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)

Re: re: The Universal Computer

what a great point!

apparently, their reasoning is like this:
1. for many, staplers (and many other tools at the office) are mysterious!
2. mysterious things are scary and should be avoided.
3. but our brains can't be scary. they're us.
4. therefore, all newtonian physics must be wrong because it tries to describe aspects of
both staplers and brains (which obviously can't be similar because one's really scary and the
other i like).
5. thus, staplers can no longer be mysterious, especially if we think of them as paper weights
and ignore the mechanics.

a puppet show has a director. the only real difference in programming is that for strings,
they use thread, we use quote marks. everything's a tool of some sort.

wonder if people who think that animals and machines are fundamentally different, that
algorithmic functions are somehow "less" than natural, also believe such vocabulary literally
as "lower" species. it's like thinking "queen" ants have any authority over workers?

there is obviously no objective way to measure complexity or success. humans just calibrate
the criteria to put humans on top. it can equally be said that while other species function
without much language or invention, we rely on it. we could just as easily be the weakest,
form of life. (if we had to swing our fastest from trees all the time, we'd think for a split
second and wind up dead. whereas if monkeys depended on picking stocks in order to get
food, they'd do better than most investment experts.)

in fact, given the rarity of our enlarged cortexes (the consciousness that humans alone are
saddled with) , as opposed to a ubiquitous yet intricate organ like the stomach, one could
easily draw the conclussion, so much awareness was a big mistake.

no one need agree. it's simply common sense that the human brain is hardly an ideal judge
of which neurological methods are superior. it's like asking george bush who he voted for.

> [ ... ] Interesting to note the degree to which these concentrate on refuting Roger
> Penrose's very popular claims in such books as 'The Emperor's New Clothes'
> that mathematical reasoning is not algorithmic. Davis does not assert the
> contrary; only that Penrose's proofs are "deeply fallacious". I have been
> somewhat mystified by the popularity of Penrose's 'proofs' that there are
> thought processes of which humans are capable but computers are not. I
> suspect that their popularity is an indication of the strength of the
> desire, in many people, to believe that humans are, fundamentally, different
> from machines.
> My own feeling is that the notion that human thought is algorithmic is no
> more demeaning of humanity than the Darwinian notion of human (and other
> species') evolution from lower life forms. The truth of the matter is much
> to be desired. And it is always preferable to falsehood, however supportive
> the falsehood is of religious or other doctrine.
> ja
> +
> -> 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

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


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what exactly IS new media?

ok, but you're playing pretty fast and loose with your definition of "design". where would you
put warhol? for that matter things like the last supper, design=study in composition.
actually, where does that leave mozart, snoop dog, etc? even pollock's are design, albeit by
different stratagem. ready-mades are just design questions applied to the art world in
general. what isn't designed? (i really would love an example just to understand what you

or do you mean design as in art sans skill, like a donald judd (as opposed to a rembrandt)?
or is that the ultimate indesign purity, isolating the artist ideas, from any craft. where a
blueprint/sketch is still "design" but not the focus of the piece.

maybe you mean "design" as a sort of opposite to interactivity. this is quite usual, but i'll
argue it until i die. in linear work, the designed element is sensory (and often rigidly specific
to a certain time or time line). in interactivity, the designed element is experience/
communication between the work and the audience (having nothing at all to do with time).

many people assume there is ONLY sensory design and aren't really all that open to
interactivity (as much as they insist they are friendly to try it, will never be satisfied keeping
their old criteria). possibly these same people only mumble when everyone sings happy
birthday, or sit in the corner at parties and go on how they won't dance, take subways and
cabs to get "there" faster on sunny sundays.

though our brains do work differently (far more effectively) when we're engaged in some
physical task, not by just observing, that just opens the door to your audiences' heads,
"design" may also be defined as the stuff you shove in.

On Jul 24, 2005, at 12:39 PM, kristina maskarin wrote:

there are rabbits and 'rabbits'.
art definitely gave up to design.
Total merge of the industrial design, marketing and media as main reality moulders
augments the virtual obesity in content and form. And I agree: The phrase "new media"
essentially indicates potential retail mark-up value.
Environment today and in the future is about designing versus chaotic / natural growth. But
design should be conscious of the humanity and environment and integrated in the whole (
production & trade & product after-life).

no design is also design.

"Letting go" of design is at once one of the hardest and most unnatural things to do, yet can
often elicit rewards far greater than had we put our mind to something. Any ideas on how to
encourage this "liberation"
from art/design?
-> 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

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


Re: copyright and blogs

Tue Jul 19, 2005 00:00 - Tue Jul 19, 2005

(sorry ryan, this keeps bouncing.)

hey, does anyone get the conflict here? um.. i don't know if it's an actual LAW, but there's a
pretty common sense rule: don't leave your stereo on the street. i don't see much point in
making a legal investigation into it. or philosophizing about morality.

if you have something valuable, try your hardest not to upload it to the web. and certainly
don't give it an RSS feed?! thinking copyright is even a viable option is just fundamentally
ridiculous. it's like answering "should letters be banned from words?" will only muddle the

This is really funny. I think they missed the ball. Think they've since updated the page, but
even a few months ago, the NPR site had this ...

(a) you do not modify or delete any of the RSS feed content

(b) you do not redistribute the RSS feeds

(c) you do not post full-text stories other than as included
in the RSS feed

On Jul 19, 2005, at 3:13 PM, ryan griffis wrote:

This isn't anything new, but i thought i'd repost it here (from an archive issues list).

Begin forwarded message:

The Editorial by Lesley Ellen Harris in Volume 2005,
Issue 1, The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter,
deals with copyright ownership in blogs - it is
reproduced below. For further information on this
print newsletter, see .



Editorial - Copyright Ownership in Blogs

The Internet continually forces us to test the
application and flexibility of current copyright law
to new modes of communications and media. The Internet
has already spawned debate and lawsuits about
hyper-linking, P2P file sharing, and the removal of
copyright management information and technological
protections. A newer Internet activity, blogging
resulting in Weblogs, is now being discussed in the
copyright arena. A blog is basically a stream of
consciousness discussion available to the public at
large. Individuals keep these blogs on every topic
imaginable. Blogs are original material, and once they
are fixed in some form, saved digitally or in a print
out, they are protected by copyright in most countries
around the world. In fact, they would be protected for
50 to 70 years after an author's death - much beyond
the life of any blog itself.

Blogs are becoming more popular amongst professionals,
and certain employees are even encouraged to create
blogs based on their work. This raises interesting
issues concerning copyright ownership in the blogs. If
an organization requires blogging as part of the
duties of an individual, it is likely that the
employer owns the content in the blog, just like the
employer owns other copyright-protected works created
by that employee in the course of employment.

However, if the blog is initiated by an individual
though it may discuss work-related issues, outside the
scope of his employment, who owns the content in the
blog? This is comparable to the situation where a
professor writes a book related to, but outside the
duties, of his instruction. This is often a gray issue
in the academic world. University policies that
specifically deal with such issues can help clarify
the situation. Also, a professor approaching his
university prior to writing the book, may be able to
clarify the situation, prior to a confrontation.

Many companies have yet to develop Weblog Policies,
similar to their other integral policies. Thus,
employees who discuss work-related activities are
generally held to the rule of "good taste" in their
discussions, and of course, not spewing any
confidential information. As is the case with many
Internet-related activities, would a written Weblog
Policy contradict the free flowing nature of
information in a blog, and perhaps weaken the
effectiveness of these blogs?

With ownership comes the issue of who may authorize
reproduction of the content in a blog. Generally, only
the owner may authorize others to reproduce a work.
Would this be an organization or an individual? Or
should the whole notion of obtaining permission in
relation to blog content be mute, since the whole
point of the blog is for as many people as possible to
access and read it? The blogs by Sun Microsystem
employees at take what I call a
compromise position. These blogs are subject to a
Creative Commons License. Thus, the blogs are
protected by copyright, however the rights are
conveniently set out in a hyper-linked license and are
broader than those rights attached to most
copyright-protected works.

To date, there are no lawsuits relating to ownership,
reproduction or re-distribution of the content of
blogs. This in itself may be helpful for organizations
and individuals who are determining "policies" in this
area. And for those bloggers who want their content
read as widely as possible, they are free to put a
statement on their blogs to the effect that the
content may be freely used without permission.

-> 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

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


what exactly IS new media?

help me/us all out here if anyone knows more.

been confused for over a decade until today. but as far as i can
tell, "new media" means the equipment is available in metallic but
not chrome. it's easy to be mislead when everybody says it like we
all know, but probably nobody really does and they're just
pretending. don't sweat it.

for instance, a toaster is available in metallic, but it is chrome,
so it is clearly NOT "new media". digital cameras and hand-held
camcorders usually come in brushed metal or titanium, so obviously,
they do qualify. even cell phones that are equipped with cameras are
generally silver, but never chrome. the term is misleading. you'd
be right in thinking video and photos really ARE old technology,
based on inventions that have been around for 100+ years . the
"digital" stuff is actually far, far lower resolution and far, far
higher priced than the analog predecessors. but this equipment was,
for years, always heavy and painted black. not interesting. only
recently did everything become exciting when it got a shiny new

the real tricky part to making the extra conceptual leap that the
phrase "new media" essentially indicates potential retail mark-up
value. every era in art has its name. after impressionism, abstract
impressionism, modernism, and post-modernism, we are now in
silverism, which will be followed by shiny silverism. the term "new
media" will be considered obsolete and un-hip, in favor of "new new
media", meaning "shinier than ever".


art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
PO Box 1086
Cathedral Station
New York, USA 10025

(on-line press kit)


another question

anybody know how they do this? (these used to come with spam
constantly a few years ago, now i never see em?)
(%3A = "/", try any URL you want)

Java, CGI/PHP (with graphics library extensions) all do parts but can
find hardly any documentation about this.