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.
a huge balloon, tied to a carâ��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".
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!
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.;
New installment @ http://www.war-product-war.com
warProductwar is a site for reflection and meditation on U.S. war culture. The project will develop over time as a series of installations through which participant/viewers may re-view cultural representations in possibly revealing (or at least troubling) juxtapositions. Through the course of the project, warproductwar will remain in a state of flux. Broken links and loose ends should be expected. Additions, deletions, and changes are continually pondered and infrequently enacted.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted (im)material. Use of copyrighted (im)material has not been specifically authorized by copyright owners. Previously published content is recontextualized and made available @ war-product-war.com in efforts to promote active re-readings of U.S. visual culture in reference to war, alienation, and the global economy. The function of this site constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.
SOFTWARE SPECIFICATIONS. Site tested in internet explorer (other browsers may experience problems). flash player 5 plugin required
NOTICE: Through the course of the project war-product-war.com will remain in a state of flux. Broken links and loose ends should be expected. Additions, deletions, and changes are continually pondered and infrequently enacted.
a FLAWEDart production http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley
I would be interested if you could explain whether you have used new technologies and what constitutes as "conventional traditional media", and where you would class yourself as an artist in respect to either traditional art or multimedia art.
Do you use multimedia to produce your art (in combination, instead of, not at all)?
What are the advantages/disadvantages?
What technologies do you use?
What do you see as the future?
What is your background - traditional or multimedia artist?
What do you look for in a piece of art?
What makes ordinary art into multimedia art?
I have tried to include the preceding questions in a single (yet fragmented) statement. Let me know if you have any follow up questions and sorry for the delay.
Along with many other contemporary artists, I have used digital imaging technology, and yet in-and-of themselves the development and use of these new technologies does not, for me, automatically designate a break from the conventions of "traditional" visual arts practice. Any changes in the conventions of visual arts practice are the result of much more than the development of technologies. There is a popular view (the industry view that is also reproduced by new media practitioners and others) that the development of new tools necessarily revolutionizes artistic practice. Rather, I see the development of new tools as a way to fulfill older agendas. When we think of new media vs. traditional media we first must think of the different values attached to Analog and Digital philosophies - the technology follows the philosophy or the desire that is directly tied to politics/economics. Analog as a western philosophy can be traced back to the rediscovery and celebration of Plato during the European Renaissance and then on to Descartes etc. through to Modernism of the 20th century (see the art criticism of Greenberg). The philosophy revolves around the construction of the Original and the Duplication / the Real and the Fake and similar dichotomies. The Original is given value in ideological and monetary terms and the fake is stripped of value also in those terms. A Van Gogh is absurdly valuable because of its "authenticity" while a duplication (forgery) no matter how perfect amounts to a criminal activity at worst/best and a cheap poster at best/worst (depending on copyright permission and claims to authorship). Of course similar value systems extended far beyond "Fine Art." Up until the late 19th. early 20th. centuries with the onset of mass production and Modern Capitalism we also see the beginnings of Digital philosophy. Although the technology had not quite caught up to the philosophy, something close to Digital philosophy (although not referred to as such) was relied upon by early industrialists to further profits. Let's take Henry Ford as an example since he is often credited for developing modern production processes - the assembly line. Ford's plan was to transfer value from the more-or-less one-of-a-kind production processes of crafts-people who worked in small shops with hands-on all steps of construction process to factory work where workers were alienated from both the entire production process (the products of their labor) and access to the wealth generated by the sale of such items (Erich Fromme writes eloquently about this subject in his book Escape From Freedom. Also, see writings by Critical Art ensemble - http://www.critical-art.net/). It was Ford's plan, following in others footsteps, to generate more profits by working to automate the production process as much as possible, thereby eventually eliminating the need for human workers at all (we have seen this philosophy taken to it's logical limits in today's production environments where human employment only exists to aid the present shortfalls of machinery (this is also partially the story of cybernetics, but let's not get into that now). To make a long a long complex story shorter and more simple than it deserves let's take two of Ford's fundamental concepts for profit reproduction, Automation and Duplication (which are also fundamental concepts in digital technology) and relate them to the culture industry. Although today practically every other industry has openly embraced these concepts of the so-called "Digital Age," which is the economics of Postmodern Capitalism, the Culture Industry has not so easily conformed to these concepts although it is trying. Cultural institutions including celebrated artists, patrons, curators, museum directors, critics, collectors, educators, etc. have placed so much value on the assumptions of analog philosophy that it has become a difficult transition to make. Clearly, institutional capital is built and reproduced upon the production and collection of "original" works and all of the assumptions and value systems that go along with that, i.e. the supposed autonomous artist genius creating original works which represent eternal and timeless truths to those who are not directly in touch with those things. Increasingly, institutions find themselves behind in terms of keeping up with contemporary artistic production using new media tools and older systems of value reproduced by the institution. The predicament is not unlike the situation faced by museums at the rise of performance art. Many artists working in performance art in the 60's and 70's were reacting against the monopolization of culture by institutions by staging events outside of the museum context which by nature could not be collected by museums and reproduced different assumptions of what art could be about - immediacy over timelessness, context over autonomy, etc.(at the same time artists were struggling maintain rights to reproduction of their own work and other such matters). Eventually, museums found ways around this by simply collecting and controlling the documentation of performances in addition to collecting "artifacts" from performances as works unto themselves. The dilemma now is most concentrated in the realm of Net Art; an art form that is a product of digital technology and philosophy. Institutions have been asking themselves, how to limit what is infinitely reproducible, how to house and control access to that which is accessible to anyone with internet access, how to collect payment for showing art that by its nature can be experienced as intended without a visit to the museum. Various plans have been thrown around. One such plan talked about and abandoned by the director of the Whitney Museum of American Art, which has for some time now featured Net Art through it's website's ArtPort, was based on a "Pay-per-view" system. We will see how institutions choose to manage these dilemmas as Net Art begins to take a more important place in their collections.
Getting back to your question concerning where I place myself in terms of my artistic practice and the myth of traditional vs. new media or multimedia practice. As I said above, those lines are not distinguished, for me, by use of technology. I use new technologies to develop concepts and assumptions that I have acquired from my studies of postmodern theorists, conceptual artists, activist art, new genre public art and other sources. I tend to resist defining artists according to the media they work with, but more by the assumptions and values they place in the work they do. For example, to be called an expressionist is much different than being called a painter or sculptor etc. The latter designates the tools used in the formation of work and of course the baggage that goes along with that, and the former is to designate by the assumptions, philosophy, values etc. with which the work is produced. It seems that many artists today working with digital technology feel good about defining themselves by the tools they use - the tools define them and the work becomes simply advertisement for software companies and new technologies (who are often sponsors of new media exhibitions). This gets back to how economics is being played out in the realm of "New Media Art." If I say that I am a New Media Artist, which I admit to having done, I am saying that my artistic practice rums parallel to the development of new technology, which makes me subservient to the demands of investors in the new economy. Since much of my work is a direct criticism of the excesses of Capitalism, I don't feel so good about defining my artistic output by the demands of the market. This is what bothers me most about many of the opportunities being made available to artists working in new modes of expression/communication especially through websites like Rhizome.org, exhibitions are more-and-more being organized around the exploitation of new digital technologies rather than critical issues. It is a reemergence of modernist principles in the form of new media - it is as if to say "let's have a show about painting, not about what artists are saying through painting, but just about painting itself as an autonomous activity" and there we are back in the 1950's height of modernism.
- i mean that as a compliment.
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> PS: Could you elaborate on how my desire to understand the world
> outside of
> the constructs of the power elite connects to your claim that I am
> advocating a philosophy of controlled breeding for humans?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mark cooley"
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:57 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Gender: Constructions vs Stereotypes
> > "If we can analyze the roles that are dictated by culture in regards
> gender, we can identify and neutralize them...
> > ...Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion, is in the
> elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a means
> direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of
> in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in
> gender, it
> takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and in how
> people interact with authority."
> > These statements explain very nicely the position from which your
> was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My
> were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a
> thing as
> socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space
> (whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I
> that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an
> opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the
> socially constructed identity (impure).
> > ..i mean come on listen to this language...
> > "dictated by culture... identify and neutralize them... elimination
> role playing at any level of one's identity..."
> > ... it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.
> > mark
> > > Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> > > Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
> > > Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the
> root at
> > > the
> > > cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in
> > > perpetuation, or
> > > can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal
> > > If
> > > you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is
> > > if you
> > > learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the
> > > roles
> > > that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify
> > > neutralize them.
> > >
> > > The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where
> > > merge
> > > into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in
> > > discussion,
> > > is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's
> > > as a
> > > means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the
> > > barrage of
> > > childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes
> > > place in
> > > gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive
> > > and
> > > in how people interact with authority.
> > >
> > > My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these
> > > are-
> > > this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand
> > > so we
> > > know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the
> > > process.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > -> questions: email@example.com
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
...Ultimately, my interest in art, and in discussion, is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity as a means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the barrage of childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes place in gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors and in how people interact with authority."
These statements explain very nicely the position from which your essay was written. In that context the essay was very successful. My comments were meant to point out that the essay assumes that there is such a thing as socially constructed identity, and at the same time reserves a space (whatever that may be) for a non-constructed identity. typically, I think that this is considered a rightwing enterprise since it sets up an opposition between a non-constructed identity (pure) and the manipulated socially constructed identity (impure).
..i mean come on listen to this language...
"dictated by culture... identify and neutralize them... elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity..."
... it sounds like a fucking paper on eugenics.
> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> Gender constructions are not meant to be gender based stereotypes.
> Understanding the constructions of behavior helps identify the root at
> cause and can lead to perpetuation if one is interested in
> perpetuation, or
> can lead to identification and elimination in one's personal behavior.
> you identify cliches in art you learn to avoid them. The same is true
> if you
> learn to identify cliches in one's identity. If we can analyze the
> that are dictated by culture in regards to gender, we can identify and
> neutralize them.
> The idea behind the Gender essay was simply to point out where people
> into thier constructions. Ultimately, my interest in art, and in
> is in the elimination of role playing at any level of one's identity
> as a
> means of direct contact with whatever sense of self survives the
> barrage of
> childhood in a world built completely on fabrications. This takes
> place in
> gender, it takes place in peoples regulatory and restrictive behaviors
> in how people interact with authority.
> My hope with the essay was simply to expose what these constructions
> this is my interest in almost everything I do. To understand illusions
> so we
> know when we are falling prey to them, and losing ourselves in the
Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kanarinka"
> > This essay raises excellent points and is well thought-out. The only
> > thing that I find problematic is creating constructions of gender or
> > gender-driven behavior that are too specific and narrow (e.g.
> > "Femininity is the gender of networks, traditionally seeking out
> > relationships to others as a means of definition.", "In chat rooms,
> > women are looking for intimacy and men are looking for sex.") I
> > that in order to say anything meaningful about the role of gender in
> > these issues you must make distinctions but I think it's important
> > retain a level of fluidity and also talk about exceptions to the
> > (in order to present a full, balanced picture). I, for one, post
> more to
> > mailing lists than I go to chat rooms.
> I agree; and there are my own momentary lapses; but there is one very
> important statement I placed in parenthesis: "I should point out that
> I use
> the term "feminine" and "masculine" to represent patterns of behavior-
> and I
> do not resort to "male" and "female" as indicators of that behavior."
> occasionally I do return to "men" to mean "masculine" and "women" to
> "feminine" simply because it's usually the case, and because it's what
> polling data uses, but there is certainly a difference. And what I
> doesn't touch the concept of androgyny. An androgynous web would be
> interesting as well.
> I also think the project at the artport right now- "Bumplist"- is
> interesting in terms of sociological experiment. In a sense, it is
> taking a
> predominantly masculine media and putting in factors that would
> its masculinity by limiting the time one has to make one's point. I
> have to
> wonder what the result is, but I haven't subscribed and haven't had a
> to look at the archive. Conversely, MTAA's project "Endnode" is an
> interesting excersize in feminine mailing lists dynamics, since the
> way the
> list was promoted was as a short term collaboration where the team
> together for the sake of the tree (roots working for the benefit of
> trees.) And, ehhh, both of these projects are made by men.
> > What about usages of technologies that are not exclusively male or
> > female, such as googling to find information about programming
> syntax or
> > helping someone online find a solution to a problem? Or are all
> > prompted by gender? I would argue not. What behaviors can you
> > characterize as motivated by gender and why? Is that only because
> > fit our stereotypes of what gender is (e.g. women are more
> > men are more competitive, etc)?
> Well; thats the important distinction right there. "Women" are not
> emotional, but feminine personalities are. This, at least, according
> to the
> bulk of gender identity research I have done. There are tests which
> determine your gender based solely on how you identify yourself; I
> on another list recently that I myself scored a 2.53 on a test where
> was considered "extremely feminine" [0 = androgyny, -2.5 = extremely
> masculine.] At the same time, I engage in a lot of masculine behavior
> that I do not at all engage in in real life.
> There are concepts of gender which inform every culture; every culture
> some construct of "what a girl should be like" and "what a boy should
> like." From a Freudian perspective all the way down to modern
> [Nancy Chodorow, etc] and even to more straightforward cognitive or
> learning models of gender, it is a huge component for how we interact
> the world. If your social learning took place in a sphere somewhat
> from placing emphasis on gender, you still got lessons on gender
> Even if, as a girl, you were told "Girls don't have to be feminine" or
> as a
> boy you were told "boys don't have to be masculine," these are still
> constructions and still create a very large area of one's identity.
> > I think essays like this could be supported by both a quantitative
> > perspective (which you have provided) and a qualitative perspective
> > e.g. some primary source material about why people use technologies
> > certain ways, what prompts their thinking about the technology, etc.
> I agree; though the problem with any sort of qualitative research is
> you get
> "opinion" and not many people would be self aware enough of why they
> act the
> way they do- and most would deny the idea that gender is important at
> It's very easy to dismiss something like that in the modern, PC world
> alledged "equality" between the sexes. But at the same time; entire
> of power, relationships, sexuality and god knows what else were
> under a flagship of masculine control. In this regard, women don't
> "power" simply because "power" has been defined by way of masculinity
> equate "control" which of course it doesn't have to do. Power can come
> through unification, consensus, etc. [and a lot of the modern
> world is starting to change into a more feminine model, ever since the
> "empowerment" came down to the employees. But whats neat is that the
> feminine model supports a rhizomatic network, whereas the masculine
> of management emphasize hierarchy and "power." These are also the huge
> distinctions between the internet and traditional media like
> television and
> > Quantitative data can often be reductive (as in the sense of
> > demographics -- I find it rather offensive when people tell me I
> > to a certain demographic - as if all your wants, needs and values
> can be
> > predicted based on a few accidental variables).
> Well, again- the distinction of "masculine and feminine" from "men and
> women" is designed specifically for that purpose. There are, however,
> demographics that support the theory. And yes, men do tend- on a
> whole- to
> be more "masculine" and women more "feminine," as the demographics I
> provided kind of demonstrate, but it shouldn't be seen as all
> There aren't many hermaphodites or transgendered individuals being
> polled to
> see how they interact with the web; but the results could be
> Even terms like "feminism" have some level of contention. There is the
> feminism of "women can do what boys can do" but modern feminism tends
> concern itself with embracing the strengths of femininity. The web is
> major boon to feminism for this reason; which is why I had been
> dismayed that one of the more popular images of feminity on the web
> to be Mouchette, the perpetual victim. Cyberfeminism seems like this
> ghetto and it doesn't have to be. The web- and web art, with its
> emphasis on
> collaboration and interactivity- is *inherently feminist*.