Jason Van Anden
Since 2004
Works in Brooklyn, New York United States of America

PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Jason Van Anden is a new media activist, artist, inventor and robot maker. His creations are exhibited internationally, receiving recognition in the art, science, technology and gaming communities. More about Jason and his work can be found at his website www.smileproject.com.
Discussions (224) Opportunities (1) Events (4) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Fwd: Wappening #2


Lee,
Good point.
fax == faxeningphone == phoappeningmail == snailmailappening
jason van andening
On 2/10/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:> Not to be devils advocate but in this case, isn't the internet/email/blog> just another vehicle for the dissemination and archive of the information> for the performance/happening. Technology now provides us with a quicker way> to get that info out there but is it much different than using the fax,> phone or mail to alert the select public about the act.>> I'd be intrigued to see the video of the passers by. Did anyone ask him why?> Was he asking the general public for an orange? I think the piece is cool.>> On another note:> Who was it that did public performances at various webcam locations?>>>> On 2/10/06 5:25 PM, "Eric Dymond" <dymond@idirect.ca> wrote:>> >> I actually liked Lee's term for it just fine: web happening> > how about webpaning> > +> > -> 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>> --> Lee Wells> Brooklyn, NY 11222>> http://www.leewells.org> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com> 917 723 2524>> +> -> 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

RHIZOME_RAW: Fwd: Wappening #2


ditto
jason
On 2/10/06, Sal Randolph <sal@highlala.com> wrote:>> I actually liked Lee's term for it just fine: web happening>>> On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:>> > Hmmm.... I think the term "net.flux" (aside from using the ill-fated> > middle-dot--very 1.0:) also requires "'special' knowledge some contend> > one needs to appreciate some forms of contemporary art," in order to> > be appreciated.> >> > What's wrong with "net performance"? To me, that's what this is & what> > MTAA has done, in same/different ways. It's open & clear. And I love> > that it points out the fact that the internet can be used in online &> > offline performance...> >> >>> >> Also we need to coin a phrase for this type of work (MTAA has also> >> made work along these lines): net.flux anybody?> >>> +> -> 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

RHIZOME_RAW: Net Aesthetics 2.0 Panel


Will there be video or a transcript?
jason van anden
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Jason Van Anden <robotissues@gmail.com>Date: Feb 8, 2006 12:28 PMSubject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Net Aesthetics 2.0 PanelTo: "M. River" <mriver102@yahoo.com>Cc: list@rhizome.org

Will there be video or a transcript?
jason van anden

On 2/8/06, M. River <mriver102@yahoo.com> wrote:> > Curious to hear what people thought about the Panel at EAI on Monday?>> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/rhz_field_trip.html>> and>> http://www.tinjail.com/tintype/?pA1> +> -> 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>

--Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

--Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

DISCUSSION

RHIZOME_RAW: isabelle dinoire


I did not look at this work because I find the subject extremelydisturbing. I avoid Hirst's cut up animals for the same reason. Ihave enough trouble dealing with upsetting images once they enter myhead and have no desire to multiplex them.
> I love reading the list when it gets all revved up and the personalities> textually collide.
I'm with Lee.
Jason Van Andenwww.smileproject.com

On 2/8/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:> I love reading the list when it gets all revved up and the personalities> textually collide.>> I think there could have been a more well thought out explanation about the> piece as well. Only putting it context with his previous work doesn't> doesn't quiet cut it. Abe's piece is kind of a one liner and conceptually> falls short for me. I didn't see the interview on tv but saw the photos> today in the paper in addition to Abe's video, I felt sorry for her.>> For as little as Abe has said today about his piece I find it interesting> that Manik is the only one to evoke any sort of response out of him.>> Cheers,> Lee>>> On 2/7/06 4:13 PM, "aabrahams" <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:>> > I just watched the video again> >> > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary, more exciting> > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more interesting> > and even more artistic )> >> > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might> > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap without her> > conscent.> >> > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.> > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served> > better with Orlan as the subject.> >> > bye> > Annie> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:> >> I fully understand where you are coming from in saying that Linkoln might> >> have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece doesn't> >> read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps in the sense that> >> it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which are, in> >> themselves, often "fun."> >>> >> To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a face.> >> Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to juxtapose tissue> >> sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to overstate or> >> impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can definitely> >> be read in that way.> >>> >> I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously just one> >> person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another subjective> >> response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants. The> >> subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a> >> generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of things in a media> >> saturated culture.> >>> >> And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense policy> >> debate about both cloning and copyright.> >>> >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.> >>> this is not about truth or falsity> >>> >> I agree with you here, Annie.> >>> >> This video reads, to me, like an animation of the "techniques of the> >> observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself, is a> >> complex operation...> >>> >> Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work. Dare I> >> ask in what way "the images on the tele were a lot more impressive," and> >> how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your> >> sentiment about the footage?> >>> >> I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy headlines and media> >> treatment of this story to be more outrageous...> >>> >> Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with implications far> >> broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.> >>> >> Marisa> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:> >>> This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :> >>>> >>>> "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't understand you.> >>>> For me the images on the tele were a lot more impressive.> >>>> you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when certainly> >>>> inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons)> >>>> and you didn't denounce anything> >>>>> >>>> you were> >>>> just making fun?> >>>>> >>>> did I miss something?> >>>>> >>>> best Annie Abrahams"> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> it's impossible to tell the truth.> >>> this is not about truth or falsity> >>>> >>> maybe about morals?> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:> >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire> >>>>> >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of> >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the> >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.> >>>>> >>>> I agree. It was very engaging.> >>>>> >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it> >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails> >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to> >>>>> *tell the truth*...> >>>>> >>>> I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...> >>>>> >>>> *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?> >>>> *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of art?> >>>> *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?> >>>> *[How] does it lie?> >>>> *Is this simply a question of humane reference to human subjects or some> >>>> larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?)> >>>> *Is this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its use of> >>>> "documentary" material?> >>>> *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true enough?> >>>> *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie true> >> footage> >>>> plus true footage equals falsity..)?> >>>> *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just jumping to the> >>>> larger question, is it "artistically and ethically problematic" to draw> >>>> from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?> >>>>> >>>> Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)> >>>>> >>>> Marisa> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:> >>>>> This is as well made as one would expect it to be.> >>>>> The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of> >>>>> suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of the> >>>>> source material is done with consummate skill.> >>>>> Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?> >>>>> I think because it seems to impose a narrative from> >>>>> particular fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I> >>>>> call as my witness the music, accomplished as it is,> >>>>> and the synching of the final frames to the music, the> >>>>> convulsive quality of it - & I don't think I am simply> >>>>> projecting any personal squeamishness here) onto a> >>>>> current event,the story of which moreover, even> >>>>> allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our> >>>>> media, is clearly a complex web of tragedy,> >>>>> resourcefulness, gratitude, ( oh -& a deep> >>>>> strangeness, I don't deny)..> >>>>> I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it> >>>>> is (& perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails> >>>>> in an artistically and ethically problematic way to> >>>>> *tell the truth*...> >>>>> michael> >>>>>> >>>>> --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire> >> > +> > -> 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>> --> Lee Wells> Brooklyn, NY 11222>> http://www.leewells.org> 917 723 2524>>> +> -> 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>

--Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

--Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AJAX for artists


Plasma Studii,
You bring up some really good points about past trends - I cancertainly understand feeling burned by over-hyped new tech. Beenthere, done that.
I have been programming (not html coding, but programming) sincearound 1979 - making my living with it since 1990. I am not sure Ineed to justify my free advice beyond that.
Jason Van Anden

On 2/6/06, Plasma Studii <office@plasmastudii.org> wrote:> ha ha. "to Ajax or not to Ajax" will probably be a moot point in a few years anyway. that's really not my question though. no, i don't mind obsoletism. though higher end tech, rarely becomes obsolete. C was around before most of us were born. Perl was probably around before the net. Java has existed since it was created. PHP is relatively new, but i do hope it survives (not because i can't learn a new thing?) but because it's a useful solution. (CGI bins can be a pain for everyone, not just the server programmer)>>> What IS bothersome to me, is why people would choose "hot" over practical. why would consumers give anything that wasn't actually likely to improve their daily life a second thought? you're right, that there's "community support" but WHY? the same thing baffles me why there are so many bush supporters though it couldn't be simpler, he's bad at his job. start with 4 billion (or whatever) and end up in the negative billions. you can debate about the finer points of mismanaging a war, but that might require 4th grade level complexity. the budget thing is just clear cut, there is no subtltty to get. Likewise, a lot of computer tech is just blatantly useless or an impractical solution, to something that was hardly a problem. In many cases, like CSS, there was no problem, but a new wave of users (in about '99-'02), were impatient to make HTML more like print, rather than see they are very different animals.>> It's great Google can use Ajax and the world map thing is a perfect example for them. But it's not one that applies to any of us. We don't have nearly that much info, or an audience as big who need to explore that much info. Even if we created an exact replica of the gooogle map, we just don't need to waste that much time creating millions of details, when maybe a thousand will ever be seen at most.>>> I am not arguing against knowing it though. remember image maps (before slices). that was cool, but now you rarely see em. browsers will still read em. you could surely run into a problem, where that'd be a good solution (needed it for a phrenology map a while ago). there are maybe 1 in 100 times, using meta tags for "push" animation has come up. hell, i bet there's a use for the <blink> tag (remember that?) things so rarely actually become obsolete.>> i was just asking when could this possibly be useful? there aren't that many cases where you have a table of thousands of pieces of info, one would need scrolling precision to view, where a choice of buttons wouldn't be fine (though obviously a linear "forward", "back" buttons are just plain bad design). someone may really like info to slowly pan across the screen, rather than a "jump cut". but how is it worth the extra work to add that feature for this, if it means using the convoluted option instead of the easy one? ajax is hardly "neat" or "efficient". if it takes 5 times the work to add scrolling, it better be worth it.>> if there's a practical reason to use it, i'm all for it. but if it's just "we climbed it because it was there", ... just keep quiet.>>>>> Jason Van Anden wrote:>> > Lewis - how so?> > (super weird gmail garbling of my last post -ack!)> > Jason> >> >> > On 2/6/06, Lewis LaCook <llacook@yahoo.com> wrote:> well, once we> > start using a protocol more suited to network transmissions as>> > networks are NOW all of this will be moot-->>> lol>>>>>>>>>> Jason> > Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:> Programmers tend to be> > skeptical of trendy new technologies,especially after> having invested> > so much time becoming expert in oneonly to be told it's> become> > obsolete. I suspect thatartist/programmers even more so, in that we>> > want to quickly create thethings we imagine, and the overhead of> > coding> often requires an bigdown payment.> I think this is the reason> > that Eric is emphasising the importance ofthis> particular technology> > (and also why some seem so hesitant).> There are many ways to do what> > AJAX does - and in that sense it isn'tnew.> Some of the reasons its so> > cool is:> 1.) its neat (clean, easy, elegant, efficient, etc...). It> > humanreadability> makes it a joy to code.> 2.) it has community> > support (unlike SOAP which I think did notcapture the> hearts of> > programmers because of its MS-centric syntax).Assuming> code/knowledge> > is being shared, this eliminates some of theoverhead> mentioned> > above.> 3.) it can drastically improve the user experience. At this> > point itworks on> most any browser so its easy to use and it allows> > for a moreefficient use of> bandwidth since it can significantly> > reduce thenumber of round trips and> amount of data being passed> > between theclient and server.> Fellow programmers, write this down,> > AJAX rocks, learn it an you willnot be> sorry.> More about it>> > here:http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php> A very simple example of AJAX can be seen in my first foray into artwith a> political agenda called "Tax the Rich!" (link below). As faras I can tell> its the only "net art" piece of the bunch, but I'mafraid this is not a> compelling enough reason for people to view itover some of the sillier> entries.> http://tax.cf.huffingtonpost.com> Jason Van Anden>>> On 2/5/06, Pall Thayer>> wrote:> It's not necessarily about 'new' functionality per se. It's more>> about the user experience. It's about dynamic content in a seamless> and> invisible way. It's only what you need when you need it. When you> get a> table containing 500 elements, you don't need elements 200 to> 300 till you> scroll down. Of course, we could display the first 100> elements and then at> the bottom of the page is a 'next' link that> takes you to the next 100. But> let's say I'm on page 3 and I want to> go back and see item 78. The old w!> ay,> I go to the bottom of the page> and click on previous, and again, and then> locate 78. With AJAX, I> simply scroll back up (using two fingers on my> trackpad, which> incidentally isn't 'new' functionality either, just a> better, more> intuitive user experience. If you haven't tried it, it's> better than> it sounds). Try comparing google maps and mapquest and tell us> which> one "feels" better.>> Pall>> On 5.2.200!> 6, at 15:12, judson wrote:>> > true. but why is that particularly> important. either way, the> > client pushes a button and gets a result. if> that result is> > processed on the server or on their machine, there isn't> much> > difference to them. most users would never know, and certainly> >> none would ever care, if there's no benefit other than client side/> >> server side in and of itself.> >> > which is pretty much my point.> client-side technology is generally> > viewed as being more accessible, but> really it's mostly hype, and> > often no significant!> improvement or> simplification over server-side.> >> >> > On !> Feb 5, 2> 006, at 12:36 PM, Pall> Thayer wrote:> >> >> No. Once the page is at the clients end,> PHP/Perl/whatever, isn't> >> doing anything.> >>> >> On 5.2.2006, at 11:36,> Plasma Studii wrote:> >>> >>> you can do the very same thing with PHP (or> Perl 10+ years ago).> >>> Ajax, Perl etc still read the whole page, but can> be told to load> >>> only part of it?> >>>> >>>>!> >>>> >>>> >>> Pall Thayer wrote:> >>>> >>>> I think you're m!> issing t> he point. It's not the ability to read or> >>>> write data to the server but> the ability to do so in a way that> >>>> doesn't require reloading the> entire page. Lets say person A in> >>>> Arkansas does something on the page> that rewrites the data in your> >>>> anything.txt file. Person B in Botswana> isn't going to see those> >>>> changes unless they reload the page. AJAX> lets you do the reloading> >>>> in the background. Probably the best use of> AJAX to this day, and> >>>> almost certainly a contributing factor to it's> renewed rise to!> > >>>> stardom (it's been around for a while) is Google maps.> It has> >>>> revolutionized the way maps are presented on the web. The> interface> >>>> is absolutely brilliant and a huge leap away from the old> method of> >>>> clicking on N, E, S or W to reload an image.> >>>>> >>>>> Palli> >>>>> >>>> On 5.2.2006, at 10:09, Plasma Studii wrote:> >>>>> >>>>>>> You will need to add the xmlrpc classes to your classpath, but> >>>>>> thats> trivial.> >>>>>>!> >>>>>> >>>>> hey eric,> >>>>>> >>>>> probably, i'm just not getting this,> but seems like the same> >>>>> result> >>>>> >>>>> would be SO much easier> with PHP? PHP is super clear, whereas> >>>>> Ajax> >>>>> >>>>> just isn't at> all. It's kinda the diff between intuitive and> >>>>> memorized. most folks> don't even notice how much they memorize(as> >>>>> opposed to understand),> but a lot seem like just arbitrary steps.> >>>>> sorta why reading/writing C> is actually FAR more intuitively> >>>>> comprehensible (though compil!> ers are> usually convoluted) than> >>>>> anything in Flash.> >!> >>>>> >>> >>> the steps> to write to a file (any file on the web, not just> >>>>> XML) in> >>>>>> >>>>> PHP are clear. seems it would be a lot more "available to> >>>>>> artists"? is there some perk i'm missing here? Seems like> >>>>> bafflingly> convoluted MS design?> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> $FileOpen = fopen( "anything.txt", "w" ); // specify file to write> >>>> to>> >>>>>!> if ( $FileOpen ) {> >>>>> fwrite( $FileOpen, "write whateve!> r you wa> nt, including HTML, XML> >>>>> or javascript code" );> >>>>> }> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that's ALL the code it takes!> >>>>>> >>>>> upload> it to a server running php (and about all of em do) this> >>>>> shows up on> the page (or it's included with osX, a download, etc).> >>>>> >>>>> the code> doesn't. if the page doesn't exist, it'll create it> >>>>> (though there's> also a file_exists() function you can use if you> >>>>> don't want that to> happen) the php could go absolutely> >>>>> anywhere on> >>>>!> > >>>>> your> HTML page. just name it x.php instead of x.html. it's> >>>>> designed with> the coder in mind, not the code (which is why i say> >>>>> an MS thing, they> seem to be incapable of thinking any way but> >>>>> from> >>>>> >>>>> their> own perspective)> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> reminds me of depreciating the tag.> what possible> >>>>> improvement could you make by replacing it?! if it's> off by a> >>>>> pixel one in a thousand times, who cares?! (Web desig!> n just isn't> >>>>> print design and CSS and XHTML are just blatantly dumb> code> >>>>> design) the tag is well worth it just because it works so> clearly> >>>>> and without memorizing. Design utility extends to a lot more> than> >>>>> just Italian coffee makers and German cars. Code is another>> >>>>> appliance.> >>>>> +> >>>>> -> 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 ter> ms 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> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> +> >>> -> post:> list@rhizome.org> >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org> >>> ->> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/> >>> subscribe.rhiz>> !> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> >>> +> >>> Subscriber!> s to Rhi> zome 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> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> --> 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>>> --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com> +> -> 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>>>> ***************************************************************************>>> ||http://www.lewislacook.org||> sign up now! poetry, code, forums, blogs, newsfeeds...>>> ________________________________>> What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos>>> >> > --Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com> +> -> 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>

--Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.comsheesh