ana boa-ventura
Since 2003
Works in Austin United States of America

Ana is originally from Lisbon (Portugal).

She's currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Texas, Austin - where she teaches "Into to Digital Media" at the Radio-TV-Film Dept (UT).

Ana also teaches in two Master degrees with Spain and Chile aimed at University teachers interested in exploring creative uses of digital media.

Furthermore, she works with Venezuela(Fundacion Polar) in issues of digital art in the global age and with Brasil (UFBA) in the "inclusao digital" ... and notice how digital *divide* translates to digital "inclusion"... :)

She is interested in ways in which we us digital media to represent cultural heritage, the past, and memory.

Discussions (2) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)

Re: commissions voting process


I want to compliment you on this document: it's excellent! I have only
one doubt.
When you say:
> For example, a proposal which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked >at 100%, and a proposal that receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes >will be ranked at 75%.

Does this mean that i can vote "yes" , "no" or express "no opinion" for
piece X? In which case it is the ratio of "yes" versus "no" for that
particular piece that counts? Hmmm. If this is so the only thing that i
thought we should be aware of - and may come up in the discussion - is
a bit like the unreliability of studies based on voluntary surveys. You're only going to answer if you feel strongly about whatever is covered there - if you loved it or hated it you'll answer . If you're just ok with it you probably won't.

Doesn't this yes/no proportion have implications there? But then again, is there a better alternative? I really don't know - just wanted to alert y'all to possible consequences of:
1- allowing people to choose the pieces they're saying somethig about it (i'm sure it would be a nigthmare but maybe you could assign works to people? guess the interface encouraging you to vote on the ones that haven't voted yet could be the solution - and i'm curious about it.:))
2- having the ratio yes/no to influence the overall result as opposed
to yes only.

All the best and kudos on the description of the voting process!

Ana Boa-Ventura

Francis Hwang wrote:

> Hi everybody:
> As you may know, we're going to be involving the Rhizome members in
> the
> voting process for the 2004 Net Art Commissions. Below is a first
> draft
> of this process, and I'd appreciate any comments on it.
> The below is just a draft; nothing is fixed at this point. We're open
> to comments on any part of the process described below. I'd
> appreciate
> it if readers gave special consideration to the following issues:
> 1. The filtering process.
> We will probably receive more than 100 entries, and we want to filter
> this down to (say) 25 finalists. It is unreasonable to expect
> everybody
> to read all 100 proposals, so we need to design a system that allows
> participants to read a small percentage of those proposals and vote
> on
> those. The available literature says very little about this sort of a
> system, even though the recent California recall probably had the
> same
> problem. The "INITIAL STAGE" system below is entirely of my own
> invention; any opinions on it would be appreciated.
> 2. Discretion and sensitivity to proposals
> It's important to us that people be considerate of all the proposals
> submitted. In an open call such as this we're going to be receiving
> proposals at widely varying levels of quality, professionalism, and
> experience. We want to make sure that we don't have a situation where
> artists feel like their proposals are being publically criticized in
> a
> way that is insensitive or unfair. (Note that this problem is one of
> the added complications with a more open process; if you just have a
> jury meeting in a conference room or over a small email list you can
> be
> much more candid.) We want to make sure that no artist feels
> intimidated by the process, either for this round or for any
> Commissions in the future. Any suggestions as to how to foster the
> most
> constructive discussions would be appreciated.
> 3. Implementation time
> The chances are good that I am going to have to implement this by
> scratch. So to any changes I reserve the right to put on my Cranky
> Techie hat and say "That's not gonna happen." Any proposals for
> changes
> to the process described below should not make things any more
> complicated. Simpler is better.
> BTW, if you're interested in poli-sci geekery you might check out the
> "Alternative Voting Systems" paper I read when thinking about this:
> Francis
> ----------
> The 2004 Net Art Commissions will award five new net art
> projects with commissions ranging from $1,500 to $3,500. We are
> interested in having a relatively open decision-making process that
> gives community members a substantial say in these awards while also
> retaining a traditional voting role for the Commissions jury.
> To be eligible to vote in the Commissions process, you need to be a
> Rhizome member in good standing. In addition, to prevent people from
> signing up at the last minute solely for the purpose of influencing
> the
> result, only Rhizome members with accounts that were created before
> August 15, 2003 may vote. (There are currently more than 28000 user
> accounts in the Rhizome system that were created before that date.)
> Each Rhizome member should only vote once, regardless of how many
> valid
> memberships that person may have. We reserve the right to eliminate
> any
> votes if we believe that they come from a member who is voting with
> more than one membership.
> Rhizome's first Commissioning Program, the 2002 cycle, received more
> than 100 entries. We expect this Commissioning Program to receive at
> least the same number of entries.
> Rhizome community members will choose finalists from this initial
> pool.
> They will be asked to vote Yes or No for any and all proposals, and
> will be able to change their votes at any time in the initial stage.
> Although members will be able to vote on any proposal at any time,
> they
> will also be given an interface that encourages them to review
> proposals with the least number of votes, so that all proposals will
> receive roughly the same number of votes.
> Under this system, no member will be required to review all the
> proposals. However, the more proposals you vote for, the more
> influence
> you will have over which proposals proceed to the final stage.
> At the end of the first stage, each proposal will be ranked according
> to the percentage of Yes votes it receives. For example, a proposal
> which receives 10 Yes votes will be ranked at 100%, and a proposal
> that
> receives 15 Yes votes and 5 No votes will be ranked at 75%. The
> highest
> ranking 25 proposals will move on to the final stage; this may be
> more
> than 25 in the case of ties.
> The initial stage will last from February 15 to February 29, 2004.
> In the final stage, both Rhizome members and the jury will choose
> awardees based on the pool of 25 or more finalists. Rhizome members
> will choose one of the five awards; the jury will choose the
> remaining
> four.
> The final stage will last from March 1 to March 15, 2004.
> From the 25 or more finalists, Rhizome members will be able to
> choose
> one of the five awards. The voting system used for the final stage
> will
> be Single Transferable Vote, also known as Instant Runoff Voting.
> Each
> voter will rank the proposals from most favorite to least favorite.
> When the votes are tallied, the first-place votes are counted to see
> if
> any proposal has received more than 50% of the votes. If so, then
> that
> proposal is the winner. Otherwise, the proposal with the least
> first-place votes is removed from the list of proposals, and the
> process is repeated.
> For example: Five voters have to choose one winning proposal among
> four
> candidates: a, b, c, and d. They vote as follows:
> Maximilian: abc
> Lukas: acb
> Niklas: bca
> Jurgen: bac
> Hans: cab
> In the first round, a gets 2 votes, b gets 2, and c gets 1. Nobody
> has
> the majority (3), so we remove the least popular candidate, c, making
> Hans' vote effectively "ab". Now a gets 3 votes and b gets 2 votes,
> and
> a is the winner.
> Voters are not required to rank all final proposals, but they are
> encouraged to rank as many as possible. If you rank only a few
> candidates, it's possible that your vote will end up being eliminated
> entirely in the final tally.
> In the event that the jury feels that the members' first-place choice
> will require a disproportionately large amount of the commission
> funds,
> we reserve the right to substitute a choice further down the members'
> list.
> The jury consists of German critic Tilman Baumgartel, artist Natalie
> Bookchin of CalArts, Rachel Greene of, Francis Hwang of
>, and Japanese curator Yukiko Shikata. This jury will be
> responsible for choosing four of the five awards.
> The jury will decide on four awards, with one more on deck in case
> there is overlap with the Rhizome members' choice. The process for
> this
> will be much less formal. Maybe it will involve monkeys.
> At all phases of the process, we encourage and expect open discussion
> of the proposals, both on Rhizome and elsewhere online. We hope that
> this discussion will be respectful and considerate of all the artists
> involved.


cultural studies, geography and

Mon Oct 20, 2003 00:00 - Tue Oct 21, 2003


The University of Texas at Austin is hosting a big international conference on globalization - Global Fusion 2003

I'm the presenter/curator in a showcase/workshop with unusual characteristics if you think this is an event mostly aimed at global media studies folks... The title is "Borderland / Potatoland*: At the Nexus of Technology (net.)Art and Media Activism" and its purpose is to raise the awareness of "information visualization strategies and tools that are working to dissolve the barriers between technology, art and media activism".

There'll be a time/space for the audience to explore some web work related to this topic, which will be followed by a discussion of these works, where a tentative synthesis of trends in emerging work on the borders of art, tech and "cultural geography" will be drawn (if i must use 1 label for what's below...)

Please let me know if you'd like your site to be featured in this event. Any work on globalization... - the borderland (a la Gomez Pena / Pepon Osorio...) cultural diaspora (a la Carlo Zanni...), artistic approaches to remote sensors and GIS, conceptual approaches to cartography (a la Bill Outcault/Lilla Locurto...), etc. are most welcome.

Thanks in advance
Ana Boa-Ventura
Radio-TV-Film Dept. - University of Texas at Austin


Re: Re: From Matt Locke's blog - An Interview with Tim Etchells

See also the work with SMS by the Theater Group from Barcelona La Fura Dels Baus (or simply "La Fura").

In 2001 in Valencia their cyber-opera Fausto was followed by what i believe was their first experience with SMS. More recently they produced XXX. There's definitely an intended pun: SMS - Short Message System - Sado MaSochism. XXX is based on the Marquis de Sade.
(in Italian, I'm afraid, not much info on the "fureros" in the US but they're big in places like Portugal, Netherlands, and Italy...)

Ana Boa-Ventura

Marisa Olson wrote:

> see, also, the original rhizome review of surrender control (a GREAT
> project):
> i've put feelers out for this, before, but if anyone is doing
> sms/txt-msg projects, please let me know (especially americans where
> this is so rare). i'm constantly looking for this, in my writing &
> curatorially...
> thanks!
> _________________
> Marisa S. Olson
> Associate Director
> SF Camerawork
> 415. 863. 1001