Olson has served as Editor & Curator at Rhizome, the inaugural curator at Zero1, and Associate Director at SF Camerawork. She's contributed to many major journals & books and this year Cocom Press published Arte Postinternet, a Spanish translation of her texts on Postinternet Art, a movement she framed in 2006. In 2015 LINK Editions will publish a retrospective anthology of over a decade of her writings on contemporary art which have helped establish a vocabulary for the criticism of new media. Meanwhile, she has also curated programs at the Guggenheim, New Museum, SFMOMA, White Columns, Artists Space, and Bitforms Gallery. She has served on Advisory Boards for Ars Electronica, Transmediale, ISEA, the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences, Creative Capital, the Getty Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kennedy Center, and the Tribeca Film Festival.
Olson studied Fine Art at Goldsmiths, History of Consciousness at UC Santa Cruz, and Rhetoric & Film Studies at UC Berkeley. She has recently been a visiting artist at Yale, SAIC, Oberlin, and VCU; a Visiting Critic at Brown; and Visiting Faculty at Bard College's Milton Avery Graduate School of the Arts and Ox-Bow. She previously taught at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts' new media graduate program (ITP) and was Assistant Professor of New Media at SUNY-Purchase's School of Film & Media Studies. She was recently an Artist-in-Residence at Eyebeam & is currently Visiting Critic at RISD.
Here is some unusually good generative visual art available for viewing on the Net: http://www.complexification.net/gallery . This is work by Jared Tarbell of New Mexico. I find this work quite exciting. Many of you have probably seen this work before. I have too, but only tonight have something to say about it.
What I like about it is the fusion of algorithm and art. Of course there is much generative algorithmic visual art, but this work is rather distinguished in its particular fusion.
For instance, Box.Fitting.Img is both beautiful visually and, also, the work grows from an algorithm that one may easily infer from watching the piece. It starts with 5 boxes. The color of the boxes is determined by the color of the pixel of an underlying, invisible image. Though as the piece grows, one gets other indications of the underlying image. In any case, a box grows until it touches another box. Then it stops growing and other boxes start growing in the interstices remaining.
Very simple algorithm. Plain to see. But brilliantly so, really, and unusual in its visual results.
And much of his work is this way: the algorithms are evident if you watch closely. They are simple but often generative of unusual results. And his sense of color and shape is finely drawn. No clumsy grab bag goin on here. The sense of composition is fascinating. Composition within a pseudo-random generative process.
Another wonderful part of the work is that all the source code is available to view. It's all done in a language called Processing invented not too long ago by Casey Reas and Ben Fry. Java based. Some other strong work is emerging from this language such as Martin Wattenberg's, and Marek Walczak's ...
Regina Celia Pinto:
I would like to invite you to visit my new electronic, colorful and
ilustrated book "Many Faces of Eve" at: http://arteonline.arq.br/eva/
Below ten reasons to show you why you have to visit "Many Faces of Eve". ;-)
This book is:
1- An almost pop provocative work about gender
2- The code of cheek to cheek
3- The apple in the dark - Clarice Lispector
4- The semiotic of the woman who thinks that is dressed with elegance
5- The Adam rib and how I almost could be another woman...
6- Eve got the grape
7- Venus, Body, Image, Myth
8- Face is language, face is information
9- WEBFaces' Cartography
10- Myself as Saint Clara, according Marcelo Frazão.
Now, more seriously:
"Many Faces of Eve" (http://arteonline.arq.br/eva/ ) closes the circle which
I started last year with "The Milky Way"
(http://arteonline.arq.br/via_lactea/ ) and continued with "Alice in the
Wonderbalcony", Sheep's Parade and the series of collaborative reviews of
the 2005 museum newsletter.
Key words of "Many Faces of Eve": WOMEN, IDENTITY, GENDER, HUMOR
Resolution: 1024 X 768, Flash Player 7.0, available pop up windows
Constructive criticism will be welcome!
Regina Célia Pinto
below is a press release for a show some of us are in
here in the UK. After 20/21 it tours round the UK
pretty much until 2007. Hope some of you can make it
or at least check out the site.
: : : : :
Artwork by: Simon Biggs, Glorious Ninth, Neil Jenkins,
Jess Loseby, Michael Takeo Magruder, Stanza and
: : : : :
Blurring the boundaries between the tangible gallery
and the transitory Internet, Net:Reality merges the
ethereal notions of cyber space with the aesthetics of
a physical exhibition. Seven leading UK artists
engaged in Internet and New Media practice have been
commissioned to create artworks that simultaneously
exist virtually and physically.
Rather than having a 'theme' for the artworks, the
common denominator is the media itself and the
unifying connections between the web (Net) and the
physical (Reality) elements of the compositions. The
artists in Net:Reality have each interpreted and
implemented the amorphous relationships between these
distinct spaces to create an exhibition of artworks
diverse in concepts and aesthetics - harnessing the
Internet and the gallery environment to investigate
subjects ranging from emerging technologies to social
: : : : :
Off-line until 29 October 2005 at:
20-21 Visual Arts Centre
Church Square, Scunthorpe DN15 6TB, UK
open: Tues.-Sat., 10am-5pm
telephone: +44 (0)1724 297070
On-line permanently at:
: : : : :
Net:Reality is supported by Arts Council England and
curated by Michael Takeo Magruder in partnership with
20-21 Visual Arts Centre, Scunthorpe and Q Arts,
Derby. The exhibition was generated from an idea by
Michael Takeo Magruder and Jess Loseby.
for further information contact:
Michael Takeo Magruder
email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
University of Minnesota School of Music, Noel Zahler, Director
2006 Spark Festival of Electronic Music and Art
Douglas Geers, Director
West Bank Arts Quarter, University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus
CALL FOR COMPOSERS, ARTISTS, and PRESENTERS
Submission Deadline: September 30, 2005 (postmark)
The University of Minnesota School of Music is proud to present the 2006 Spark Festival of Electronic Music and Art, February 22-26. The festival will be held on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota (USA) and at the Walker Center for Art, Minneapolis. Now in its fourth year, the Spark Festival showcases the newest groundbreaking works of digital music and art. Last year’s festival included innovative works by over one hundred international composers and artists, including featured guest artists Philippe Manoury and DJ Spooky. Leading scholars and technology specialists also presented papers relating to new technology and creativity. Audiences for the concerts, installations, and lectures last year totaled approximately 2,000 people.
Spark invites submissions of works incorporating new media, including electroacoustic concert music, experimental electronica, theatrical and dance works, installations, kinetic sculpture, artbots, video, and other non-traditional genres.
Spark also invites submission of scholarly papers on technical and aesthetic subjects related to the creation of new media art and music. All accepted papers will be published as part of the Spark proceedings. Please see http://spark.cla.umn.edu/archive.html for a PDF copy of the Spark 2005 proceedings and program. [More, including submission guidelines, at thread link.]
My own effort in talking about Postinternet, at least in those early instances, as on the panel, was to (a) expand Rhizome's mission--I was then Editor & Curator--to cover and support a wider variety of practices; and (b) just to describe my own work and how a project like my Monitor Tracings (totally "offline" drawings) could be contextualized as internet art, or art 'after' the internet (i.e. In the style of & made after I log-off.) I think Michael puts it *perfectly* when he says, "we should understand all our gestures, 'online' and 'offline,' as actions in a network that is mediated and administered by computers." Perhaps this is obvious, but I'd say this applies to all of waking life, not just art production+reception.
I've personally moved from discussing Postinternet Art as "art after the internet" toward discussing Postinternet as "the symptoms of network culture." I am less interested in discussing PI Art specifically/exclusively, now that people have brow-beaten and/or branded the term into something far different than what I originally meant, and much more interested in discussing the social affects around the production of postinternet conditions and their manifestations. And, meanwhile, I have said (particularly in the Ullens catalogue & also in an interview in the Art and the Internet book put out by Black Dog) that, to me, Postinternet is just a 'placeholder' term around which to convene in having conversations around the latter symptoms. (I've started working on spelling these out more explicitly in recent & forthcoming writing-- including the keynote lecture I just gave at Pratt's UPLOAD conference, entitled "Postinternet is Dead. Long Live Postinternet.")
Likes/Dislikes around the word, aside, I hope this very long-running conversation around art and the internet can continue to incorporate careful consideration of the affects of network culture, as networks themselves evolve.
Like most of the folks above, I too am a "forever member," from the days of the Rhizome Communications ascii RAW listserv and, later, fancy Dreamweaver/Flash "Splash Pages," to the present. Reena Jana and I were the first two paid writers (poached from Wired!), when Alex Galloway was running "content," which at that time meant programming and editorial--though Rhizome was declaratively non-editorial, so they just commissioned book & exhibition reviews, and some interviews from us that were fed into the RAW stream and included in the Digest as Features. Oy vey, I can still remember the cross-eyed weekly ritual of trying to untangle parallel conversations to reassemble them into a coherent thread for the Digest, when I was editing it--and the race to get it out by noon one day each week!!
I've seen Rhizome go through so many changes, and I've been a part of the back channel conversations on years of them, including huge ones that we decided not to go through with. I have to say that it's always hard to serve a membership-based organization, which is what Rhizome has always thought of itself as. But I can say that every change in content or form has been discussed critically, at length, and typically not without a degree of passion.
I am also biting my tongue because I *really* do not want to put words in any staff member's mouth (past or present), but I can say that I believe everyone who's ever worked there has taken their position as a labor of love, with users/reader/members/community (everyone has their favorite self-identification; semantics trolls please don't hate today!) in mind, and everyone has collaborated with the staff to bring a unique take on how best to serve you in the current creative and technological climate. For instance, I remember that my big objective coming in the door was wanting to change the mission statement to reflect not only net art and not only highly technological art, but also art that "reflects" on technology in a meaningful way. In fact, I think contemplating this change was very much a part of my conceptualizing Postinternet.
There is so much to say here, but I think I'd best sign off. This is not my soap box, and in some way, it feels weird to comment so much. I used to be a Superusing Megaposter, but as soon as I became Editor & Curator, I stepped back to focus on trying to facilitate and amplify other voices, which I do believe every Rhizome Editor has done in their own way.
I'll end with this, then. I'd be surprised if every reader, writer, or editor loved everything that ever appeared (structurally or content-wise) in their newspaper of choice. I'd be surprised if every curator or museumgoer loved every artwork shown (or every exhibition design decision) in their favorite museum. But it's the day we stop reading, stop going to look at art that disappoints me. It's the day Rhizome stops experimenting that scares me. And I wish them well on this new experiment.
Thank you for these points of clarification. I actually tried to convey (and forgive me if I failed) that your presentation was unique in identifying multiple generations of networked artists, and I particularly liked the way you talked about artists working before the internet in ways that anticipated network culture.
You also made that great point (via Hal Foster) about the ways in which critics' work is influenced by what is/ was happening at the moment they entered the art world. I admire how you helped pioneer new media criticism and yet have continued to stay on the pulse of new work. This is what I had in mind when recalling your point about your relationship to a previous generation of net-dot-artists, versus the artists of the era Inclusiva was calling the "second epoch." I just really liked the way you fleshed out more than two epochs and I wanted to highlight your catalyzing role in the net-dot-art scene, in particular.
In my own presentation, my intent absolutely was not to dismiss any previous artists, movements, practices, etc. It was simply to flesh-out one niche of new media art practice. In fact, I really liked the pointed questions that the audience asked afterwards, because it helped us have a really meaningful discussion about the problematic relationship of pro surfer work to art historical discourse, and my calls to action revolved around getting those artists to participate in learning about their own pre-histories and writing historiographies that situate their own trajectories on their own terms.
So I don't think we're in disagreement. But I appreciate your call to fine-tune my articulation of these scenarios.
I'm sorry that you found my article objectionable. I didn't intend to make the implications you suggest, but I believe your response cuts to the most interesting aspect of Laric's piece, which is the effect of remixing.
For those who care to review the lyrics to this song, they are here:
They include the refrain:
Touch my body
Put me on the floor
Wrestle me around
Play with me some more
Touch my body
Throw me on the bed
So, in fact, I do think that Carey's lyrics (and video) invite sexual fantasy, but my article doesn't say that she is asking to be violated, it says that she's asking to be remixed. Of course, the slippage between the two that you identify is what's so interesting.
In an interview with Laric, he told me that he noticed that the video takes-on an increased sexual tone when all but Carey is masked out. He was interested in how this first-person invitation to "touch my body" could be construed as an invitation to remix the visage of her body (and/or the voice emitted from it), particularly given (a) the implicit link to digital culture embodied by both the lyrics and video, and (b) the fact that the remix is now such an important part of the media ecology of pop culture.
In the last 25+ years of pop music, lining-up celebrity remixes and making singles remix-ready has been an important part of the production cycle, often preceding the release of the original recording. Almost all historical accounts of Madonna's rise to fame cite her relationship with DJs and openness to remixing as a key factor in her success. So while you may see the remix as a violent act, clearly those participating in this industry see it as an imperative.
Discussions of why a remix is or isn't violent are interesting, as they get to questions of the status of the digital reproduction. Are we remixing a person or "just" her image, and what's the difference when thinking about how a person's identity--particularly a famous person's identity--hinges upon their image? Carey's image was already manipulated before it came to us. In the interview with Laric, he pointed to a segment in the original video in which the shape of a cup becomes distorted as a result of distorting the footage to make the singer standing behind the cup appear slimmer. So this is already not her. If you listen closely, I believe there is also a question as to whether all of the voiced parts of the song are her, so the audio issue adds another layer to the phenomenological question of the brute force of the remix.
These issues of the import of the remix, the relationship to broader pop culture (rather than an insular art world), collective authorship, and the nature of Carey's invitation are what I hoped to address in this article.