I am teaching online classes which will be a part of rhizome entering into online education. Would you be interested in taking the following classes? What aspects of them are the most/least compelling? [email protected]
Why New Media Isn't New: A History
A look at the basics and beginnings of net.art: what is interactivity/what is net.art?, a history of the internet; a history of experimental film and video in relation to net.art, net.art in the mainstream.
Net.art Investigations
A more focused look at specific aspects of net.art such as: identity, authenticity, simultaneity, globalism, hybridity, narrative.
Net.art Theory+Practice
A look at theoretical explorations surrounding technical and aesthetic aspects of net.art such as: the use of flash, web cams, information systems/archiving, design's relationship to society and art, sound.
Net.art Exhibitions
A look at the history of net.art exhibitions including: a history of internet based works in exhibitions, discussions into the form of net.art in relation to exhibition context, texts by and discussions with curators.
Classes are discussion and research based. A topic is contextualized each week; students discuss it and then do research based on it in assignment form. Final projects are encouraged to be net.art works.
laurie hb [email protected]
your thoughts on upcoming online classes
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
T. Whid replied:
> i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or not
I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
Ivan
> Net.art Theory+Practice
> A look at theoretical explorations surrounding technical and aesthetic
aspects of net.art such as: the use of flash, web cams, information
systems/archiving, design's relationship to society and art, sound.
- eh bien, on n'est pas sortis de l'auberge !
- eh good, gimmie one more beer for the road !
++ sound : PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE !
to be continued Kassel Julie 2002
–
OG
-/ drillSounding Toccata Pan Pan /-
>I am teaching online classes which will be a part of rhizome
>entering into online education. Would you be interested in taking
>the following classes? What aspects of them are the most/least
>compelling? [email protected]
>
hey laurie,
i wouldn't take any of these classes. i would guess that not many on
RAW would. many of the people on this list have been involved with
this stuff for quite a while and many are probably on the syllabus.
this will be posted to digest and you'll probably get a better
response. perhaps rhizome admin can fit it into net art news too. it
is net art newsworthy imo.
i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
what would i be interested in? technical classes.
PHP, perl, apache admin, actionscript, 3D modeling and animation,
Flash, Director and there's probably more. if rhizome could combine
these classes with discounts on software and/or books that would be
killer.
good luck.
>Why New Media Isnit New: A History
>A look at the basics and beginnings of net.art: what is
>interactivity/what is net.art?, a history of the internet; a history
>of experimental film and video in relation to net.art, net.art in
>the mainstream.
>
>Net.art Investigations
>A more focused look at specific aspects of net.art such as:
>identity, authenticity, simultaneity, globalism, hybridity,
>narrative.
>
>Net.art Theory+Practice
>A look at theoretical explorations surrounding technical and
>aesthetic aspects of net.art such as: the use of flash, web cams,
>information systems/archiving, designis relationship to society and
>art, sound.
>
>Net.art Exhibitions
>A look at the history of net.art exhibitions including: a history of
>internet based works in exhibitions, discussions into the form of
>net.art in relation to exhibition context, texts by and discussions
>with curators.
>
>Classes are discussion and research based. A topic is contextualized
>each week; students discuss it and then do research based on it in
>assignment form. Final projects are encouraged to be net.art works.
>
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
I kind of agree with what TWhid said- none of these classes would be of
any interest to the people on
Raw. I would love to see these classes opened up to more traditional
students who might not know
anything about net.art and want to be interested, but my guess is that
the cost is going to restrict that.
IE, the only people who would take these classes are college students,
who are a) Poor and b) already
taking classes. And I assume there is no option for certification from
these classes? So the only reason
to take them would be general knowledge. In this case, the knowledge I
would be looking for is, as
Mr.Whid said, is in the realm of practical applications, like classes on
flash, perl, c++ etc. I am not as
ambitious to expect discounts on software, although I guess it should be
said that it's a really weird
move for rhizome to go into teaching in order to make money. Because we
all know how much money
art education generates.
On the classes themselves, I honestly do hope they are succesful,
because they would take up a slack
that is gaping, as far as I can tell, in educational institutions across
the board. But I do hope it is more
than the usual suspects, more than a "History of Art You Already Know
About And How It Relates
to Nam June Paik" type of thing. I'd have to see the syllabus before I
could comment for sure.
I always wondered why Rhizome didn't open up a scholarship fund. It
seems so easy and neccesary. If
you paint, draw, sing, make sculpture, etc, you can get money for
college. If you work online, you can't.
Unless you're Canadian.
-e.
[email protected] wrote:
>I am teaching online classes which will be a part of rhizome entering into online education. Would you be interested in taking the following classes? What aspects of them are the most/least compelling? [email protected]
>
>Why New Media Isn't New: A History
>A look at the basics and beginnings of net.art: what is interactivity/what is net.art?, a history of the internet; a history of experimental film and video in relation to net.art, net.art in the mainstream.
>
>Net.art Investigations
>A more focused look at specific aspects of net.art such as: identity, authenticity, simultaneity, globalism, hybridity, narrative.
>
>Net.art Theory+Practice
>A look at theoretical explorations surrounding technical and aesthetic aspects of net.art such as: the use of flash, web cams, information systems/archiving, design's relationship to society and art, sound.
>
>Net.art Exhibitions
>A look at the history of net.art exhibitions including: a history of internet based works in exhibitions, discussions into the form of net.art in relation to exhibition context, texts by and discussions with curators.
>
>Classes are discussion and research based. A topic is contextualized each week; students discuss it and then do research based on it in assignment form. Final projects are encouraged to be net.art works.
>
>laurie hb [email protected]
>
>+ bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
>-> Rhizome.org
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that all
will be seen.
marc
>
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
>
> T. Whid replied:
> > i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> > 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> > is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> > whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> > describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
>
> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
not
> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> Ivan
>
> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>I'm sure that someone somewhere will have to codify and organize these objects into discreet units that are part of a specific shell.</P>
<P>The net.art shell is good for at least 6 months.</P>
<P>Sebastian<BR><BR></P></DIV>>I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that all
<DIV></DIV>>will be seen.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>marc
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > T. Whid replied:
<DIV></DIV>> > > i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
<DIV></DIV>> > > 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
<DIV></DIV>> > > is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
<DIV></DIV>> > > whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
<DIV></DIV>> > > describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
<DIV></DIV>> > favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
<DIV></DIV>>not
<DIV></DIV>> > I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
<DIV></DIV>> > Ivan
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
<DIV></DIV>> > -> Rhizome.org
<DIV></DIV>> > -> post: [email protected]
<DIV></DIV>> > -> questions: [email protected]
<DIV></DIV>> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
<DIV></DIV>> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
<DIV></DIV>> > +
<DIV></DIV>> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
<DIV></DIV>> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>+ bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
<DIV></DIV>>-> Rhizome.org
<DIV></DIV>>-> post: [email protected]
<DIV></DIV>>-> questions: [email protected]
<DIV></DIV>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
<DIV></DIV>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
<DIV></DIV>>+
<DIV></DIV>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
<DIV></DIV>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM501601/40'>Click Here</a><br></html>
In 1991 I ran a BBS (bulletin board) called UK ArtNet. It was funded by the
Arts Council. OK, I got the words the wrong way round, but I claim to be the
originator :)
>
> I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that all
> will be seen.
>
> marc
>
>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
>>
>> T. Whid replied:
>>> i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
>>> 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
>>> is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
>>> whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
>>> describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
>>
>> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
>> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
> not
>> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
>> Ivan
>>
>> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
>> -> Rhizome.org
>> -> post: [email protected]
>> -> questions: [email protected]
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>>
>
>
>
> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
mmm,
So someone will judge it all via historical context. Let's make sure then t=
hat it involves you and myself and many others..not just the suspects…
marc
I'm sure that someone somewhere will have to codify and organize these ob=
jects into discreet units that are part of a specific shell.
The net.art shell is good for at least 6 months.
Sebastian
>I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that=
all
>will be seen.
>
>marc
>
>
> >
> > > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes=
> >
> > T. Whid replied:
> > > i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> > > 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.a=
rt
> > > is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> > > whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to=
> > > describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
> >
> > Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you=
in
> > favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or=
>not
> > I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> > Ivan
> >
> > + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolertha=
nne
> > -> Rhizome.org
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.p=
hp3
> >
>
>
>
>+ bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne=
>-> Rhizome.org
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3=
—————————————————————————=
—
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
Hi Ivan,
You can claim it alright, you probaly were. I remember the name as well. I
used to frequent it myself many times. I don't think I was suggesting to be
the originator of BBS in the Uk. In fact, I left all the comp 'Wildcat'
stuff to Heath - I was the one who shoved a ot of the content in, that's my
best quality really, ideas, research and content. It was the same for radio
station stuff, always been good at finding content. Was that the Originator
or the Terminator? :-)
much respect marc
> In 1991 I ran a BBS (bulletin board) called UK ArtNet. It was funded by
the
> Arts Council. OK, I got the words the wrong way round, but I claim to be
the
> originator :)
> >
> > I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that
all
> > will be seen.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
> >>
> >> T. Whid replied:
> >>> i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> >>> 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> >>> is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> >>> whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> >>> describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
> >>
> >> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you
in
> >> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
> > not
> >> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> +
bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> >> -> Rhizome.org
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> > -> Rhizome.org
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
> >
>
> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
what is this net.art you are talking about ?
la Victoria Cross ?
–
OG
music !
—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
>
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
>
> T. Whid replied:
> > i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> > 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> > is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> > whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> > describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
>
> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
not
> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> Ivan
I remember back in 91, I was creating a lot of work that involved strategic
and political art, that used technology in the streets. Pirate radio, BBS
systems and all kinds of activist art-antics. Then, it was bulletin boards
that we all used to communicate through in relation to collecting
information that one could not access via traditional channels in the UK.
Some of the names of groups who had BBS's were 'Fastbreeder', run by Matt
Fuller & others, 'New World Disorder', loads more and the one I was running
with Heath Bunting 'Cybercafe', I was co-sysop AKA 'myrth' in 92, a name
that evolved into 'concrete myrth', my street art alias. I was the one who
used to fill up the file's section with radical text's that were anarchist
in nature, with all kinds of writings from various new writers from allover
the world. In fact it was Heath who patiently taught me a lot of computer
stuff. Which I am very grateful for…
When the Internet craze kicked into gear, everything suddenly went manic,
conferences were happening everywhere. I sneaked into a lot of them because
I did not belong to any grouip or organization at the time. The most noted
one for personal reasons was the 'next 5 minutes'. Suddenly I started
meeting new people who had used the networking revolution via the Internet,
successfully and radically, it all seemed pretty positive. At last I
thought, people can now meet each other on a level platform without borders
from whatever background, creed etc (what a chump I was, so innocent).
People were exchanging ideas, exploring conceptual and digital missions/non
missions and ideas in relation to finding new ways of using new technologies
that had recently become so available. Then suddenly, it all changed. The
movement took on the form of falling into the same trap as feminism did,
preaching to a type of person, a class of person but leaving behind the very
people who really needed its support. Those who did not have the comps and
contacts via the platform that many got at colleges and institutions got
left behind. Suddenly debates became centralized via insitutionally promoted
concepts, causing a default of seperation.
Many people from these academic environments began taking over what was at
the time a very anarchist affair. They forged strong contacts with each
other, cyber artists/activists and collecting names of so called radicals
that mainly existed within institutions. Out of this cultural revolution
which had much more to do with networking than creativity, appeared the
'names' that we now know. They know this, without the help of many of these
international institutions they would not be here now. Some are great, some
are not so great. But what always got me confused was the hypocrisy of it
all, listening to these people at conferences questioning various factors of
limited freedoms whilst they themselves would be, and did become an elite
through position and circumstance. Whilst I, myself was being snubbed
because I was not interested in talking the same tribal language.
I remember talking to Heath, who was very much involved with it all at the
time. He said 'You know all this is bullshit don't you?' I said 'I'd love to
have the chance to know'.
Heath and I are best friends and I have known him for many years from the
early days before all this net stuff started. We used to do loads of
projects together and he was the least snotty of them. He seemed to
understand understood the language used by graduates and what was actually
going on, and how pretentious a lot of the hype really was. Through him I
met many met many dudes of whom I would not of met because of my non
institutional links. We meet every now and talk about all this and politics,
struggles in the world and how to conceptually create radical projects to
get around certain issues. These days I am less likely to rant against
insitutions because I have had to change my argument, for as we all know, it
is not al black and white.
I remember arguing with Mark Napier about all this stuff and thinking to
myself 'he's ok really', why am I arguing with him?
Due to managing to create a business that has funded many of our projects
since furtherfield started in 97, plus a few bits of helpful cash from
sponsors and funders in more recent times. By forming furtherfield with Ruth
Catlow, we have managed to create a place on the net that reflects our own
creative ideas on our own terms. Forming an artist collective that deals
with the issues that I mentioned above, thus being interested in those who
are different from the maelstrom of accepted digerati. Now we are
potentially part of the Digerati yet still aware that we are not going to be
officially accepted, which is ok. We have taught many people IT applications
in London who in return helped furtherfield. For us collaboration sometimes
says more than a work of art does, or a clever conceptual net artwork does.
For us it is the function of things that excites us, what it is doing. We
have never been interested in people's cv's and whether they belong to an
institution or not, we consider people's ideas/work on its own terms.
Things have changed, but I will never forget how snotty a lot of these
people were towards those who questioned their intentions. Now I work with a
lot of these people who were then too busy getting known, using 'Internet
mythologies' and the disguise of collective digital freedoms. Fair enough, I
suppose but at who's expense? I have always been keen to take culture out of
the domain of institutions, placing it in the arena of everyday life, thus
actually trying to communicate rather than getting caught up in knots, using
concepts that end up in someone's 'side notes' marked 'clever'. Forming
projects/art for people not 'theorists, artists, intellectuals'.
What I find very interesting now is that it seems that there is some genuine
shift, probably because the secret could not be contained forever. A shift
in respect that there is no one way to create a net art piece, thus freeing
up control over creativity and who actually creates it. It seems that we are
all in the same boat all of a sudden, trying to survive as a varied and
multi-dimensioned collective on mutual terms does seem to be here now. I do
genuinely feel that it is changing for the better, real liberation is
talking place.
marc garrett
>
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
>
> T. Whid replied:
> > i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> > 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> > is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> > whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> > describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
>
> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you in
> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
not
> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> Ivan
>
> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
>In 1991 I rack …
>but it is a long story.
that's funny, in 1991 I ran, but it ended up to be a pretty short story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003
In 1991 I rack …
but it is a long story.
–
OG
> In 1991 I ran a BBS (bulletin board) called UK ArtNet. It was funded by
the
> Arts Council. OK, I got the words the wrong way round, but I claim to be
the
> originator :)
> >
> > I believe that the dark days of 'Official' net art has gone now and that
all
> > will be seen.
> >
> > marc
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: your thoughts on upcoming online classes
> >>
> >> T. Whid replied:
> >>> i'm curious tho, are these classes going to deal with only the
> >>> 'official' net.art (cosic, shulgin, jody, lialina, etc). imo, net.art
> >>> is a very specific thing relating to a small group of artists,
> >>> whereas net art (no dot) is the generic phrase most people use to
> >>> describe art made using networks, the web, the internet etc.
> >>
> >> Im interested in this concept of official net art v. net art. Are you
in
> >> favour of there being an official net art and an unofficial one, or
> > not
> >> I cant tell from this post. Or maybe probably you dont care?
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> +
bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> >> -> Rhizome.org
> >> -> post: [email protected]
> >> -> questions: [email protected]
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> > -> Rhizome.org
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
> >
>
> + bostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthannewyorkbostoniscoolerthanne
> -> Rhizome.org
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/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.php3
>
:]
Here is a complementary idea to think about from Blackwell's When Systemizers Meet Empathizers: Universalism and the Prosthetic Imagination from a section titled From augmentation to prosthesis — when engineers romanticize dysfunction.
"…a technical vision originally conceived as an opportunity for human augmentation may shift to one of human prosthesis.
[…]
An extreme prosthetic vision is exhibited through sustained interest in … the field of brain-computer interface research (BCI), where researchers appear to be inspired by science fiction cyborg fantasies of human augmentations such as data storage brain implants or 'jacking-in' to the internet from direct brain connections (in William Gibsonís cyber-punk literature, found in Johnny Mnemonic (1981) and Neuromancer (1984) respectively). For BCI researchers, the ultimate prosthetic target would be a person who has no voluntary muscle movement at all. This frightening condition, known as 'locked-in syndrome' (LIS), has been dramatized in cases such as The Diving Bell and Butterfly.
[…]
Locked-in syndrome provides a medical condition where the user is sufficiently deficient in normal human capabilities to become a well-defined engineering component, able to be connected to a computer via a relatively standardized interface."
INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE REVIEWS, Vol. 35 No. 3–4, 2010 pg. 338
http://www.iversity.org/research_projects/1376/overview - a reference to dark side of the metaphor…but at certain point I have to agree with this thesis: "It would be unthinkable for a film (or art, music or design) student to be as ignorant as HCI researchers about where their ideas had come from." Unfortunately that's the only one I'd support without hesitation.