Plasma Studii
Since the beginning
Works in New York United States of America

judsoN = computer artist for shows internationally on stages, galleries and the web, and the Artistic Director of Plasma Studii, a non-profit arts organization in New York. His goal is to use technology as a tool to fuse arbitrary distinctions in art, such as dance and sculpture, color and sound frequencies, stages and web sites. His live interactive pieces appear in such venues as plays in circus tents across Europe, installations for places like the Arts Council of Mildura, Australia, on web sites at ISCAM (in Istanbul) and cTheory for Cornell University (twice). His artwork published in books (US, Europe, South America) and on CD-Roms worldwide. Studied choreography under Doug Elkins, music composition with a student of Stockhausen.
Discussions (278) Opportunities (1) Events (3) Jobs (0)

most serial killers don't get that way on accident

this is "art" related in the end, but you have to bear with me.

i love reading about serial killers, "spree killers", etc. it's like social etymology. what gets
sdomeone to that point? who knows if there's a way to never make it happen again, but
there certainly is a lot cheaper and easier way to minimize it. by changing philosophy.

instead of looking at the killers as killers and preventing them (which is like that Star Wars
defence idea from the 80's. if it doesn't work 100% of the time, does no good. since missing
1% is enough to be a huge tragedy.

while often by the time they don't even see people as anything but moving targets, obstacles
preventing them from happiness, they are too mentally unstable and incoherent to reason
with. however, in the vast majority of cases, the killer (so often a white male, social outcast,
20-30, in large industrial cities. (which describes most computer geeks, though clearly most
do not end up serial killers.)

the "type" is so prevalent, it appears the serial killer's goal is not ultimately destruction or
hate as much as a plee for someone to give them some respect, publicity. the serial killer
has usually felt ignored or rejected for too long and finally with diminishing options for
someone to listen to them, they figure out how to kill a bunch of folks.

what's peculiar, is that while these generally escalate from cases of misguided paranoia,
where the victims really have no logical link to the killer, but that's what the killer (or
president) perceives.

However, in many cases, the potential psycho killer, can be diffused by actually listening.
The demands may be ridiculous, but allowing these people to feel heard. Often this calms
them enough to look at their ideas more rationally. spiralling back down to Earth, rather
than escalating and building steam. preventing people from becoming serial killers in the
first place, may require an hour of work, rather than 24/7 for years protecting from them.

These cases rarely are documented, but one where a worker went from peeing on their
mainframe, becoming gradually more reclussive, and collecting guns, could have easily
devolved into a spree. All the company did was note his demand for a promotion and
explain, there was nothing they could do for him until the job opened up. not an airtight
reason, but enough to calm him down for a day.

Whereas, the cases that escalate ARE all we hear about. so you have to wonder, if bin Laden
really was ultimately behind the 9/11 thing. Was he being ignored for years before? is that
the REAL source of the problem? there's a tenant not to listen to crazed terrorists/
kidnappers/bank robbers. probably a good idea, since they've lost logic. but what about
listening to people before they get to that point.

Mixing up where the profile leaves off and the concrete proof begins, is actually just
objective projection, not unlike beleiving horiscopes. in judging and assessing, it's as if
many are subscribing to a fortune cookie. "you'll meet a tall dark stranger", which folks
interpret any way their subconscious sees fit and swear is proof they are right in identifying
what's "good". certainly it is common in art and art criticism. judgement is a ruse.

am i arguing for or against anything? not really. (i'd love if people were wiser, but it'd be
silly to say who's wise enough or what to do if somebody does or doesn't meet my standard.
some people just aren't gonna be very wise.) but these judgemental types aren't making
their choices much differently than those they judge.

in a culture that emphasizes dictating and defending our dictates, over listening and revising
opinions, maybe art itself has become skewed. this culture is proving impractical. our lack
of listening skills is coming back in face. i don't know. i don't want to spend all day being a
therapist. but maybe if instead of a military, we had a hierarchy of 1/4 as many people and
far cheaper equipment, preventing probably several times as much dammage.

anybody got any opinions?

501(c)(3) non-profit
stage * galleries * web
POI Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025


Re: beer delivery

i liked your quote.

why would "purity" be a goal though? correct me where i'm wrong but i only see a "it is
because it is" argument? (neither new-ness nor relevance in question. more like context and

(seems like the whole web art scene needs a lot more than a quick gloss over, there are too
many common sense inconsistencies here, reinforced by popular fears and fantasies. just
because we can't build this stuff at home, doesn't mean all of these techno tools are related.
people are making decisions based on observations while covering up their eyes. there's
nothing scary going on. it's like they just understood tv, and say to everything now "oh, i get
it, it's like tv.")

On Aug 2, 2005, at 12:42 AM, Eric Dymond wrote:

well I don't think there is a "pure" web art anymore. Online video is as relevant as flash,
javascript games and java based AI interaction.
if it can be networked then it is.
"it's all for fun you know,
share a little joke with the world"
-> post:
-> questions:
-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
-> give:
-> visit: on Fridays the web site is open to non-members
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at


open question to NEA


(pls pass on as appropriate, the NEA site is nunclear as to where these queries should be

perhaps you can help.

the guidelines for submitting to the NEA state artwork on CD ROM can be images or movies
and must run >3min, by itself. not only would this be a pretty silly subset of what a CD ROM
is for, it pretty much precludes interactive art? or even non-linear art (that has no such thing
as a running time) (The URL requirements are even more vague.)

it's a little like insisting only b/w silent movies be proposed nowadays. it's certainly possible,
but doubt that is at all what you want. non-interactive work is just the way people made art
before, but now it's not the only way and there is no actual reason to favor it. just as no one
really says silent film is a legitimate form of art but talkies aren't.

certainly, you must have something else in mind. a decade ago, when computers were rarer,
a fraction of people stayed online all day, it might have made sense. but now that most
every desk in the US has a computer on it connected 24/7 to the web, we need an update.

where an image is art for the eyes, a film art for the eyes and ears, interactivity is art work
for the eyes, ears, and fingers. where linear art is dictation, interactivity is a conversation.
certainly linear works are viable ingredients in making muiltimedia. perhaps linear work still
holds some nostalgic value for many. but its limitations, cannot be seen as barriers to
exclude modern works without those same limitations.


501(c)(3) non-profit
stage * galleries * web
POI Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025


beer delivery

why? can somebody explain the reasoning here. why are these things lumped together so

video and web art are about as related as aria and telephone. yes, you can sing opera over
the phone. but so what? who ever does? why would you? video is to web as beer is to
truck. it's one delivery method. common but hardly fundamental in any way. many folks
own cell phones that show the time, and you may even look at yours all the time to check.
but you'd never think to buy a cell phone, never to talk on it, only as a watch.

a video turing test:
a DVD player, camcorder, VHS, and a computer can all be hooked up to the same video
switcher. (a browser window can easily be editted in, if that seems necessary to somebody.)
if an audience watching the screen couldn't otherwise tell the difference where the source is
coming from, how could it possibly matter!? why say it's internet related at all?

most of the venues for web art, love getting video. it isn't particularly web or computer or
interactive related, but somehow these people see some fundamental relationship.
sometimes video screenings are even eager take web work, but baffled when you say there
isn't anything like a running time. they can't see how that's possible, something with no

on the flip side, one certainly can upload video, use it in multimedia or even interactivity. but
you can also upload meatloaf recipes. sure, we could probably push the issue that a
meatloaf recipe can be ART. but honestly, why is video - web art getting a tidal wave of
favoritism over meatloaf recipe - web art? video isn't at all intrinsically more interesting,
impressive or informative.

hey video's fine, but it hangs around web stuff way too much. it's being a leech. video has
a perfectly good home, why can't it just stay there.

(sorry if this is a re-post. my server says it was sent, but never got it and can't find it at
rhizome? though i doubt they screen, surely a techno glitch.)

501(c)(3) non-profit
stage * galleries * web
POI Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, NY 10025


Re: re: The Universal Computer

On Jul 30, 2005, at 6:22 AM, Jim Andrews wrote:

>should it be the case that human cogitation is explicable in terms of
algorithms, this would not demean or lessen the wonder of thought and
feeling. on the contrary, the notion that all we are of mind and emotion is
the product of agencies of *this* world suggests to me that the material
world is almost unfathomably rich in possibilities for mapping into mind and
emotion, thought and feeling. and that it is all in front of us to be
explored. if we do not shut down the exploration. if we keep valuing the
open and inquiring mind.

The Earth need not be the center of the universe to feel OK about ourselves. just as humans
need not have entirely mysterious, non-algorithmic motivations.

>it seems to me that what separates us from the other animals is the richness
of language of which we are capable. other animals are not incapable of
language. it is simply a matter of degree, of richness of language--and,
correspondingly, we are capable of greater logical complexity in our
reasoning and information storage and retrieval.

though i think your ultimate point is spot on, i'm not sure about this animal cognition stuff.
it'd be like someone saying they saw a car fly through outer space. cars just don't have that
kind of engine. though hey anything's possible. i can't refute what you saw, even if i doubt
the conclusions.

so why do people go through such (often unconsciously) length to explain their projected
anthropomorph-ization of animals while denying fairly clear and probable similarities to

the bee dance* is neat, but it's a little too tempting to calling a subset of geometry a
language. technically it is, but has such extremely narrow application. in this case, it's even
a stretch to call communication language. (than why not call GPS linguistics then?)

chimps (supposedly) learn sign, but only about a vocab of 100 words. trainers swear things
like "me now love baby" means "please scratch my back. but i doubt washoe could actually
comprehend the words he memorized.

what these DO prove is that our expectations of what animals can perform is far lower than
what they really are capable of. they can learn alarming amounts, to get food, etc. but it's a
little more complicated version of pavlov ringing a bell. sure, the dogs appear glad to see
him too. doing so, makes it more likely he will keep taking care of them. people own dogs
that are excited to see them, and if the dogs aren't are probably going to take worse care of
them (the owner's need not even be aware of this going on)

hans the counting horse took subtle almost involuntary cues from watching his trainer ask
questions. body language was like telling him "stop there, or keep tapping your foot". it is
amazing that he figured out these tiny clues and how they related to how much attention he
got. surely the more he did right, the more secure his meal ticket. the more wrong, the
more likely he would be mistreated. it's not even certain, the trainer knew hans was doing

* for anybody who hadn't heard of the bee dance, bee's return to the hive and explain to each
other where to find pollen by flying in a "vocab" of stunts. the dance does not appear to be
simply pointing, but more "conceptual" directions, like "turn toward that big tree then ... "

>i have a cat. she is a thinking, feeling, sentient being. she lets me know
what she needs me to know. she walks in front of the monitor when i miss the
point. she knows how to communicate with me. i think she probably has me
quite well-trained, actually.

you're right, we are trained by our pets. maybe not fish.

but it is neurologically impossible for feelings to explain why she behaves as she does. she
needs food, etc,. and it is in her best interest to keep nagging you, until you do something
about it. (obviously, she'll stop "communicating" if you walk toward the kitchen, resume if
you suddenly stop. she has a proven method how, and will do the same thing every time.
we just read it as affection.