ryan griffis
Since 2002
Works in United States of America

Ryan Griffis currently teaches new media art at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He often works under the name Temporary Travel Office and collaborates with many other writers, artists, activists and interesting people in the Midwest Radical Culture Corridor.
The Temporary Travel Office produces a variety of services relating to tourism and technology aimed at exploring the non-rational connections existing between public and private spaces. The Travel Office has operated in a variety of locations, including Missouri, Chicago, Southern California and Norway.

Is MySpace a Place?

Networked Performance pointed me toward an interview (download in PDF)with Networked Publics speaker Henry Jenkins and Networked Publics friend danah boyd about Myspace. The site, popular with teenagers, has become increasingly controversial as parents and the press raise concerns about the openness of information on the site and the vulnerability this supposedly poses to predators (Henry points out that only .1% of abductions are by strangers) and the behavior of teens towards each other (certainly nothing new, only now in persistent form). In another essay on Identity Production in Networked Culture, danah suggests that Myspace is popular not only because the technology makes new forms of interaction possible, but because older hang-outs such as the mall and the convenience store are prohibiting teens from congregating and roller rinks and burger joints are disappearing.

This begs the question, is Myspace media or is it space? Architecture theorists have long had this thorn in their side. "This will kill that," wrote Victor Hugo with respect to the book and the building. In the early 1990s, concern about a dwindling public culture and the character of late twentieth century urban space led us to investigate Jürgen Habermas's idea of the public sphere. But the public sphere, for Habermas is a forum, something that, for the most part, emerges in media and in the institutions of the state:

The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor. The medium of this political confrontation was peculiar and without historical precedent: people's ...


SWITCH: Issue 22

Carlos Castellanos:

HI everyone. Just wanted to announce the new issue of SWITCH:

SWITCH : The online New Media Art Journal of the CADRE Laboratory for
New Media at San Jose State University

http://switch.sjsu.edu switch@cadre.sjsu.edu

SWITCH Journal is proud to announce the launch of Issue 22: A Special
Preview Edition to ISEA 2006/ ZeroOne San Jose.

As San Jose State University and the CADRE Laboratory are serving as
the academic host for the ZeroOne San Jose /ISEA 2006 Symposium,
SWITCH has dedicated itself to serving as an official media
correspondent of the Festival and Symposium. SWITCH has focused the
past three issues of publication prior to ZeroOne San Jose/ISEA2006
on publishing content reflecting on the themes of the symposium. Our
editorial staff has interviewed and reported on artists, theorists,
and practitioners interested in the intersections of Art & Technology
as related to the themes of ZeroOne San Jose/ ISEA 2006. While some
of those featured in SWITCH are part of the festival and symposium,
others provide a complimentary perspective.

Issue 22 focuses on the intersections of CADRE and ZeroOne San Jose/
ISEA 2006. Over the past year, students at the CADRE Laboratory for
New Media have been working intensely with artists on two different
residency projects for the festival – “Social Networking” with Antoni
Muntadas and the City as Interface Residency, “Karaoke Ice” with
Nancy Nowacek, Marina Zurkow & Katie Salen. Carlos Castellanos,
James Morgan, Aaron Siegel, all give us a sneak preview of their
projects which will be featured at the ISEA 2006 exhibition. Alumni
Sheila Malone introduces ex_XX:: post position, an exhibition
celebrating the 20th anniversary of the CADRE Institute that will run
as a parallel exhibition to ZeroOne San Jose/ ISEA 2006. LeE
Montgomery provides a preview of NPR (Neighborhood Public Radio)
presence at ...


Art & Mapping

The North American Cartographic Information Society (NACIS) has released a special issue of their journal, Cartographic Perspectives:
Art and Mapping Issue 53, Winter 2006 Edited by Denis Wood and and John Krygier Price: $25
The issue includes articles by kanarinka, Denis Wood, Dalia Varanka and John Krygier, and an extensive catalogue of map artists compiled by Denis Wood.


[-empyre-] Liquid Narrative for June 2006

Christina McPhee:

hi all, I am not sure we got this message out to Rhizome!

Please join our guests this month, Dene Grigar (US), Jim Barrett
(AU/SE), Lucio Santaella (BR), and Sergio Basbaum (BR) , with
moderator Marcus Bastos (BR), for a spirited discussion of "Liquid
Narratives" ----- digital media story telling with a dash, perhaps,
of 'aura' .

Here's the intro from Marcus:

The topic of June at the - empyre - mailing list will be Liquid Narratives. The concept of 'liquid narrative' is interesting in that it allows to think about the unfoldings of contemporary languages beyond tech achievements, by relating user controlled applications with formats such as the essay (as described by Adorno in "Der Essay als Form", The essay as a form) and procedures related to the figure of the narrator (as described by Benjamin in his writings about Nikolai Leskov). Both authors are accute critics of modern culture, but a lot of his ideas can be expanded towards contemporary culture. As a matter of fact, one of the main concerns in Benjamin's essay is a description of how the rise of modernism happens on account of an increasing nprivilege of information over knowledge, which is even more intense nowadays. To understand this proposal, it is important to remember how Benjamin distinguishes between an oral oriented knowledge, that results from 'an experience that goes from person to person' and is sometimes anonymous, from the information and authoritative oriented print culture. One of the aspects of this discussion is how contemporary networked culture rescues this 'person to person' dimension, given the distributed and non-authoritative procedures that technologies such as the GPS, mobile phones and others stimulate.


state of the planet infographics

a small collection of beautiful information graphics documenting the current state of the planet.
see also gapminder & 3d data globe.


Discussions (909) Opportunities (8) Events (16) Jobs (0)

biopharming update

The deadline for comments on biopharming has been
extended to Feb. 7th,
this Friday. If you haven't let USDA and FDA know how
you feel about
drugs contaminating the food supply, there's still
time. Send comments

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

For short e-mail comments, go to
SPECIFY DOCKET NO. O2D-0324 in subject line or on
written comments to
make sure they're counted.
The guidance document on which comments are being
taken can be found at

I've attached the executive summary to our
comprehensive report on
biopharming, which can be found at
www.foe.org/biopharm, for those
desiring background. Some points you might make are
as follows:

* Experts agree that contamination of food crops with
biopharm traits
is inevitable, especially since cross-pollinating corn
is the favorite
plant and as acreage increases from small pilot trials
to large
commercial plantings. Look at the ProdiGene incidents
in NE and IA.
The NE incident involved a 1-acre test plot, and
wasn't adequately
monitored. What happens when they're growing
thousands of acres?

* Some of the compounds presently being grown in corn
have known human
health effects, but have not been tested. Many more
are kept secret by
government and industry as "confidential business

* Some companies want to extract the
biopharmaceutical, then put the
crop residue into the food and feed chain. So if
extraction isn't
complete, we're talking drug residues in the food

* More stringent regulation is not the answer --
banning biopharming,
at least in food crops and in the open air -- is.
There are many
contained, controlled, proven as well as newer
alternatives to open-air
biopharming for any drugs that are really needed.

* Farmers will suffer as contamination episodes ruin
export markets.

* Use of pesticides on biopharm plants raises the
very real risk of
pesticide residues in drugs.

for more info.

Bill Freese, Research Analyst
Safer Food - Safer Farms Campaign
Friends of the Earth
Phone/fax: 301-985-3011

NW Resistance Against Genetic Engineering
P.O.Box 15289
Portland, OR. 97293
ph. 503.239.6841

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.


Re: RHIZOME_RARE: soliciting thoughts on guidelines for rhizome raw

i have some unclear thoughts...
in terms of RAW's "potential" - i'm not sure what that
is. it seems to me that any potential for discussion,
information sharing, etc. that RAW has is created by
those who use it, and at this point i don't see how
guidlines would increase the potential in those terms.
not that i'm against guidelines - i think moderating
the list in terms of Rhizome's mission should be
acceptable, and doesn't have to lead to censorship.
with membership required to post (is this correct?), i
don't see that much need for more rules (at least for
if making the terms of acceptable discussion
(regarding new media, net.art, etc.) explicitly known
to all users is the question, sure. but deciding what
is relevant to "new media" is a different matter.
not very helpful...ryan

> hey all -- this post from t.whid is from two weeks
> ago, originally stemming
> from a discussion of artbase criterion. I am stuck
> on it -- I wonder what
> people think about having an acceptable use policy
> for raw... broad
> guidelines that protect an "inclusive"
> environment... not sure what the
> right frameworks or terms shoud be here. what do raw
> folks think about this?
> > At 1:25 -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
> >
> >
> > there is plenty of exclusiveness in the art world.
> i have always
> > tried to make rhizome an exception, to keep it
> open. that's why we
> > have not bowed to pressure to moderate raw. that's
> why our
> > commissioning program is based on a call for
> proposals (most
> > commissioning programs are invitational).
> >
> t.whid replied:
> > hey mark,
> >
> > moderation and inclusiveness are not antagonistic.
> you may include
> > anyone who plays fairly by agreed on rules. RAW
> has no acceptable use
> > policy, that's the problem. so anyone may use it
> and abuse it (and
> > it's members) however they wish. as long as you
> keep this imo flawed
> > policy RAW won't reach it's full potential.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.


The Rise of the Fortress Continent, Naomi Klein

With other protocols like the DMCA and security
mesaures, this is a dark outlook for resistance and
collaborative efforts by people from the "inside" and
those "outside"...

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i 030203&s=klein

lookout by Naomi Klein
The Rise of the Fortress Continent

[from the February 3, 2003 issue]

Well, it could have been true.

That's what Senator Hillary Clinton had to say after
finding out that five Pakistani men did not actually
sneak into the United States through Canada so they
could blow up New York on New Year's Eve. Because they
were never in the United States at all, and they
weren't terrorists, and the whole thing was dreamed up
by a man who forges passports for a living.

At the height of the search for the professional
liar's imaginary nonterrorists, Clinton blamed Canada
and its "unpatrolled, unsupervised" border. But even
when the hoax came to light, she didn't rescind the
accusation: Because the Canadian border is so porous,
she reasoned, "this hoax seemed all too believable."

It was, in other words, a useful hoax, helping US
citizens to see how unsafe they really are. And that
is useful, especially if you are among the growing
number of free-market economists, politicians and
military strategists pushing for the creation of
"Fortress NAFTA," a continental security perimeter
stretching from Mexico's southern border to Canada's
northern one.

A fortress continent is a bloc of nations that joins
forces to extract favorable trade terms from other
countries--while patrolling their shared external
borders to keep people from those countries out. But
if a continent is serious about being a fortress, it
also has to invite one or two poor countries within
its walls, because somebody has to do the dirty work
and heavy lifting.

It's a model being pioneered in Europe, where the
European Union is currently expanding to include ten
poor Eastern bloc countries at the same time that it
uses increasingly aggressive security methods to deny
entry to immigrants from even poorer countries, like
Iraq and Nigeria.

It took the events of September 11 for North America
to get serious about building a fortress continent of
its own. After the attacks, it wasn't an option for
the United States to simply build higher walls at the
Canadian and Mexican borders--in the NAFTA era, the
business community wouldn't stand for it. General
Motors claims that for every minute its trucks are
delayed at the US-Canadian border, it loses about

On the other US border, dozens of industries, from
agriculture to construction, are reliant on "illegal"
Mexican workers--a fact not lost on George W. Bush,
who knows that, after oil, immigrant labor is the fuel
driving the Southwest economy. If he suddenly cut off
the flow, the business sector would rebel. So what's a
wildly pro-business, security-obsessed government to

Easy: Move the border. Turn the Mexican and Canadian
borders into glorified checkpoints and seal off the
entire continent, from Guatemala to the Arctic Circle.
Bush officials don't talk much about the continental
fortress, preferring terms like "North American area
of mutual confidence." But a US-run security perimeter
is precisely what is being built. In the past year,
Washington has pressured Canada and Mexico to
harmonize their refugee, immigration and visa laws
with US policies. And in July 2001, Mexican President
Vicente Fox introduced Plan Sur, a massive security
operation on Mexico's southern frontier that
immigration experts refer to as "the southern
migration" of the US border.

Under Plan Sur, the Mexican government has deported
hundreds of thousands of mainly Central Americans on
their way to the United States. And the United States
has been providing much of the funding. In one bizarre
incident last year, Mexican guards caught a group of
Indian refugees on their way to the United States,
bused them to a squalid refugee detention center in
Guatemala, and Washington paid the cost ($8.50 a day
per detainee).

Fox had hoped to be rewarded for policing the
undeclared US southern border, and he used to have
reason for optimism. As recently as September 6, 2001,
Bush was pledging to "normalize" the status of the
roughly 4.5 million Mexicans living illegally in the
United States. After September 11, however, the status
of these workers became even more precarious.

This points to another truth about fortress
continents: Being on the inside may be better than
being locked out, but it's no guarantee of equal
status. Washington is constructing a kind of
three-tiered fortress in which the United States rules
by decree, Canada and Mexico serve as guards and
Mexican workers are banished to the continental
equivalent of the servants' quarters.

Across the Atlantic, a similar three-tiered process is
under way. Inside Fortress Europe, France and Germany
are the nobility, and lesser powers like Spain and
Portugal are the sentinels. Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary
and the Czech Republic are the postmodern serfs,
providing the low-wage factories where clothes,
electronics and cars are produced for 20-25 percent of
what it would cost to make them in Western Europe--the
EU's own maquiladoras.

The huge greenhouses of southern Spain, meanwhile,
have stopped hiring Moroccans to pick the
strawberries. They are giving the jobs instead to
white-skinned Poles and Romanians, while speedboats
equipped with infrared sensors patrol the coastline,
intercepting ships of North Africans. Increasingly,
the EU is making "repatriation agreements" an explicit
condition of new trade deals: We'll take your
products, the Euros say to South America and Africa,
as long as we can send your people back.

What we are seeing is the emergence of a genuinely new
New World Order, one far more Darwinian than the
First, Second and Third World. The new divisions are
between fortress continents and locked-out continents.
For locked-out continents, even their cheap labor
isn't needed, and their countries are left to beg
outside the gates for a half-decent price for wheat
and bananas.

Inside the fortress continents, a new social hierarchy
has been engineered to reconcile the seemingly
contradictory political priorities of the
post-September 11 era. How do you have air-tight
borders and still maintain access to cheap labor? How
do you expand for trade, and still pander to the
anti-immigrant vote? How do you stay open to business,
and stay closed to people?

Easy: First you expand the perimeter. Then you lock down.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.


Re: RHIZOME_RARE: Publishing opportunity - YLEM journal

has anyone (marc?) else been keeping up with the nettime debates on the Rifkin/Thacker Bio-art articles?
some interesting statements and problems... how to engage the issue(s) without becoming the PR tools that Fusco and Jackie Stevens rightly criticize.
i organized a small exhibit on genetics last year, which will be restaged later this year, called YOUgenics http://www.artofficial-online.com/yougenics - which didn't have any of the connections to industry (or any funding at all for that matter) that shows like Gene(sis) or Paradise Now had, and i was involved with anti-GE groups at the time, so they were involved quite a bit... but negotiating the issue into areas other than the dualism of "pro" or "anti" GE is difficult at best. i found, through the public events staged along with the show, that most people tended to stick to those binary oppositions that they came in with.
anyway, all of this seems just as applicable to "New Media," and technological art in general, even if it doesn't seem as urgent.


Crunch Time at the FCC by Michael Copps

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i 030203&s=copps
Crunch Time at the FCC


[from the February 3, 2003 issue]

One of the most important votes of 2003 will be cast
not in Congress or in voting booths across the country
but at the Federal Communications Commission. At stake
is how TV, radio, newspapers and the Internet will
look in the next generation and beyond. At stake are
core values of localism, competition, diversity and
maintaining the vitality of America's marketplace of
ideas. And at stake is the ability of consumers to
enjoy creative, diverse and enriching entertainment.

But most people and most journalists are ignoring this
momentous vote. Last year FCC chair Michael Powell
announced that the commission would vote this spring
on whether to scrap, modify or retain our media
concentration protections. These rules currently limit
a single corporation from dominating a local TV
market; from merging a community's TV stations and
newspapers into one voice; from merging two major TV
networks; and from controlling more than 35 percent of
TV households in the nation. And now we are on the
verge of dramatically altering the nation's media
landscape without the national debate that this issue

What will happen if these rules disappear or are
significantly loosened? We have some history to guide
us. The FCC eliminated many of its radio consolidation
rules in 1996. This action has already caused real
problems, according to numerous media experts.
Conglomerates now own hundreds of stations across the
country. One company, Clear Channel, owns more than
1,200. Today there are 30 percent fewer radio station
owners than there were before the commission abandoned
its rules in 1996. Most local radio markets are
oligopolies. More and more programming originates
outside local stations' studios--far from listeners
and their communities.

Media watchers like the Media Access Project, the
Center for Digital Democracy and Consumers Union argue
that this concentration has led to far less coverage
of news and public interest programming and less
localism. A study by the Future of Music Coalition
strongly suggests that consolidation has led to the
homogenization of music. Many observers say that radio
now serves more to advertise the products of
vertically integrated conglomerates than to inform or
entertain Americans with the best and most original
programming. In addition, the work of the Parents
Television Council shows that offensive and indecent
programming has grown more pervasive on radio. As
programming decisions are wrested from our local
communities and made instead in distant corporate
headquarters, our children are exposed to more and
more offensive material.

Despite this history, we are now about to decide
whether to eliminate the rules that govern the rest of
the media world. If all these rules are scrapped or if
the FCC seriously weakens them, one company could
dominate a region's access to information by
controlling its radio stations, television stations,
newspaper and cable system. And those who believe the
Internet will save us from this fate should realize
that the dominant Internet news sources are owned by
the same media giants who control radio, TV,
newspapers and cable. The fate of cable television and
the emerging fate of the Internet should teach us that
new technology alone, without rules that protect
against its being co-opted by media giants, will not
guarantee healthy, independent local media.

Yet the FCC is charging ahead without adequately
studying the vast consequences of its actions. It has
resisted calls to hold public hearings. Only under
pressure did it agree to hold one lone official
hearing in Richmond, Virginia. Most Americans don't
even know that momentous decisions are about to be
made. It is the FCC's responsibility to tell them and
to solicit their thoughts. Failure to do so disserves
the public interest and makes it appear that the
commission is trying to eliminate concentration
protections in the dark of night.

But it is also the media's responsibility to bring
this story to the public. That hasn't happened yet.
Indeed, some very important media enterprises have
financial interests riding on the outcome of the
ownership proceedings. The very institutions we rely
on to be a forum for this debate are the institutions
most affected by its outcome. The media are at pains
to assure us their newsgathering operations are
independent of their corporate interests. Here is an
opportunity to test that claim.

Suppose for a moment that the FCC votes to remove or
significantly modify the concentration protections.
Suppose that turns out to be a mistake. How would we
ever put the genie back in the bottle? The answer is
that we could not. That's why we need a national
dialogue on the issue and better data and analysis. We
need this debate in Congress, at the commission, among
concerned industries, in the media and all across
America. The future of the media, a key part of the
infrastructure of democracy, hangs in the balance.

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.