Patrick May
Since 2002
Works in NY, New York United States of America

BIO
Patrick May is a programmer and painter. He founded the artist collective Open Ground and was the Director of Technology at Rhizome.org from 2006-2008.

May received a BS in Studio Art from New York University in 1999. His work has been exhibited in New York, Miami, and Berlin, including Maiden Brooklyn, ZONE: Chelsea Center for the Arts, and the Galerie Scherer 8. He currently works in Brooklyn, NY creating intimate portraits of his friends and family.

Artists Wanted Competition


Artists Wanted – an open call for submissions.

The current Art World is rife with uninspired work. Too often artists are elevated based on who they know instead of the quality of their work. Our goal is to up-end that process.

Artists Wanted is a new and ongoing program designed to promote the great undiscovered artists of our time. Those selected will receive $2007 cash, an inclusion in our annual publication, and a solo show at the 3rd Ward gallery in Brooklyn. Runners-up will be listed and linked on the website and have the possibility of being featured in our publication. Submission deadline: Sept. 21st. Submission fee: $25 for 3 images. No previous exposure necessary. We want the best, most talented, undiscovered artists. We want you.

All information about submission available through www.artistswanted.org.

READ ON »



Discussions (68) Opportunities (1) Events (1) Jobs (3)
DISCUSSION

Shutdown at 12am EST tonight


Hello,

Rhizome.org will shutdown at 12am EST to perform an upgrade to the
memory on the server. The work should take between 30min - 1 hour to
perform. I will notify when the server is back up and running.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hello,

On May 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:

> Yes, perhaps a hybrid model would work. Actually, I think that
> technically, the folksonomy/tagging bit might be the hardest to
> implement (but worth it), whereas also having the AAT/etc terms in
> a list is a pretty easy and fairly static entity to include.

Making the Artbase a folksonomy will go beyond adding tags to the
metadata. Websites like Flickr or del.icio.us give up some control
in an effort to encourage participation. The premise is that the
main constraint on the success of a classification system is the
actual work of tagging. These sites focus first on getting more
people to tag and assume that valuable information can be aggregated
from the result.

To implement a folksonomy with the Artbase, I suggest we create
other rewards besides the act of tagging itself.

Instead of submitting to the Artbase, artists could "send a Linked
Artwork to RAW". The artwork could be online, linked from the
artist's profile, and a notification could be sent to the RAW mailing
list. There also could be a way to browse the RAW Linked Artworks,
just like there are ways of browsing the calendar or opportunities.

At the same time, these RAW Linked Artworks could be queued for
selection into the curated Artbase, just like RAW emails are queued
for selection into RARE.

> You mention an interesting note about ArtBase including licenses
> for commercial software as having the original software (or better
> yet, source code, see previous post) is helpful for preservation. I
> do rememeber that Howard Besser at NYU had mentioned a couple years
> ago the idea of convincing Congress to give software companies a
> tax break to release their old software into the public domain
> because it has little value for them, but great value for
> preservation. Does anyone else know about this project and what
> became of it. It might be relevant here......

This does not directly relate to metadata, but I'd like to make
suggestion about Artbase preservation techniques. At present we
"clone" an artwork onto our server. This requires a review of the
artworks being cloned, making the cloning process more time-
consuming. I think we could have a smoother process by focusing just
on "preservation":

+ The artist could upload an archive ( zip / sit / tgz / etc ) of the
project.
+ The archive would be preserved for future reference.
+ If the original link goes dark, either Rhizome or other interested
parties could choose to clone the project

This would allow us to preserve more artworks, including those which
do not match Rhizome's hosting environment. I'm sure on the internet
there are artworks created in LISP that are worth preserving :-)

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +

> At 12:51 PM +0100 4/26/06, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>> Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>>
>>> I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>> folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>> thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>>
>> I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in
>> mind for
>> paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies
>> are both
>> formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the
>> word "blue"
>> but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the
>> RDF using
>> wordnet or a thesaurus.
>>
>>> Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is
>>> not yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is
>>> the single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>> collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>> AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>> update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>> community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>> practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure
>>> which is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty
>>> unit that had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in
>>> updating the AAT based on feedback from the relevant community (us).
>>
>> Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>>
>> Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a
>> process to add
>> more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have
>> a list of
>> terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people
>> could add
>> terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome
>> community) could then
>> keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>>
>> A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement
>> though. :-)
>>
>>
>> On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for
>> Rhizome to get
>> licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>> unfortunately written
>> for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time
>> having this stuff
>> available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue
>> stream. ;-)
>>
>> - Rob.
>>
>> +
>> -> 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
>
>
> --
>
>
> Richard Rinehart
> ---------------
> Director of Digital Media
> Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
> bampfa.berkeley.edu
> ---------------
> University of California, Berkeley
> ---------------
> 2625 Durant Ave.
> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
> ph.510.642.5240
> fx.510.642.5269
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking


Eric,

On May 5, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Eric Dymond wrote:

> This is kind of like a protracted pregnancy, and I've been through 3.
> Maybe next year the poor applicants will be subjected to less abuse.
> Sorry, but this process has the hallmarks of reality TV, and it
> leaves me feeling pretty cold and worried.

Actually, the two-day delay in the second round was to test our
system and make sure no abuse would occur.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +

DISCUSSION

Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking


Hello,

The finalists for the Rhizome Commissions have now been chosen. Once
again, we had a 3 way tie for 25th place, giving us 27 finalists for
the second year in a row. You can see the full list of finalists here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/all_finalists.rhiz

You can submit your votes for the final stage here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/voting/ranking/

In this final stage, the top voted proposal will be awarded one of
the commissions; the other awards will be decided by our jury. This
second stage of voting will last until Wednesday, May 31, 2006. More
information about the voting process is available here:

http://rhizome.org/commissions/voting/

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +

DISCUSSION

Re: commissions


Pall,

On May 4, 2006, at 2:20 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> Ok, things are getting a little weird now. I remember seeing
> somewhere in the description of the voting process that the 25
> finalists would be presented at 8 pm on the second or the third.
> When I went back to check which it was, it had been removed. But
> the voting page still says that the final stage is scheduled to
> begin on the third. Today is the fourth. I went to the Rhizome
> sight and noticed a feature I've never noticed before. The date
> displayed on the gray band above the news items. And it says,
> Wednesday, May 3, 2006. So uh... is Rhizome trying to turn back
> time to keep on schedule?
>
> But seriously, when do we get to see the 25 finalists?

No, rhizome is not turning back time, or attempting to turn back
time. That grey band is for the reblog entries, we had not yet
published news this morning. The 8pm deadline was for the close of
voting. I will be announcing the finalists shortly.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick May
Director of Technology
Rhizome.org
phone: (212) 219-1288 x202
AIM: cyclochew
+ + +