Richard Rinehart
Since the beginning
Works in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania United States of America

Richard Rinehart is the Director of the Samek Art Museum at Bucknell University. Previous to holding his position at Bucknell, Richard was the Digital Media Director and Adjunct Curator at the UC Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive. Richard has taught digital art studio and theory at UC Berkeley in the Center for New Media and Art Practice departments. He has also been visiting faculty at the San Francisco Art Institute, UC Santa Cruz, San Francisco State University, Sonoma State University, and JFK University. Richard sits on the Executive Committee of the UC Berkeley Center for New Media and has served on the Board of Directors for New Langton Arts in San Francisco. Richard manages research projects in the area of digital culture, including the NEA-funded project, 'Archiving the Avant Garde', a national consortium of museums and artists distilling the essence of digital art in order to document and preserve it. Richard is a new media artist whose art works, papers, projects, and more can be found at
Discussions (29) Opportunities (5) Events (15) Jobs (10)

Open Position at UC Berkeley

Center for New Media, University of California, Berkeley.

Berkeley's cross-disciplinary Center for New Media is seeking highly
qualified candidates for a tenure-track faculty position at the
Assistant Professor level beginning July 1, 2007, pending budgetary

The Center for New Media, founded in 2004, focuses on the growing
set of representational technologies that emerge from the paradigm of
computation. The Center investigates the ways that new media have
changed social and individual experience, and to anticipate and
impact the future of digital media. The CNM combines research
perspectives from art, technology, design, and the humanities. It
has several full-time faculty and over 100 affiliated faculty
representing 31 departments across campus. The Center offers
graduate and undergraduate courses, a Designated Emphasis in New
Media at the PhD level, and a variety of lectures, special events,
and symposia.

Applicants should demonstrate scholarly command of the history and
critical theory of New Media via written publications and experience
with cross-disciplinary dialogue across divisions. Special attention
will be paid to applicants with skills in designing and implementing
innovative systems, games, artworks, or other modes of scholarly
communication that explore contemporary issues.

The successful candidate will have a home appointment in an existing
department (or departments) to be determined based on background and

Applications must include:

One-page cover letter describing the candidate's distinguishing
strengths in history and critical theory, experience, motivation, and
objectives in applying; C.V.; one-page summary of research
objectives; one-page summary of teaching objectives; one-page
summary of the unique qualities the candidate might contribute with
reference to the Center for New Media's existing programs and
faculty; website where recent publications and projects may be
reviewed with one-page description of three most significant items on
that website; list of up to three most relevant Berkeley departments
for home appointment; names and full contact information of three
potential recommenders.

Female and minority candidates are strongly encouraged to apply.

Application deadline: Applications will be reviewed starting
January 1, 2007 and candidates are urged to apply by that date. The
application period closes January 12, 2007; applications received
after that date cannot be considered.

Mail to: CNM Faculty Search Committee, University of California at Berkeley,
390 Wurster Hall MC 1066, Berkeley CA 94720. The University of
California is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer.

advertisement text search 952S


Richard Rinehart
Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
University of California, Berkeley
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250


new white paper on digital art and copyright

Hello Rhizomers,

The Canadian Government has published a new white paper on digital
art and copyright entitled, "Nailing Down Bits: Digital Art and
Intellectual Property". You can find the full paper in HTML or PDF
format online at:

A short introduction to the paper follows...

Nailing Down Bits: Digital Art and Intellectual Property

This paper on digital art and intellectual property has been
commissioned and published by Canadian Heritage Information Network
CHIN), a special operating agency of the Department of Canadian
Heritage. This paper is part of a larger series of papers on
intellectual property and cultural heritage that have been
commissioned by CHIN.

This paper is not written from a legal perspective, but from a
cultural heritage community perspective. This perspective is informed
by legal professionals and publications and by direct experience with
intellectual property issues that arise out of the daily practice of
cultural professionals. One could say that this paper is an attempt
to create a snapshot of the cultural heritage community's response to
intellectual property law and practice regarding (digital) art. This
paper is meant to ground that response not in terms of broad theories
or abstract philosophies, but in terms of daily practice and
real-world case studies. For that reason, the sources used for this
paper are not mainly books, but instead more topical, conversational,
and immediate sources such as digital art community websites, blogs,
email discussion lists and extensive interviews with cultural
heritage professionals in Canada and the United States ranging from
artists to curators to educators. The intended audience for this
paper is primarily the cultural heritage community who may benefit
from the discussion and analysis of the issues and proposed paths of
action. The legal community may also benefit from the case studies
and articulation of how one area of law is playing out in the larger
society whether it reaches the courts or not.

Richard Rinehart
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
University of California, Berkeley
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250


Digital Culture Class at UC Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive

Tue Sep 05, 2006 00:00 - Tue Aug 15, 2006


A New Public Course at the Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive
Thursday evenings, October 5-November 9

How does digital media influence our perception and experience of space and time? What are its social implications? The first offering in an exciting new initiative to present public courses at BAM/PFA, Digital Culture 0101 gives you a chance to discuss issues like these with artists and experts in the field, and promises a wide-ranging and thought-provoking introduction to new media as they reflect and interact with our culture.

Digital Culture 0101 and other upcoming courses are designed to expand on BAM/PFA's exhibitions and programs to provide new contexts and ways of interacting with the arts. A spring 2007 class will explore the art and implications of the BAM exhibition Measure of Time. Like the popular PFA film-lecture course Film 50, these classes are open to the general public as well as UC Berkeley students (see below for registration details).

Digital Culture 0101 draws upon the museum's pioneering use of digital media and its commitment to digital art, within the larger contexts of UC Berkeley's increasing attention to new media and the Bay Area as a center of digital culture. The course offers a non-technical look at issues surrounding digital media through the lens of digital art, with special attention to works now on view in Measure of Time. With session topics like 'space and time,


Re: Re: what are we calling ourselves?

hi again,

I do enjoy the back and forth on this (why else join this list in the
RAW?). Of course I also buy the arguments that there are dangers in
classifying a practice like art or even life, and especially in over-
or unnecessarily classifying; that's a given. But if you take that
argument to its logical end, it yields few practical results. For
instance, I don't wake up in the morning thinking I'm a "new media
artist"; it's true - I just am. But then again, I also don't wake up
thinking I'm an artist. Why classify that realm of human activity
apart from others? I don't wake up thinking I'm human or even me most
days, so why classify my species or personal identity apart from all
life? I just am. It's so true on a deeply philosophical level (grunt,
groan, sigh, chirp), but then again, there are so many necessary
reasons for classifying. It's all about finding the right levels to
classify and then the right parameters with which to classify (many
purely practical, thus my focus on what real-world organizations are
indeed calling themselves or their programs).

So, after finishing my research, I found that "new media" "digital
media" and "digital art" were the three most used terms. I agree
again with the dangers of over-reifying an artistic practice in terms
of a medium (or media), but within a realm of practice it may make
sense. For instance, it's true you would not call boat-building or
construction "woodworking", but it is common practice within those
fields to define the "wood" tradition (see the magazine "wooden
boats" or the term "wood frame construction"). So the medium is a
useful qualifier to the larger area of practice that is boat-building
or house-building. Similarly, I think video art or digital art simply
uses a medium to clarify and specify an area of artistic practice. Of
course it should not be presumed that any given artist who works in
digital media works exclusively in those media. It's all about
context; when applying to certain grant agencies it makes sense to
declare one's self a "digital artist", but in another context perhaps
one is just an "artist" or a citizen or person.

I think it's important to be able to clarify that because, for
instance, when we describe what was happening in the late 20th
century with art, there was something a little new and different
going on - what was it? I think there's a there there. It's also
useful because these terms loosely describe communities as much as
simply media. For instance, "new media" artists are often those who
post on Rhizome and nettime, publish in Leonardo or Intelligent
Agent, and attend the Refresh conference or Ars Electronica. Now
those artists may also overlap with those in the larger art world who
publish in ArtNews and attend the Biennial and Biennale, but despite
the fact that all communities overlap, it is possible to say that
there's an identity there - however loose. Not a pure, static, or
ontological identity, but an perceptable one.

Now as to the term, I think that Computational Media Art would be the
most precise. Computation defines what is new about this technology
in question in distinction to other preceding technologies (including
video, etc). But Computation is not used that much in this sense;
it's too arcane. "New media" seems so loose as to lose all definitive
power altogether. After all, isn't polymer acrylic painting a new
medium? I would offer that the more used "Digital Media Art" is a
useful term - it lies between computation and new, and means the most
precise thing to the most people. It's not useful to always call
digital art "digital", but it's also not fair to dismiss the media as
entirely incidental (the way the mainstream marketers of Brokeback
mountain claimed it was "just a love story between two people")
because the media allow the artists to go in directions that they
simply could not with other media. If art is an interplay of artist
with medium, then the medium helps define the artwork in a way that
does not commit the "intentional fallacy" of defining it entirely in
terms of artist intent or concept.

Well, that's already more words from me than post people are likely
to read, but I'm glad for the chance to discuss with you all. Thanks,

Richard Rinehart
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
University of California, Berkeley
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250

>I think that it's rather a
>fruitless attempt, outside of solving pragmatic matters like making it less of
>a train wreck for people doing searches for information on the subject. Lemme
>tell ya, it's hell trying to just find a damn program to apply to if everyone
>of them calls themselves something different. That said, it turns
>out that they
>all take an -extremely- different approach, so shunting them all off
>in a corner
>together doesn't end up being nearly as useful as it might appear at first
>Pragmatism aside, I think trying to pin down the topic rather misses
>its point.
>The general idea is to use something which is electrically powered and create
>something (and even then, that's not -always- true...take bio-art). That's
>pretty frigging broad. You wouldn't call all things done using wood
>"cabinetry," or even "woodworking." You can do a million things with wood,
>including shipbuilding and house building, neither of which remotely qualifies
>under the seemingly encompassing "woodworking." So why do we continue to
>presume we should, or even can, devise a single name for something that isn't
>even as limiting as using 1 medium (wood)? Seems rather like trying to
>collect the ocean in a bucket. Just as easy. Just as useful.
>To date, the rather generic term "new media" is probably the best(?) attempt
>so far, in that it makes no assumption about the media other than
>that it isn't
>traditional and relies (somehow) on modern technological innovation,
>nor does it
>make an assumption about the point, message, medium, or technique,
>as does much
>of the other nomenclature. To me, "new media" encompasses more specific
>flavors like "digital art," "bio art," "," "hacktivism," "generative
>art," etc. We keep getting confused because we continue, sloppily, thinking
>about and using them interchangeably, and we get our panties in a wad every
>time someone comes along with a new one that we haven't thought of yet, as
>though they're being bad or something by not just lumping it in to
>an existing,
>if inappropriate, genre. They are not interchangeable, technology has
>not stopped progressing, and people have not stopped devising new things to do
>with existing tools.
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Jerry King Musser wrote:
>::Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:07:26 -0700
>::From: Jerry King Musser <>
>::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: what are we calling ourselves?
>::I've been hearing 'integrated media' lately.
>::But, a word about the responses of some others...
>::I think the gentleman was asking a serious question and I believe
>we should show enough respect for his intention by simply answering
>honestly or not at all.
>::-> 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



what are we calling ourselves?

Hello fellow Rhizomers,

I'm sure this topic must have come up in the past here, but I haven't
seen it in a little while, so I'm going to update it. I'm doing some
research into what our field/sub-discipline/genre of
digital/newmedia/media art is being called these days. I've followed
the recent threads on whether to define a separate practice or not,
but I'm trying to find out not in what we might be ideally called in
theory, but what are organizations actually naming their programs and
how do they title their staff when they do distinguish them. I've
compiled an initial list below, and I'm wondering if anyone here
would have anything to add to it - new phrases, new examples of
existing titles, etc. I'll be happy to share the compiled fruits of
my little investigation once I'm done. The list of academic programs
on Rhizome has been helpful as it provides a tally of such phrases.
The following is in addition to that lists, and focusses more on
museums and arts organizations than academia. Anyone care to add to
the list, or comment on what our little world is being called these


"Digital Media"
Curator of Digital Media, UC Riverside California Museum of Photography

Curator of Digital Media and Director of New Media Projects, American
Museum of the Moving Image

assistant curator of digital media, American Museum of the Moving Image

Curator of Digital Media and Director of Information Systems,
International Center of Photography

Digital Media Curator, Lassi Tasajarvi, Independent Curator, Australia

Digital Media Center for the Arts, Yale

Digital Media Center, School of the Arts, Columbia Univ.

"New Media"
Adjunct curator of new media arts, Whitney Museum

New Media Curator, Walker Art Center

New Media Curator, Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, UK

New Media curator at the DeCordova Museum

New Media Curator at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London

Curator of New Media & Public Programs at Lower Manhattan Cultural Council

Center for New Media, UC Berkeley

"Digital Art"
digital art curator, Centre for Contemporary Photography

Digital Art Museum (online only)

Los Angeles Center For Digital Art

Austin Museum of Digital Art (no building)

SJSU Digital Art Lobby

Digital Arts Program, University of Oregon

UCDARNET, Univ. of CA, Digital Arts Network

"Computer Art"
Museum of Computer Art

"Virtual Art"
Virtual Art Curator, Athens Institute of Contemporary Art

"Art and Technology"
New Center for Art and Technology, Cleveland

Eyebeam Atelier Museum of Art and Technology, NYC

"Electronic Art"
International Festival of Electronic Art

Ars Electronica

International Society of Electronic Artists

PROPER NAMES FOR PROGRAMS (but not curators)

Orange Lounge, New Media Website and Online Exhibition Space, Orange
County Museum of Art

ArtPort, Whitney Museum of American Art

Gallery 9, Walker Art Center

Digital Programmes (also Net Art), Tate Modern


RGB Gallery, HotWired


Richard Rinehart
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
University of California, Berkeley
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250