Richard Rinehart
Since the beginning
r.rinehart@bucknell.edu
Works in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania United States of America

ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
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 http://www.coyoteyip.com
Discussions (29) Opportunities (5) Events (14) Jobs (10)
DISCUSSION

Re: MataData


Hi Edward, all,

You propose a mouthful (is that a terribly mixed metaphor?). Anyway,
I wouldn't break it down quite that way; I'd break a work down
according to levels of description from conceptual to functional to
technical in that order. But I won't belabor that issues when I've
got a 44 page paper to do that for me (see
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/about_bampfa/formalnotation.pdf) and
if you don't like the model proposed in this paper, you can always
use it to swat really big flies.

I was very piqued by your comment number 5., that 'genre' may or may
not be remembered for ten years. Much as I hate to admit this
(because I hate thinking about my own work being remembered as a
watered-down stereotype), I actually think that genre may be one of
the most memorable elements of metadata about art. Think about it in
terms of painting; few of us might now that a particular 19th century
painting was painted with a new form of synthetic cobalt or
ultramarine blue invented only a few years prior (technical
metadata), but we all know it's "impressionist" (genre). We may not
recall even the artist on first view (Jacques Braque? Georges
Braque?) but we can tell it's "cubist" from across the room.

Like I said, part of me resists the idea that my own work, or any
art, can be reduced down to a one-word term, and I hope that we're
building more robust metadata systems than they used in the past, but
this thought would seem to underscore the importance of the Rhizome
metadata/vocabulary project.

Rick

>How about breaking down the definition of any given work into a
>number of separate stages?
>
>1.What are the file formats? HTML, XHTML, .swf, .mov, .mpg,
>.jpg, .gif etc., or combinations thereof.
>2.Any additional information about viewing requirements:
>Windows-only, Mac-only, JavaScript required, popups used, etc.
>3.Content: audio, animation, text, images, interactive
>elements, generative elements, etc.
>4.Mode of presentation: CD, DVD, online, installation, via
>mobile phone, etc.
>5.General description of the work, including genre: this would
>include the "folksonomy" terms such as "web.art" which may or may
>not mean anything ten years from now.
>6.Maybe some technical information about how it was produced,
>ie. what coding language was used? I'm not sure if answers to this
>question are 100% implied by answers to questions 1 and 2.
>
>- Edward Picot
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hi everyone,

The tagging sounds very interesting indeed. Would this be the same as
the folksonomy or parallel to it (same system)? I could see the two
types of terms living in the ArtBase easily: controlled vocabularies
and the folksonomic terms. On the former, controlled vocabularies,
Lauren's question is important: who is it for? I have found that
controlled vocabularies are mainly for "professionals" in the field
as they are more precise terms (ie. the AAT prefers 'serigraph'
instead of 'silkscreen'), but the main benefit of controlled vocabs
are manifold. First, they can, if done well (AAT does this, and
Rhizome's hybrid model could too) provide a mapping between the
"popular" and "professional" versions of a term (the thesaurus
model), they provide a consistency that allows for consistent results
during machine manipulation of the data (ie searching), and perhaps
more importantly they provide a standard so that the any particular
data-set that uses them can be shared and transported between systems.

In the cultural heritage field there's been increasing emphasis on
broad sharing of data; we all know that our data needs to live on our
own websites, yes, and we can provide great functionality with that,
but we need to be able to share the data-source in such a way that it
can be incorporated into other systems too. For instance, I can
easily see in the future, that Rhizome might want to export the
entire ArtBase and allow the records to be used inside another
portal/system such as one of the following: Univ. of California
Digital Library (http://www.oac.cdlib.org/),Univ. of Michigan OAIster
(http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/), or the Library of
Congress' American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html).
Additionally, some might want to incorporate the ArtBase terms
(rather than the records/data) in software tools like the Variable
Media Questionnaire (http://variablemedia.net). To achieve any of
these, there has to be some structure to the ArtBase that others will
understand (ie. shared standards). The benefits of this sharing
include: new functionality, new data-contexts, new audiences and
uses. Some of this sharing can be achieved via dynamic linking/API's
while other forms require static record export/import. This does not
prohibit local practices or folksonomies, but it argues for a hybrid
system.

Terms for the ArtBase could come from two streams. First is the
folksonomies/tagging aggregated by the ArtBase from us. The second
could be existing controlled vocabularies (such as the AAT) that are
mined for appropriate terms and incorporated into a list for the
ArtBase (Rhizome members could suggest sources). Submitters of new
works to the ArtBase could be encouraged to both choose a
"controlled" term or two, some previously "tagged" terms, or a new
term.

Whew...what do you all think?

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

>Hey Lauren & everyone,
>
>On Apr 29, 2006, at 6:00 AM, Lauren Cornell wrote:
>>
>>1) Sal: By members tagging the ArtBase, were you thinking that the tags of
>>both artist and audience would be reflected on an individual ArtBase page?
>
>Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. They could be presented
>separately, but both on the page (this can be pretty discreet,
>design wise, on opsound the tags are almost invisible until you
>mouse over them - or little ajax windows could open). The reasons
>to keep them on the ArtBase page are twofold. One, it can help
>someone to get a feel for what kind of piece it is, as they're
>browsing through -- this is a rather modest benefit, I think. More
>importantly, though, a visitor can use these tags as links to wander
>through the ArtBase and discover other works which they might not
>have found -- the more paths through the forest the better, imho.
>Also, I think the community-created folksonomy tags are potentially
>quite useful for research in the future. If you add a date_tagged
>field, for instance, someone could use the database to map the
>evolution of terms and ideas in new media art during a particular
>period.
>
>> Just a note: This would also
>>mean that tagging -- besides being a part of the artbase/ text submission
>>process -- would become a Member benefit which is a good thing in my mind.
>
>Yes! I thought this too. I like it as a benefit of membership.
>Helps build the idea of a community.
>
>> Do we add words through research/ conversations with these
>>constituencies within the Rhizome community, or do we rely on pre-existing
>>vocabularies or our own knowledge. What do people think?
>
>If it's combined with a free-form tagging system, I'm pretty
>comfortable with just using your own knowledge and common sense,
>building from the keyword/genre system that's in place -- it might
>be nice to present the list to the list (so to speak) and get a
>little feedback first, and to other curators etc. as well. Some
>provision (at least in the form of acknowledgment) should be made
>for adding new terms as new forms and ideas develop over time.
>Letting the Artbase curators add the controlled vocabulary seems
>natural -- and a good use for the curators ;-)
>
>Also, of course it's pretty easy to combine tags and rss feeds.
>This means you could potentially subscribe to a feed for let's say
>'animation' or 'database' and keep tabs on what's coming in (great
>for curators!).
>
>You could also consider offering an API to the rhizome ArtBase
>database, so anyone could configure their own presentation of it.
>This way, you could give people access to data that you don't
>necessarily want to display on the page (for clutter reasons
>perhaps) -- for instance the date_tagged type of data I mentioned
>above.
>Someone could use the API to extract that data and present it
>(possibly, of course, as an artwork, Rhizome beginning to eat
>itself).
>
>S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Thanks Sal,

You summed it up nicely. It's great to see convergence on some of
these issues on the list.

Richard Rinehart

At 12:44 PM -0400 4/26/06, Sal Randolph wrote:
>I second rob & david's arguments about why folksonomies are great,
>and I think they would mix amazingly well with rhizome membership
>(all members would get to tag the artbase as they like). tag cloud
>of the artbase indeed!! It would naturally evolve as the field of
>inquiry evolves. Also as someone who has implemented a tagging
>system with freetag recently, it's *really* easy to do (freetag is
>php, and I know rhizome's using ruby, but it doesn't look all that
>hard to write one either, just from surveying the code).
>
>Personally I would advocate for a double system, as some have done:
>free folksonomy tagging by everyone, and then a layer of curated
>language for either genre or keyword. multiple points of
>intellectual access are a good thing.
>
>
>On Apr 26, 2006, at 7:51 AM, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>
>>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>>
>>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>>
>>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the
>>word "blue"
>>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>>
>>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is
>>>not yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is the
>>>single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure which
>>>is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty unit
>>>that had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in updating the
>>>AAT based on feedback from the relevant community (us).
>>
>>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>>
>>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome community)
>>could then
>>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>>
>>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>>
>>
>>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for Rhizome to get
>>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>>unfortunately written
>>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time having
>>this stuff
>>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>>
>>- Rob.
>>
>>+
>>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: Metadata


Hi again,

Yes, perhaps a hybrid model would work. Actually, I think that
technically, the folksonomy/tagging bit might be the hardest to
implement (but worth it), whereas also having the AAT/etc terms in a
list is a pretty easy and fairly static entity to include.

You mention an interesting note about ArtBase including licenses for
commercial software as having the original software (or better yet,
source code, see previous post) is helpful for preservation. I do
rememeber that Howard Besser at NYU had mentioned a couple years ago
the idea of convincing Congress to give software companies a tax
break to release their old software into the public domain because it
has little value for them, but great value for preservation. Does
anyone else know about this project and what became of it. It might
be relevant here......

Richard Rinehart

At 12:51 PM +0100 4/26/06, rob@robmyers.org wrote:
>Quoting Richard Rinehart <rinehart@berkeley.edu>:
>
>>I'm curious about the statement you made below Rob, that any
>>folksonomy can be made compatible with standards using a good
>>thesaurus. Do you have an example of this?
>
>I don't have an example I'm afraid. It's more a strategy I had in mind for
>paintr (http://paintr.robmyers.org/). Folksonomies and taxonomies are both
>formalisations of human language, so if my RDF doesn't contain the word "blue"
>but it does contain the word "color" I can locate my tag in the RDF using
>wordnet or a thesaurus.
>
>>Your note on the AAT is very (VERY) well taken. Yes, the AAT is not
>>yet a good resource for terms for new media art, yet it is the
>>single standard used most by museums and other organizations
>>collecting new media art. So, one strategy would be to ignore the
>>AAT as irrelevant; but another might be to work with the Getty to
>>update and improve the AAT with relevant terms so that (digital)
>>community-specific practice becomes (museum) community specific
>>practice rather than creating a ghetto (though I'm not sure which
>>is the ghetto of the other here :) In the past, the Getty unit that
>>had maintained the AAT had expressed interest in updating the AAT
>>based on feedback from the relevant community (us).
>
>Yes I think that might be a very good project.
>
>Possibly collaborating to make AAT net.art aware and having a process to add
>more terms relatively quickly as they come up? So in artbase have a list of
>terms you can choose followed by an "other" checkbox that people could add
>terms they felt weren't in the taxonomy. We (the Rhizome community) could then
>keep an eye on those and see if they should go into AAT.
>
>A folksonomy might be more democratic & easier to implement though. :-)
>
>
>On the subject of proprietary software it might be an idea for Rhizome to get
>licenses for Windows, ASP, IIS and so on so that software
>unfortunately written
>for them can still be run in the future. In a few years time having this stuff
>available for galleries to hire might actually provide a revenue stream. ;-)
>
>- Rob.
>
>+
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RARE: Metadata


This is very helpful. It makes me think that perhaps Rhizome could
(with all of your help :) compile a list of relevant terms from a
variety of sources, include that in a new metadata model and
submission form (terms along with sources are listed as options), and
then add on a dynamic folksonomies function. I don't want to speak
for what Rhizome could do, but it seems to make sense.

Richard Rinehart

>gh replies:
>
>I just did a search on the Getty for digital art. It has no such
>category. I then did a search on Wikipedia and got a fairly concise
>definition page for digital art. I would suggest that you look at
>wikipedia as one source for a search taxonomy. They are real good at
>this. Definitions for art works are always tricky. For example,
>animation art is a good term. It can cover a really broad category
>that goes from animated photography to cartoons. Here's a quick
>rumination on animation ;-)
>
>Animation:
>paper
>flip book
>zoetrope
>cartoon
>digital
>vector
>photo
>morph
>hand made
>illustration
>Disney
>commercial
>Flash
>early
>story board
>artists
>performance
>
>I could go on...
>
>
>
>On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
>>
>>To view this entire thread, click here:
>>http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread!206&textA392#41392
>>
>>+ + +
>>
>>Hello Rhizomes,
>>
>>I'm writing to follow up on Lauren's email about the Rhizome ArtBase
>>and to kick off a conversation about the language we use to describe
>>works in the ArtBase.
>>
>>There are different types of metadata relevant to works in the
>>ArtBase and some are fairly straightforward such as Creators, Dates,
>>and Titles. But the type of metadata that is most problematic and at
>>the same time most community-driven is descriptive metadata such as
>>Type, Genre, and Keywords. The data-values used to fill out those
>>metadata are terms taken from vocabularies (the lists of different
>>types, genres, etc.) If you have ever submitted a work to the
>>ArtBase, you know what these look like: Types include animation-art,
>>audio-art, etc.; Genres include abstract-art, allegory-art, etc; and
>>Keywords include access, animation, archive, etc. (a full list of
>>Rhizome's data-values/vocabularies follows below).
>>
>>Rhizome would like to update the vocabularies it uses for this
>>descriptive metadata. Rhizome has cited three reasons for changing;
>>the vocabularies are incomplete, the vocabularies are however key as
>>they are how visitors search the vast Rhizome site, and lastly, but
>>not least, there is no canon or authoritative source for terms
>>related to digital art, so Rhizome can take this practical need and
>>turn it into an opportunity to engage a community discussion about
>>vocabularies and to set an example for others to follow. All metadata
>>specific to one discipline, but especially vocabularies, need to
>>arise from the community's practice and not be imposed from outside
>>or the descriptions and the artifacts being described will never
>>quite match up. It is also important to collaborate and coordinate
>>with other groups working on digital art metadata and preservation,
>>so that's another reason to have this conversation on RAW and why
>>Rhizome will also be convening people from the Variable Media,
>>Archiving the Avant Garde, and Canadian DOCAM projects to discuss
>>this as well.
>>
>>Some questions and considerations that might get the conversation started:
>>
>>1) Do Rhizome's vocabularies need to be compatible with other
>>metadata standards? If so, which, and how much?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use what they call
>>"controlled" vocabularies or authoritative thesauri. For instance the
>>art world has used the Getty's Art and Architecture Thesaurus for
>>years
>>(http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/).
>>Systems are then built using these vocab standards. If Rhizome were
>>in some way compatible with these standards, then new search engines
>>could search across distributed art resources online from Getty
>>databases to Rhizome's ArtBase ensuring that digital art is not
>>"ghettoized" because of incompatible languages. Interoperability is
>>important in a semantic as well as technical sense, but luckily
>>compatibility does not necessarily require that one adopt the
>>"authoritative" vocabulary completely, or exclusively.
>>
>>2) What can we propose here that Rhizome can practically accomplish
>>given limited resources?
>>
>>The larger cultural world is cursed with a plethora of metadata
>>"standards" and vocabularies that are so complex that no one can
>>afford to implement them and thus they go unused and interoperability
>>remains a theoretical concept. We should be smarter than that. A
>>simple system that works and can be realistically maintained is worth
>>more than a complex solution that never happens.
>>
>>3) Currently the metadata that uses vocabularies is divided into
>>type, genre, and keywords -- are these categories sufficient? Should
>>we add others?
>>
>>Thoughts: Many other disciplines and communities use metadata
>>categories similar to this. For instance, in various art-world/museum
>>metadata standards they use Genre to indicate a broad category
>>("painting"), then Type to indicate a format within the Genre
>>("watercolor"), and then Subject (keywords) to indicate "intellectual
>>access points" ("landscape") that people will search on to find the
>>record.
>>
>>4) Do we want to enhance/ elaborate/ add on to our existing descriptive
>>terms or keep the current controlled vocab as is, and make folksonomy also
>>an option?
>>
>>Thoughts: Can one use folksonomies or other dynamic systems to keep a
>>vocabulary fresh yet still retain some level of compatibility with
>>other standards?
>>
>>5) who is the artbase for? Who is its audience, and how does that
>>affect our re-design of the metadata.
>>
>>Thoughts: Related to this is the question of what the long-term use
>>of the ArtBase should or will be and how can we support that with
>>better vocabularies?
>>
>>So, let the games begin! What do you think?
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>
>>----------------------------
>>Rhizome ArtBase Vocabularies
>>
>>TYPE
>>The type field describes the abstract media type of the art object.
>>
>>-Animation-art work in which motion graphics play a significant role
>>-Audio-art work has strong audio component
>>-Game-art work is a game or involves gaming in significant ways
>>-Installation-art object documents a physical installation
>>-Performance-art object documents a performative art work
>>-Software-art work is an executable program or involves original
>>stand-alone software
>>-Video-art object uses Quicktime, RealVideo, or other time-based video
>>-Virtual-art work creates a 3D, immersive or otherwise virtual world
>>-Visual-art work is particularly graphical or especially visual in nature
>>-Text-art work is ASCII or otherwise text-based
>>
>>GENRE
>>The genre field describes the general category of your art object
>>defined through style, form, or content.
>>
>>-Abstract-art object is visually abstract
>>-Allegory-art object uses allegory or metaphor
>>-Anti-art-art object overtly rejects artistic conventions or codes
>>-Collaborative-art object was created by more than one person
>>-Collider-art object dynamically combines material from various sources
>>-Conceptual-art object is driven primarily by ideas
>>-Contextual-art object is site-specific, or requires a specific
>>situation to function
>>-Database-art object incorporates databases or archives
>>-Documentary-art object uses found material as evidence; art object
>>records events for posterity; art object uses documentary data
>>-Event-art object is/was an event such as a performance or netcast
>>-Formalist-art object is primarily concerned with the aesthetics of form
>>-Generative-art object is created afresh for each viewing according
>>to certain contingent factors
>>-Historical-art object is about the recording or revealing of past events
>>-Homepage-art object is (or resembles) a personal website
>>-Information map-art object is about the visual display of
>>statistical or other quantitative information
>>-Narrative-art object tells a story
>>-Offline-art object has a major offline component
>>-Participatory-art object requires input from users
>>-Readymade-art object involves found material not originally meant to be art
>>-Tactical-art object is example of tactical media; art object is
>>resistive, political or otherwise confrontational
>>-Telematic-art object uses distance communication, or allows for
>>remote manipulation of objects
>>
>>KEYWORDS
>>
>> access
>> animation
>> archive
>> art world
>> artificial life
>> audio
>> bio
>> body
>> broadcast
>> browser
>> CD-ROM
>> censorship
>> cinema
>> colonialism
>> commercialization
>> community
>> conference
>> corporate
>> death
>> design
>> desire
>> digital
>> disappearance
>> education
>> email
>> exhibition
>> film
>> fund
>> futurism
>> game
>> gender
>> globalization
>> identity
>> immersion
>> interact
>> interface
>> Internet
>> labor
>> language
>> live
>> machine
>> marginality
>> media activism
>> meme
>> memory
>> nature
>> net.art
>> network
>> nostalgia
>> performance
>> posthuman
>> postmodern
>> privacy
>> public space
>> publish
>> queer
>> radio
>> resistance
>> responsibility
>> robot
>> rumor
>> security
>> social space
>> space
>> surveillance
>> tactical media
>> technophobia
>> television
>> Third World
>> 3D
>> underground
>> utopia
>> video
>> virtual reality
>> VRML
>> War
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>Richard Rinehart
>>---------------
>>Director of Digital Media
>>Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
>>bampfa.berkeley.edu
>>---------------
>>University of California, Berkeley
>>---------------
>>2625 Durant Ave.
>>Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
>>ph.510.642.5240
>>fx.510.642.5269
>>
>>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>>
>>Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
>>the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
>>
>>Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the
>>Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
>>the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
>>
>>+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
>>
>>Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
>>volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
>>please email editor@rhizome.org.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
>>
>>Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.

--

Richard Rinehart
---------------
Director of Digital Media
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
bampfa.berkeley.edu
---------------
University of California, Berkeley
---------------
2625 Durant Ave.
Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
ph.510.642.5240
fx.510.642.5269