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.;
PLAYING CARD DECK SHOWS WAY TO REGIME CHANGE
April 25, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PLAYING CARD DECK SHOWS WAY TO REGIME CHANGE
The deck: http://www.gatt.org/regime/usregimecards.pdf
Info and ordering: http://www.gatt.org/regime/
Contact: playingcards@gatt.org
In the wake of the U.S.'s "pre-emptive" destruction of Iraq, her
people, and her culture, the Trade Regulation Organization is issuing
a "55 most wanted" playing-card deck (http://gatt.org/regime/) similar
to the one that the Pentagon issued two weeks ago in Iraq
(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html).
The TRO, estimating that the U.S. governing regime is no longer
consistent with world peace or prosperity, hopes that the playing
cards will show the way to regime change and, eventually, large-scale
war crimes proceedings.
According to the TRO, the victims of the unprovoked U.S. war fall into
three categories:
* People. In the 1991 Gulf War, 100,000-200,000 civilians and
80,000-150,000 soldiers were killed directly by bombs.
In addition, poisoning from the U.S.'s depleted uranium (DU) weapons - banned by the Geneva Convention - has led to hundreds of
thousands more Iraqi cancers and deaths; the 80,000 cases of "Gulf War
syndrome" among U.S. veterans are most likely also due to DU exposure.
In the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. once again used massive amounts of
DU in its weapons. Iraqi death counts are unknown or unpublicized.
(See http://gatt.org/regime/ for links.)
* Culture. Because of a U.S. policy giving carte blanche to looters -
only the Oil Ministry and Interior Ministry were protected - the
Middle East's leading archaeological museum lost almost all of its
unique ancient artifacts, and two libraries full of irreplaceable
medieval manuscripts were destroyed. (See http://gatt.org/regime/ for
links.)
* Prospects. The U.S. is now considered the primary world criminal by
the vast majority of the world's citizens. The implications for the
U.S.'s long-term prospects are grim.
Many of those featured on the "55 most wanted" cards are in government, and removing these people from power will go a long way towards making the world a safer place.
Others include corporate CEOs; in those cases, the corporations
themselves must be dissolved or otherwise rendered incapable of
further harm.
"If one day the people on these cards are indeed brought to justice,
'just following orders' or 'supporting our troops' will be no excuse
for the rest of us," said TRO spokeswoman Hedwig Ixtabal-Mono.
The Trade Regulation Organization, committed to making trade benefit
poor people, is the World Trade Organization's successor; see
http://gatt.org/irelease.html for more details.
# 30 #
To receive no further announcements from the WTO or TRO, write
remove@gatt.org?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PLAYING CARD DECK SHOWS WAY TO REGIME CHANGE
The deck: http://www.gatt.org/regime/usregimecards.pdf
Info and ordering: http://www.gatt.org/regime/
Contact: playingcards@gatt.org
In the wake of the U.S.'s "pre-emptive" destruction of Iraq, her
people, and her culture, the Trade Regulation Organization is issuing
a "55 most wanted" playing-card deck (http://gatt.org/regime/) similar
to the one that the Pentagon issued two weeks ago in Iraq
(http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html).
The TRO, estimating that the U.S. governing regime is no longer
consistent with world peace or prosperity, hopes that the playing
cards will show the way to regime change and, eventually, large-scale
war crimes proceedings.
According to the TRO, the victims of the unprovoked U.S. war fall into
three categories:
* People. In the 1991 Gulf War, 100,000-200,000 civilians and
80,000-150,000 soldiers were killed directly by bombs.
In addition, poisoning from the U.S.'s depleted uranium (DU) weapons - banned by the Geneva Convention - has led to hundreds of
thousands more Iraqi cancers and deaths; the 80,000 cases of "Gulf War
syndrome" among U.S. veterans are most likely also due to DU exposure.
In the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. once again used massive amounts of
DU in its weapons. Iraqi death counts are unknown or unpublicized.
(See http://gatt.org/regime/ for links.)
* Culture. Because of a U.S. policy giving carte blanche to looters -
only the Oil Ministry and Interior Ministry were protected - the
Middle East's leading archaeological museum lost almost all of its
unique ancient artifacts, and two libraries full of irreplaceable
medieval manuscripts were destroyed. (See http://gatt.org/regime/ for
links.)
* Prospects. The U.S. is now considered the primary world criminal by
the vast majority of the world's citizens. The implications for the
U.S.'s long-term prospects are grim.
Many of those featured on the "55 most wanted" cards are in government, and removing these people from power will go a long way towards making the world a safer place.
Others include corporate CEOs; in those cases, the corporations
themselves must be dissolved or otherwise rendered incapable of
further harm.
"If one day the people on these cards are indeed brought to justice,
'just following orders' or 'supporting our troops' will be no excuse
for the rest of us," said TRO spokeswoman Hedwig Ixtabal-Mono.
The Trade Regulation Organization, committed to making trade benefit
poor people, is the World Trade Organization's successor; see
http://gatt.org/irelease.html for more details.
# 30 #
To receive no further announcements from the WTO or TRO, write
remove@gatt.org?
(Mediated) Reality, for the "Unmediated", Net.Artist (genius)
http://elandar.com/toxics/stories/window1.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>
>
> > --where are you finding an unmediated reality, eryk? even your
> opinions
> are a form of mediated reality---as are mine.....
>
>
>
> There is an unmediated reality which goes on exterior to any human
> involvement and which our internal thought-assesments have nothing to
> do
> with. Any period spent occupying a space without an awareness of the
> self is
> a step towards realizing it, although in general I think I am
> impressed when
> I can be within a situation on anything even resembling a pre-verbal
> level.
>
> If we relate to our own reaction to stimuli as if it was "reality" we
> are
> saying that the entire universe is dependant on what we "process" in
> it. By
> this logic, because I can't see you I could very well state that you
> don't
> exist. Of course, you do- or you don't- regardless of whether I
> *think* you
> do or don't, and how I *feel* about your existence [not to imply
> anything
> here :) ] is secondary mediation- you exist, whether I "like you" or
> not,
> and whether you are doing what I think you "should do" or not. You
> exist, I
> acknowledge you exist, and everything else is cherries.
>
> In a lot of how I have engaged with the world, I was operating on the
> idea
> that my analysis of reality was what needed to be "exhibited" or what
> "needed to come through" in my work. I have decided that it is a far
> better
> avenue for me to try to make work that cuts through any second hand
> interpretation of the world- and I consider emotional assesments to be
> "second hand." I have done this in a lot of my ascii based work,
> starting
> with the 9/11 piece- the 9/11 piece is essentially the first piece I
> made
> that dealt, on some level, with deconstructing "mediated" visions of
> reality
> [in this case, media, my own desire to connect to emotional events,
> and the
> connection of my internal events with external reality- and trying to
> sort
> all of that out] and it was designed to deliberately cut that frame of
> thinking down. I don't know if it is possible to succeed in this
> obviously-
> but part of what I want to create in my work is the feeling I get from
> some
> pieces of art that open up a range of possibility by simply exposing
> the
> nature of our own internal mediations from reality. Fluxus, Dada,
> Sufism,
> Zen, Haiku poets, Warhol, etc have been what have done it for me, have
> been
> responsible for insights that make me say "aha" as opposed to "I
> agree" or
> "I disagree" or whatever other reaction a person has. Of course a lot
> of the
> other works I have done are still exploring the idea of what is and
> what is
> not mediation, in particular the ascii nudes. I don't know if this
> "comes
> through" in my work- probably not, I am still relatively new at all of
> this-
> but it is a contributing element.
>
> Something that really captures the disappointment I feel within
> net.art is
> the closing of possibility, and this I feel is part of what Marc was
> writing
> about when he criticizes the declaration of a "heroic" period of
> net.art,
> and what people seem to talk about when they complain about the
> structuring
> and institutionalization of any type of art. I mean all in all, we had
> a
> "new media," something that could have been used to open up
> possibilities
> for quite some time, but then you have it start to get smaller and
> smaller
> and more into emulation instead of genesis. To me, 97 is to net.art
> was 77
> is to most punks- precisely, with all the "positive" and "negative"
> baggage.
> The fact that the window opened up for a while and then closed again
> is just
> the way it goes- something can only be new for so long, can only open
> up so
> many new avenues, before people start coming in and running emulation
> routines and the original potential is not so *easy* to hop in with.
> Net.Art
> was an easy art form to invent. It was probably the easiest "movement"
> there
> ever was. And the museums/gallerists/flood of critics- who are the
> first
> spoilers [in the sense of "giving away the ending"], the folks who
> come in,
> see a possibility and interpret it, and make these standards for what
> it
> should be- they're the ones responsible for establishing a "mediation"
> of
> the original concepts. However, a very important element of this, is
> that
> it's the fault of artists if they choose to look at those mediated
> opinions
> of what "is" instead of creating something on thier own, and many
> people do
> this unintentionally simply because they love the ideas but can't come
> up
> with something that new on thier own. I consider myself in that
> category-
> you can call me an evolutionist rather than a creationist, and I think
> this
> is unfortunate for me obviously- "I may not be remembered by history
> as a
> net.art pioneer, boo hoo." And this is true regardless of how long I
> have
> been making this stuff. The window for total e-z-bake revolution has
> closed,
> though I don't think that means the death of net.art, it's just a lot
> harder
> for me to make something "amazing."
>
> Obviously "opinions" are a mediated reality, which is why I recently
> apologized to the list for having them and then denounced my right to
> have
> them. Opinions are not a "right" really so much as a dangerous
> addiction, of
> course people will always have them, I will always have them, but I
> need to
> keep a more careful eye on my constant tendency towards analysis and
> evaluation, no different from anyone else you might say.
>
> Or not.
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lewis LaCook" <llacook@yahoo.com>
>
> > --where are you finding an unmediated reality, eryk? even your
> opinions
> are a form of mediated reality---as are mine.....
>
>
>
> There is an unmediated reality which goes on exterior to any human
> involvement and which our internal thought-assesments have nothing to
> do
> with. Any period spent occupying a space without an awareness of the
> self is
> a step towards realizing it, although in general I think I am
> impressed when
> I can be within a situation on anything even resembling a pre-verbal
> level.
>
> If we relate to our own reaction to stimuli as if it was "reality" we
> are
> saying that the entire universe is dependant on what we "process" in
> it. By
> this logic, because I can't see you I could very well state that you
> don't
> exist. Of course, you do- or you don't- regardless of whether I
> *think* you
> do or don't, and how I *feel* about your existence [not to imply
> anything
> here :) ] is secondary mediation- you exist, whether I "like you" or
> not,
> and whether you are doing what I think you "should do" or not. You
> exist, I
> acknowledge you exist, and everything else is cherries.
>
> In a lot of how I have engaged with the world, I was operating on the
> idea
> that my analysis of reality was what needed to be "exhibited" or what
> "needed to come through" in my work. I have decided that it is a far
> better
> avenue for me to try to make work that cuts through any second hand
> interpretation of the world- and I consider emotional assesments to be
> "second hand." I have done this in a lot of my ascii based work,
> starting
> with the 9/11 piece- the 9/11 piece is essentially the first piece I
> made
> that dealt, on some level, with deconstructing "mediated" visions of
> reality
> [in this case, media, my own desire to connect to emotional events,
> and the
> connection of my internal events with external reality- and trying to
> sort
> all of that out] and it was designed to deliberately cut that frame of
> thinking down. I don't know if it is possible to succeed in this
> obviously-
> but part of what I want to create in my work is the feeling I get from
> some
> pieces of art that open up a range of possibility by simply exposing
> the
> nature of our own internal mediations from reality. Fluxus, Dada,
> Sufism,
> Zen, Haiku poets, Warhol, etc have been what have done it for me, have
> been
> responsible for insights that make me say "aha" as opposed to "I
> agree" or
> "I disagree" or whatever other reaction a person has. Of course a lot
> of the
> other works I have done are still exploring the idea of what is and
> what is
> not mediation, in particular the ascii nudes. I don't know if this
> "comes
> through" in my work- probably not, I am still relatively new at all of
> this-
> but it is a contributing element.
>
> Something that really captures the disappointment I feel within
> net.art is
> the closing of possibility, and this I feel is part of what Marc was
> writing
> about when he criticizes the declaration of a "heroic" period of
> net.art,
> and what people seem to talk about when they complain about the
> structuring
> and institutionalization of any type of art. I mean all in all, we had
> a
> "new media," something that could have been used to open up
> possibilities
> for quite some time, but then you have it start to get smaller and
> smaller
> and more into emulation instead of genesis. To me, 97 is to net.art
> was 77
> is to most punks- precisely, with all the "positive" and "negative"
> baggage.
> The fact that the window opened up for a while and then closed again
> is just
> the way it goes- something can only be new for so long, can only open
> up so
> many new avenues, before people start coming in and running emulation
> routines and the original potential is not so *easy* to hop in with.
> Net.Art
> was an easy art form to invent. It was probably the easiest "movement"
> there
> ever was. And the museums/gallerists/flood of critics- who are the
> first
> spoilers [in the sense of "giving away the ending"], the folks who
> come in,
> see a possibility and interpret it, and make these standards for what
> it
> should be- they're the ones responsible for establishing a "mediation"
> of
> the original concepts. However, a very important element of this, is
> that
> it's the fault of artists if they choose to look at those mediated
> opinions
> of what "is" instead of creating something on thier own, and many
> people do
> this unintentionally simply because they love the ideas but can't come
> up
> with something that new on thier own. I consider myself in that
> category-
> you can call me an evolutionist rather than a creationist, and I think
> this
> is unfortunate for me obviously- "I may not be remembered by history
> as a
> net.art pioneer, boo hoo." And this is true regardless of how long I
> have
> been making this stuff. The window for total e-z-bake revolution has
> closed,
> though I don't think that means the death of net.art, it's just a lot
> harder
> for me to make something "amazing."
>
> Obviously "opinions" are a mediated reality, which is why I recently
> apologized to the list for having them and then denounced my right to
> have
> them. Opinions are not a "right" really so much as a dangerous
> addiction, of
> course people will always have them, I will always have them, but I
> need to
> keep a more careful eye on my constant tendency towards analysis and
> evaluation, no different from anyone else you might say.
>
> Or not.
>
> Cheers,
> -e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
linked art object
warProductwar entry #1: the Good, Bad and the Profitable: or 54321
warProductwar: Will be an ongoing internet based meditation on the culture of war in the U.S. Entry #1, the Good, Bad and the Profitable is a noninteractive timebased montage that explores media representations, classic american mythology, and the material remains of "free" enterprise war culture.
warProductwar linked from (high speed access recommended runs slowly on dial up modem) - http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley/wal/web
mark cooley
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley
warProductwar: Will be an ongoing internet based meditation on the culture of war in the U.S. Entry #1, the Good, Bad and the Profitable is a noninteractive timebased montage that explores media representations, classic american mythology, and the material remains of "free" enterprise war culture.
warProductwar linked from (high speed access recommended runs slowly on dial up modem) - http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley/wal/web
mark cooley
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley
FCC Rules in Question
THE RULES IN QUESTION
Altering the rules of media ownership is currently part of the Federal Communications Commission's Strategic Goals program (http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/). Review of the rules was prompted in part by a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit which stated, in part, that the FCC must show "empirical evidence" that the rules are necessary, or they must be revoked. Additionally a lawsuit by several major networks has brought the rules into legal question again and Congress itself has mandated that the rules be reviewed every two years.
The FCC had begun review of two ownership rules in 2001, the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Rule and the Local Radio Ownership Rule. Now six rules are being reevaluated.
*Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975) Bans ownership of both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.
*National Television Ownership Rule (1941) A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation's homes.
*Dual Network Rule (1946) - No entity can own more than one major television network.
*Local Television Ownership Rule (1964) - A broadcaster can't own more than one of the top four stations in a single market.
*Local Radio Ownership Rule (1941) - Limits the number of radio stations any one entity can own in a single market.
*Television-Radio Cross-Ownership Rule (1970) - Limits the number of TV and radio stations a single entity can own in any given market.
**There are currently exceptions to these rules, decisions made on a case-by-case basis.
THE DECISION PROCESS
The FCC will decide whether the rules are to be eliminated or modified by late June, according to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The media ownership plan must be approved by a majority vote among the five commissioners, three of whom are Republicans (Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, Commissioner Kevin Martin, and Chairman Michael Powell) and two of whom are Democrats (Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and Commissioner Michael Copps).
To inform their decision, the FCC commissioned empirical studies of the current media marketplace. Other organizations, like the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) have done studies on the issue as well. On February 17, 2003 the PEJ released a five-year study on consolidation and quality called "Does Ownership Matter in Local Television News?" (http://journalism.org/resources/research/reports/ownership/default.asp)
As the dealine nears, the pressure mounts on the commissioners. On March 19, 2003 Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) wrote a letter to Chairman Powell calling for a broader public debate in the FCC's media ownership review. (Read the full letter http://www.consumersunion.org/images/0319SenateToPowell.jpg.) On April 1, 2003 six lawmakers wrote to FCC Chairman Michael Powell to urge him to adhere to his time schedule, which promises a final decision on the ownership rules by June 2, 2003. (Read the full letter. http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fccletter.pdf) Also, questions about the quality of war coverage have led the additional discussions in the press about the pros and cons of further consolidation. See the NEW YORK TIMES," "War Puts Radio Giant on the Defensive" (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/business/media/31RADI.html) and THE BALTIMORE SUN, "War coverage could alter U.S. media policy." (http://www.sunspot.net/)
Reprinted from www.pbs.org/now
See Bill Moyers on media consolidation @ http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_bmjfcc.html
Altering the rules of media ownership is currently part of the Federal Communications Commission's Strategic Goals program (http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/). Review of the rules was prompted in part by a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C. Circuit which stated, in part, that the FCC must show "empirical evidence" that the rules are necessary, or they must be revoked. Additionally a lawsuit by several major networks has brought the rules into legal question again and Congress itself has mandated that the rules be reviewed every two years.
The FCC had begun review of two ownership rules in 2001, the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Rule and the Local Radio Ownership Rule. Now six rules are being reevaluated.
*Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Prohibition (1975) Bans ownership of both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.
*National Television Ownership Rule (1941) A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation's homes.
*Dual Network Rule (1946) - No entity can own more than one major television network.
*Local Television Ownership Rule (1964) - A broadcaster can't own more than one of the top four stations in a single market.
*Local Radio Ownership Rule (1941) - Limits the number of radio stations any one entity can own in a single market.
*Television-Radio Cross-Ownership Rule (1970) - Limits the number of TV and radio stations a single entity can own in any given market.
**There are currently exceptions to these rules, decisions made on a case-by-case basis.
THE DECISION PROCESS
The FCC will decide whether the rules are to be eliminated or modified by late June, according to FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The media ownership plan must be approved by a majority vote among the five commissioners, three of whom are Republicans (Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, Commissioner Kevin Martin, and Chairman Michael Powell) and two of whom are Democrats (Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein and Commissioner Michael Copps).
To inform their decision, the FCC commissioned empirical studies of the current media marketplace. Other organizations, like the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) have done studies on the issue as well. On February 17, 2003 the PEJ released a five-year study on consolidation and quality called "Does Ownership Matter in Local Television News?" (http://journalism.org/resources/research/reports/ownership/default.asp)
As the dealine nears, the pressure mounts on the commissioners. On March 19, 2003 Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) wrote a letter to Chairman Powell calling for a broader public debate in the FCC's media ownership review. (Read the full letter http://www.consumersunion.org/images/0319SenateToPowell.jpg.) On April 1, 2003 six lawmakers wrote to FCC Chairman Michael Powell to urge him to adhere to his time schedule, which promises a final decision on the ownership rules by June 2, 2003. (Read the full letter. http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fccletter.pdf) Also, questions about the quality of war coverage have led the additional discussions in the press about the pros and cons of further consolidation. See the NEW YORK TIMES," "War Puts Radio Giant on the Defensive" (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/business/media/31RADI.html) and THE BALTIMORE SUN, "War coverage could alter U.S. media policy." (http://www.sunspot.net/)
Reprinted from www.pbs.org/now
See Bill Moyers on media consolidation @ http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_bmjfcc.html
contextin' correction
the correct address for contextin' art is
http://www.artofficial-online.com/contextin/spring_03
http://www.artofficial-online.com/contextin/spring_03
