Jack Stenner
Since the beginning
Works in Gainesville, Florida United States of America

PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
Jack Stenner is an artist who has worked with technology, video, and installation since the mid 1990s. He is an Assistant Professor of Art + Technology at the University of Florida, School of Art and Art History. His work addresses issues related to our socio-culturally constructed "reality" and the ways we create meaning. He is interested in “place” and how meaning is embedded, manipulated and transcoded in the environment. His work explores the construction of a “hybrid subject”; a subject that is neither entirely human nor machinic. Combining techniques from information retrieval and visualization, content analysis, video gaming, computer vision and experimental video, he seeks to create experiences that encourage us to reconsider what we think we know about our world, and imagine an alternative utopia.

He holds a Bachelors of Environmental Design, a Masters of Science in Visualization, and a Ph.D in Architecture with emphasis in Computer Visualization from Texas A&M University. He worked with artists in the context of an alternative art space he founded in Houston, Texas, for almost 10 years. His work has been exhibited nationally and internationally, at venues including Siggraph, ACM Multimedia, International Society of Electronic Artists (ISEA), ZeroOne Biennial, Alternative Museum, Museum of Modern Art, Toluca, Mexico, Polk Museum of Art,Tampa Museum of Art, and others.
Discussions (23) Opportunities (1) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: M$ REALLY sucks


On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 12:01 PM, t.whid wrote:

> So, after reading docs from Apple and Macromedia which suggest using
> the javascript write-around, I conclude that the javascript method IS
> THE ONLY WAY TO WORK AROUND the new ie6 limitations. unless you want
> to attempt to encode the data directly into the web page, which for
> obvious reasons, not many people are going to do.
>

I think you're right. At *this* point that is the only acceptable
solution. I think Zeldman's suggestion is that it might not be a good
idea to run around modifying all your websites (and from his
perspective, stirring up clients) until the "dust settles." Just
because M$ says this is an acceptable work-around does not mean that
Eolas will agree. It could be a waste of energy to modify a *bunch* of
sites, only to have to do it again when an alternative solution is
aGREED upon.

Jack

DISCUSSION

Re: ms REALLY sucks


Looks like Zeldman isn't sure the proposed fixes will be sufficient:
<http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0903c.shtml#eolasfallout>

DISCUSSION

Re: Mac OS X users, what's on your dock?


<http://www.jigglingwhisker.com/jack/projects/dock.html>

if it wasn't for launchbar it'd be worse!

jack

On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 11:35 AM, t.whid wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> this is kinda dorky, but i'm inspired by this short article at
> O'Reilly's mac devcenter:
>
> http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2003/09/30/dock.html
>
> So here is my dock:
>
> http://www.twhid.com/projects/twhid_dock/
>
> That's my work machine; my home dock is a bit different.
>
> Interested in sharing?
> --
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> 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: (x6) Request to Safari users


On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 01:20 PM, t.whid wrote:

>
> y Nick, you really stirred up a hornets nest over there. and i guess
> i'm one of the hornets ;-)

Fellow hornet here. I hate getting involved in these sort of
"discussions" but couldn't resist :-) The other person obviously has a
huge axe to grind with art.

>
> what's a bit sobering about the entire thing is that I think that most
> people (who are even aware of it) think of web art in this way. they
> think that art is a painting that hangs in a gallery or a sculpture
> that sits on a pedestal, any sort of creative use of the web or
> browser technologies is just shunted off as trickery, scams, or
> gimmicks.

I think there are many types of web art viewers, each with different
tendencies in how they respond:

1.) Those who know little about art (web based or otherwise). Because
the medium is new, the typical response is to get caught up trying to
figure out "how'd they do that?" They have no framework with which to
evaluate an artwork other than as craft, so they feel threatened and
tend to be antagonistic. The worst of these are web
designers/programmers who are determined to show they know more than a
"silly artist." (this seems to be Sylvan :-)

2.) Those who know about art but haven't considered the implications
of the web/digital, etc. Because the medium is new, the typical
response is to get caught up trying to figure out "how'd they do that?"
Often, these viewers feel threatened by a new medium and work hard to
find ways to dismiss the content. Many will eventually "see the light"
:-)

3.) Those who follow web based art. Often, because the medium is new,
the initial response is to get caught up trying to figure out "how'd
they do that?" Many of these are eventually able to get past the first
phase and evaluate a work for what it is :-)

...and numerous others

>
> the general public hates art for whatever reason. usually it's because
> they subscribe to the notion that art is a qualitative term.

True. I also find that the general public is very comfortable with
binary situations where there is a right and wrong. They want answers,
and art doesn't typically satisfy this desire.

Maybe it's a symptom of geography (I'm in Texas), but there is a
distinct suspicion of art and artist, here. David Gelernter, in
"Machine Beauty" mentions that art in Western culture (conflated with
beauty) is often seen as a typically "female" behavior, and is
subsequently placed in a submissive role to issues of practicality and
utility. In extreme cases art subconsciously arouses homophobic
behavior in certain individuals (often male technologists). He
theorized that this might explain the anti-gui stance of many opponents
of the early Mac. I think when you combine art with a male dominated
technology culture it's a recipe for the kind of anti-art behavior web
artists experience.

>
> for good or ill, our work is seen this way. the general public hates
> it.
>
> <rant>
> that's ok, maybe i'll climb up the ivory tower and stay there for
> good. to hell with the populace as whole. they're ignorant, don't want
> to learn and will insult your work for no reason. bunch of louts,
> bores, philistines. fuck 'em.
> </rant>

It will be interesting in 20-30 years, when the "new" of technology has
worn off, how art knowledgeable people will respond to the work of the
day vs. the work of today. Short of a major cultural shift, I don't
see the general populace ever embracing web based art any more than
they embrace other forms of art.

What never ceases to amaze me, is how willing people are to subscribe
to some fundamentalist viewpoint that imposes its values on all others
(ie, this guy's desire to keep people from viewing animated gifs). It
seems to be rampant these days....

>
> btw, i've reported the bug ;-)

same here....it's a bug!

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


Related to the discussion of browser development and WebCore, here are
a couple of links that show some things people are playing with:

The following use WebKit which is a higher level implementation of
WebCore (ie. the SDK)

Create a browser with 1 line of code:
<http://cocoadevcentral.com/articles/000077.php>

A guy who has taken WebKit and created a browser that "becomes" the
desktop:
<http://stevenf.com/index.php?node=WebDesktop>

...to muck with the "rendering" of course, you'd have to dig into the
lower levels, but it's all there. Anyway, the point is there are
advantages when sources are open and available. You never know what
idea someone will have.

Jack