Rhizome commission makes it to Digg's front page

It was also mentioned on the radio show "marketplace" last night.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/12/07/PM200512079.html

On 12/8/05 3:59 PM, "T.Whid" <[email protected]> wrote:

> iTunes Signature Maker
>
> http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker
>
> right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:
> http://digg.com/
>
> impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)
>
> good job all around!
>
> –
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

Very nice. Not that I'm much interested in what my signature might be
(it's still churning away at this time) but the app is not – as I
had expected – a desktop app, but a downloadable applet. Doing
something in the innards of my machine that I'd generally only expect
or want a desktop app to do. As such blurring the transition between
the desktop and the internet,

Old news, I suppose, (I'm in the habit of regurgitating and
remunching old news) But lately, in thinking about moving some of
my .net projects to the desktop, I've again become interesting in the
latest web developments.

And I've actually been reading articles. Like this one: http://
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-
web-20.html?page=1

and this: http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/
000385.php

And yes, also this one: http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html

By the way, Safari (2.0.2) crashed on me. So I still don't know what
my audio signature is.

Geert Dekkers
http://nznl.com


On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:59 PM, T.Whid wrote:

> iTunes Signature Maker
>
> http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker
>
> right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:
> http://digg.com/
>
> impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)
>
> good job all around!
>
> –
> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

Hi Geert,
Good articles - thanks for sharing.
Staying on thread … Jason Freeman's new piece is super cool and anelegant application of his previous technological feats. Iespecially admire how sophisticated and yet accessible his work is toa wide audience == pop.net. I regret that I only listen to one songall the time, over and over. My signature sounds exactly like "BlackDog".
Regarding the programming stuff, IMHO and for all its worth, I useJJAJWFXPSS. Basically, this is javascript/java applet java windowed (or)fullscreen xml python server side.
Here is why: Its not a big leap to make a Java app run as an applet,windowed or full screen, it runs on most platforms if not as anapplication then most likely as an applet within a browser, the filetransfer can (somewhat easily) take place through sockets, http,locally or as a resource (depending on whether its an app, applet ofcourse). Also its established, free and well supported. I use Pythonon the server side because its the best language ever, I wish it wasbetter suited for the browser.
I have a slew of new pop.net coming down the pike that makes good useof JJAJWFXPSS.
happy,jason van andenwww.smileproject.com








> On 12/10/05, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:> > Very nice. Not that I'm much interested in what my signature might be (it's> > still churning away at this time) but the app is not – as I had expected –> > a desktop app, but a downloadable applet. Doing something in the innards of> > my machine that I'd generally only expect or want a desktop app to do. As> > such blurring the transition between the desktop and the internet,> >> > Old news, I suppose, (I'm in the habit of regurgitating and remunching old> > news) But lately, in thinking about moving some of my .net projects to the> > desktop, I've again become interesting in the latest web developments.> >> > And I've actually been reading articles. Like this one:> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1> >> > and this:> > http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php> >> > And yes, also this one:> > http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html> >> > By the way, Safari (2.0.2) crashed on me. So I still don't know what my> > audio signature is.> >> >> > Geert Dekkers> >> > http://nznl.com> >> >> >> > On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:59 PM, T.Whid wrote:> >> > iTunes Signature Maker> >> > http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker> >> > right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:> > http://digg.com/> >> > impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)> >> > good job all around!> >> > –> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>> >> > +> > -> post: [email protected]> > -> questions: [email protected]> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > +> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> >>

On Dec 10, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Hi Geert,
>
> Good articles - thanks for sharing.
>
> Staying on thread … Jason Freeman's new piece is super cool and an
> elegant application of his previous technological feats. I
> especially admire how sophisticated and yet accessible his work is to
> a wide audience == pop.net. I regret that I only listen to one song
> all the time, over and over. My signature sounds exactly like "Black
> Dog".
>
> Regarding the programming stuff, IMHO and for all its worth, I use
> JJAJWFXPSS.

This can't really be a name – can it??

Of course I looked – http://www.google.com/search?
q=JJAJWFXPSS&sa=N&tab=iw

The thing that seems to me to be attractive about AJAX is the
possibility to save on client - server trips. Apparently, the
javascript does the calls to the server in a separate layer, and
passes it on to the client interface throught the DOM. Which is as
fast as saying "document.getElementById
("some_id").firstChild.nodeValue".

Not that I use this sort of stuff (at all!) in my net.art work.
Sadly. I have yet to find a way to convey what I want to say in
software.


> Basically, this is javascript/java applet java windowed
> full screen xml python server side.
>
> Here is why: Its not a big leap to make a Java app run as an applet,
> windowed or full screen, it runs on most platforms if not as an
> application then most likely as an applet within a browser, the file
> transfer can (somewhat easily) take place through sockets, http,
> locally or as a resource (depending on whether its an app, applet of
> course). Also its established, free and well supported. I use Python
> on the server side because its the best language ever, I wish it was
> better suited for the browser.
>
> I have a slew of new pop.net coming down the pike that makes good use
> of JJAJWFXPSS.
>
> happy,
> jason van anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
> On 12/10/05, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Very nice. Not that I'm much interested in what my signature might
>> be (it's
>> still churning away at this time) but the app is not – as I had
>> expected –
>> a desktop app, but a downloadable applet. Doing something in the
>> innards of
>> my machine that I'd generally only expect or want a desktop app to
>> do. As
>> such blurring the transition between the desktop and the internet,
>>
>> Old news, I suppose, (I'm in the habit of regurgitating and
>> remunching old
>> news) But lately, in thinking about moving some of my .net
>> projects to the
>> desktop, I've again become interesting in the latest web
>> developments.
>>
>> And I've actually been reading articles. Like this one:
>> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-
>> is-web-20.html?page=1
>>
>> and this:
>> http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php
>>
>> And yes, also this one:
>> http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html
>>
>> By the way, Safari (2.0.2) crashed on me. So I still don't know
>> what my
>> audio signature is.
>>
>>
>> Geert Dekkers
>>
>> http://nznl.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:59 PM, T.Whid wrote:
>>
>> iTunes Signature Maker
>>
>> http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker
>>
>> right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:
>> http://digg.com/
>>
>> impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)
>>
>> good job all around!
>>
>> –
>> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>>
>> +
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
>> 29.php
>>
>
>
> –
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com

I know of only one person in the entire world that uses JJAJWFXPSS, atthe moment. You bring up a pretty interesting question though: ifsomething cannot be found on Google, does it exist?
I agree that AJAX looks pretty sweet - on the surface it looks likeSOAP repackaged. Since you are apparently familiar with .Net, SOAPmay have less of a learning curve on the server side.
I wrote something that did something similar to all of this a whileago to refine the back and fourth between client and server. I used ahidden frame with a form in it which brokered communication usingjavascript. You can see this in action at www.q2ware.com. It onlyworks in IE though. No AJAX or SOAP required, still pretty cleanthough.
jason van andenwww.smileproject.com







On 12/10/05, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:>> On Dec 10, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Jason Van Anden wrote:>> > Hi Geert,> >> > Good articles - thanks for sharing.> >> > Staying on thread … Jason Freeman's new piece is super cool and an> > elegant application of his previous technological feats. I> > especially admire how sophisticated and yet accessible his work is to> > a wide audience == pop.net. I regret that I only listen to one song> > all the time, over and over. My signature sounds exactly like "Black> > Dog".> >> > Regarding the programming stuff, IMHO and for all its worth, I use> > JJAJWFXPSS.>> This can't really be a name – can it??>> Of course I looked – http://www.google.com/search?> q=JJAJWFXPSS&sa=N&tab=iw>> The thing that seems to me to be attractive about AJAX is the> possibility to save on client - server trips. Apparently, the> javascript does the calls to the server in a separate layer, and> passes it on to the client interface throught the DOM. Which is as> fast as saying "document.getElementById> ("some_id").firstChild.nodeValue".>> Not that I use this sort of stuff (at all!) in my net.art work.> Sadly. I have yet to find a way to convey what I want to say in> software.>>> > Basically, this is javascript/java applet java windowed> > full screen xml python server side.> >> > Here is why: Its not a big leap to make a Java app run as an applet,> > windowed or full screen, it runs on most platforms if not as an> > application then most likely as an applet within a browser, the file> > transfer can (somewhat easily) take place through sockets, http,> > locally or as a resource (depending on whether its an app, applet of> > course). Also its established, free and well supported. I use Python> > on the server side because its the best language ever, I wish it was> > better suited for the browser.> >> > I have a slew of new pop.net coming down the pike that makes good use> > of JJAJWFXPSS.> >> > happy,> > jason van anden> > www.smileproject.com> >> > On 12/10/05, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:> >> Very nice. Not that I'm much interested in what my signature might> >> be (it's> >> still churning away at this time) but the app is not – as I had> >> expected –> >> a desktop app, but a downloadable applet. Doing something in the> >> innards of> >> my machine that I'd generally only expect or want a desktop app to> >> do. As> >> such blurring the transition between the desktop and the internet,> >>> >> Old news, I suppose, (I'm in the habit of regurgitating and> >> remunching old> >> news) But lately, in thinking about moving some of my .net> >> projects to the> >> desktop, I've again become interesting in the latest web> >> developments.> >>> >> And I've actually been reading articles. Like this one:> >> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-> >> is-web-20.html?page=1> >>> >> and this:> >> http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php> >>> >> And yes, also this one:> >> http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html> >>> >> By the way, Safari (2.0.2) crashed on me. So I still don't know> >> what my> >> audio signature is.> >>> >>> >> Geert Dekkers> >>> >> http://nznl.com> >>> >>> >>> >> On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:59 PM, T.Whid wrote:> >>> >> iTunes Signature Maker> >>> >> http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker> >>> >> right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:> >> http://digg.com/> >>> >> impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)> >>> >> good job all around!> >>> >> –> >> <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

> And I've actually been reading articles. Like this one:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.h
tml?page=1

> and this:
http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php

> And yes, also this one:
http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html


Thanks for the articles, Geert. Here is a related post I wrote yesterday to
the Poetics list.

here's a shockwave sonic piece called 'granular synthesizer' by chris savage
from manchester: http://www.japanesefreeware.com/granular

i know altavista permits sound search, like google, yahoo and altavista
permit image search. in 'granular synthesizer', you type in the sound you
want and 'granular synthesizer' retrieves it from the net and then processes
and plays it in configurable ways. it creates an unusual perspective on
common sounds, on what we hear, on the natural, the 'musical', the digital
and 'art'.

it's an example of a type of net art that is becoming more widely practiced
than it has been over the last ten years. 'granular synthesizer' lets the
player type in what they want to hear, retrieves the sound, and also lets
players store their wee creations on the net for others to hear. the ability
to create works that retrieve and store all sorts of different types of
information from all sorts of different information sources on the net is a
bit easier than it once was (via languages like PHP and Actionscript) and,
also, the data feeds are more numerous than they once were. altavista has
video search now, and i see google has it in beta. google also supplies
"API"s (application programming interfaces) which allow programmers to query
the Google databases and retrieve search results. such APIs are more
prevelant than they were. i gather Flickr also provides an API that will let
programmers create applications that search and load Flickr images.

so what?

i think we're starting to see what net art will be in twenty years. it has
been commonplace to say that net art works should take advantage of the
properties of the internet in deeply artistic ways, ie, net art works should
require a net connection and do very funky shit with that connection. the
response to such a prescription has been understandably resistant. because
it *is* a prescription, but also because it's been very tough to create such
works and the data feeds have been relatively few.

there hasn't been a whole lot of net art that does very funky shit with the
internet connection. most net art could as well be experienced on CD without
a net connection. and, sure, that's net art. i am not out to argue that it
isn't. but i do think that the edge of net art will continue to be strongly
involved with trying to do funky shit with an internet connection. why?
well, that's a crucial distinguishing characteristic of net art versus other
types of art, and it's usually the case that the unique characteristics of a
medium or a person or whatever are crucial to the entity's identity, to the
key strengths and weaknesses.

being able to query and retrieve information from the net, in net art works,
can potentially lend them greater relevance to the moment, and also give
them greater range and scope as works of art and/or as intelligences of some
sort. when we ourselves respond to the moment, we bring to it a vast sea of
memory and experience, of possible interpretation and response. clearly the
Internet has become a vast sea of memory, of text, image, sound, video, etc.

but how does one bring this information to bear in a relevant and exciting
way to the moment?

it's starting to be the case that net art works at least have increasing
access to the information stored on the internet. when we ourselves respond
to the moment, we not only need access to our own memories, but we need to
be able to search our memories for relevant information and bring those to
bear on our response in a relevant way. that sort of intelligence seems a
long way off concerning net art works.

however, you can sort of see that one of the more exciting directions of net
art–including literary strains of net art–will be the funky shit it does
with an internet connection concerning how it retrieves information/memory
of many types from around the net and brings that to bear on the moment. we
will glimpse an 'evolution' of approaches to art and intelligence through
this work.

ja
http://vispo.com