not sure whether the medialab discussion is still going on out there
but this might be relevant ...
>
>GROW YOUR OWN MEDIA LAB - FREE WORKSHOPS IN BARROW, CUMBRIA - STARTS
>SEPTEMBER 9TH - PLACES STILL AVAILABLE
>
>Grow Your Own Media Lab is a trans-regional action research project
>that aims to investigate, improve and document a low cost,
>participatory, open source media lab model.
>
>folly is delivering a series of 5 GYOML workshops throughout
>September-December at The Canteen Film Project, based in Northern
>Riviera in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. The workshops will give
>participants the opportunity to work in a variety of computer-based
>artistic disciplines under the guidance of some of the best-known
>and well-respected artists working in the field.
>
>The Workshops will be led by 7 artists from the international collectives
>
>Openlab - http://www.pawfal.org/openlab/
>Goto10 - http://goto10.org/
>and dyne.org - http://www.dyne.org/
>
>Session One: The introduction to dyne11 and puredyne, 9th September 2006
>Session Two: Realtime audiovisuals (Puredata/Gem), 30th September 2006
>Session Three: Realtime animation workshop (Fluxus), 21st October 2006
>Session Four: Building networked games with SVS, 11th November 2006
>Session Five: Home Studio (jack, ardour, weq24, hydrogen, wired...),
>2nd December 2006
>
>All workshops will run from 11am to 4.30pm at The Canteen in Barrow, Cumbria
>
>How to Get Involved:
>The GYOML project is FREE to attend. For further information and to
>book your place - contact Jennifer Stoddart, programme assistant at
>E:
>mailto:jennifer.stoddart@folly.co.uk T: 01524 388550 V: http://www.folly.co.uk
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen(a)creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.comhttp://www.avatarbodycollision.orghttp://www.upstage.org.nzhttp://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
Michael,
There was a news story in the Dom Post in May this year, with a photo of
Neil Scott with a Poly. From memory he was in New Zealand to receive an
honorary doctorate (at Canterbury?). It's gone off the stuff page, but
a database search should bring it up. Mark Williams at NZFA spoke with
him then, so you could try contacting him.
Melanie
VUW homepage
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/seft/media-studies/staff/melanieswalwell.aspx
"Cast-offs from the Golden Age"
http://www.vectorsjournal.org/issues/03_issue/goldenage/recollection.php
NZTronix, the blog http://www.nztronix.org.nz
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:22:46 -0700
From: michael(a)creationz.co.nz
Subject: Re: [Ada_list] [Ada_List] poly (vs apple)
To: ada_list(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
Message-ID: <44f11e166dd3b_6a8a20175bcc1ae(a)ellipsis.tmail>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I am on the trial of the Poly 1
computer.
I came upon one at MOTAT and have chosen it for my Kiwi Nuggets series
in
PRODESiGN - so thanks for the leads in the discussion below. Have you
found out
any more
since?
I have some other leads to follow - my interest is the design of the box
itself
though the software story and commercial politics makes for greate
context.
Michael
>A coffee table book about digital media?! Makes me think of 'dancing about
>architecture'. Does either come with a DVD/CDROM and/or lots of links to
>explore?
i reserved it at the public library (wellington) & discovered a few new artists
via it....
can't complain..... and yes I will return it soon!
links to artists from the book are listed here:
http://www.thamesandhudson.com/en/1/9780500238172.mxs?&&&
-- phD positions in the Netherlands :)
naku na, Sonja
The Department of Philosophy of the University of Twente in the Netherlands is looking for
Two Ph.D. Students (M/F, fulltime)
Two PhD students for the international research project:
Evaluating the Cultural Quality of New Media
Towards a Philosophy of Human-Media Relations.
Women are strongly encouraged to apply.
The two PhD positions are part of a prestigious and exciting international research project in philosophy named "Evaluating the Cultural Quality of New Media". This five-year project, which will include five researchers and will involve collaboration with leading international scholars and research centres, has as its aim to develop a framework for better normative analyses of new media and new media culture, especially in relation to their contribution to the quality of life ("the good life") and the quality of society. Project leader is Dr. Philip Brey. Two postdocs have already been appointed to the project: dr. A. Briggle, PhD, University of Colorado and dr. E. Spence, PhD, Sydney University. The project will be part of a new international Centre of Excellence in Ethics and Technology of the departments of philosophy of Twente University, Delft University of Technology and Eindhoven University of Technology.
Applications are accepted for three different projects:
Ph.D Project 1 - The Quality of Virtual Environments and Tools
This subproject aims to perform a philosophical analysis of the implications of the ever increasing virtualization for the quality of life and of society. Virtualization is defined as the digital production of interactive structures, whether graphical or symbolic, that mirror things and events in the physical world. What are the implications of this process for moral and social identity, embodiment, and conceptions of reality, and how can these implications be normatively evaluated?
Ph.D. Project 2 - The Quality of Computer-Mediated Social Relations
This subproject focuses on computer-mediated social relations and practices in friendships, love relationships, and community life. Increasingly, the social world is held together by electronic networks. More and more, communication, social relationships, and community formation take place over such networks. The aim of the project is to perform a philosophical analysis of the implications of this trend for the quality of life and of society.
Ph.D. Project 3 - Societal Appraisals of the Cultural Quality of New Media
This subproject will perform a study of appraisals of new media that are made by representatives of major ideologies or worldviews, with the aim of assessing how they relate to conceptions of the good life and the good society held by these ideologies. It will study liberal, communitarian, conservative, religious and postmaterialist evaluations of new media, and will try to assess which ideologies see themselves as winners and losers in the development of a new media culture. It will also provide critiques of current ideological stances on new media.
Only the two best candidates out of all applicants will be offered a position. Selection will only be based on the quality of the candidate, and not on his or her preference for a particular project, except that the two PhD appointments will be for different projects. You may apply for more than one project if you wish.
Profile
For all three projects: a Master's degree or equivalent degree in philosophy, preferably including a good background in ethics or social and political philosophy. Consideration will also be given to candidates with a multidisciplinary Master's degree on a topic relevant to the project and some background in philosophy, and to exceptional candidates with only a bachelor's degree in philosophy. Demonstrable interest in philosophical issues relating to information technology and new media. Good analytical skills. Good communication skills in English, in writing as well as orally. Creativity, open-mindedness, and an ability to develop new ideas.
Offer
A four-year full-time Ph.D. position starting November 1, 2006. The gross salary is EUR 1.933,- in the first year going up to EUR 2.472,- in the fourth year (EUR 25.552,- and EUR 32.677,- per annum, respectively, including vacation pay). Each Ph.D. position comes with a budget of up to EUR 8,000,- for travel and conference attendance.
Information and application
A description of the overall project, the three subprojects and a FAQ can be retrieved from http://www.ceptes.nl/vici. Applicants are advised to read these texts carefully before applying. For questions not answered on the website you can contact the project leader, dr. Philip Brey (e-mail: p.a.e.brey(a)utwente.nl).
Your application should contain the following documents: a letter of application which explains your interest in the position and explains your qualifications (this letter should contain some suggestions on how you would want to approach the project you apply for); a curriculum vitae which includes the name and e-mail address/telephone number of one of your professors, preferably the supervisor of your master's thesis; a (digital or paper) copy of your master's thesis; copies of publications, if any; an academic transcript that contains a list of subjects taken and grades received (this may be an unofficial version or scanned copy; we can request the original later). Optionally, you can also include letters of recommendation from your professors.
Your application can be sent by e-mail (preferred) or by normal post to dr. ir. J.F.C. Verberne (e-mail: pz-gw(a)gw.utwente.nl), managing director of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands. Please mention the vacancy number: 06/072-1 (project 1), 06/072-2 (project 2), or 06/072-3 (project 3). Your application should be in by October 2, 2006. Job interviews will be held between October 9 and 13.
hi,
just thought i would throw this into the mix:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=waves+riga&m=text
i found these photos online when looking for documentation of the Waves
festival I was talking about in earlier posts. just posting them to give
anyone thats interested an idea of Waves and for those that attended ISEA
a reference to contrast that experience and contextualise my comments
the photos give quite a good idea of the setup and feeling of the
exhibition
adam
--
Adam Hyde
~/.usnl
selected projects
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adam
the streaming suitcase
http://www.streamingsuitcase.com
simpel
http://www.simpel.cc
r a d i o q u a l i a
http://www.radioqualia.net
Free as in 'media'
email : adam(a)xs4all.nl
sip : adam(a)papercuptelephoone.org
skype : esetqualia
hi all,
just got back to amsterdam from extra time in San Jose. I was wondering
what peoples impressions were? Sorry if this has already done the rounds
of the list, I have been psuedo offline for a week or so...
My impressions of the event were mixed. I think NZ had a very strong
presence and it was the event more than any other that marks a coming of
age of NZ digital media art on the world stage (so to speak). Having the large screens of Douglas'work
(Cloud Shape Classifier) was really amazing as they hit you immediately as
you walked into the main exhibition room. Looked fantastic. Also, I
believe that Caro and Angela had about 2000 kids go through Animalia and
by the sounds of it it was a huge success.
I also saw Zitas work and it looked really great although possibly a little hard to find amongst the screens in the mid part of the south hall, which is a shame as
it is a very strong work.
I missed almost everything else (including the symposium) as I was having various logistical problems with re:mote and the internal (dis)organisation of ISEA.
What was everyones impression of ISEA? I missed checking out thoroughly Ians, Natalies, and Rachels work which I regret. How did you each feel it went? I also
missed the Pacific Rim forum...any feedback on how it went Danny?
adam
--
Adam Hyde
~/.nl
selected projects
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adam
the streaming suitcase
http://www.streamingsuitcase.com
r a d i o q u a l i a
http://www.radioqualia.net
Free as in 'media'
email : adam(a)xs4all.nl
sip : adam(a)papercuptelephoone.org
skype : esetqualia
I'm wondering if anyone made it to the East Coast for the Boston art show
"Interactions" at Siggraph? I didn't see any familiar NZ faces, but I did
run into quite a few people who took part in Intersculpt (and other related
digital sculpture/3D permutations). It was easy to miss people since it was
quite crowded. (And I was a bit foggy, and often absent recovering from a
bad back contusion and broken ribs received installation day.) Just under
20,000 people attended the conference as a whole (on the low side). A
majority are in the special effects film/TV industry, which is the backbone
of Siggraph. They and a accompanying trade show (Adobe, Intel, etc.)
essentially fund the entire operation through admissions to the event along
with stall fees. Nevertheless a significant minority are in the fine arts.
A friend, who had been to several Siggraph shows told me that this Siggraph
Art Show was one of the best he seen, and much better than the last few. (He
enjoyed Isea enormously as well this year.)Bonnie Mitchell who organized the
art show and her staff did an amazing job. The show had fewer digital prints
than in recent years, but to its credit included more intriguing
performances, sculpture, video, animations interactive work and
installations. Several art panels were presented over the 5 day event. My
favorite was one chaired by Ian Gwilt of UTS (formerly of the U of
Manchester, Unitec and Wanganui Polytechnic) on relational aesthetics in
digital art.
The art show was next to the emerging technologies studio, whose highlight
for many was a model of a house that through the low-tech use of light and a
spinning base, seemingly warped and shattered as it spun.
BTW...Has anyone has read the new hardbound Thames and Hudson digital art
book, "Art of the Digital Age"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500238170/sr=8-10/qid=1156706384/ref=pd_bb
s_10/002-9415440-8767234?ie=UTF8 ? (Bruce Wands who wrote it was at Siggraph
hawking the book.) Although it is more varied (including a section on
Intersculpt), I personally feel that the artwork included is not as well
edited/curated as in Christine Paul's digital art paperback, the other
Thames and Hudson digital arts overview. On the other hand it has more
pictures and seems to be functioning well as a general pictorial coffee
table survey of digital media.
Best,
Brit
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Bagnall [mailto:douglas@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:06 PM
To: ada list
Subject: Re: [Ada_list] isea review
adam wrote:
> I missed almost everything else (including the symposium) as I was
> having various logistical problems with re:mote and the internal
> (dis)organisation of ISEA. What was everyones impression of ISEA?
I suppose the disorganisation was inevitable given that ISEA is
always, wherever it is, the first thing of its kind, ever. Superpower
sponsorship seemed to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the confusion.
It was harder to get boring things like projectors, network
connections, and mains power, than it was to get, in my case, a
strange bead-curtain monitor that cost $US100 per pixel.
Apart from the budgetary distortion, the sponsors did irreparable
damage to the opening sequence. Some events were too exclusive to
admit artists (which obviously infuriated those who didn't sneak in),
while others were marred by interminable speeches. While this made
the symposium proceedings look good, it destroyed what should have
been a binding social event. Participants fled in all directions,
then spent the rest of the week seeking the defining group encounter
that had been stolen from them by corporate puffery.
One curious aspect to the show is that almost nobody turned up. South
Hall was set up like a trade show, but it seemed to be always stuck at
five minutes to opening time. There were stallholders but no punters.
I was able to ride my bike around, without swerving for pedestrians.
Other places were popular though. Apart from Animalia, there were
patterns projected on the town hall which were very well received.
One night I saw about a thousand people sitting there with picnics and
whatnot, watching the projection meander through its cycle. It was
like Guy Fawkes in Wellington -- people love public art that lets them
gather and stare together.
Almost every artist I spoke too was dissatisfied. Most complained
about the lack of technical or curatorial support. Some mentioned the
scarcity of free wine. Not many mentioned the absence of audience,
but for my part, it added a tinge of futility. Staff members'
character flaws were discussed, and the liveliness of San Jose was
impugned. Not entirely fairly in my opinion, but I had a bicycle and
could get to things that others couldn't. One artist run space was
open until late each night, with new things every day. To the south
of downtown large bands played in Mexican bars. Danny has mentioned
the grand spectacle of Fry's San Jose. It was an OK city, like a
warmer, friendlier, Spanish speaking Christchurch. Anyway, these
conversations of complaint helped build artistic networks and the
sense of a shared project.
I don't actually think the organisers did too badly considering the
circumstances. There were too few workers, there were too many
sponsors, and there was a rather too optimistic schedule of logistics.
Perhaps South Hall was just a little too big and tent-like, and
perhaps San Jose's events calender was already too crowded with car
races and baseball for an art show to register public interest.
I can't help but compare ZeroOne to Prospect 2004, the next biggest
show I have been in. Prospect had 40 odd artists; it was shown in
actual real galleries with real gallery staff; it had one sponsor, and
perhaps two dozen dynamic artworks. It was the biggest NZ survey show
in years, and people have complained about it being too big, and about
it being wrong, and something about a donkey. ZeroOne had 5 times the
artists; no real galleries; too few real gallery workers; countless
sponsors; and every work was trying to be a technical novelty. It is
no wonder that it was wobbly. It was crazily ambitious. But for the
artists whose work was broken or improperly displayed due to a lack of
standard prerequisites, there is no consolation in that. I personally
spent a lot of time and money working on things that, it turned out,
were never going to work because the promised infrastructure did not
exist. If I think about it in a certain way, it seems worse than a
complete waste of effort, more like a swindle. But generally I am
quite pleased I went, to meet people, to see how these things work,
and to escape this bloody winter. Also, in keeping with the trade
show appearance, scouts from other festivals were there, and I have
had interesting enquiries. I was trying to resolve not to do any such
thing again, but I expect some of these invitations will put the lie
to that, and I will go to these festivals without expecting then to be
better organised or more artist friendly. This probably summarises
what I am trying to say in an actions-louder-than-words way. Despite
all the complaints, nobody really suffered and it was an interesting
trip.
> I also missed the Pacific Rim forum...any feedback on how it went?
I'd better start another email for this one.
douglas
_______________________________________________
Ada_list mailing list
Ada_list(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/425 - Release Date: 8/22/2006
I am on the trial of the Poly 1
computer.
I came upon one at MOTAT and have chosen it for my Kiwi Nuggets series in
PRODESiGN - so thanks for the leads in the discussion below. Have you found out
any more
since?
I have some other leads to follow - my interest is the design of the box itself
though the software story and commercial politics makes for greate
context.
Michael
>On Jul 31, 2005, at 22:13 PM Douglas Bagnall
wrote:
>Back in March, Melanie Swalwell
wrote:
>
>[http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/ada_list/2005-March/000833.html]
>
> > I'd be keen to hear some more about the Poly. Have you had
any
> >
responses?
>
>No. Well, almost none. Mark Williams at the Film Archive has
been
>investigating, and I suspect he is secretly planning an exhibition
on
>the
subject.
>
>Also, a few weeks ago, I was at the National Library and I looked
at
>1983 editions of Bits and Bytes magazine. Volume 1, Number 1 has
a
>feature article on the Poly vs Apple controversy. I wrote some
notes
>but have since forgotten their meaning, so the following may
be
>inaccurate.
>
>The Poly came out in 1981 or early 1982 and was intended
for
>educational use. Much was made of its facility for networking.
It
>seems that number of Polys could be wired together and kept in sync
by
>the teacher. Although this now sounds pedagogically quaint, a
few
>schools signed up to buy
them.
>
>In 1983 a networkable Poly cost $8090, but it appears the
complete
>teaching kit ran into the hundreds of thousands. In response to
the
>Poly, Apple reduced the price for schools of an Apple II from $4812
to
>$1200. Customs decided that Apple was "dumping", which seems to
have
>had a precise technical meaning in those days of import
regulation.
>They imposed a duty of $820, bringing the price up to $2020.
Apple
>changed their price to $2020, rather than pay the duty (Customs
could
>not complain, because their duty was defined as setting the
fair
>price).
>
>Money was valuable then. I recall you could get lollies valued
at
>fractions of a cent. $8090 would get you a largish McCahon or a
few
>houses in Wanaka, so even if Apple had stuck to their original
price,
>the Poly may not have taken off. Nevertheless, Polycorp was
blaming
>Apple, Customs, and the Government for their impending
failure.
>
>By way of comparison, here are prices for other computers
advertised
>in Bits and Bytes, vol 1, nos 1-3 (retail prices, some
educational
>discounts offered but not
revealed):
>
> ZX81
$199
> VIC20
$899
> Atari 400
$1295
> Atari 800
$2695
> Dick Smith 80
$1295
> BBC Micro
$1595
>
>The Apple II was designed in 1976. It was inferior to the 1982
BBC
>Micro in every possible regard, despite retailing at three times
the
>price. The IBM PC had been out for a couple of years, and the Mac
was
>due in January 1984. In these circumstances, $1200 actually
sounds
>like a reasonable price for the Apple II, but of course you don't
buy
>from Apple expecting value or
quality.
>
>The Poly used the 6809 processor. This was an advance on the
6502s
>and z80s that everyone else used, although it was admired as much
for
>conceptual elegance as increased performance. Unfortunately the
6809
>was a year or two late for the 8 bit era, and hence was mainly used
in
>idiosyncratic late machines like the Poly, the Dragon (Welsh) and
the
>Peach
(Japanese).
>
>Bits and Bytes mentions some system of layered video,
allowing
>graphics and text on the same screen. 21 colours could be used
at
>once, exactly 5 more than was
common.
>
>Its networking system appears to have involved an ad-hoc protocol
over
>a serial bus. As far as I can tell, the Poly system was
technically
>inferior to ethernet, which had had a decade of development, but
was
>was just then becoming widely available, with the first Apple
II
>ethernet card released in 1982. The reporter didn't seem
to
>understand much about
networking.
>
>It seems that what the Poly developers really cared about
was
>software, or rather, a particular mode of software use and
development
>that they imagined would suit schools. They thought that, with
the
>Poly, teachers could easily develop teaching software that could
be
>shared between schools. In 1983 only a tiny portion of the
curriculum
>had been Polyised, but they didn't think the rest was far
off.
>
>Polycorp's mistakes are obvious enough. They wasted effort
on
>irrelevant details, fighting rather than harnessing the flow
of
>commodification. If they had resisted the urge to reinvent
hardware
>and had targeted their software at (say) ethernet connected IBM
PCs,
>they might well have got it into a few more schools, and lasted as
a
>company for a few more years. There is something to be said
for
>waiting until the appropriate technology arrives, rather than
trying
>to force
it.
>
>I think this is a general and well learnt lesson of the last 25
years,
>not hindsight specific to Polycorp. Now most people have a
sensible,
>incremental approach to changing the world with computers.
For
>example, Vicki Smith and Karla Ptacek have had school
kids
>collaborating across the world, using generic hardware,
operating
>systems, and network protocols, with only a little bit of
specialised
>(buggy) software. And now there is Skolelinux[1] which perhaps
has
>similar aims to Polycorp, but actually saves schools money relative
to
>the alternatives, by borrowing as much as possible from existing
ideas
>and
technology.
>
>Apart from Bits and Bytes and Mark Williams, another source of
Poly
>information is
http://www.embassy.org.nz/computer/progeni.htm
>
>[1]http://www.skolelinux.org/portal/about/what
>
>
>douglas
apologies for x-posting to those of you
subscribed to rhizome; here's one person's
reflections on ISEA & zero one. some of the nz
artists who attended will be talking about their
experiences at the ADA Swaray in UpStage on
sunday 10 september, 9pm nz time,
http://upstage.org.nz:8084
h : )
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
From: Randall Packer <rpacker(a)zakros.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2006
Subject: Conference Report: Where Art Thou Net.Art? On Zero One/ ISEA 2006
+Commissioned by Rhizome.org+
Conference Report:
Where Art Thou Net.Art? On Zero One/ ISEA 2006
by Randall Packer
The long awaited Zero One/ ISEA 2006 took over San Jose, California, two
weeks ago in a sprawling, city-wide, mega-festival celebrating art and
technology in the heart of Silicon Valley. Much has already been written
about it, from daily observations in the local papers to a feature in the
New York Times, from the Blogosphere to the listservs. As one who has been
immersed in the new media scene since the late 1980s, I would like to
contribute a bit of historical context to the discussion: I offer my
commentary from a pre-millennial perspective, when the dream emerged in
the 1990s, during an era of optimism and promise, the dream of a new art
form that would side-step a mainstream art world mired in curators,
museums, galleries, objects, and old aesthetic issues. This was the dream
of Net.Art, a revolutionary new international movement of artists,
techies, and hackers, led in large part by the unassuming, unabashedly
ambitious new media curator from the Walker Art Center, Steve Dietz, now
director of Zero One.
These were heady times indeed. I met Steve in 1997 while I was in
residence at the San Jose Museum of Art. His research had brought him to
the holy Mecca of new media, Silicon Valley and the community of artists
in the Bay Area who had been working with new technologies since the dawn
of the personal computer. He wanted to meet Joel Slayton (who would later
become director of the 2006 ISEA Symposium), so I escorted him over to San
Jose State University where Joel is head of the CADRE Laboratory for New
Media.
Shortly thereafter, Steve launched two groundbreaking Net.Art exhibitions,
Shock of the View, and Beyond Interface, both of which brought together
leading Net artists exploding on the scene: Mark Amerika, Natalie
Bookchin, Masaki Fujihata, Ken Goldberg, Eduardo Kac, Jodi, Mark Napier,
Alexei Shulgin, to name just a few. It was a time of artistic
transformation, new paradigms, hypernovels, distributed authorship, and
globally extended, real-time, robotic, collective art. It seemed anything
was possible. By 1999, David Ross was Director of the San Francisco Museum
of Modern Art, Intel was pouring millions into Artmuseum.net, and there
seemed no end to the surging tide of experimental new media art. It was at
that time that early discussion began of an international festival of art
and technology in Silicon Valley. Beau Takahara founded the organization
Ground Zero, which would later become Zero One.
But with the new millennium the tides would turn: Natalie Bookchin
announced the death of Net.Art, the tech boom was a bust, and both David
Ross and Steve Dietz were ousted from their museum jobs for harboring
visionary aspirations in an economic downturn. So with the announcement
that the Zero One Festival and the ISEA Symposium would launch in 2006 in
San Jose, with Steve Dietz at the helm, it was something like the Phoenix
rising from the ashes.
And it rose with a bang! "Seven Days of Art and Interconnectivity," with
over 200 participating artists, an international symposium, city-wide
public installations, exhibitions, concerts, performances, pubic
spectacles, performative-live-distributed cinema, wi-fi interventions,
container culture, skateboard orchestras, digital dance, sine wave
surfing, datamatics, surveillance balloons, a pigeon blog, the
squirrel-driven Karaoke Ice Battle on wheels, and to top it off a
nostalgic, bombastic blast-from-the-past from Survival Research
Laboratories. The 13th International Symposium on Electronic Art
Exhibition took over the sprawling South Hall at the Convention Center.
Its themes: Interactive City, Pacific Rim, Transvergence, Edgy Products,
and on and on- spoke of enough technology to wire a third world nation.
And so, with all the buzz, and the sheer largesse of this ambitious
festival of new media, I couldnít help ponder how it was connected to the
original Net.Art dream, when a new art form arose from networking every
computer on every desktop and engaging a global audience in new, pervasive
ways that became possible as technology was increasingly ubiquitous and
transparent. The Net.Art dream would call into question our relationship
to the new media, as art has always aspired, to critique its impact on our
lives, our culture, our communications systems, our relationships, our
view of the world, our own changing humanity in a technological world. I
couldnít help but to wonder, what exactly happened to that dream, once
driven by a small fringe core of artists, writers, thinkers, and curators,
and now practiced by literally thousands of techno-artists emerging from
every university and art school across the planet, many of whom converged
in San Jose for Zero One / ISEA.
The first thing that came to mind was that art and technology no longer
exists on the fringe of the artworld, and in fact, the demarcation between
art and engineering has blurred considerably. At Zero One you couldnít
tell the artist from the engineer (Billy Kl¸ver must be rolling in his
grave). Joseph Beuysís notions of social sculpture, or Allan Kaprowís
participatory Happenings now inform the new systems of art that have
dissolved the distinction between artist and non-artist, between performer
and audience. For example, the Interactive City theme, organized by Eric
Paulos, sought "urban-scale projects for which the city is not merely a
palimpsest of our desires but an active participant in their formation."
In the installations of Jennifer Steinkamp at the San Jose Museum of Art,
I saw suburban moms taking snapshots of their kids in strollers bathed in
layers of colored light. In the Listening Post by Mark Hansen and Ben
Rubin, also at SJMA, the artists orchestrated chat room discussion, in
real-time, from around the globe. Etoyís mesmerizing Mission Eternity
involved a trailer installation parked outside SJMA in the downtown Plaza,
which investigated personal data storage for the afterlife (ashes to
ashes, bits to bits).
There was good art and there was bad art, but everywhere you turned there
was art or something like art permeating the physical spaces of downtown
San Jose (including the mobile light rail cars and the dome of City Hall),
as well as the invisible ether of the airwaves, from bluetooth networks to
cellular tours (the latest rage). There was very little time to spend with
any particular work. Everyone was engaged in high gear, moving from one
venue to the next. In Bill Violaís keynote address, he made the prescient
remark, "artists are jumping into a train for a high speed ride while
theyíre still laying the tracks ahead."
The hyper-adrenalin flow resonated in the on-line commentary as well,
where, if you read the considerable Blog chatter surrounding Zero One/
ISEA, you would find that the experience became concentrated on sheer
movement and the social networking that reigns supreme at all conferences
and festivals.
And so what about the dream of Net.Art? Those of us who have spent
countless hours, in the past decade, bemoaning the loss of the dream could
now say that the dream had been realized (for better or for worse). I
heard artist friends complain about the democratization of Net.Art, the
selling out of Net.Art, the "mainstreamization" of Net.Art, and other
remarks I wonít mention here, and yet, I think that we would all agree
that the uber-dream of Net.Art -- to dismantle the precious nature of the
object, an art that would defy the walls of the museum, that would, as
expressed in Roy Ascottís Museum of A Third Kind, reject the notion of the
physical museum space altogether, the dream of Net.Art as a force that
would rewire the experience of art, a "fantasy beyond control" according
to Lynn Hershman -- had become a living, breathing reality in San Jose for
those compressed seven days.
And if you turned to the Blogosphere there were plenty of critics: Patrick
Lichty wrote, "There are many topics, like locative media, data mapping,
ecologies, and so on that are being explored. On a rhetorical level I have
to ask whether these are the right ones and why these are the ones that
are compelling to us." And on the CRUMB list, I found an insightful
comment by Molly Hankwitz, who said, "I think the process of interaction
must be done very carefully. The worst thing is the mainstreaming of
situationism into a middle class playground."
Finally, I turn to Mark Amerika, one of the original dreamers, for a
closing observation: "Net art is in many ways still the most alive and
accessed art movement ever to NOT be absorbed into the commercial art
world- and that's fantastic!" Perhaps the success of Zero One / ISEA was
in its commitment to concentrate on experimental media art, to emphasize
media artís inclusive, democratic, and participatory nature, and lastly,
that contemporary art must embrace the new technologies - shamelessly,
fearlessly, defiantly. Net.Art may be dead, but Net Art 2.0 is alive and
kicking.
Randall Packer is a widely-exhibited artist, composer, educator, and
scholar. He is Assistant Professor of Multimedia at American University in
Washington, DC, and the author of Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual
Reality.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--
____________________________________________________________
helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
helen(a)creative-catalyst.com
http://www.creative-catalyst.comhttp://www.avatarbodycollision.orghttp://www.upstage.org.nzhttp://www.writerfind.com/hjamieson.htm
____________________________________________________________
Hello. Introducing myself, I am Matt Middleton and I maintain the Crude web-site.
I have almost entirely shifted my focus from manual forms of audio distribution and production to digital modes. I can now easily distribute music up to 100 MB at a time through a third party file host.
I make futuristic, experimental electronic music that can be used for gaming, digital video, radio, advertising, incidental musics, remote performance and web-based digital archives.
listen here:
http://crude.co.nz/NOISE_SUITE.htm
here:
http://crude.co.nz/Audio%20Suite.htm
and here:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/Crudecasts
with ambiguous pseudo-telepathic sincerity,
matt middleton
IP adress
---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7
Answers: Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people