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: Mac Tech question

>Hi All:
>So I just bought a new lacie harddrive and am getting ready to partition it.
>Before I do so I was hoping to find out if I were to split it into 3
>partitions, Would and of them be the faster partition.
>Any help would be great.

nope. works pretty much the same for all platforms. i suppose you
could just periodically "defragment" one and not the others. or use
a speed enhancing utility on just one. but not much reason to.

your mac OS CD's come with a utility called "disk utility". it does
"defragmenting" and repairs on any internal and external drives.
keeps things running smooth. (it's been included since os 4, i
think) you can use them or the lacie cds to partition, name,
initialize drives.

the only real benefit to partitioning on a mac though is that if one
sector gets damaged, the damage only effects that part. using disk
urtility, norton, or tech tool regularly makes that rare. on a pc, a
partition lets you have multiple OS'es (not mac OS'es though), but
generally on macs, there is software so you can run windows, linux,
etc almost like programs and never re-boot. so there's little
incentive to partition. but i may be wrong and somebody else might
have a good use for it.

guess you could format one (or more) for DOS, so you could use it
cross platform.


Re: montage video projection

>hey all!
>So i am loooking into doing a large video projection project, on 3
>screens. All 3 screens might have everything from live straming
>video to images to projections of actual things that are going on in
>the space.
>I keep getting conficting suggestions about what to use to diplay
>all of this. People keep telling me to use Montage, and then others
>tell me that Montage is a hack program and should be avoided at all
>As i do some research on this, because i know nothing at the
>moment... I thought i would put the question out to you all.
>Curious if there are answers within the rhizome community.

director rocks hands down.

it'll run about any kind of video (pre-recorded or a live feed with
the coolest xtra (TTCPro, does screen shots, and shockwave), reads
files from the web or local. and super easy presentation/authoring
functions. (warning, using it for more than a few seconds requires a
hefty mac. win version can't hold up for long. nothing for
unix/linux obviously though)

max with jitter sounds close, but not ideal for presentation or a lot
of web functions. do the screens need to be coordinated? could you
have one program (like max) handle the local feed, one like
(quicktime) handle pre-recorded stuff, one (like perl) handle the web
feed, and write a mother program that switches between these (in
about anything)?

i wish director would just come with computers, because it is by far
the best stuff can be done with them. 99% of what makes computers
not just boring boxes of wires. lingo should be one of the required
languages in school. other programming languages do much more but
are much more difficult and development takes too much. there's a
lot you may want to customize (like C/C++ would let you do) in an app
but especially for staged performances, it's not worth all the extra

if you don't own a mac, but do these a few times a year, it's
probably even worth getting one of those $500 mini's or something for
shows, just to run director.


Re: Re: box car willie

>Do you consider anti-elitism to be better than elitism?

anti-elitism isn't non-elitism then. you are assuming a point at the
opposite end a linear scale. i am saying forget the scale.

>>every genre is better for some things, worse for others.
>This requires that we accept that all "things" have equal value.
>Which they do not.

totally disagree, all thing are interchangeable. but that's
non-elitism not anti-elitism. a 20 minute 25 piece orchestra can
easily require more work to score than a chord progression and a page
of lyrics. rock can also be a better gig for the album cover
designer.but there are far too many exceptions to make any rules.
i'm defining "elitism" as adhering to one or more of those
(untenable) rules.

>Anti-elitism, like suspended value judgements before it, serves the
>market suspiciously well.

ok. but in this case, it works and judgmentalism doesn't. i don't
care who else it serves, the question is only if it's serving us?
sticking to one (fairly obscure) criteria is totally fine, even cool,
but it still isn't producing the results we want (or nobody would
mention NYT reviews for example). it behooves us to recognize as
many criteria as possible, not worry about whether any criteria is
"right" or not.

and unless there are still a lot of "procedural" programmers out
there, we should be leading the pack thinking non-linearly. and
thinking in terms of (1 bit) dichotomies is a step we can move


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

(on-line press kit)


Re: box car willie + cool experiment

a cool experiment

watch this only once. count the number of times the people in white
shirts pass the ball.

then continue reading this ...


ok, you did that? now watch it again and do you notice anything else now?

this may be related to this issue. some see it is glaringly obvious,
while some don't.see it at all.


>>right now there's no such thing for many as GREAT computer art,
>>just like it'd never occur to them they could be looking at an
>>example of GREAT shoe tying. we're not fighting [for] a 0 rating,
>>it's a null, rating still doesn't apply.

>I think some of the people participating in this thread are missing
>the point entirely. Sarah never says that "most of the artbase 101
>show was mediocre" and if she had, that would at least be a step in
>the right direction. But then, of course, she would have to back it
>up with something. The point is that all she really says is that she
>went and spent some time at a show at the New Museum of Contemporary
>Art. When we see something under the header "Art Review", we want
>some meat. We want a professional assesment of the work. What stands
>out and why? What doesn't and why not? Perhaps also a couple of
>hints that show that the person really understands the work. All she
>gives is hints that show that she doesn't understand which in my
>book means that she shouldn't be doing the review. Would you trust a
>rock critic to give a decent review of an opera?

sorry. i said it all earlier and now am too lazy to re-word.

but i will address one (semi-tangental) point. doubt you meant opera
is superior to rock, but this does have an elitist smell to it.
every genre is better for some things, worse for others. maybe a
rock critic isn't familiar with why schoenberg is so dissonant, but
there's a lot more to a piece than where the artist is coming from.
if you ask me, once the work has been put out there, the artist
becomes completely irrelevant, it's between the audience and the
piece now. the intended context is just not the context for

>Then there's that other thing. Some people seem to think that the
>artists mission is to make art for the public. I'm sorry, but they
>forgot to put me on the payroll. People that really want to
>experience my art have to come to my level, I'm not going to theirs.
>If someone finds a piece of mine intriguing, they can look at my
>other work to put it into context and if they're really interested,
>they can even find a couple of interviews on the net and if that
>doesn't do it, my email address is all over. If I were interested in
>catering to the publics expectations and wants, I would've gone into
>graphic design or maybe I would paint pretty images on silk pillows
>and hit the craft-fair circuit. But I'm not and I think the majority
>of us would say the same.

nobody's telling you to make work your not interested in. but
shutting out everyone but like-minded friends, is an obstacle that
will gradually prevent us from having that option. there's now almost
no demand for hand illustrators (at least in the US), whereas not
long ago you could easily make a career of it. to avoid altering
their imaginations' goals to their real-life environment, many who've
invested years can end up painting silk pillows for a living. it
behooves us to keep the demand for what we love afloat. and try not
to sabotage it, particularly when folks offer us tips.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NYT review of ArtBase 101

>There is no anti-boxer arg. There is a pro-critical response arg.
>She didn't say enough in the review to really respond to, I'm
>responding to her lack of any critical approach what-so-ever and
>general 'lifestyle'-style of the writing.
>NYTimes and any other publication: give us a serious crit damnit!
>Not this fluffy infotainment.

what i mean by "anti-boxer". calling criticism fluffy because it's
not the approach you want, when really people just aren't seeing,
might not want to see, just how insightful it is.