A. Andreas, given name Andreas Maria Jacobs (NL 1956) is an artist, writer and editor, studied physics and mathematics at the University of Amsterdam NL, electronic and computer music at the State University Utrecht NL and holds a BSc. in software engineering, University of Applied Sciences - The Hague NL.

Among his works are
- La Resocialiste - Edicion Internacional 2010,
- Ors Vibranter Wurld 2008,
- Creative Resistance - New Media as Soft Arms 2007,
- Semantic Disturbances 2005,
- Fiat Lux 2005 and
- Gerausche aus der Helle 1989.

His pieces have appeared in
- Electronic Literature Collection Volume 2, 2010
- /seconds issue #11, 2009
- Hyperhiz #5, Winter 2008
- Web del Sol, eScene #34 2008
- New River Journal (Fall, 2007)
- Nictoglobe (Volume 14 Issue 3, 2005)


As online agent for the Brahamian Intelligence Service internationally being performed at various festivals and clubs.

(Self)published essays in:
- project.Arnolfini (UK 2008),
- (Serbia 2007),
- MetaMute (UK 2007) among others.

He is publisher/editor of Nictoglobe magazine, ISSN 1874-9534, online since 1986!.

An irregular contributor to Poetry Kessel-Lo Belgium, Theory and Wryting, Netbehaviour and more mailinglists.

A. Andreas is currently working as a free-lanced software engineer. He lives in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Walkenried, Germany with Judith V. and their 3 children. More of their work can be found at Nictoglobe.
Discussions (62) Opportunities (13) Events (36) Jobs (0)

Drowning man with cell-phone

The seclusion of man and woman role's identification is artificial society implied behaviour.

That's why men turn into women , women turn into men, etc.

There is no difference between men and women apart from their own urge to be identified as such, that's why there are so many intersexual social groups.

Insisting on one's role is archaic and counter revolutionary.

AA Avril 2008


The Rematerialization of Art

Dominico and list

I do not grasp the meaning of this so called discussion.

It seems as if it should be fun to talk and meet other people working in the art sphere, to get attention and maybe some financial profit by exposing your work in a 'social' art context.

What has this to do with an art discussion?

When you feel comfortable with these mumbo jumbo small talk , just go ahead, but do not pretend to discuss.

The point is , why should the capatilistic paradigma, of which the majority of the world population is suffering from, be transported to yet another realm. i.e. NMA.

It will be better to question the position of the artist in this perspective in place of producing quasi intellectual sound bites.

Maybe you neglecting the fact that there IS a difference between Europe and America, and as an European, I do not like to be , again, ursurpated by an financial art mechanism which is not beneficary for us , 'normal' people, who like to communicate by our art and not by our price tags.

So yes I am very negative about bringing , a possible new way of artistic behaviour, NMA, into the sphere of finance and plain old capitalism.

In France there is a rumour about getting a State funded loan from about EUR 15.000,00 , without having to pay interest. This is sold to the public as supporting the bad French situation on the global art market. Why , for god's sake, is it possible that people are displaced from their houses because they cannot pay their rents and at the same time someone is able to get a interestless loan, to buy art? This can only happen when the art world is not interested in what happens outside its splendid isolation.

So where is the involvement, the political awareness, the guts, the pain, the suffering?



The Rematerialization of Art

Interesting discussion anyway, but I do miss some vital points:

1 Regarding the position of the art buyer, is not it that (s)he is expressing its fetishtic feelings of being around the work of art that urged to invest in it in the first place. The work of art can never be sold , and remains always in its hermetic isolation. The only sellable item is the actual presence of the artwork.

2 Regarding the position of the artist, is it not that s(h)e is actually selling his artistic position in the social context of being in an art environment, the more esteem, the higher the price. and it is still not the work of art what is commodified but the social, relational, human interaction which is expressed in capitalization .

So , whatever point of view one takes the immaterial 'being' of the work of art is not in anyway materialized, neither in the contained work nor in the apprehension of the spectator.

For me as an artist , the only reason to ever think about selling my work, is in knowing that my work cannot be owned.
I think and like to discuss this further.i.e. A work of art cannot be owned. The economical value attached to it by art dealers and art consumers is a derived value which has no connection with the immaterial artistic value added to it by the artist. A consumer can buy a material residual approximation of the original, fixed in a more or less transportable object, which acts as a fetish for the immaterial value it represents. By owning such a material object , the owner can feel in the proximity of these immaterial value, but never can claim any right for that particular value.

A. Andreas 2008


The Rematerialization of Art

Interesting dicourse anyway, but I do mis some vital points:



Update Nictoglobe Spring 2008 Volume 15 Issue 1 ISSN 1874-9534

Sun Mar 30, 2008 00:00 - Sun Mar 30, 2008



As of to date a new issue of Nictoglobe is out.

Volume 15 Issue 1, 2008


*New advanced lay-out and user-inerface
^New articles
* New art works
* Poetical Collaborations
*Photological Journal
*more ...


A. Andreas

Editor Nictoglobe
Serving Information & Intelligence