of that if it comes to making that ai thing work for our own survival. I guess that makes me rather radical at times. But art is too much a f** up word to make anything with, too much meat & soul's going to waste to be making "art" & try to sell it, at least that's how i see it. And identity on the net is just some code wit the AT -char in it, unless it hooks up, but then it isn't you anymore. In this case i put this code here. Now where untsoweiter. It doesn't matter. Heck what do i know. + Ryan Griffis replied: + On Jun 1, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Alexis Turner wrote: > > Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the > aura of MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what > Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was, and so > many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. If you are > truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should really take up oils. this isn't really a disagreement or contribution into this thread, other than an expression of my annoyance at the continuing interpretation of Benjamin's text as simply nostalgic for a lost aura. i thought Marisa already addressed this? he was pretty firmly situated in the camp that believed in the progressive potential of technology and mechanical reproduction to add to art's ability to be "radical" and become something other than a luxury while critiquing the aestheticized politics of fascism and politicized art of the communists. In a lecture delivered to a mostly Marxist crowd of Popular Front/anti-fascists, he basically stated that experimentation should be considered more politically radical than a reliance on subject matter-as-content, ala socialist realism/ propaganda (the whole "commitment" debate). While there is some "mourning" that could be found in Benjamin's account, it's more related to the context of the larger changes that occurred in the experience of material culture in general, not specifically in visual art. it's a change in the relationship between cultural/material producers and audiences that seemed important. Digital art doesn't "defy the very, very notion of what Benjamin was discussing," it pushes the argument further. Think about all the discourse on gaming, communication and telepresence... this is a clearly documented extension of Benjamin's concerns (not that he was the originator of them). And the concerns of people working with technology for its relationship to mechanisms of war were preceded by Benjamin's concerns that mechanization was a favorable condition to war and dominant property relations. To be critical of "mechanical reproduction" is not the same as being nostalgic for a pre-mechanical past. i'm not advocating the importance of Benjamin or his writing, i just don't understand the consistent reference to a text, if what's contained in the text really doesn't matter and just gets used willy- nilly. + curt cloninger replied: + Hi Alexis, I will answer in turn. alexis: Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the aura of MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was, and so many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. curt: The issue is not whether the object is mechanically produced, but whether the object is mechanically reproducible. The title could also be translated "art in the age of its own mechanical reproducibility." The essay has to do with what happens to art when it is no longer a singular object. Hence my selection of Benjamin as a launching pad for this discussion. Digital production techniques can lead to the creation of object art (a one-of-a-kind digital print), just as non-digital production techniques can lead to the creation of non-object art (a Shakespeare play). I don't necessarily care about digital art per se. I'm talking about non-object art. alexis: If you are truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should really take up oils. curt: I'm about as committed to holding onto Benjamin's original idea of aura as I am interested in taking up oils. Michael S. suggested that a more poetic contemporary reading of Benjamin is in order. Maybe that's what I'm inadvertantly doing. I am trying to advance a slightly skewed reading of one of Benjamin's texts in order to explore some artistic ramifications that interest me. Lyotard took a similarly skewed approach to Kant's idea of the "sublime." Forget Benjamin if he's such an anathema to you. Just talk about the ideas we're talking about. alexis: On the other hand, if you truly want to retain the aura in digital art, then you must give Mr. Walter a kick in the pants and rethink the thing altogether, not just sort of half-assed moving it around. curt: Benjamin seems more fruitful as a launching pad for dialogue than a target for my boot. alexis: Until you are willing to do that, I do not believe you will find the answer to your question. At the very least, you must decide if you want the aura the thing, or if you would be content to illicit the effect of the aura, which you did actually seem kind of interested in, as your first post mentioned some level of desire to create "awe and wonder" in your viewer. curt: the aura will never literally "be" anywhere, because it's just an abstract notion. Art is not science. It's not simply some visual aesthetic formula coupled with some didactic "meaning" that acts on the mind and illicits awe and wonder. Maybe you're thinking about interactive design. alexis: I have simply posited that a more appropriate locus is in the viewer, as it allows you to both have your cake and eat it, too (and please, I will personally beat to death the first person that brings up that damn Marie Antoinette thread again...MANIK). You get to say there is an aura involved with the piece, as well as illiciting appropriately giddy responses in the viewer. Not to mention, as Eric pointed out, that the meaning of an object and the artist's place as clever educator is just SO much more interesting than the artist as a producer of things that people want to have sweaty fantasies about. Nonetheless, this is no doubt hard to swallow, as in order to do this I have just taken all the magical, fetishistic, cultish power away from non-living art objects and put them into the human mind. curt: you can't say the aura is located in the viewer. By definition, that doesn't make sense. The resultant awe and wonder (if the art is good enough) will be located in the viewer. But the art (whether it's an object or a non-object) is the vehicle (conductor) which instigates awe and wonder in the viewer. If the aura is already resident in the viewer, then no conductor is required and there's no need to make art (object, non-object, digital, painted, or otherwise). By definition, the aura "surrounds" the art somehow. Even if the aura is invested in the art solely by the viewer regardless of the artist's intentions, it still surrounds the art. If you're uncomfortable with the artist asking "where do I locate the aura in non-object art," then think of it as the artist asking, "how do I create a locus in non-object art which will illicit the investment of aura by the audience." alexis: A book is a book whether from the library, the rare book room, or Amazon, notwithstanding my *personal* preference for the politics of the first, the feel of the second, and the smell of the third. curt: here we fundamentally disagree. If you can't follow me this far, I understand why the rest of my argument seems inane to you. + curt cloninger replied: + Hi Ryan, It is indeed ironic that I would be criticized as a Benjamin disciple. You and Marisa understandably challenge my reading of him, but I think my reading is defensible, with some caveats. I'm not referring to his entire canon, or to his biographical history. I am referring to one text. In that text he himself says, "We do not deny that in some cases today's films can also promote revolutionary criticism of social conditions, even of the distribution of property. However, our present study is no more specifically concerned with this than is the film production of Western Europe." Indeed, the footnoted connections he makes between film and politics seem largely tenuous and speculative, almost like they are incidental observations that he wasn't quite confident enough to include in the body of the text. The epilogue seems particularly tacked on. He takes the marinetti quote and runs with it, but in his rush to the tour-de-force finish line, he doesn't satisfactorilly connect all the dots. Just because he wants me to focus on the epilogue doesn't mean I have to buy it. Just because I don't buy the epilogue doesn't mean I can't find use in some of his prior observations. I probably should have prefaced my original post with some disclaimer like, "I know this goes against the accepted interpretation of Benjamin's aura, but..." Nevertheless, I don't think his observations are off limits simply because I disagree with the larger conclusions he draws from them. Am I not free to take his initial observations and draw my own conclusions? I don't think aesthetics are a fascist control mechanism of war just because Marinetti was loony and Hitler was an art school drop-out who dug "heroic" art. I don't fear the re-injection of aura into non-object art. I think it has probably already crept in anyway. I need not subscribe to Benjamin's politics in order to reference him (any more than he need subscribe to Huxley's politics in order to reference him). David used the sword of Goliath to chop off Goliath's head. It functioned. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 21. 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 |