Eryk Salvaggio
Since the beginning
Works in Ogunquit, Massachusetts United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The Harry Potter of the Digital Avant Garde." - Pieter van Bogaert, of the Belgian Newspaper "TIJD", 09/03/02.

Discussions (384) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Rhizome is the Google of Flash-Based Art


Hi all,

I am looking for a piece of web art that was flash-based and therefore completely invisible to google.

The project was essentially a semiotics riff on apples, from adam and eve to newtons apple to the Beatle's record label, etc. As I recall, all the ideas shared between apple symbols were linked to one another.

Sounds cool, right? So what the hell was it, and is it still around anywhere?

*BONUS QUERY!* Since I'm already using Rhizome as a google proxy, do any coders have any ideas on why full-screen pop up windows with extraordinarily large amounts of css-formatted text would block out scroll bars in firefox, regardless of how
javascript opens the window? And no, this is not a homework assignment. :)

Cheers,
-eryk

DISCUSSION

Re: New Media Art


In as much as new media art is a philosophy rather than a medium, then it's safe to say that work that includes "post-net" structural components into it can do the trick, ie:

- community based art projects, where the audience is a "user" or participant
- collaborative art projects, particularly over time or space

So a lot of pre-digital art from the 60's counts, in my definition, as new media. Technology is just a natural evolution to the "new" perceptions of engaging media as it was back in the day.

Two cents.

-er.

<jlm58@hotmail.com> on Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 10:19 PM -0500 wrote:
>In your opinion, is it possible to argue that new media art does not have to be linked to technology? If so, how?
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: How the rest of the net views net art...


We always knew art was for the 3733t5.

-er.

"T.Whid" <twhid@twhid.com> on Monday, October 30, 2006 at 1:17 PM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Pall,
>
>Your take is very humorous. That commenter was extremely ignorant and
>not really a good example of most of the comments.
>
>Isn't being viewed outside an art context both the bane and privilege
>of net art? Is it helpful to read comments from folks coming at it
>with no context? Or is it simply blatherings of ignorants?
>
>Personally I don't usually find it instructive. Most of the time,
>people are looking for cultural objects that fit a pre-subscribed
>template. When something original (like Jodi) comes along which
>doesn't fit these pre-built templates, the rabble generally finds it
>confusing and are too intellectually lazy to try to adapt.
>
>Does that sound elitist? hahahahahahahahahaha
>
>On 10/30/06, Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>> Well, when you try to judge a work of art as something other than a
>> work of art, it becomes pretty silly. But of course, trying to judge
>> a work of art as something other than a work of art is pretty silly
>> and makes the person doing it look pretty silly.
>>
>> Here's my take on the guy who posted that comment:
>>
>> He's never been into a gallery or art museum in his life. Or if he
>> has, his parents subsequently had his art teacher fired because their
>> son saw a marble penis on the museum field trip. His favorite painter
>> is the guy his parents got to paint the garage a couple of summers
>> ago. His favorite sculptor is the guy who stacks the oranges at his
>> local grocery (the guy's just amazing). He thinks pan-pipe versions
>> of 80's hits are cool. When he hears someone talk about Jazz, he
>> says, "Oh yeah, like Kenny G?" He's never been outside of his county.
>> He thinks "culture" can only be found in yoghurt. He voted for Bush,
>> twice.
>>
>> On 30.10.2006, at 09:21, T.Whid wrote:
>>
>> > JODI makes it to the front of Digg...
>> >
>> > "The Weirdest website you'll ever see"
>> > <http://digg.com/software/The_Weirdest_website_you_ll_ever_see>
>> >
>> > One choice comment:
>> >
>> > +++
>> > Option 1 - You are impressed by this website and think it's l33t. You
>> > are an idiot.
>> > Option 2 - You think this is a huge waste of time, and there are much
>> > more impressive things out there, but you laugh at all the 14 year
>> > olds who think this is cool.
>> >
>> > By the way, how is this a weird site? It's just some stupid kid who
>> > tried to copy some ASCII art onto his webpage, and forgot to enclose
>> > it with PRE tags. For god's sake, he's using the BLINK tag...THE BLINK
>> > TAG!!!!! Yeah, real l33t man.
>> >
>> > This is how the page looked when the kid made it using either MS
>> > Frontpage or Microsoft Word Export-To-HTML:
>> > http://bbhosts.net/files/lame.php
>> > "But it looks right on my computer, that means it should work for
>> > everyone!"
>> >
>> > Yes I read the Wikipedia article, and I firmly believe this page
>> > should have been deleted years ago.
>> > +++
>> >
>> > --
>> > <twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>> > +
>> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> > -> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pall Thayer
>> p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
><twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: on bad digital art


The whole argument that net.art's ideas were concerned with the world wide web and the impact of the technology is no longer (if ever) interesting; the artists who could transcend the "net" are the most succesful, in strictly subjective terms of
what most matters to my own brain's engagement. JODI stands for many kinds of breakdown where tech becomes a metaphor for everything else, rather than staying strictly in the realm of tech- projects/artists who could not pull this off haven't done
so well. Net.art is not an art form, it's a medium, and there is some kind of difference between the two.

People might start to let go of net.art as a form or movement and engage it strictly as a medium for a wide variety of ideas. For some reason, a lot of what works in contemporary art circles doesn't seem to work in net.art circles; it's like we're
convinced that the web has to be used to talk about the web, which was kind of fun when the web was kind of fun. The web isn't fun anymore, and while there are certainly web-based and net-based spaces that can open up and be engaged by net-based
work, there's no reason to limit it to that, either.

That said, I can't help but notice that web-based literature and poetry is finding the same problems paper-based lit and poetry are facing; web-based visual art is finding the same problems paper-based visual art is facing, etc... So maybe, after 10
years of net.art, interactivity is no longer enough to make a work interesting or engaging. That's probably for the best, it means we're evolving, and the "lull" people are talking about is just a settling down of the once-constant pace of
innovation and work on the web.

Perhaps we could see the net as an evolution in the respective mediums; rather than a medium in and of itself. Net-Based Art is just contemporary art that uses the web as a conduit for delivery and interaction. Maybe literature that uses the web is
literature, not net.art; maybe web-based animation is animation, not web art...

I'm not entirely convinced this is true- it could mean that there never was such a thing as net.art, or that net.art has become so ingrained that it is now indistinguishable from any other kind of contemporary art- but I'm close to convincing myself.

-er.

Pall Thayer <p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca> on Sunday, September 03, 2006 at 10:22 PM -0500 wrote:
>Hi, I'm going to see if I can get back into this. The responses have
>been great and I'm glad it sort of came back a bit after withering
>away. I'm not exactly sure any more why I posted the original, but I
>had good reasons at the time. So I'm going to see if I can get back
>into "the mode". It had something to do with previous discussions
>about Internet art being dead or old or whatever we're calling it
>these days. So I began wondering why such a young medium, still in
>its infancy really, could be dying and came to the conclusion that
>perhaps it's being misunderstood. Perhaps when people think that
>Internet art is a "been there, done that" sort of thing, they're
>talking about something that was at one time perceived to be Internet
>art but wasn't in the sense that it was somehow related, but the
>primary medium was actually something entirely different. I used the
>terms "technology" and "digital" because I'm sure they suffer from
>the same problems, but I was primarily thinking about Internet art
>because, hey, that's my thing. I think also, that in the
>technological, digital and Internet realms of contemporary art, a lot
>of people are trying to do too much too soon and this is something
>that is put forth so well in the Sol Lewitt excerpt re-blogged on
>Rhizome's front page yesterday that it should be repeated over and
>over again so here it is again:
>
>"New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art.
>Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing
>worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large
>most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones who
>lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the
>materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make
>them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the
>physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of
>the work (another kind of expressionism). "
>
>It's like he's asking, 'Would you still feel comfortable about
>calling yourself an artist if you quit prepending it with "New
>Media", "Digital" or "Internet"?'
>
>In fact, the whole article makes several good points and I suggest
>everyone read it and then tell everyone else to read it. You can find
>it at http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/kswenson/lewitt.htm
>
>Pall
>
>--
>Pall Thayer
>p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
>http://www.this.is/pallit
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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

DISCUSSION

Re: from a b-grade (indy?) net artist


I think there are a lot of very complicated issues which are all pretty irrelevant to making work and getting it "shown". Talking heads in net.art- especially in book form- is interesting, can be fun to read and read about, but in terms of pinning
down any kind of history, it's laughable, and I sincerely doubt it's even intended. Any importance to this critical historical thread only exists because the people "left out" are convinced that being left out means something- I really doubt the
people writing these books care, at all, about anything besides illustrating their own points and themes...

I dunno, I know this is backwards, but I think of books as blogs with a bigger budget. Some are fun to read, some aren't, some say something interesting, some don't. Sometimes you get linked. Usually you don't.

But the discourse takes place on one track, and the art takes place on another. It's nice when they are both aware of each other, but operate with their own agency. Maybe that's too simple, but it works for me.

-er.

marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> on Monday, August 28, 2006 at 5:18 PM -0500 wrote:
>Hi Eryk,
>
>I cannot believe that someone as intuitive as yourself just ain't
>getting the issues around this, it's much more than that - but I'm sick
>of explaining - hence getting on with doing stuff, which is of course a
>positive action...
>
>marc
>
>>I haven't read Mark's book. I am sure my name is not in it. I'm not worried. His name isn't in mine.
>>
>>-er.
>>
>>+
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Furtherfield - http://www.furtherfield.org
>HTTP - http://www.http.uk.net
>Node.London - http://www.nodel.org
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> 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