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: schizoanalizys for beginners


On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:07 PM, Marisa Olson wrote:

> I know there is a facetious pun at play here, but I just wanted to
> chip in
> about a subject very important to me...
> I have long been appalled by the way that theorists supposedly steeped
> in
> psychoanalytic readings could misdefine schizophrenia and then
> consistently glamorize this very serious, very misdefined condition as
> some sexy alternative to 'reality.' There is a long list of scholars
> who've become quite famous in the course of building and upholding this
> farce.
> Now I'm all for creativity, metaphor, and wordplay, but I feel that
> any of
> us with a ligitimate interest in these discourses or in contributing to
> any kind of meaningful conversation have a personal responsibility not
> to
> entrench this kind of grossly irresponsible scholarship.
> marisa
> +
> -> post:
> -> questions:
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> -> give:
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at


Re: the random

interesting thing about Burroughs cut up experiments.
there's a book of essays by him and he describes this in more detail.

for a while he taught. one of his assignments was to walk around
the block, taking pictures with a poloroid (pre-digital camera days)
of whatever grabs your interest. then, once home, spread em all out
and look at em. you have to try it.

you'll see the pictures seem to have almost a message. he says of
course they do, it's YOUR environment. whether or not we create our
environment, we create out perception of it. our environment is
always speaking to us , because we are always speaking to ourselves.
(in fact, that may be why we have an environment at all, it's like an
internal monologue) the pictures merely document what is happening
continually. and, like our dreams. we impossibly encrypt them

On Jan 14, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:

> I read the discussion of the random with interest.
> I liked Plasma's comments on some of the uses and abuses of the
> random in
> programming.
> One thing that wasn't noted by anyone, that I read, was the sort of
> perspective William S. Burroughs brought to the role of the random.
> His
> novel Naked Lunch and, more radically, his trilogy (The Ticket that
> Exploded, Soft Machine, and Nova Express) used the cut-up method in
> literature. This is detailed well in his book The Job. As you
> probably know,
> one of his themes was addiction and dependence. Not simply to drugs
> (he was
> a heroin junky) but, say, to our habits of thought. Or our style.
> Or our
> methods. He felt that we are usually deeply habitual enough, in
> most things,
> that often it is necessary to introduce something out of our own
> control to
> cut our own mental tape loops (he did interesting audio cut-up work as
> well).
> The random can be used in intelligent ways to help us toward
> insights that
> we would not come up with on our own. Burroughs said "When you cut
> audio
> tape, the future leaks out." And that quote has something of the
> feel of a
> cut-up to it: unexpected, of a somewhat altered consciousness.
> As Plasma notes, the random can also be used poorly as, for
> instance, a
> substitute for making a decision that should have been made.
> When I started in radio during the eighties, I was unfamiliar with
> Burroughs
> and such methods and would have thought them inevitably productive
> merely of
> nonsense. As I got into Burroughs and McLuhan and Gregory
> Whitehead's work
> and writings on the cut, it started to dawn on me, though, that we
> are not
> the sole creators of what even we ourselves produce in media and that,
> instead, the media/um is/are influential in several ways in shaping
> what we
> say/create. This can be an unacknowledged influence, ie, we can be
> unconscious of the media's own rhetoric and its influence on us, or
> we can
> explore it in various ways, including cutting it and using it as a
> material
> in ways that we would not normally do were our notion of 'the
> material'
> confined, say, to the typical writerly notion of 'the material' as
> subject
> matter. The material is also media matter. There are both
> 'material' and
> 'immaterial' aspects to the 'material' we deal with, and that is
> true even
> of media matter. That was an exciting time for me, coming to some
> sort of
> awareness of media and art.
> Use of the random needn't, of course, simply represent a failure to
> take
> responsibility for decisions that would have better been made by us.
> Instead, it can help us explore the decisions we do make, why we
> make those
> decisions, and can *occassionally* offer us alternatives that are
> preferable.
> ja
> +
> -> post:
> -> questions:
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give:
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> 29.php


without the risk

(was Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: draw-something)


the presentation is nice. i liked it, but am going to nitpick now,
simply because there's nothing personal to be interpreted, it's not
by anyone we know. this is a prime (no pun intended) example of our
frenzy for irresponsibly consuming resources.

seems like it's on the web, for no other reason than "because it can
be". if this were an isolated case, it would hardly matter. but as
with most of the web uploaded by individuals with whose subject is
not primarily web-centered, the media is reliant on traditional (pre-
computer) models. (whereas something like is
fundamentally structured for non-linearity, most personal web sites
are just not)). once upon a time, linear media on the net pretty
much was a sign that the author had no real technical knowledge. so
they were easily forgiven. now, web programmers memorize more (a
requirement for Flash and Windows) but understand less. most now
actually use "new" media to refer to this old model.

there's an odd feature. the web page is (as so many are) essentially
only there so a flash file can have an address that ends with html.
silly, but no harm. mostly bad design and Flash has so many far
greater problems. the flash file uses scripting and buttons to offer
non-linear navigating within the flash itself (one never leaves that
html frame/page). however, the info we get makes only a little
sense, unless we read it in the order pictured and numbered. ie.
though technically non-linear, it's still VERY linearly conceived.
that's also often what happens with hyper-links, HTML. whereas so
many have the ability to use (all it takes is a computer), even
create it (every language has event listeners). so few actually
conceive their projects this way.

the piece is essentially a translation of a paper, divided not by
paragraph marks but buttons. linearity = pages in a book, frames in
a film, or video seconds in an audio recording, a time line, etc.
the non-linear route would be to discard the original model
entirely. taking another step back, to decide what is the info
(devoid of form) and see where parts stand alone and which are
dependent on what. but so often, authors think in terms of "can i do
this? yes. so i will" rather than start by determining the needs of
a very particular audience. look at the work (and not the authors)
and decide what form/venue would be most effective for that audience
to come away with that info.

though many speak of the "digital divide", referring mostly to
economic constraints that prohibit the spread of the web. in a
presentation a few months ago, a genuinely nice, thoughtful guy was
showing how they brought web connected computers in, but no one knew
how to use them. more importantly though, they had no desire to
learn. however, went on to say that cell phones, (which require
their own infra-structure and steep learning curve (much, much less
apparent to westerners)) are sold at about 3 times the rate. so,
they do have a desire there and there is no fundamental obstacle.

in the US, it's usually doctors (and probably many white collar
professionals but i rarely have contact with accountants or lawyers)
who seem the least web-savvy by far. they are often the most bound
and blinded by web superstitions. the speaker was going on to
explain bringing a video project to inner city kids. by doing it on
the web, hoped to open up whatever the web has to offer them (though
seems obvious the answer is "not much"). is access to Wikipedia
going to help them avoid getting shot by a starving crack-head?

but it became obvious this ambassador of the web, in confusing linear
(movie making is a great idea for the kids ...) with nonlinear (.,..
the web doesn't make it any better though, usually worse), he was
demonstrating using traditional linear models to determine who is
needy and what do they need. just because they don't have it doesn't
mean they would use it the same way if they did. (most of the web is
geared toward middle class interests: buying luxury items, learning
about hobbies, Flickr is hardly an essential for survival...) why do
folks who aren't even close to thinking non-linearly, bothering with
computers or the web? mostly because ... well, they can. but rather
than transform a new forum to accommodate our old experiences, why
don't people stick with the old (is still perfectly good) or not
cling so tightly, move beyond the familiar. by the vast popularity
from traditional thinkers, the new forum for alternative models has
been almost entirely obliterated. nothing wrong with saying "this
needs to be presented in book form" the absurd push for extreme
specialization (eg. ActionScrtipt programmers hired before a project
is even ironed out.) is probably a lot to blame for inappropriate
media being used on the web. but the trend ironically leaves very
little room for anything BUT traditional models (which this site is
direct a product of).

if you don't see it, fine. but why would you or anyone choose to
waste another minute on the web?

Possibly to subscribe to a community. Rhizome itself is a great
model. Taking this list alone into consideration, it is one non-
linear function. To be a part of the community, you add text
(usually in the form of email) which is technically non-linear in how
humans read. There is no need to use FTP to upload movies, etc. So,
more precisely, why are people wasting their time uploading (and the
added bytes do cost us directly or indirectly) but not really
understand what computers do? there are plenty of things neither i
nor most of us understand, but are not compelled to perform surgery,
re-wire my apartment building, classify amoeba species. people make
a movies without showing them at every gas station they could.
wouldn't baking pies for everyone in your apartment building/
neighborhood, be a lot more effective for joining a community? to
connect to people without the risk of ever having to see them?


Re: draw-something

i get the giggles thinking about randomness.

some folks don't like any at all, consider it is really mostly used
as a crutch when you aren't monitoring enough input variables (mostly
true if you use electronic sensors-serial in), or as a shortcut for
making a decision. and folks often do use it that way. though it's
hardly the only way to think about it.

some folks think there is a purity of randomness. that a pseudo-
random number generator (every programming language has a random()
function, and they all work the same way) is not as purely random as
the un-virtual version. furthermore, seeding a random() function
with a random function is somehow "more" random.

but if you think of randomness, not as a conscious-less choice, but
merely as unpredictable by humans, the difference between random and
pseudo random() is unimportant. in neither case will our audience
guess. the end effect is the same.

if you imagine that randomness is like a language for the muses/
spirits. just because we don't recognize intentions is hardly any
indication they don't exist. random IS intentional, but we just
don't understand the preferences.

the muses can only speak to our world via these unpredictable
choices. it's like a prisoner tapping signals in morse code on the
wall. but in this case, it's as if no one understands morse code.
the tapping sounds meaningless (random) to us on the other side. but
it's really a communication.

adding randomness (unpredictability, regardless of technicalities) is
like giving the muses some input in your work. (the more they are
involved, the better they tend to favor it too). no one needn't get
bogged down with anything more technical than that. giving up some
control, an offering to the muses, is a great thing. probably the
only thing.

On Jan 12, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Dirk Vekemans wrote:

>> Namens Zev Robinson
>> If the computer can simulate at least the perception of
>> randomness, so that, for example, the viewer cannot which
>> image will come up next, then I can live with that.
> Well in my PCU part of my Cathedral, for instance, i can't: for now
> i have to use pseudo-random, because i haven't found a solution
> yet, but it is conceptually wrong. The idea of the thing (however
> stupid that may be) calls for it to be(come) exactly what the
> words about it say: a view (visualisation) of the Cathedral over
> time. That might include true randomness, it certainly may *not*
> include pseudo-random sequences, not even if no-one would ever see
> the difference (which i doubt, in this case)
>> Our experience, tho, is that the difficult part isn't so much
>> in the scripting (easy for me to say since it's Adrian
>> Marshall who does the
>> scripting) but in molding it into a creative vision,
>> understanding what we want to do, see how it works
>> audio-visually, deciding on the parameters of the randomness,
>> on the nature of the imagery used, and so on and so on.
> Earlier discussions on this list have shown statements like these
> to be rather tricky. I take it you're not downplaying the
> programmers part in the art, but some of us believe you cannot just
> 'outsource' your scripting part to someone who has little to say in
> the conceptual work. Perhaps this little random topic can be a good
> example of how the minute decisions you make as a programmer do
> matter to the conceptual soundness of the thing. Personally, i've
> learned some (web)programming the hard way and i'm by no means a
> full fledge professionally trained programmer, but i prefer to hack
> my own stuff together no matter how much time i loose in the
> process. Entrusting a skilled programmer with the task would be
> like writing a poem in Dutch and have someone translate it to
> English and then claim i'm an English poet.
> But i'm a literary person, a fetishist obstinate self-indulgent
> fool insisting authorship includes dealing with every aspect of the
> thing. As such however i vainly venture this kind of approach can
> be meaningful for the small audience i aim for, even in these
> rapidly deteriorating conditions. I'm dead serious about that.
> Let us not conjecture (συμϐαλλώμεθα) at random
> (εἰκῆ) about (περὶ) the greatest (μεγίστων)
> things.
> Heraclitus said that. Don't know if the Greek comes through. The
> urgency is not about power or control and now that i'm rambling
> anyway: not solely about art either, its about finding a perfect
> expression at the right time. It matters because its about choice,
> a global choice if you want, so if we're not sure we need to find a
> way to be more so. (The choice has long been made for us but we
> need an awareness of it so we know what, if anything, to do, ...)
> Ah forget it, told you it was a bad sign...
> dv
>> I don't know any of this for sure either, tho, and nobody
>> else does either.
>> Zev
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <>
>> To: "'Zev Robinson'" <>
>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:55 PM
>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>> Hi there Zev:
>>> once again, you're talking zen. These are pleasant thoughts though.
>>> So yes & perhaps if you love it you get to know it in the
>> end, as a reward
>>> for letting it happen.
>>> Miracles, or tales thereoff, always include some form of
>> randomness, too.
>>> But the point is (i think, do correct me if i'm wrong,
>> cause i really
>>> don't
>>> know any of this for sure): when you're programming,
>> mostly either you
>>> want
>>> to know exactly what will happen or you want to be able to
>> count on it
>>> that
>>> what will happen in the program is not determined by your
>> previous code.
>>> So
>>> you want it to be a random sequence. But that's where the
>> problems start.
>>> First you need to deal with pseudo-random, i. e. seemingly
>> random things
>>> that only act truly random for a given amount of cycles
>> before it starts
>>> reiterating. When that happens the sequence can only be
>> 'just' another
>>> predetermined, programmed cycle.
>>> Pseudo-random is not a major problem unless you need to program very
>>> important encryption software. If you're involved in such a
>> thing, you can
>>> make your fortune by coming up with the 'cheepest'
>> algorhythm giving the
>>> highest degree of randomness. Cheep in processing time to
>> run the darn
>>> thing, that is.
>>> Pseudo-random is also a problem, i think, for those of us
>> who want to
>>> make
>>> works of art that include randomness in its concept. In some cases
>>> pseudo-random won't do conceptually, because it would be
>> cheating on the
>>> idea you're trying to present. In some of those hard cases,
>> you might
>>> solve
>>> the problem by reverting to external inputs like radio static of the
>>> degeneration rate of radio-activity. Alan Sondheim uses a
>> 100 year old
>>> instrument called a Crookes spinthariscope for it. They sell these
>>> beautiful
>>> instruments as plastic leaded toys these days:
>>> But in a few scenario's using such equipment, or a random
>> generating
>>> service
>>> like might not be possible.
>>> And when you have finally succesfully included pure
>> randomness in your
>>> artwork, or when you're satisfied with the amount of
>> imperfection, you
>>> still
>>> need to make sense of it (ok:some artists don't, but
>> because of the random
>>> thing they'll never know for sure just how meaningless it
>> is). You don't
>>> need to solve the riddle of the universe at that point, but
>> you want to
>>> have
>>> a clear idea of what you're doing, how the random part
>> strikes the balance
>>> with the programmed part including the personal, stylish part every
>>> programmer puts in her programming and their personal
>> assesment of what is
>>> beautiful, valuable, aesthetically pleasing or any
>> perversions thereoff.
>>> So
>>> if you ask yourself what is your take on random, you are
>> perhaps required
>>> to
>>> ask yourself a question that goes to the core of what
>> you're trying to
>>> accomplish. It's about how much control you want to have
>> over what you are
>>> doing, the inner/outer balance of it, the IOwhy of an artist.
>>> There are times when you don't want to be face to face with these
>>> questions.
>>> I can write poetry or nag on art like this for ages without getting
>>> emotionally affected when i don't want that. Merely calling the
>>> Math.random
>>> class in my actionScript sometimes gives me the creeps,
>> involuntarily.
>>> I can't predict it, but when that happens, it take it to be a sign.
>>> greetings,
>>> dv
>>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>>> Van: Zev Robinson []
>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 22:30
>>>> Aan: Dirk Vekemans; 'Pall Thayer'; 'Rob Myers'
>>>> CC: 'Rhizome Raw list'
>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>> Dirk,
>>>> I love randomness. Much of my art work is based on
>>>> randomness. Much of my life has been affected by seemingly
>>>> random events and coincidences. I don't know where I'd be
>>>> without randomness. I don't want it solved or defined.
>>>> Maybe randomness is an illusion, and it's all preordained,
>>>> but I don't care, I still love randomness.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Zev
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Dirk Vekemans" <>
>>>> To: "'Pall Thayer'" <>; "'Rob Myers'"
>>>> <>
>>>> Cc: "'Rhizome Raw list'" <>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:22 PM
>>>> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>> For me randomness, the concept, is a nightmare, it's
>>>> quicksand, it is the
>>>>> one thing i can think of that's worse then (pick any
>> random worst
>>>>> horror).
>>>>> The day Superman solves random we'll all go to heaven (yes,
>>>> even you
>>>>> manik).
>>>>> Try it:
>>>>> They (we) can't even get the wikipedia article straightened out.
>>>>> dv
>>>>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>>>>> Van: []
>>>>>> Namens Pall Thayer
>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2006 15:55
>>>>>> Aan: Rob Myers
>>>>>> CC: Rhizome Raw list
>>>>>> Onderwerp: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: draw-something
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>> I was looking at this and find it interesting. Thanks for
>>>>>> sharing the code with us. There are a couple of questions
>>>>>> that come to mind. I'd like to know if you have any plans of
>>>>>> making the lines more "pencil"- like by creating a more
>>>>>> expressive line. I feel this is an issue that has been
>>>>>> largely overlooked by people working with automated drawing
>>>>>> processes. They tend to look really flat and dead because of it.
>>>>>> AARON, for instance, suffers from a severe case of flatness
>>>>>> that could be easily cured by some simple, maybe even random,
>>>>>> variation in line thickness and length. There's an
>>>>>> interesting project called Freestyle that's working on this
>>>>>> (among other things) at http://
>>>>>> (source available).
>>>>>> Also, I noticed this on your blog:
>>>>>> "The shapes are random. The colours are random. At worst I'm
>>>>>> showing one in every three of these images.
>>>>>> Randomness gives good results far more often than it should.
>>>>>> Is it the heuristics I'm coding in, or is aesthetics
>> really random?
>>>>>> Time to start adding rules."
>>>>>> I think it has to do with the range of data. Random is going
>>>>>> to use the whole range of data equally whereas something like
>>>>>> weather is going to be concentrated in predictable area's of
>>>>>> the full range.
>>>>>> Personally, I think it's really interesting to see what
>>>>>> happens with different types of data. If you experiment with
>>>>>> different data sources, I think you'll find that they each
>>>>>> have their own significant character which could in turn be
>>>>>> interesting to mix together.
>>>>>> Pall
>>>>>> On 10.1.2006, at 18:56, Rob Myers wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been working on my program draw-something.
>>>>>>> There's a Flash version (made with MTASC):
>>>>>>> And the Lisp version now makes multiple figures and
>>>>>> coloured figures:
>>>>>>> draw-something/
>>>>>>> Source for all versions available from sourceforge CVS
>>>>>> along with some
>>>>>>> recent release bundles:
>>>>>>> http:://
>>>>>>> - Rob.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> -> post:
>>>>>>> -> questions:
>>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>>> subscribe.rhiz
>>>>>>> -> give:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>>>> 29.php
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> -> post:
>>>>>> -> questions:
>>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>>> -> give:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in
>>>>>> the Membership Agreement available online at
>>>>> +
>>>>> -> post:
>>>>> -> questions:
>>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>> -> give:
>>>>> +
>>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>>>> Membership Agreement available online at
>> +
>> -> post:
>> -> questions:
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>> -> give:
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at
> +
> -> post:
> -> questions:
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give:
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> 29.php


Re: Genius 2000: A New Network

Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Genius 2000: A New Network
Date: January 11, 2006 8:48:03 PM EST

hooray! max is back.

On Jan 11, 2006, at 4:00 PM, Max Herman wrote:

> Genius 2000: A New Network
> MS at
> New archival documents at[the
> following]
> AFOS1.tif
> AFOS2.tif
> AFOS3.tif
> AtTheShop1.tif
> AtTheShop2.tif
> AtTheShop3.tif
> AtTheShop4.tif
> AtTheShop5.tif
> AtTheShop6.tif
> AtTheShop7.tif
> CV1997.tif
> DossierProposal1998a.tif
> DossierProposal1998b.tif
> DossierProposal1998c.tif
> DossierProposal1998d.tif
> Fellowship.tif
> Fowler1a.tif
> Fowler1b.tif
> Fowler1c.tif
> Fowler1d.tif
> Fowler1e.tif
> Fowler1f.tif
> Fowler2a.tif
> Fowler2b.tif
> Fowler2c.tif
> Fowler2d.tif
> Fowler2e.tif
> Fowler2f.tif
> Fowler3a.tif
> Fowler3b.tif
> Fowler3c.tif
> Fowler3d.tif
> Fowler3e.tif
> Fowler3f.tif
> Fowler3g.tif
> Fowler3h.tif
> Fowler4a.tif
> Fowler4b.tif
> Fowler4c.tif
> Fowler4d.tif
> Fowler4e.tif
> Gingerich1a.tif
> Gingerich1b.tif
> Gingerich1c.tif
> Gingerich1d.tif
> Gingerich1e.tif
> Gingerich1f.tif
> Gingerich1g.tif
> Gingerich2a.tif
> Gingerich2b.tif
> Gingerich2c.tif
> Gingerich2d.tif
> Gingerich2e.tif
> Gingerich2f.tif
> Gingerich2g.tif
> Gingerich3a.tif
> Gingerich3b.tif
> Gingerich3c.tif
> Gingerich3d.tif
> Gingerich3e.tif
> Gingerich3f.tif
> Gingerich3g.tif
> Gingerich3h.tif
> Gingerich3i.tif
> Guilbaut1.tif
> Guilbaut2.tif
> Habermas1.tif
> Habermas2.tif
> Hawthorne1.tif
> Hawthorne2.tif
> Hawthorne3.tif
> HuckFinn1.tif
> HuckFinn2.tif
> HuckFinn3.tif
> HuckFinn4.tif
> HuckFinn5.tif
> HuckFinn6.tif
> Kalaida1a.tif
> Kalaida1b.tif
> Kalaida1c.tif
> Kalaida1d.tif
> Kalaida1e.tif
> Mailer1.tif
> Mailer2.tif
> Melville1991a.tif
> Melville1991b.tif
> Melville1991c.tif
> ParadiseLost1.tif
> ParadiseLost2.tif
> ParadiseLost3.tif
> ParadiseLost4.tif
> ParadiseLost5.tif
> ParadiseLost6.tif
> ParadiseLost7.tif
> ParadiseLost8.tif
> ParadiseLost9.tif
> RecommendationLetter.tif
> Skepticism1993a.tif
> Skepticism1993b.tif
> Skepticism1993c.tif
> Skepticism1993d.tif
> Skepticism1993e.tif
> Skepticism1993f.tif
> Skepticism1993g.tif
> Skepticism1993h.tif
> Skepticism1993i.tif
> Skepticism1993j.tif
> Skepticism1993k.tif
> Transcript1.tif
> Transcript2.tif
> Transcript3.tif
> Transcript4.tif
> Transcript5.tif
> Trilling1.tif
> Trilling2.tif
> Trilling3.tif
> ViewersGuide1.tif
> ViewersGuide2.tif
> WDIIa.tif
> WDIIb.tif
> WDIIc.tif
> WDIId.tif
> WDIIe.tif
> WDIIf.tif
> WDIIg.tif
> Yeats1.tif
> Yeats10.tif
> Yeats11.tif
> Yeats12.tif
> Yeats13.tif
> Yeats14.tif
> Yeats15.tif
> Yeats16.tif
> Yeats17.tif
> Yeats2.tif
> Yeats3.tif
> Yeats4.tif
> Yeats5.tif
> Yeats6.tif
> Yeats7.tif
> Yeats8.tif
> Yeats9.tif
> +
> -> post:
> -> questions:
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give:
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> 29.php