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: 09.08.06 From: digest@rhizome.org (RHIZOME) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 14:29:33 -0700 Reply-to: digest@rhizome.org Sender: owner-digest@rhizome.org RHIZOME DIGEST: September 8, 2006 Content: +opportunity+ 1. Kathleen Quillian: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS) 2. andrea AT mur.at: call for submissions net_sight 2006 3. jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com: Call for Applicants 4. Joseph DeLappe: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media 5. irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement 6. curt cloninger: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville +announcement+ 7. Jim Andrews: Links to Argentine net art 8. marcin ramocki: Anti-Pharmakon AT Artmoving Projects +thread+ 9. Charlie Gere, T.Whid, Lee Wells, marc, Alexis Turner, rob AT robmyers.org, Patrick Lichty, Michael Betancourt, Pall Thayer, André SC, Jim Andrews, Jason Van Anden, Eduardo Navas, Don Relyea, Christina McPhee, salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s down... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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: Kathleen Quillian <isast AT leonardo.info> Date: Sep 1, 2006 Subject: call for submissions: Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS) Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS) Next submission deadline: 30 September 2006 Leonardo Abstracts Service (LABS), consisting of the English LABS database and Spanish LABS database, is a comprehensive collection of Ph.D., Masters and MFA thesis abstracts on topics in the emerging intersection between art, science and technology. Individuals receiving advanced degrees in the arts (visual, sound, performance, text), computer sciences, the sciences and/or technology that in some way investigate philosophical, historical or critical applications of science or technology to the arts are invited to submit abstracts of their theses for consideration. The English LABS and Spanish LABS international peer review panels review abstracts for inclusion in their respective databases. The databases include only approved and filed thesis abstracts. Abstracts of theses filed in prior years may also be submitted for inclusion. In addition to publication in the databases, a selection of abstracts chosen by the panels for their special relevance will be published quarterly in Leonardo Electronic Almanac (LEA), and authors of abstracts most highly ranked by the panel will also be invited to submit an article for publication consideration in the journal Leonardo. Thesis Abstract submittal forms for English language abstracts can be found at http://leonardolabs.pomona.edu Thesis Abstract submittal forms for Spanish language abstracts can be found at http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/leonardolabs The LABS project is part of the Leonardo Educators and Students program. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. From: andrea AT mur.at Date: Sep 5, 2006 Subject: call for submissions net_sight 2006 mur.at NetWorkArt Contest ?net_sight? 2006 Idea Since 1998 mur.at has been working on a virtual NetSculpture which is constantly growing and branching out. This widely ramified Net ? the leased line net ? offers a democratic and unbureaucratic access to new communication and information technologies to people engaged in the artistic and cultural sector in the area of Graz apart from e-business and e-commerce. The NetNodeSculpture includes an infrastructure which allows continuous work of art organisations and people engaged in the cultural sector. In order to be able to experience the virtual space in real public space, mur.at initiates a contest for making this virtual sculpture - which is spread over Graz like a network - visible for all. Target of the contest For the promotion of NetArt and NetCulture mur.at offers the possibility to deal with the community in an artistic way and to implement the winning project. The virtual sculpture will be transferred to a tangible space in order to be visible also as real locality. Therewith the virtual sculpture becomes a sculpture that can be conceived with all senses in the public space of Graz. The sculpture shall be developed and implemented in various media. Desired form of submitted projects desired are... .artistic projects, which refer and use the contents and infrastructure of mur.at, the nodes and/or the mur.at-community. .artistic projects which excel at using unconventional ideas of ?Visualization?. .unrealised projects from the various areas of art; projects which deal with the subject of a NetSculpture. This can be projected in form of media- and space- installations, sound projects, memorial tablets, photo or video projects, as long as it appears meaningful with regard to the subject. The expression ?Visualization? shall be considered a metaphor and the type of realisation shall not be limited to a specific medium. Prize money / Implementation First prize The project which is ranked first by the jury will be implemented from December 2006 to end of May 2007. The budget for the implementation (incl. remuneration) is ? 10.000,-. The project will be showcased during a ceremony. Appreciation prize The most innovative, but not realizable project will be awarded with an appreciation prize amounting to ? 300,-. Exposition During an exposition opening on December 1, 2006, the 10 best projects will be presented to the public. The budget for the presentation of the concepts is ? 200,- each, whereas the form of presentation (choice of media, etc.) is up to the presenters. There is no splitting of the prizes. Jury Members of the Jury: 1 representative of the mur.at team: Johannes Zmölnig: financial treasurer of the mur.at executive committee; artistic-scientific assistant at IEM (Institute for Electronic Music) (Graz, A). 1 representative of the nodes: Reni Hofmüller: media artist and artistic director of ESC im labor (Graz, A). 1 vote of the mur.at-community: every mur.at member has the right to vote. The resulting ranking counts as the community-vote. Ushi Reiter: Artist and cultural producer (servus.at, faces) (Linz, A). One international representative of the NetArt Community Rena Tangens: Media artist (Bielefeld, Dt.) (to be confirmed). The meeting of the jury is open to the public. When: Friday, November 3, 2006 at 10:00 hrs Where: mur.at, Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz Submission The Call for submissions is open to the general public. The target group consists of people engaged in the artistic and cultural sector with the focus on the community of mur.at. There are no limits of age, education or nationality of the submitting persons. Please note Final date for submission is October 15, 2006. The submission may only be made online by filling out the submission form. All informations for the submission at http://mur.at/verein/net_sight In addition to the personal data (not visible for the jury), please upload (in pdf format) an abstract (max. 3000 characters) as well as a detailed project description incl. a rough estimate of cost and a time scedule (Attention: only one pdf-file can be uploaded). The submitted projects may not exceed a cost frame of ? 10.000,-. Any maintenance activities of the projects must be included in the cost estimate. Due to the fact that the submitted projects will be handled anonymously, please do not mention names nor logos in the project descriptions. We can only accept submissions which are complete and made anonymous. We do not assume any liability for the submitted concepts. In case of a refusal of a project, its authors are not entitled to raise any claims upon mur.at or persons acting on behalf of mur.at. mur.at reserves the right to use the submitted material for the purpose of documentation. Notification The winners (first prize, appreciation prize, the 10 best projects) will be informed about the results by e-mail until November 10, 2006. In their own interest, the participants in the contest shall strive to be reachable at the e-mail address contained in the submission form during the whole period of notification. Awards Ceremony / Presentation When: December 1, 2006 at 19:00 hrs Where: to be defined The awards ceremony of the contest will be held on December 1, 2006 during the exposition of the 10 best project concepts. The artists are not obliged to present their concepts. The winners (first prize, appreciation prize) commit to personally receive the prizes and present their projects during the exposition. Groups and institutions are requested to nominate one or max. two representatives. Any travel expenses of the winners for the journey to the exposition / presentation will be compensated by mur.at (train: 2nd class; plane: economy class). The implementation budget and the remuneration for the best project are dedicated to its implementation. mur.at assists in the whole period of implementation and reserves the right to ask for a proof of the adequate utilization of the prize money. Documentation It is the intention of mur.at to document the entire contest (incl. all submitted concepts and the finally implemented project) in an online archive. Contact For general questions please contact: Andrea Schlemmer (Project Coordinator) mur.at, Verein zur Förderung von Netzwerkkunst Leitnergasse 7, A-8010 Graz tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26 cell: ++43/699/126 05 795 fax: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 26 e-mail: andrea_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?) For technical questions please contact the noc-team: Monday to Friday from 10:00 to 16:00 hrs. tel: ++43/316/82 14 51 ext. 55 e-mail: noc_at_mur.at (Subject: ?net_sight?) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. From: jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com <jnuwame AT cdnfilmcentre.com> Date: Sep 5, 2006 Subject: Call for Applicants Unconventional Combinations, Inconceivable Creations Be part of the future of entertainment! (September 4, 2006) -- The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab recognizes that as technologies revolutionize our lives, new opportunities for writers, designers, producers, programmers, filmmakers, visual artists and creative thinkers are emerging. As a resident in the New Media Lab, you?ll push the boundaries of learning and imagination to create product prototypes that are at the intersection of art and technology. Be part of the future of entertainment. The Canadian Film Centre?s Habitat New Media Lab is currently accepting applications for the Spring 2007 session of the TELUS Interactive Art & Entertainment Programme (IAEP), a five-month, post-graduate residency focused on creating inventive interactive narrative projects for the Canadian and international marketplace. The TELUS Interactive Arts & Entertainment Programme (IAEP) is Canada's first post-graduate programme for new media training and production, based on a philosophy that compelling new media content is created through a collaborative process harnessing a wide range of creative skills, knowledge and talent. An internationally acclaimed facility, the Habitat New Media lab has produced award-winning new media prototypes ranging from simulation-based interactive documentaries, to wireless storytelling networks, to interactive short films and narrative-driven media installations. Apply Now - Application Deadline is October 31, 2006 For more information or to request an application please contact: habitat AT cdnfilmcentre.com www.cdnfilmcentre.com HABITAT New Media Exclusive- By answering our survey you will be one of the first to own a GelaSkin. GelaSkins are the best iPod skins on the planet. GelaSkins are made from premium vinyl with photo quality graphics featuring designs by artists from around the world. When you make an inquiry about the program by phone, fax or email we will send you a survey. Send the survey back and you will get a voucher for a Gelaskin. Go to www.gelaskins.com to check them out. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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: Joseph DeLappe <delappe AT unr.nevada.edu> Date: Sep 6, 2006 Subject: Call For Proposals: First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media Announcement: The First Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media Attention Graduate Students! Call For Proposals: Exhibit, Netart, Present, Perform, Project(full dome) http://www.unr.edu/art/RIFNM.html The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media will highlight the work of currently enrolled graduate and phd candidates working in experimental digital media at Universities throughout the United States and abroad. Graduate students working in and across disciplines are encouraged to submit works to be considered for this unique opportunity. The event breaks down into five interrelated events/venues: exhibit, netart, perform, project and present. We invite proposals from currently enrolled graduate and phd students to submit work for consideration. Artists working in all visual and performative media incorporating digital systems, including but not limited to: interactive art, robotics, slash artists, movement/dance, gaming, net art, full-dome video/animation, generative systems, sculpture, locative media, electronic music, sound art, experimental theater, performance art, etc. are invited to apply. Collaborations and works in progress are welcome and encouraged. A limited number of travel/accommodation grants are available and will be awarded by the festival jurors. Festival jurors: Joseph DeLappe, Chair, Department of Art/UNR, Marji Vecchio, Director, Sheppard Fine Arts Gallery/UNR, Dan Ruby, Associate Director, Fleischman Planetarium/UNR Deadline for submissions: Must arrive by September 29th, 2006 Entry Information: Please send: - 200 word maximum description of your work/proposal, specify the event/venue to which you are applying - current resume - name and contact info of graduate committee chair/advisor - appropriate documentation of your work product (DVD, CDrom, URL). - please inform us of any technical requirements and/or equipment necessary to show your work. Email applications, where appropriate, are welcome - send these to delappe AT unr.nevada.edu . If you wish the return of your material, please include a SASE. Our mailing address: The 1st Reno Interdisciplinary Festival of New Media Digital Media Studio Department of Art/224 University of Nevada, Reno Reno, Nevada 89557 USA This event is sponsored by the Benna Foundation for Excellence in the Fine Arts, The University of Nevada, Reno, Department of Art, The Sheppard Fine Arts Gallery, the Fleischman Planetarium and Science Center, and the Nevada Museum of Art. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. From: irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp <irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp> Date: Sep 8, 2006 Subject: "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement ------------------------------------------------------------- "Project netarts.org 2006" - 2nd announcement 1. The "Project netarts.org 2006" 2. Call for the nomination 3. Nomination Form 4. The schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The "Project netarts.org 2006" >From 1995 to 2003, The Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts hosted the "Art on the Net" project promoting the Internet as a space for artistic expression. After the nine years of "Art on the Net," we launched a new event called the "Project Netarts.org" 2004. The "Project netarts.org" has been calling on artists around the world to investigate together the relationship between Art, the Internet and the Society. The Exhibition section of the project will feature recent developments in Internet Art and is open to all forms of creative expression that use the Internet as their primary medium. Although this project is focused on the latest developments in the field of Internet Art, we are also very interested in considering contributions that reflect the influence of Internet Art production on the wider fields of Media-Art, Digital Art, curatorial practice, digital pedagogy, and online publishing. 2. Call for the nomination. This year, the artworks for the exhibition and the "netarts.org 2006 prize" will be chosen by our Selection Committee. The members of our committee are; Mark Amerika, Susan Hazen, Agnese Trocchi, Marco Deseriis, Zeljko Blace and You Minowa. The theme this year is "Tagging the Present." The members will make their own nominations, but we will accept nominations from the web also. Please send your nomination to us directly to irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp . The prize fee for the top selection will be 200,000 yen. 3. Nomination Form To nominate, please e-mail the following information to us directly: 1. The URL address of your nomination 2. If you are the copyright holder of the nomination, your name, physical Address, phone number/fax. number, e-mail address are required. 4. The schedule We will accept nominations by mail from 15th, July 2006 to 15th, Sept. 2006 (your time). The award-winning artwork will be selected by 30th Sept. The exhibition will be launched 15th, Nov. 2006. We will soon announce some physical events to take place in Nov. at the Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts, Tokyo. For more information, please visit at our website, http://www.netarts.org We are waiting for your nomination. -- You Minowa Curator Machida City Museum of Graphic Arts http://www.netarts.org/ irix AT kk.iij4u.or.jp + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. From: curt cloninger <curt AT lab404.com> Date: Sep 8, 2006 Subject: Assistant Professor 3D Design/Graphics : UNC Asheville POSITION DESCRIPTION Assistant Professor ? 3D Design/Graphics The Multimedia Arts and Sciences (MMAS) Program at the University of North Carolina at Asheville is seeking a full-time tenure-track Assistant Professor beginning in August, 2007. UNC Asheville, the designated public liberal arts university in the UNC system, emphasizes academic excellence. Asheville is a creative and active city located in the scenic Blue Ridge Mountains of Western North Carolina. Qualified candidates will have a M.F.A. or related terminal degree. Ability to teach core courses in 3D animation, 3D modeling, and digital print design at the undergraduate level is required. Knowledge of new media theory and application, and 2D digital design is expected. Candidates will possess expert skills and technical knowledge in related software. The nominal teaching load is 24 credit hours per year. Participation in departmental and university activities, as well as advising, is expected of all faculty. Preference will be given to individuals with professional exhibition record and demonstrable teaching effectiveness. Industry experience is beneficial. Please send letter of application, curriculum vitae, teaching philosophy, samples of student work, documentation of creative work, and three letters of recommendation to: Chair of Search Committee, Multimedia Arts and Sciences Program, UNC Asheville, One University Heights, CPO 2115, Asheville, NC 28804-8509. Deadline January 15, 2007. UNC Asheville is an EEO/AA employer. Women, minorities, and people with disabilities are encouraged to apply. http://mmas.unca.edu + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. From: Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com> Date: Sep 5, 2006 Subject: Links to Argentine net art Here is a page of links to Argentine net art: http://www.martagonzalezobras.com.ar/pagweb.htm . The page is put together by Marta Gonzales. It contains links to work from 1995 to the present. A lot of compelling work here I have not seen before. Also, here is a site of visual and other experimental poetry by the late Argentine poet Edgardo Antonio Vigo (1927 - 1997): http://www.eavigo.com.ar . There is an essay by the Uruguayan poet Clemente Padin about Vigo at http://www.thing.net/~grist/l&d/vigo/vigocp.htm The eavigo.com.ar site was put together by the people at http://www.vorticeargentina.com.ar . This is an organization in Argentina that deals with visual poetry of all types. ja http://vispo.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 8. From: marcin ramocki <mramocki AT earthlink.net> Date: Sep 6, 2006 Subject: Anti-Pharmakon AT Artmoving Projects Marcin Ramocki, Anti-Pharmakon artMoving Williamsburg 166 North 12th Street (corner of 12th and Bedford) 917-301-6680 September 8 - September 15, 2006 Opening: Friday, September 8, 7:00PM - 9:00PM Anti-pharmakon is an attempt of sabotaging and displacing the familiar context of software/interface. "Torcito Portraits" are digital animations based on re-purposing an old Macintosh musical software Virtual Drummer. "Anti-pharmakon" is a simple, interactive installation composed of a treated computer keyboard, CPU and a wall projection. The third piece is a laser cut metal rendering of recognizable software interface elements. www.ramocki.net Also on display (project room) : "Horror Make-up" by Jillian Mcdonald, www.jillianmcdonald.net + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 9. + Editor's Note: The following thread follows a conversation threaded in the 08.18.06 issue of the Rhizome Digest, regarding the following article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2303889.html + From: Gere, Charlie <c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk>, T.Whid <twhid AT twhid.com>, Lee Wells <lee AT leewells.org>, marc <marc.garrett AT furtherfield.org>, Alexis Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org>, rob AT robmyers.org, Patrick Lichty <voyd AT voyd.com>, Michael Betancourt <michael.betancourt AT gmail.com>, Pall Thayer <p_thay AT alcor.concordia.ca>, André SC <andre AT pixelplexus.co.za>, Jim Andrews <jim AT vispo.com>, Jason Van Anden <jason AT smileproject.com>, Eduardo Navas <eduardo AT navasse.net>, Don Relyea <don AT donrelyea.com>, Christina McPhee <christina112 AT earthlink.net>, salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it, Jason Nelson <newmediapoet AT yahoo.com> Date: Sep 5-8, 2006 Subject: Re: Charlie puts NMA\'s down... +Gere, Charlie posted:+ I've just stumbled across the debate about Grayson Perry's article on new media art, in which I am heavily quoted, and I am sad and slightly dismayed at the hostility it seems to have engendered. My first reaction is that some of the responses seem extremely defensive. Also almost everybody seems to lack the will to deal with the fact that a lot of new media art is not that great or that interesting and that some other stuff involving new media that isn't *art* is, frankly, more interesting. I strongly believe that until new media art or whatever it's called is prepared to face up to the need to engage in proper critical discussion about what it actually is or could be, it is doomed to be a ghettoised activity which enjoys its marginalised status, because, frankly, it's warmer snuggling together making snide comments about people being in Murdoch newspapers, than dealing with engaging with such discussion. In case this sounds overly irritated just to point out that I have been working in, thinking about and supporting this area of practice for nearly two decades, and have also been involved in a number of historical and other projects which have allowed me to see exactly how the same syndromes repeat themselves (including the defensive refusal to be properly critical about uninteresting or pointless work, and the failure to engage in the greater speed of technological over cultural development). If this makes me the Brian Sewell of New Media Art, so be it. Three more points: Yes, I have very strong ideas about what art is or should be. Yes (thank god) they are not 'constructive' Yes, of course they are my opinions. Unless I have suddenly assumed complete omniscience I am not quite sure what else they could be Charlie (or one of the Charlies, apparently) PS I love you too, Marc +T.Whid replied:+ Hi, I'm replying offlist as well as on as I'm not sure you read RHIZ_RAW often. >From the article in question: +++So are artists at the cutting edge of new-media technology? No, says Charlie. One of the problems is that other stuff on the net is so much more mind-blowing. A site such as Google Earth is so much more awesome and thought-provoking than something an arty hacktivist can knock up on her PC.+++ I agree with this comment for the most part (see this: http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/twhid/google_netartmasterpiece.html) But what I don't agree with is the 'thought-provoking' part of the comment. You seem to make the same mistake that many NM artists do: conflate technological gee-gaws (or wizardry or whatever you want to call it) with artistic achievement. I'm not familiar with your other writing, and this was a short interview question so perhaps I'm reading it wrong. I would be very pleased to hear a clarification or an expansion. Someone simply hacking around with HTML and Javascript (not cutting-edge tech to be sure) could be considered a NM artist, but the work could be much more mind-blowing than Google Earth. I'll give JODI as an example, but I've never used Google Earth so... PS: I'm ready and willing to engage in some proper critical discussion :-) +Lee Wells replied:+ In the big picture if its art it doesn't matter what the technique may be. God, Bad and Ugly is all the same. Flavor of the week or aged in a long historic tradition. I personally would rather see more people trying to save the world for the better than another dumb spoiled MFA being churned out of the manure spreader of art academia. +Gere, Charlie replied:+ Dear T Whid and other Rhizomers I feel I must clarify one or two points about the Times piece and my own thoughts about new media art, which seem to me to have been misunderstood I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact that what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my sense that many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or interested in discussing the work, other than in a very self-congratulatory or interior way that serves the work ill, and which does not bode well for its development. I must reiterate that I think (and have often proclaimed, at recent conferences at Banff and Liverpool for example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its failure to develop a proper critical apparatus, and, even more to the point, a stronger sense of what such work is actually intending to achieve. My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say, Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat My point about the technology is that, in the 1960s, artist really were among those at the forefront of imagining what new technologies might do, with (expanded) cinema, video and computing. This was all part of a techno-utopianism that animated art in the late 60s in particular (and then got written out of the art history books). But in the 70s and beyond much of what had been the preserve of art, with concepts such as multi/intermedia and so on, got coopted by the media industries. What EAT, CAS etc... were trying to do in the 60s in interactivity, networking, etc... became part of mainstream new media by the 80s, with the expansion of the internet, the PC and, of course Apple and multimedia. In the meanwhile art in the main took a more critical/ironic stance with conceptual art or retreating back to painting, with a few stalwarts working at the edges with new technologies, but perhaps with less of a strong collective sense of what they were doing it for. Video art, having been a fascinating aspect of a broader interrogation of media and broadcast, by the 90s had retreated to the gallery to become just another art-world object, albeit in a black rather than a white cube (exemplified by the horrendous work of Bill Viola) OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA, and elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have had the same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media events and seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one can catch up with friends (if I still have any in the new media art world after this exchange), but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I think it means a lack of critical debate and engagement, and a sense of being an embattled minority, who daren't engage in criticism of any of the work as that would play into the hands of those who would dismiss NMA. Thus the sense of embattled self-congratulation and, in my view, the rather defensive and over-sensitive reactions to the piece in the Times. One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely obscure for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for them. Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming performances. I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the area, and should be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being someone less informed and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more pertinently, why they should be interested in such an event. Part of the problem is, that apart from being a viable career choice for art students and graduates, is what is NMA for, what do people who engage in it hope to achieve. This is actually a question that I think can and should be asked about art more generally, especially in a post-ideological, post-progressive era. More pertinent to NMA is what might its purpose be in an era where the technologies it uses are widely available and highly sophisticated, and in which every consumer is now, in theory at least, able to be a producer, or in other words the kind of 'remix' culture hyperbolised by Lawrence Lessig and Paul Miller among others. This is not, as several astute correspondents have pointed out, what Beuys meant by his famous declaration 'every man an artist'. But such a situation does beg the question of what 'art' can be, if it is not merely to be a synomyn for 'creativity' and subsumed as part of the 'creative industries' and 'post-industrial' culture. At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in the need for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the more general world of creative production. In particular I believe that one of the preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that is unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity to engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest must, by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first. On this count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing more than clever software. But I think that this only takes us half way. New Media Artists such as Jodi, Alex McLean etc... are able to engage in practices that are hard to fully comprehend, and which confront us with difficulty. And yet at the same time I am not convinced that NMA has found the way to engage productively with those outside its stockade, to be both radical enough to confront people with the not-yet-known, but at the same time offer the possibility of being understood. NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in that it is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end it must also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated (those who came to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier this year, should know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and domestication in relation to NMA) "A future that would not be monstrous would not be a future; it would already be predictable, calculable and programmable tomorrow. All experience open to the future is prepared or prepares itself to welcome the monstrous arrivant, to welcome it, that is, to accord hospitality to that which is absolutely foreign or strange, but also, one must add, to try to domesticate it, that is, to make it part of the household and have it assume the habits, to make us assume new habits. This is the movement of culture. Texts and discourses that provoke at the outset reactions of rejection, that are denounced precisely as anomalies or monstrosities are often texts that, before being in turn appropriated, assimilated, acculturated, transform the nature of the field of reception, transform the nature of social and cultural experience, historical experience. All of history has shown that each time an event has been produced, for example in philosophy or poetry, it took the form of the unacce ptable, or even of the intolerable, of the incomprehensible, that is, of a certain monstrosity." (Derrida, 1992: 387) +marc replied:+ Now you've done it... I had a post ready to send, from late last night regarding your last email to the list and now I read this, and end up agreeing on much of what you have said. I do of course have some reservations but on the whole appreciate the context and intention behind this post... Will respond with a reevaluated piece of text, and genuinely feel excited with the dialogue happening on the list :-) +Gere, Charlie replied:+ PS: Much of what I have been thinking about art, new media art, art and technology, art and speed, real time technologies etc... can be found in my new book Art, Time and Technology (Berg, 2006) http://www.bergpublishers.com/us/book_page.asp?BKTitle=Art,%20Time%20and%20Technology +Alexis Turner replied:+ As always, the people who disagree and think that NMA is just fine the way it is, thank you very much, are the most vocal on the list - they are, after all, in their niche here. But in my regular contrarian rantings within the forum, I have discovered that there are many, many who agree with you, even if they do not generally feel comfortable coming out and saying it publicly. This discussion repeats itself endlessly here, with plenty falling on both sides. Hell, for that matter, I'd argue that every single discussion that has taken place on this list since I've been on it is about this very topic. ===Is NMA dead?=== (yes *because it is too self-reflexive and arcane* v. shutupshutupshup you haters, what are YOUR credentials, anyway?) ===Where has the aura gone/awe and wonder missing?=== (*modern art killed it by raping the viewer instead of titillating them* v. can we please have an academic discussion that is decidedly NOT about the viewer - fuck the viewer we're artists and academics and we'll talk about those things not a bunch of goddamn viewers) ===why is nma so boring?=== (nma that is *not about the technology itself* [uses the technology as a means rather than and end] is lame whaddayou think v. no disagreement/response) ===has nma sold out?=== (we are trying to legitimze ourselves by doing what other artists do [galleries and approval] and other artists are asshats and sellouts, ergo we have sold out v. *what ever happened to just making art that is actually good?* v. shutup dipshits ALL ART IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS ART and you must not be a real artist to say that) Jesus people, it's the same fucking discussion. Charlie just summed up every discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did it in one e-mail. +rob AT robmyers.org replied:+ Yup. And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically interesting than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more. +Patrick Lichty replied:+ Something that I find quite funny is that many of us in New Media are really not used to the scrutiny afforded comtemporary artists, and many of us would wither under that gaze. Charlie makes some good points. The IDC discussion about whether NMA talks too specifically about its own culture brings up a really good set of issues, and lays bare why so much NMA is not understood by larger audiences at all. +T.Whid replied:+ Hi all, (I know this is fairly obnoxious so I apologize for saying I wish I could post a longer reply now, but I'm busy...) I'll just respond to this one point that keeps coming up as exemplified by Rob's line below... On 9/6/06, rob AT robmyers.org <rob AT robmyers.org> wrote: > Quoting Alexis Turner <subbies AT redheadedstepchild.org>: > > > Charlie just summed up every > > discussion we've ever had on this list in the last year and he did it in one > > e-mail. > > Yup. > > And I'd go further and say that Google Earth *is* more aesthetically > interesting > than most NMA. It changes how you look at the world more. > I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of it's charms, but, to put it bluntly, who cares? It's not art. How is it relevant? It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically pleasing than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty mind-blowing everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking all 90º. I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons. One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a NMA work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings afterall. IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You can only paint with paint... you can't build a search engine with it. Working digitally is fundamentally different. The material is transformed conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google Earth to an art work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an Andy Warhol print. I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie... it seems we all are. We want NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something essential to NMA may be lost in the process... +Alexis Turner replied:+ The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more interesting that art, and htf did we let that happen? By making NMA self-referential, elitist, confusing, difficult, pretentious, and combative towards the viewer. If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content ourselves to living in self-imposed exile. If, on the other hand, you do not believe that those things are requirements for an object to be NMA, then there are lessons to be learned from the outside objects that, while not art, are nonetheless interesting, engagaging, and awe-and-wonder insipiring to users/viewers. Quite simply, "what makes them that way?" is the question to ask, and, yes, it does actually require you to go look at them now and then, even if they are not as lofty or important as Art with a capital A. +Michael Betancourt replied:+ If you believe that bringing NMA to a larger audience requires taking those negative traits away, but that doing so takes something fundamental away from NMA, then it would seem that being pretentious and bringing misery is fundamental to NMA. In that sense, there IS no way to have an outside audience welcome it with open arms, and we should content ourselves to living in self-imposed exile. I thought the point was airplane rides brought misery. Maybe I'm myopic. Seriously, though, what I think is very interesting about this argument is that both experimental film and video art have had it (some might say are still having it) at a certain point in their history--pretty much at the moment that the first histories were being written and published in book form for outsiders. my 2 cents. +Pall Thayer replied:+ I think the key to all this is to replace "New Media Art" and "New Media Artist" with "Art created with new media" and "Artist working with new media". This may sound like nit-picking-semantics but there's a categorical difference. Not only in meaning, but more profoundly, in ways of approaching it. To me, "New Media Art" is guided by the media whereas "Art created with new media" is guided by the art. i.e. "I have this new media, what can I do with it?" as opposed to "I have this art idea, what can new media do to it?" Something to think about. +patrick lichty replied:+ Well, this has been my point for a very long time. Most people look at NM as tool as either tool or medium, for me it's a cultural choice, as I also know how to paint, draw, work glass, do ceramics, etc. I was raised in the technoculture by an artist mother and have been using computers to create since 1978, and so there is not distinction for me. I just find it curious that there's the New Media nomenclature now. Back in the early 90's, we called it 'Cyberarts'. +André SC replied:+ What, there are new media artists who haven't looked at Google earth!? ;-) It's worth checking out, but if you pay for your bandwidth or have caps like we do here in the third world, be carefull, it chows a serious amount of those cute little ones and zeros. Everyone seems to agree that GE isn't art. I want to question that assumption just for a second. Why: because it has a comercial agenda? (and artists don't?) was not created by an individual but a team/company (how much new media art happens in collaborative set ups? - and doesn't the US legal system treat corporate interests as individual persons?) because it is functional? because Google doesn't call it Art? Just for argument sake, lets say some unexpected magic happens between the CYC AI project and it's integration with Wikipedia and something sits up out of the fuzz tomorrow morning that convincingly looks like the AIs in storybooks. And it starts making art of its own accord. +Jim Andrews replied:+ > Alexis said: > The 'point' of the comparisons is that non-art has become more > interesting that > art, and htf did we let that happen? Google Earth and many another Web service is more engaging than many new media works, it's true. Keep in mind, though, that these are services. And can be used as components or engines in new media art works in the same way that we are used to seeing Google search being incorporated into new media works. Things like Google Earth are tools that are not in competition with new media art but, rather, are at the disposal of new media art. In the future, net art will use any number of web services to fetch information and provide engines of various types. I think a productive way to look at the situation is that there are simply starting to emerge some terrific tools that are at our disposal, rather than thinking that the tools are more interesting than art itself. +rob AT robmyers.org replied:+ > I really don't get this. I've never use the prog, so I'm ignorant of > it's charms, Uh... > but, to put it bluntly, who cares? Anyone who is interested in art. > It's not art. Nor is painting. I don't understand why decorators are lauded so much. It's just rollers and emulsion. > How is it relevant? It is a use of new technology that is aesthetically and conceptually engaging and that affects people's worldview. That is a passable definition of new media art. It will be very interesting to explain why Google Earth is not NMA and what NMA can do better. > It's like saying an airplane ride is more aesthetically > pleasing than a Donald Judd sculpture. An airplane ride is pretty > mind-blowing everytime; Judd sculptures just sort of sit there looking > all 90º. An airplane ride is not intended as a presentation of visual information. Google Earth and a Judd both are. > I'm not understanding the point of these comparisons. The point is that NMA may not be as good at what it is meant to do compared to a hack Google have made. > One would argue that the comparison is apt since Google Earth and a > NMA work is made of the same material. We can compare paintings > afterall. IMHO, this is a misconception about digital 'materials.' You > can only paint with paint... you can't build a search engine with it. You can paint a wall or you can paint a picture. Paint has architectural, protective, product design, artistic and other uses. It's a lot more flexible than you give it credit for. > Working digitally is fundamentally different. The material is > transformed conceptually by the creator. So, IMHO, comparing Google > Earth to an art work is as flawed as comparing the moon landing to an > Andy Warhol print. You've seen the Warhol print of the moon landing? It's part of his series of television images. > I think it's more instructive to compare JODI to Judd. An HTML artist not knowing about the <pre> tag is like a painter not knowing how to use masking tape. Don't confuse nostalgia with worth. > Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Charlie... it seems we all are. We > want NMA out of the ghetto. For some reason I'm afraid that something > essential to NMA may be lost in the process... What is this essential property? +salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it replied:+ a romantic idea of "The Artist" is behind some of the thoughts expressed in this thread. for example: is google earth art? yes and no, it depends on what you're looking for. different points of view can have varying metrics in defining what is art and what isn't. one thing looks clear enough: talking about it can be hard if you don't agree on what exactly is your point of view. because many of the thoughts expressed are not even in contrast with each other: they're just talking about diffeent things. apart from these considerations, let me give my 2cents. the focus is still moving. artists (and artworks) are becoming something different. they started changing in other times, at varying speeds. to be sincere, i really appreciate things and people that adapt to the new paradigms: the artist should, really, disappear. and that's why it shouldn't sound strange to hear someone saying "Google earth is art" i really appreciate the attitude because it is the only attitude that is really contemporary, meaning that it is a deep, profund, expression of the time we live in. i really loved william gibson's concept of the artist expressed in "Count Zero". the artist was something supernatural emerging from technology. it isn't a human, it isn't an artificial intelligence, it is nothing that you could connect to an identity: it is something that emerges. In that case it was a "collaboration". of a strange and peculiar kind, but it was a collaboration: Tessier-Ashpool's memories, a cowboy's mystical beliefs, the technological developments in bio-soft, an artificial intelligence that acheived self-consciousness to the point that it recognized parts of itself as being independent, setting them free as separate beings, the instinct of a gallerist, the aims towards immortality of a one-man corporation, a post-human. there are no boundaries: everything is, at the same time, artist and not-artist. the art is in the whole. we start to have the power to step back from our individuality. mass-human, mass-artist. we probabily have no escape. should we want one? new media art vs other art. that is definitely *not* the question. +Jim Andrews replied:+ I remember reading a 'new media art thinker' say that programs cannot alter their own code. This of course is false. This sort of thing illustrates how little computers are understood in digital art circles. The critic had in mind, I think, that computers are glorified typewriters, or glorified musical instruments, or picture makers/alterers, etc. If you think a computer is a normal machine, you will think that digital art will be normal art. But computers are radically flexible as machines. To the point that there is no proof, and probably never will be, that there exist thought processes of which humans are capable and computers are not. That's how flexible computers are in their possible functionality, use--and art. People look at Google Earth and compare it to a new media work of art and find new media art lacking in comparison. Part of the problem is our expectations concerning new media art are not well-informed by the breadth and depth of what is possible in digital art via the nature of computers and networks of these absolutely outlandish devices. Google Earth is merely the tip of the Netberg! It is an art and expression tool just as Word is! We see that the tools can be so well-done as to challenge our notions of art--which means two things: our notions of art need to be more ambitious and informed by what is possible with computers; and the distinction between the tool and the work of art is bound to be ever more problematized. The main difference between them being the degree to which the content is supplied by the thing. Word supplies almost none of the content, invites you to create almost all of it on your own, and that is the mark of a good tool, as well as the range, quality and granularity of the features it offers to create that content. You can see the direction of Google Earth is toward making it more amenable to holding content supplied by whomever. You can see it heading in a sort of 'Second Life' direction crossed with realism, journalism and globalism. As a virtual world. A far cry from Word. Google Earth will be more akin to a platform, eventually. Is that the new 'high art'? The platform that can contain a suitably rich range of new art? Well, no, not on its own. The platform and the art created for/with the platform are symbiotic. But artists need to be able to operate, in some sense, at both those levels. +T.Whid replied:+ Hi Rob, Let's put it another way. If you find it instructive to compare Google Earth to NMA perhaps it's just as instructive to compare NMA to banner ads of the web. Banner ads use new technology (flash or gifs), they want to change my worldview (buy this product or service) and.. well ok, their not conceptually or aesthetically engaging (most of the time). But if we compare NMA art to banner ads, NMA IS FUCKING BRILLIANT! Google Earth isn't art simply because it makes no claim to be art (tho I'm sure it could be fit into some cartographic craft history). That's my point, one can conceptually drag any technological or other phenomenon into being considered as art (airplane rides, roller coaster rides, Shrek, 9/11) to make a point that art isn't working up to it's potential. This can be constructive to an artist. The art can be 'inspired by.' But as a form of criticism I don't think it's instructive. quoting Charlie's original post: +++ My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say, Jodi, but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as one would expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media company. This certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or intellectually engaging than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot more fun to look at. To be honest, given a choice between having my browser get fucked up by jodi.org and zooming around the world on google earth I would almost always choose the latter. The former is interesting once, but rather dull the next few times, while the latter may be devoid of intellectual depth, but is incredibly engaging and rich as an experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the work of Jodi and use it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work deconstructing the internet etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty interior stuff. This is similar to how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the paintings of Robert Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or Heat +++ And I see what he's saying. But is he asking us to be more like entertainment? I think it would more useful to compare apples to apples and art to art, not art to entertainment. We'll lose every time. I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole, doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the strategy to get us there. +Patrick Lichty replied:+ The difference is that while banner ads, Google Earth, and so on _could be used_ as art, they are not art in themselves. This is an interesting, but really askew conversation. +Gere, Charlie replied:+ One of the points that sometimes gets lost in discussions of NMA is context and it maybe worth bringing back into the discussion. Taking my example of comparing Richard Ryman to Shrek or Toy Story I was being a little disengenuous in suggesting I would probably derive more enjoyment from the latter to the former even if I appreciate the former as meaningful art. In fact I greatly enjoy and benefit from looking at art such as that by Robert Ryman (or by Veronese, or by an anonymous artist from the Benin period or whatever). In fact I spend a lot of my spare time in museums and galleries looking at things that could be called art. To do so requires being in a certain mode of attention, a certain way of being able to be in my body, to look in a certain way, in a dedicated context, that the museum or gallery is able, almost uniquely, to supply. There are certainly all sorts of criticisms one can level at museums and galleries, but consider for a moment - we have in our culture the extraordinary privilege of being able to visit spaces dedicated to the display and enjoyment of art, which require nothing of us but the capacity to engage with the work. These are spaces which, however much they may be compromised by commercial demands, still hold to an ideal, however shakily, of being separate from the demands of capitalism that everything should be oriented towards profit. In London I can go, for free (or at least for a minimum and painlessly extracted amount of my income tax) to Tate Modern for example and look at Carl Andre's bricks in a room dedicated to making it possible for me to enjoy and understand it. And yes, I am aware of all the arguments about the art market and its relation to major art institutions. This does not change the fundamental point about the possibility of the experience. I can enjoy these works because I go and see them in a context that enframes them as art. It makes it possible for me to genuinely get to grips with the experience of looking at art. At the moment I am sitting at my PC at work writing this. This is the place where I can most easily look at net art. But why would I want to? It's my work place. It's where I sit in a legally mandated swivel chair in a brick and concrete building organising timetables and so on. That it is possible to look at works of (net) art from my chair may be a marvellous thing, but frankly I don't really want to. I want my experience of art to be different, and to take place in a different kind of space where I am able to adopt the right mental and bodily attitude towards it. Why would I want to look at something which is using a similar technology and coming to me through the same technology as MS Outlook There is a kind of underlying hostility in much of NMA discourse towards museums and galleries, which I think is thoroughly misplaced. This is not to suggest that such institutions are without massive problems, but nevertheless they serve an incredibly important purpose in preserving and making art available for us and for offering a space where it can be properly enjoyed and appreciated. I feel that much of this hostility derives from a rather old-fashioned anti-elitist avant-garde idea about the coming together of art and life or some such shibboleth. But let's be honest: art is always elitist, whether you like it or not. It's privileged because to begin to discuss it such as we are doing now always requires a high level of knowledge, thus almost certainly of expensive education. It's privileged because to be an artist at all usually requires a similar level of education (I bet a lot of you out there have got degrees and MFAs in art, and I bet a lot of them didn't come cheap). Art is elitist because artist have still got to eat, and this means either, perhaps more honestly, engaging with the art market, or being employed by education establishments, or joining the great gravy train of funding, which in this country means being funded by tax payers many of whom are deeply hostile to what they see as its utter self-indulgence and pointlessness. Above all it's privileged because it operates on the expectation that artists need not produce anything useful. If you doubt the last point, try to explain what social use Carl Andre! 's Bricks or a piece by Jodi actually has, without recourse to appeals to the idea of art as something that must exist outside of the restricted economy of the market. So here's the thing. Art, including NMA, is useless and therefore an elitist phenomenon. If it wasn't useless it would cease to be art and become something else, something useful such an activism, entertainment, software, advertising, and so on. Being useless is art's greatest contribution to a culture almost totally subsumed by the bottom line. To be in a position to be an artist, through whatever means is a privilege. If you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth and Jodi. The former is useful and the latter useless. The problem with NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often encountered, the virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one conducive to engaging with its uselessness adequately. +salvatore.iaconesi AT fastwebnet.it replied:+ >Dal: c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk > if you want that is what I think is the difference between Google Earth and Jodi. > The former is useful and the latter useless. > The problem with NMA I suggest is that the context in which it is often encountered, > the virtual space we also inhabit in our every day work, is not one conducive to > engaging with its uselessness adequately. this is just partially true... it's useless if judged in the context of the workplace, because you cannot do a spreadsheet or wordprocessing etcetera on it. but this can't be taken as an explanation of anything. some more truth can be found by looking at stuff without the *need* of categorizing... things break barriers on several subjects: creativity, technique, but also size, complexity, degrees of freedom... you name it, anything goes. and some of them are "interesting" to some people, some aren't. some may be interesting only in specific contexts. some of them generate different kinds of interest in different contexts. take Microsoft Word: i can write a death penalty sentence or a poem with it. and my death penalty could be used as a poem, without changing a single character in it, if i push it in the right direction. that's if i manage to convince people that that thing they're reading is art. where is art if i do that? is it in me? because i was good in convincing? is it on the art critic who bought the theory? is it in the audience staring at it? is it in microsoft word? +rob AT robmyers.org replied:+ Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid AT twhid.com>: > I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole, > doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as > anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the > strategy to get us there. Oh yes I don't want NMA to be mere entertainment. And Shreck sucks. ;-) My point is closer to your point about NMA vs. Flash banners. NMA is generally more engaging than flash banners, which are vapid and cheesy. The comparison, which *isn't* apples to apples, can be informative. If we ask *why* NMA is better, it helps to define NMA and shows areas where NMA can find interesting work to do. Google Earth is closer to NMA than flash banners are because it both looks good and makes you think (seriously, if it had been shown at Ars Electronica a decade ago it would have made quite a splash). It can be *mis*-described as NMA. I think that unpacking this *in some detail* would be useful for thinking about NMA. +Alexander Galloway replied:+ Let me get this straight.. This thread is about how a Turner-prize potter and a media historian don't think that net art is an avant-garde? Oh, dear. Rhizome must be in a funk. He quotes Derrida, and everyone gets all dewy-eyed and reverent. I'm interested in the refrain about there not being a proper critical apparatus. I would suggest starting with his countryman Matthew Fuller, or the media histories of Dieter Daniels or Florian Cramer, or the work of Geert Lovink and Arjun Mulder (Adilkno's "Media Archive" remains one of the stunning works of media studies), or Tilman Baumgartel's invaluable double volume of interviews with computer artists, or Alan Liu's critique of Jodi, or Mark B. N. Hansen's analyses of new media art aesthetics, or the "Data Browser" series being published by Autonomedia. This is not to mention the critical media studies of Lev Manovich, Wendy Chun, Friedrich Kittler, Tiziana Terranova, and many, many, others. In addition we are also graced with a series of art historical compendia on the subject, many of which have been put through the ringer on this list: Blais & Ippolito "At The Edge of Art"; Tribe & Jana "New Media Art"; Greene "Internet Art"; Stallabrass "Internet Art"; Paul "Digital Art"; Rush "New Media in Art"; Wilson "Information Arts." Incidentally, some of these latter books were predicted (and upstaged) in 1997 by Vuk Cosic in his fictional "classics of net.art" book series. Complaints about the present are often signs of a parochial imagination. What interests me is not whether or not new media art is a type of vanguard practice (for it absolutely and incontrovertibly is), but instead what interests me is how these communities of insiders and outsiders are constructed and maintained. It seems extremely important to some to defang the work of say, Heath Bunting, as some sort of juvenile prank, or the reverse, to induct Jodi into the canon of abstract modernism. A writer by the name of, ah-hem, Derrida also wrote about video art. And he wrote about it in his own present, not as a reflection on the art of the past. "One never sees a new art, one thinks one sees it; but a 'new art,' as people say a little loosely, may be recognized by the fact that it is not recognized." This type of voluntary, active blindness I find extremely interesting, least of all because it offers a way out of the Kraussian cynicism that new art is really all about repetition and recurrence. Derrida isn't saying that we can't see the new. Quite the opposite. We believe we see it, but we don't--that's the claim. And it is from this voluntary position of "false" cultural production (seeing a fiction as true) that new art gets made and experienced. This is a logic that shines through quite elegantly in the words of Ernst Bloch, writing from an earlier moment in the machine age. "Someone once said that people are in Heaven and don't know it; Heaven certainly still seems somewhat unclear. Leave everything from his statement but the will that it be true--then he was right." The so called "new media art ghetto" has been the topic of much consternation recently on this list and elsewhere in the community. But I wonder if it's not the type of emblem that all underground movements crave and envy. Sure, it's not for everyone. People like Cory Arcangel and Jodi have started making inroads in the establish art world without betraying their cred as innovators in the scene. But I fail to see how a movement with such an exciting history of experimentation and radical refusal should be bothered by a few dismissive pot shots from the naysayers. One must remember that thirty years from now every young PhD candidate in cultural theory and art history will be writing about turn of the millennium digital culture, just as today they're writing about Stan Vanderbeek, E.A.T., and Jack Burnham. Why? It's much easier to come to terms with the past than it is the present. And so our hardest job is still undone... +Alexis Turner replied:+ ::Quoting "T.Whid" <twhid AT twhid.com>: :: ::> I'm not arguing that NMA shouldn't be more engaging or, on a whole, ::> doesn't need improvement. I want it out of the ghetto as much as ::> anybody, but criticising it because it's not entertainment isn't the ::> strategy to get us there. Let me get one thing straight: I'm not criticizing new media art because it's not entertainment. I'm criticizing it because it's the antithesis of entertainment. There's a very entrenched belief that something has to be one or the other, and that mere "entertainment" is a plebian bauble that must be avoided at all costs. The reality, though, is that thoughtful, critical, engaging, cerebral Art can be neither entertaining nor painful, or it can be both. There are many places in the middle. When I suggest that art look to the entertainment sectors for inspiration, I refer only to the responses that are illicited from the viewer, not the content. Most entertainment is utter crap in terms of its content, but it DOES offer an intangible "thing" to the viewer - a chance to be happy, a chance to fulfill some desire, a chance to be amazed or surprised or shocked, a chance to think, or be moved, or escape. Successful entertainment does many of these things. What does NMA do? So, again, why are we so shocked that non-artists don't view art? Because, honestly, what sick fuck is going to willfully go to partake of something, again and again, that is painful but doesn't offer something "more" each time? (I mean, besides an academic or an ascetic. They find "more" in the strangest places.) Google Earth offers an entire world to explore. It takes a long time to make one's way through an entire world, and there is always an intangible, unknkown thing waiting around the corner. It excites us because it promises us something new if we do it long enough. Maybe we will see an airplane captured in mid-flight! Hey, I've never seen Borneo before! OMG, there's an island in the middle of nowhere - I wasn't expecting that! I bet I'm the only one to have seen this! It's the same reason people play the lottery, or go to the circus, or watch a train wreck. *Because maybe this time....* It's even the same reason that art museums work - because in a still, contemplative space, the viewer is given a chance to realize that they missed something the first time around. It's the reason a great novel works (would you argue that novels are only art or only entertainment, but not both? Personally, I can't think of anything more entertaining than a damn good book - visual or no - and I would never in a million years say that books are not art. Perhaps we differ on this point.) Entertainment works because it sets up expectation and gives something, ANYTHING to the viewer. Good art works for the same reason. The two are not mortal enemies, locked in an eternal death match for the hearts and minds of the people. +Jason Van Anden replied:+ Are you suggesting that NMA is really some sort of academic viral media scheme? +Alexis Turner replied:+ If by "viral" you mean something that gives its viewers the runs, then yes. If by "viral" you mean something capable of perpetuating and growing itself, then no. +Jason Van Anden replied:+ Good answer - but you may have caught a stray bullet. +Jason Nelson replied:+ Alexis and others, I entirely agree. New Media art has the ability and technique to be both highly entertaining and hard and conceptually thick. But....that might explain why so many once net artists are becoming video artists or digital still artists or on interactive installation artists. Interactivity and all the entry points and multiple levels of net art almost always bring some entertainment onto the screen. So to be accepted by small circles, one must eliminate the fun, the interactive. hmmmmm.......kill entertainment equals video art..... hows this for entertainiing: http://www.secrettechnology.com/evilmascot/mascotmascot.html +Eric Dymond replied:+ Don't we call that edutainment? I honestly don't care if the user is happy, sad, entertained, or whatever state they end up in emotionally. I am not responsible for their happiness, and I hope I never am. We make work that fits our artistic sensibilities, and if viewer likes it or not matters not one iota at any point in time. If you start making work that is aimed at entertaining then you are screwed. As for conceptually thick..., I don't have a clue what "thick conceptual work" could be. Forget about conceptual concerns (as Robbin pointed out in his follow up on Lewiitt) and worry about expressing something that somehow fits into your need to put something down/on/out there. Be expressive/impressive/contradictory/geometric/fluid/ whatever, just don't be conceptual ( at least not in a systemic way, see Chronophobia). Eric also see Alex's post re: the first net art work. +Jason Nelson replied:+ I suppose I didnt explain myself clearly I agree with you Eric, almost entirely......my point has always been that those small circles, that academic and world of "critical engagement" (we all of course engage critically), once it has accepted an art form into its fold, tends to demand certain types of work, work that is easily slotted into their framework......and while this type of artwork might get the write ups and all that, the artist tends to get lost in the mix.... so hell yes....artists should create for whatever the hell they want....that is the reason most of us started creating within new media or net art or e-lit...that freedom of no certain framework. However, I do certainly disagree about not caring about the audience.....I never create with a specific audience in mind, nor do I change my work or emphasize certain aspects of my work for accolades or hits or whatever...but I do want an audience, and I am immensely pleased if someone enjoys my artwork in some small way...and if they dont, well that is fine as well...... +Alexis Turner replied:+ In response to Eric: (Work that is both conceptually thick and meant to be entertaining is *potentially* edutainment. Making a user think and actually teaching them something are different. Edutainment teaches.) My suggestion about considering the viewer is in response to one very specific question that keeps cropping up here over (and over and over and...) - why can't we get an audience?! Waaahhh! If you care about and want an audience, or if it bothers you that NMA is in a ghetto, please read my posts. If you just want to make art and don't give two shits about who/how many see it, what they think of it if they do, and where you get money from to make it, then continue doing just what you are doing and feel free to ignore most of what I say - it has no application to you. =================================================== On a slightly different note, Can we please move the hell away from the word "entertainment?" So many artists, critics, and academics immediately have a knee jerk reaction to the word ("Entertainment is for the filthy unwashed masses, not ME"), that I find it quite useless on here. I am referring only objects that people respond to with anything other than disgust, hatred, or boredom. These objects are created by many entities that understand human nature and human needs, and manipulate that knowledge to acheive a result (I want bodies in seats, I want to be considered brilliant, I want some fast cash...whatever). The actual "entertainment" sector is the most visible and probably largest of these, but it not even remotely the only one. Good lord, what on earth are you so afraid of? Can you make unique art? Then I would hope you could debase yourself long enough to look at a piece of ANYTHING IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD AT ALL without immediately running out and copying it verbatim. Other forms are not infectious diseases that will cause you to start plagiarizing them, in spite of what academic theoreticians would have us believe. Are our minds so impotent and powerless that, when exposed to a single commercial, we MUST HAVE JIFFY PEANUTBUTTER RIGHT NOW? (Oh shit, I said JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER. Whatever you do, do not go and buy JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER right now. Do not think about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER for the rest of the day. Especially do not think about JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER tomorrow. Do not let JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER insinuate itself into your life. Sweet. Jesus. I can't stop saying JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER.) -A. PS: To quit blabbing and make things concise, I'll just say that my overall point is simply that the ghetto|bubble is not something others have put NMA into - it is something NMA keeps itself in by its unwillingness to sully itself with the <strike>outside world</strike> JIFFY PEANUT BUTTER. +Eduardo Navas replied:+ Hello everyone, Most interesting thread. I shall contribute my ones and twos (as in my decks). Some of Charlie's comments I find polemical. I reflect on his position below, keeping in mind much of what's been said around them already. Here it goes, On 9/6/06 1:55 AM, "Gere, Charlie" <c.gere AT lancaster.ac.uk> wrote: > I do not 'put down' NMA, but I am interested in finding out what it offers > that is distinct from other uses of new media. I am afraid that the fact that > what I said was described as 'putting down' does rather confirm my sense that > many people involved in this area are simply not prepared or interested in > discussing the work, other than in a very self-congratulatory or interior way > that serves the work ill, and which does not bode well for its development. I > must reiterate that I think (and have often proclaimed, at recent conferences > at Banff and Liverpool for example) that NMA is deeply compromised by its > failure to develop a proper critical apparatus, and, even more to the point, a > stronger sense of what such work is actually intending to achieve. > I don't think this is true at all. If anything NMA has and is developing it's own institutional support that is in some ways complemented by more established organizations. Granted that such support is not immense, but it's happening. To be specific to the North of the globe, the Whitney at least still has the commissioned project up on artport, and the Tate has commissioned works collaboratively with the Whitney in the last few months, then you have the recent ISEA events which prove that NMA has developed a strong community. And of course there is Rhizome working with the New Museum to make NMA more accessible to the general art public. And as we know, when this happened initially a lot of noise was made on this list because it smelled like the good old institution was taking over the great dream of what NMA could have been. Yet, here is Rhizome, with its complicated past standing as a bridge between the major institutions and the more esoteric groups of NMA, riding that fine line between straight institutional immersion and a more peripheral practice. Take it or leave it it's a mixed bag one that is now part of our history. To add briefly, I think of lists like IDC, and New Media Curating which function at a very high critical level (I know you mention them below). And ultimately, I consider NMA to be developing it's own set of critics that don't have to be directly accepted by the more traditional artworld. It's not necessary to write in Artforum to contribute to culture. Really. If anything the emerging critics and curators could and do function as bridges between institutions. > My point about Google Earth is not that it is better as art than, say, Jodi, > but that it is considerably more technologically sophisticated, as one would > expect of a piece of software developed by a powerful media company. This > certainly does not make it more worthy, worthwhile or intellectually engaging > than a piece of NMA, but it does make it a lot more fun to look at. To be > honest, given a choice between having my browser get fucked up by jodi.org and > zooming around the world on google earth I would almost always choose the > latter. The former is interesting once, but rather dull the next few times, > while the latter may be devoid of intellectual depth, but is incredibly > engaging and rich as an experience. Don't, please, get me wrong. I admire the > work of Jodi and use it in my teaching as an exemplary body of work > deconstructing the internet etc... But let's be honest, it's pretty interior > stuff. This is similar to how I greatly admire and gain from looking at the > paintings! > of Robert Ryman for example, but get far more pleasure from watching Shrek or > Heat I think this comparisons have already been discussed by many on the list. T. Whid stated that we should not compare apples with Oranges. But let's take this proposition a bit further. The word entertainment was thrown around vs. art. And the question implicitly came up, "what is art" to which Charlie responded in a later post that it is an elitist practice which costs a lot of money in education to be part of. But the real question is, what are the roles in culture of the examples given by Charlie above? The difference is that Google Earth and Jodi have different roles. One is a tool for research in the service of very diverse interests (google earth) while the other is an art work that proposes specific questions about its subject (the net and the browser). That someone may find google Earth more appealing than Jodi, or to even compare them on the same line, means that a specific interest in what art should be or be like is being played out. This is one of the reasons why critics and theorists tend to develop a bad name from time to time, because they are not always willing to observe and define according to what has happened or is happening, but instead demand that things move in certain forms according to their visions. Google Earth and Jodi have complementary roles that are not in opposition, both can and do support each other based on their particular roles at large. And to compare them to make sense of intellectual rigor versus a fun experience simply does not work when it comes to understanding how culture works. They are part of the spectrum and can relate when considering the tools used (browsers, code etc. to some degree) but cannot be presented in opposition. they depend on different institutions and ask of the user a different frame of mind, that can be aesthetically pleasing but with different political outcomes. <--snip--> > OK, so new media art has reemerged, and is supposedly thriving at ISEA, and > elsewhere, but I am sure that many reading this on Rhizome will have had the > same experiences I have, of going to conferences and new media events and > seeing exactly the same faces there. This is pleasant as one can catch up with > friends (if I still have any in the new media art world after this exchange), > but also somewhat depressing. Among other things I think it means a lack of > critical debate and engagement, and a sense of being an embattled minority, > who daren't engage in criticism of any of the work as that would play into the > hands of those who would dismiss NMA. Thus the sense of embattled > self-congratulation and, in my view, the rather defensive and over-sensitive > reactions to the piece in the Times. NMA circles might be insular, but then I think this is not much different from the artworld that most people think about or are part of. I go to openings in Lalaland from time to time and see the very same people there. Very small circles. I can go months without appearing and there is someone there that I know, always. Both worlds are small, and I do believe they are more in touch than some people are willing to admit. The question is why this preoccupation to supposedly get NMA "out of the Ghetto"? To this I will come back very soon. > One of the corollaries of this is that much of the work is extremely obscure > for anybody other than those in the know, and sometimes even for them. > Recently I saw Alex McLean do one of his improvised programming performances. > I thought it was great, but then I am very familiar with the area, and should > be one of those who does 'get' such work. Imagine being someone less informed > and trying to get what is going on or, perhaps more pertinently, why they > should be interested in such an event. In a more recent post you explained how art is elitist, esoteric. And then there's NMA which appears to be "more" esoteric, yet it apparently is not elitist because it's in the... Ghetto? What does it mean that the artworld does not get it? Does it mean that NM artists have to waterdown their work so that it is understood by the general art public and get a way into an established institution? Who wants in that way? Why? This is the old avant-garde position going back to Courbet and the whole crisis in the academy that a century later Greenberg made a career out of. This is a conundrum that I experienced while Christiane Paul lectured at the last LACMA institutional critique in 2005. At one point Christiane found herself explaining how NM works contribue to culture to a German curator who simply did not see the point in Vuk Cosic's stripping of the Documenta site. Her presentation turned into an educational moment, almost like in the classroom, and the curator just sat there, not getting it. What this means is that NMA has its own codes, it is developing its own way of functioning it depends on institutions that are not always connected to museums, and this is fine, but to demand that it somehow become absorbed by the mainstream out of its supposed ghetto is disconcerting to hear. <--snip--> > At the risk of sounding elitist and reactionary I strongly believe in the need > for something called art to continue to exist away and apart from the more > general world of creative production. In particular I believe that one of the > preconditions of art is to be something that is an event, that is > unprecedented, and which requires us to revise and expand our capacity to > engage with and understand the world. Thus any art that is of interest must, > by this definition at least, be difficult, hard to grasp at first. On this > count Jodi is most definitely art, whereas Google Earth is nothing more than > clever software. This sounds a lot like Greenberg. Perhaps we should reconsider the role of the gatekeeper? Is this not something that is largely discussed in NMC and IDC today? Why does art still need this separation and rigor that you demand, why? Why does NMA have to fit into the art institution like previous practices? I don't think it completely can, it moves too fast, it is always dependent on the development of new technologies, even when the artists don't develop them and come to use them after it has been absorbed by the culture industry. The truth is the artworld is even more behind in this sense. Asking the NMA move out of its ghetto may be asking that it bend backwards to become assimilated by the art institution. And is this really healthy when the practice has already developed it's own codes that are not fully dependent of pre-existing institutions? Maybe times are changing and we should be more conscious and accept this. The art institution will change as it learns more about NMA. > NMA should be monstrous, in the sense that Derrida uses that term, in that it > is then able to open out the possibility of the future. But in the end it must > also be able to acquiesce to hospitality and be domesticated (those who came > to the New Media Curating conference in Liverpool earlier this year, should > know of my interest in tropes of hospitality and domestication in relation to > NMA) I find the notion of domestication quite disturbing. Why should NMA be domesticated? So that it can be comfortably assimilated by the already established art institutions? What does domestication really imply? It's a colonial ideology of making sure something functions according to a particular vision--it is a demand for assimilation based on pre-existing parameters. NMA should not be domesticated, but simply understood according to what is has and is contributing to the world at large. +Don Relyea replied:+ I think Charlie and Alexis make some really good points. One day I was fiddling with the jargon on one of my art project webpages and I noticed that the Google adsense script became confused about whether the page was about art or technology. I laughed and realized I had lost focus on the art in my art project. What is new media art's place in the overall world of art? Is it reasonable to assume that NMA should be or will be held to different standards than regular art simply because it uses new and different technology? Is it reasonable to assume that new media artists don't bear the same responsibilities that regular artists bear. Is it reasonable to make a distinction between the new media artist and the regular artist? When Charlie mentioned context and museums I thought about what it is that makes a work of art good enough to get into a museum. I thought about several of my favorite works in museums. Typically the works speak on several levels to a broad audience and their place in the spectrum of art history is obvious. In some cases they are profound and in some humorous and whimsical but their message is communicated clearly to their intended audience. Children can marvel at their aesthetic and intellectuals can chew on their gristle. A show that came to mind was the Calder exhibit that came through town when I was young(7 or 8). I remember being amazed at the mobiles and kinetic sculptures even though I had no clue about the science behind them. Later when I took physical science I remembered Calder's work and revisited it and it spoke to me at another level. Calder had made the technology behind his work transparent to the viewer. Calder's work required no knowledge of physical science to appreciate, but if you have the knowledge you appreciate it even more. If NMA wants to be more successful in the overall art world NMA needs to do the same thing. It needs to speak to a broad audience on several levels, it needs to be deep enough to be not understood immediately but easy enough to understand when the viewer puts forth some effort. It needs to say something meaningful. It needs to be packaged in a way that art historians can easily see the context and place in the spectrum of art history and write about it intelligently. If I am not a techno-weenie I should still be able to appreciate NMA. In real life if you want to get technical work published in mainstream magazines you have to simplify the work down to terms normal readers and the editor will understand otherwise you run the risk of limiting your exposure. I don't know any art historians with computer science and engineering degrees, most have art history degrees. So it stands to reason if you want art historians to write about your work you need to package it in ways that make their job easier. I'm not saying simplify your work, I'm saying simplify the way you write about and package your work. Google Earth makes the technology transparent to its users, that is one of the reasons why it is so engaging. It's fun, it works and its easy to use. I don't think Google Earth is art but I certainly think it could be used in a work of art. I am not opposed to art being fun, engaging and easy to use either. Also since I am fairly new here I'm pre-emptively apologizing for re-stating anything that has already been said before my arrival. +Christina McPhee replied:+ unless.....................you are the banner art collective! http://www.bannerart.org/ courtesy of Brandon Barr and Garrett Lynch. critical thinking and conceptual development within the medium. +Jason Nelson replied:+ The are many issues belting about within this new media art debate, "the domination of the conceptual", " academic/critical acceptance", "loss of fun" and on. However, the one central and underlying ghost floating beneath nearly all these posts is audience. Some dont care about audience, some are angry about being ignore by a particular audience, and others want to change the audience. But, what we sound like are a bunch of starving accountants in the desert fighting over the last few mice and edible cacti. If the few hundred (being generous) of us actively making work really tried to expand our audience (or not), finding users and viewers outside these small circles, we really wouldnt care about not getting two thousand dollar grants or bother ourselves with a single essay. I mean seriously can someone tell me why one might get 100 hits from an online gallery's posting of artwork, while a mention on a radio station blog or landscaping site brings in thousands, or tens of thousands. This is not to criticize art centered sites, but instead to again call for us to apply some of our amazing creativity and processing and technical prowess to building a larger, more diverse audience. And no....I am not saying we should make work targetting a wider audience, but that with the hundreds of millions of possible viewers/users, surely there are a few percentage points interested in our crazy creations. Is one art critic worth more than a hundred plumbers? + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 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 34. 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 |