BIO
Mark Cooley is an interdisciplinary artist interested in exploring the intersections of art, activism and institutional critique in a variety of contexts. Subjects of particular interest are U.S. foreign policy, corporate culture, and the political economy of new technologies. Recently, Mark has focused his attention on food production and consumption and the ways in which artists may mediate in these processes.
http://www.flawedart.net
http://www.flawedart.net
The New American Dictionary
The Boston-based performance group Institute for Infinitely Small Things has published a book called The New American Dictionary.
The dictionary highlights the terminology of fear, security and war that has permeated American English post 9-11. It includes 68 new terms i.e. Preparedness and Freedom Fries as well as terms that have recently been redefined i.e. Torture.
The dictionary also has an interactive dimension. 58 terms are left undefined for the reader to pencil in their own definition. Furthermore, readers are invited to submit their additions to the institute for a possible inclusion in the 2nd edition.
The New American Dictionary is available at several online stores.
exhaust emissions balloons
a huge balloon, tied to a car�s vent-pipe, depicting the amount of exhaust emissions a car releases a day.
the "bursting earth" project is similar, but more dynamic. activists attach world globe balloons on exhaust pipes of cars in Berlin. the exhaust gas inflates the ballons. after the message becomes readable, there is a big "bang".
[link: frederiksamuel.com & adsoftheworld.com & 20to20.org]
WoW!
Aram Bartholl is a german artist renowned for making physical abstractions of the digital world, particularly game-worlds.
One of Aram's not-to-be-missed performances is inspired by the popular computer game World of Warcraft (WoW).
In WoW, the nickname of the player's avatar is constantly hovering above the head of the player so that the identity is visible for everyone else in the game.
Aram took this little feature out of cyberspace to see how it would look if people's names would float above their heads in the physical world too.
WoW has been performed at different locations around the world. Luckily, it is well-documented!
• Getting coffee WoW style • Workshop in Ghent • Project Site
REALIZING THE IMPOSSIBLE: ART AGAINST AUTHORITY
Aesthetics and Politics
REALIZING THE IMPOSSIBLE: ART AGAINST AUTHORITY by Josh MacPhee, Erik Reuland, editors :: There has always been a close relationship between aesthetics and politics in anti-authoritarian social movements. And those movements have in turn influenced many of the last century's most important art movements, including cubism, Dada, post-impressionism, abstract expressionism, surrealism, Fluxus, Situationism, and punk. Today, the movement against corporate globalization, with its creative acts of resistance, has brought anti-authoritarian politics into the forefront. This sprawling, inclusive collection explores this vibrant history, with topics ranging from turn-of-the-century French cartoonists to modern Indonesian printmaking, from people rolling giant balls of trash down Chicago streets to massive squatted urban villages and renegade playgrounds in Denmark, from stencil artists of Argentina to radical video collectives of the US and Mexico. Lots of illustrations, all b&w.;
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
Alexis, i realize that i haven't defended my argument adequately, but i can't see what your rant has to do with addressing anything that i've said. don't get me wrong i love to rant. are you really suggesting that a society's visual culture evolves independently from it's political and economic culture? i think that's pretty easy to dispute, but we probably disagree on that fundemental issue. so there's probably not much to talk about beyond that.
mark
Alexis Turner wrote:
> That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just
> EVERYWHERE,
> isn't he?
>
> Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be
> very happy if
> people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or
> think
> about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the
> fact that
> we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be
> influenced
> by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I
> also ask
> why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to
> create
> something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary
> gain would
> never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
> capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of
> society
> forever and ever amen?).
>
> http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html
>
> Thanks,
> Alexis
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:
>
> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
> ::From: mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com>
> ::To: list@rhizome.org
> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
> ::
> ::i also disagree with m river's statement -
> ::
> ::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> ::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> ::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::
> ::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what
> is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is
> the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around.
> How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10
> years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be
> explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short
> of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But
> beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be
> addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two
> industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the
> technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of
> this thing called capitalism. i think i!
> t'!
> :: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of
> the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture
> industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is
> always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we
> just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no
> better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth
> saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like
> everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical
> media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media
> tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a
> social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media
> piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context
> and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media
> practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example,
> it's not because you!
> w!
> :: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
> :: ause tha
> ::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a
> goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant
> garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like
> "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if
> so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again?
> will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where
> everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every
> couple of years?
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::Jim Andrews wrote:
> ::
> ::>
> ::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> ::> >
> ::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you
> really
> ::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the
> good
> ::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::>
> ::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> ::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I
> mean,
> ::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive
> possibilities.
> ::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> ::> includes video for the net.
> ::>
> ::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as
> long as
> ::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> ::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves
> will
> ::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> ::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
> ::>
> ::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But
> one
> ::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> ::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> ::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> ::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if
> people
> ::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less
> likely
> ::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what
> people
> ::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding
> them
> ::> propaganda.
> ::>
> ::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of
> global
> ::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
> But it
> ::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em
> in
> ::> the dark and feed them shit.
> ::>
> ::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense
> transcends
> ::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is
> for
> ::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around
> for
> ::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
> ::>
> ::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me,
> are
> ::> a very long way from exhaustion.
> ::>
> ::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal.
> I
> ::> really hope it continues to do so.
> ::>
> ::> ja
> ::> http://vispo.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
> ::
mark
Alexis Turner wrote:
> That big, bad, capitalism monster/consuming fuckface. He's just
> EVERYWHERE,
> isn't he?
>
> Although parts of the following article are total crap, I would be
> very happy if
> people on the list would read it so as to at least riff off it and/or
> think
> about what it suggests about other angles of society beyond just the
> fact that
> we are all walking wallets with mouths, and thus cannot possibly be
> influenced
> by anything other than the consumer industry (speaking of which, may I
> also ask
> why in the hell one would pursue art, since presumably the need to
> create
> something for its own sake rather than ridiculously large monetary
> gain would
> never have even OCCURED to anyone if, in fact,
> capitalism is truly the one sole influence of everything in all of
> society
> forever and ever amen?).
>
> http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/ed-boygenius.html
>
> Thanks,
> Alexis
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, mark cooley wrote:
>
> ::Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:41:34 -0700
> ::From: mark cooley <flawedart@yahoo.com>
> ::To: list@rhizome.org
> ::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
> ::
> ::i also disagree with m river's statement -
> ::
> ::> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> ::> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> ::> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::
> ::the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what
> is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly
> animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of
> net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about
> getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is
> the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around.
> How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10
> years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be
> explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short
> of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But
> beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be
> addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two
> industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the
> technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of
> this thing called capitalism. i think i!
> t'!
> :: s worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of
> the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture
> industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is
> always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we
> just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no
> better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth
> saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like
> everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical
> media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media
> tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a
> social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media
> piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context
> and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media
> practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example,
> it's not because you!
> w!
> :: ant to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
> :: ause tha
> ::t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a
> goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant
> garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like
> "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if
> so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again?
> will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where
> everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every
> couple of years?
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::Jim Andrews wrote:
> ::
> ::>
> ::> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> ::> >
> ::> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you
> really
> ::> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the
> good
> ::> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> ::> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
> ::>
> ::> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> ::> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I
> mean,
> ::> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive
> possibilities.
> ::> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> ::> includes video for the net.
> ::>
> ::> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as
> long as
> ::> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> ::> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves
> will
> ::> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> ::> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
> ::>
> ::> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But
> one
> ::> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> ::> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> ::> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> ::> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if
> people
> ::> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less
> likely
> ::> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what
> people
> ::> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding
> them
> ::> propaganda.
> ::>
> ::> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of
> global
> ::> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
> But it
> ::> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em
> in
> ::> the dark and feed them shit.
> ::>
> ::> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense
> transcends
> ::> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is
> for
> ::> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around
> for
> ::> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
> ::>
> ::> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me,
> are
> ::> a very long way from exhaustion.
> ::>
> ::> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal.
> I
> ::> really hope it continues to do so.
> ::>
> ::> ja
> ::> http://vispo.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
> ::
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?
i also disagree with m river's statement -
> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around. How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10 years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of this thing called capitalism. i think it's worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example, it's not because you want to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
ause tha
t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again? will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every couple of years?
Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> >
> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
>
> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean,
> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities.
> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> includes video for the net.
>
> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as
> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will
> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
>
> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one
> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people
> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely
> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people
> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them
> propaganda.
>
> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global
> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it
> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in
> the dark and feed them shit.
>
> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends
> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for
> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for
> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
>
> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are
> a very long way from exhaustion.
>
> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I
> really hope it continues to do so.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
> Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
the subject of what is dead and what is not - what is cool and what is drool has come up fairly often here. i remember the fairly animated discussion some time ago concerning the supposed "death of net art". what is usually lacking in these bold statements about getting passed the past - going on to new brave new frontiers etc. is the basic question "why"? maybe some things are worth keeping around. How ridiculous it is anyway to talk of abandoning things that are 10 years old or less. I think Jim is right, is there no more to be explored with screen based net art - it's been exhausted in that short of time? It must not have had much to offer in the first place. But beyond that, back to the question "why". I think that it needs to be addressed that the rhizome community is part of at least two industries that are interconnected - the culture industry and the technology industry. Both industries are themselves expressions of this thing called capitalism. i think it's worth exploring the desire to constantly "move on" in terms of the consumer society. this fiction that envelops both the culture industry (fine art) and the technology industry says that "new is always better," "innovation always leads to better things." Aren't we just feeding the beast here when we say that we need to move on for no better reason that something has already been done? is nothing worth saying twice? is art is out there to be consumed and thrown away like everything else? this is why i think the discourse around tactical media is so much more constructive than that of fine art - when media tacticians "move on" it is in relation to something - in relation to a social context that means something conceptually. If a tactical media piece works it's because the producers were aware of social context and how their work will operate within it. if your a tactical media practitioner and you start using video news releases, for example, it's not because you want to be the first cutting edge artists to do that - it's bec!
ause tha
t's what will work if you want to get on the 6:00 news. there's a goal there that is real. i have little use for all these avant garde-isms that attempt to discredit with silly statements like "that's been done". yeah so? the question is, "did it work, and if so, what did it work to do?" then we can ask, "should we do it again? will it work a second time? Who wants to live in a society where everyone throws away the language and tools of their culture every couple of years?
Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > I disagree with your call to narrow focus Rhizome on net.art
> >
> > Why? I feel that what you are really looking for, what you really
> > miss finding here, is screen based work that looks like the good
> > old days of net.art. Works that might make your browser jump
> > around and flash on and off. Its been done. Its over. Move on.
>
> I'm not sure you were implying that screen-based net art is over.
> That's a pretty wide range, actually. So I kind of doubt it. I mean,
> that includes audio as well as visual. And interactive possibilities.
> So the information space is wider than video for the net, say,
> includes video for the net.
>
> My own feeling is that monitor-based net art will be around as long as
> the internet is around, though of course the monitors will change,
> maybe the mouse/keyboard io will change, the computers themselves will
> change, browsers will change and maybe something else will replace
> them, the typical bandwidth will change, and so forth.
>
> Also, the social structures of net communication will broaden. But one
> thing I hope will continue is ease of getting international
> information. There are exceptions, such as China, where tens of
> thousands of people are employed to enforce bans on looking abroad
> into innumerable information sources. And North Korea. But if people
> can see what's going on elsewhere in the world, they are less likely
> to tolerate a situation at home that doesn't live up to what people
> elsewhere in the world have, or where the government is feeding them
> propaganda.
>
> So, in a sense, international net art is a part of an ideal of global
> communications. And it isn't a cure all, global communications. But it
> beats a situation where people are treated like mushrooms: keep em in
> the dark and feed them shit.
>
> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some sense transcends
> not only national boundaries but language boundaries. Art that is for
> the world. The art of global communications. I hope that is around for
> a long time. And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
>
> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents, it seems to me, are
> a very long way from exhaustion.
>
> Rhizome has been a crucial organization in propagating this ideal. I
> really hope it continues to do so.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
>
new filmmakers at anthology film archives
Dates:
Wed Jun 07, 2006 00:00 - Sun Jun 04, 2006
it would be great if any of you in NY could come out wed. june 7 to the new filmmakers series at anthology film archives. i'll have a couple pieces being screened and barring a couple of flat tires i should be there as well. here's the info.
mark
NewFilmmakers Spring Series
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7TH
NewFilmmakers Begs Your Pardon
6:00 NEWFILMMAKERS DOCS, MOCKS & MORE
Nastasha Schull BUFFET: ALL YOU CAN EAT LAS VEGAS (2006, 28 minutes, Video)
Riad Galayini CROSSING (2006, 18 minutes, Video)
Alec Brownstein TREVOR'S IN HEAVEN (2005, 10 minutes, Video)
Adam Gooder VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION (2005, 4 minutes, Video)
7:00 NEWFILMMAKERS SHORT FILM PROGRAM
Mark Cooley MAN WALKS ON MOON (2003, 6 minutes, Video)
Mark Cooley AN AMERICAN DREAM (2003, 22 minutes, Video)
Andreas von Scheele THE LOTTERY (2005, 12 minutes Video)
8:00 NEWFILMMAKERS FEATURE PRESENTATION
Donna White Begging Your Pardon (2004, 104 minutes, Video)
Begging Your Pardon tells the story of a philandering husband who goes on a hunger strike to make his wife take him back. Meanwhile, she's falling in love with his best friend.
The film was shot with a zero-dollar budget using borrowed equipment on weekends while the cast and crew held down day jobs during the week.
Begging Your Pardon enjoyed a big, warm Premiere at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas, Texas. Writer/director Donna White is currently working on a new screenplay.
mark
NewFilmmakers Spring Series
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7TH
NewFilmmakers Begs Your Pardon
6:00 NEWFILMMAKERS DOCS, MOCKS & MORE
Nastasha Schull BUFFET: ALL YOU CAN EAT LAS VEGAS (2006, 28 minutes, Video)
Riad Galayini CROSSING (2006, 18 minutes, Video)
Alec Brownstein TREVOR'S IN HEAVEN (2005, 10 minutes, Video)
Adam Gooder VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION (2005, 4 minutes, Video)
7:00 NEWFILMMAKERS SHORT FILM PROGRAM
Mark Cooley MAN WALKS ON MOON (2003, 6 minutes, Video)
Mark Cooley AN AMERICAN DREAM (2003, 22 minutes, Video)
Andreas von Scheele THE LOTTERY (2005, 12 minutes Video)
8:00 NEWFILMMAKERS FEATURE PRESENTATION
Donna White Begging Your Pardon (2004, 104 minutes, Video)
Begging Your Pardon tells the story of a philandering husband who goes on a hunger strike to make his wife take him back. Meanwhile, she's falling in love with his best friend.
The film was shot with a zero-dollar budget using borrowed equipment on weekends while the cast and crew held down day jobs during the week.
Begging Your Pardon enjoyed a big, warm Premiere at the Magnolia Theater in Dallas, Texas. Writer/director Donna White is currently working on a new screenplay.
a MySpace LuvStory
OneSmallStep: a MySpace LuvStory
We are not ourselves. We cut and paste as we are cut and pasted. we are the remix of images and sounds that never existed outside of this mediated dream. And we are happy to exist this way.
OneSmallStep is an unfolding automated jam - a conscious sampling and randomized regurgitation of MySpace.com media archeology wherein desire, fantasy and fetish form a composted feast for the withered and lonely senses in an eternally habitual loop of voyeuristic consumption, spectacular regurgitation, virtual intimacy and identity production/consumption.
With each launch, OneSmallStep runs continuously while randomly remixing content form a database that is periodically updated. OneSmallStep is a conceptually interactive work, and also, a non-clickable work.
Important Technical Notes:
Browser preferences must be set to accept pop-up windows.
Browser must have Flash player (7 or later) installed.
System speaker Volume up.
Hi-speed connection prefered.
OneSmallStep: a Myspace LuvStory is a project developed for Concept Trucking, an exhibiton venue maintained by LeisureArts that uses MySpace as its platform. It hosts work that critiques, mimics, or otherwise utilizes the structural logic of social networking sites and other Web 2.0 phenomena.
Last database update:
June 2, 2006 v.1-172 - the Eternal Download Mix
OneSmallStep: a MySpace LuvStory
http://www.flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace
We are not ourselves. We cut and paste as we are cut and pasted. we are the remix of images and sounds that never existed outside of this mediated dream. And we are happy to exist this way.
OneSmallStep is an unfolding automated jam - a conscious sampling and randomized regurgitation of MySpace.com media archeology wherein desire, fantasy and fetish form a composted feast for the withered and lonely senses in an eternally habitual loop of voyeuristic consumption, spectacular regurgitation, virtual intimacy and identity production/consumption.
With each launch, OneSmallStep runs continuously while randomly remixing content form a database that is periodically updated. OneSmallStep is a conceptually interactive work, and also, a non-clickable work.
Important Technical Notes:
Browser preferences must be set to accept pop-up windows.
Browser must have Flash player (7 or later) installed.
System speaker Volume up.
Hi-speed connection prefered.
OneSmallStep: a Myspace LuvStory is a project developed for Concept Trucking, an exhibiton venue maintained by LeisureArts that uses MySpace as its platform. It hosts work that critiques, mimics, or otherwise utilizes the structural logic of social networking sites and other Web 2.0 phenomena.
Last database update:
June 2, 2006 v.1-172 - the Eternal Download Mix
OneSmallStep: a MySpace LuvStory
http://www.flawedart.net/files/nospacelikemyspace
Wal-Mart Celebrates Black History Month:
a recent trip to Wal-Mart revealed a stunningly retched "tribute" to black history month. Both alluring and revolting the "installation" begged for a return visit with my camera. here's a selection of pics set to some mood music.
http://129.174.66.118/AVT483,616/Cooley/files/BHMWal/index.htm#
http://129.174.66.118/AVT483,616/Cooley/files/BHMWal/index.htm#
