PORTFOLIO (17)
BIO
Salvatore Iaconesi is an interaction designer, robotics engineer, artist, hacker. TED Fellow 2012 and Eisenhower Fellow since 2013.

He currently teaches Interaction Design and cross-media practices at the Faculty of Architecture of the “La Sapienza” University of Rome, at ISIA Design Florence, at the Rome University of Fine Arts and at the IED Design institute.

He produced videogames, artificial intelligences, expert systems dedicated to business and scientific research, entertainment systems, mobile ecosystems, interactive architectures, cross-medial publications, augmented reality systems, and experiences and applications dedicated to providing products, services and practices to human beings all over the world, enabled by technologies, networks and new metaphors of interactions, across cultures and languages.

His artworks and performances have been featured worldwide at festivals and conferences.

Salvatore actively participates to global discussions and actions on the themes of freedoms, new forms of expression and on the future scenarios of our planet from the points of view of energy, environment, multi-cultural societies, gender mutation, sustainability and innovation on both society and business, collaborating with institutions, enterprises and international research groups.
Discussions (128) Opportunities (10) Events (19) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

R: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?


that piece of The Picture of Dorian Gray is really interesting, and it brings
up ne more qestion: is art "useful" if that single person throws-up, or gets
scared? or if he hurts himself?

i just guess things change with time, place and people.

useful in an "ordinary" context is one thing that seems simple, but it isn't:
different people see different degrees of usefulness in the same object.

but this is also true in an "artistic" context: i'm sure everyone can picture
two persons arguing about the importance/signifiance of a painting or of a
software art object, each of them convinced that his point of view is the
correct one.

i, for example, love toys. i make toys and i sell them.
i also do software art. and instllation. and performances.
i also cook quite well.
i can play the bass guitar.
i can have my dogs run like hell to catch a freesbee and take it back.
and several other things.

and i actually cannot tell the difference in "usefulness" of all of these
things.

maybe art is in the person, not in the "work of art". in the process of
creation, in the life of that person as a producer of art.

so should the question be changed?

one thing that i always asked myself:

people like Benjamin talked about the reproducibility of art.

and this is fine.

but i always tried to figure out how this statement fits in with the artistic
gesture that brings art to life.

is the gesture reproducible too?

if i make a software art object, that object can be copied millions of times.
but what about the "gesture" made to create it? is art in the object or in the
gesture?

and if it is in the gesture: what does "useful" mean?

>----Messaggio originale----
>Dal: don@donrelyea.com
>Data: 28/02/2007 18.57
>A: <list@rhizome.org>
>Ogg: Re: RHIZOME\_RAW: is art useless?
>
>From: <salvatore.iaconesi@fastwebnet.it>
>> how do you define "useful"?
>
>Dictionary.com defines it as....
>------------------------------------
>use·ful /ˈyusfəl/ [yoos-fuhl]
>-adjective 1.being of use or service; serving some purpose; advantageous,
>helpful, or of good effect: a useful member of society.
>2.of practical use, as for doing work; producing material results; supplying
>common needs: the useful arts; useful work.
>
>
>—Synonyms 1, 2. profitable, efficacious, beneficial.
>—Antonyms 1, 2. useless.
>-------------------------------------
>
>I have always thought that the statement "All art is quite useless." was a
>very clever statement. It is clever because it can be interpreted as being
>relevant on many levels. It can be used to justify many arguments about art,
>like "Thomas Kinkade's work is not art because it is simply a useful
>component to a business model employed by the artist" and so on.
>
>But like most quotes, this quote is taken totally out of context with its
>origin as part of a quote from the preface to Oscar Wilde's work, "The
>Picture of Dorian Gray". Here it is in context:
>
>"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not
>admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it
>intensely. All art is quite useless "
>
>So really what Wilde is saying is the only justification for making
>something useless (art for example) is that at least one person appreciates
>it. This is different from the common perception that art must be useless to
>be art.
>
>Regards,
>Don Relyea
>http://www.donrelyea.com
>
>
>+
>-> 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

R: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?


how do you define "useful"?

xDxD

>----Messaggio originale----
>Dal: neil@flunstellas.org
>Data: 28/02/2007 15.39
>A: <list@rhizome.org>
>Ogg: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: is art useless?
>
>
>Hello,Rhizome list people.
>Just talking in terms of the useful/useless debate,
>I think in terms of how we see ourselves, we can sometimes ghettoize
ourselves
>in a very little, anti-functionalist corner.
>By positioning ourselves (in the da-da ist tradition) as "crazy artists"
who
>take everyday practices/techniques/technologies & subvert them, make them
>useless, we often create a dichotomy between the "real" useful (rational,
>practical,real looking, with a role in the world outside the art context)
>stuff, like businesses, technology, etc & "art", which is useless
(irrational,
>impractical,wacky looking, subversive, not effecting the wold beyond the art
>context).
>I know that a lot of people are doing really interesting stuff which
>challenges these ideas, but I do see a lot of work that just, takes a piece
of
>technology & then makes it go wierd.
>This can be a lot of fun, but dosent this way of thinking limit what we do?
>I'm only writing this as a kind of confession, personally I find myself doing
>this a lot.
>
>I'm not arguing that art should be functional in the traditional narrow sense
>of the word at all, just that we should stop
>doing the exact opposite of what functional society produces/does, as a knee
>jerk reaction. And find different, more expansive,
>complicated, fluid, aims for our selves.
>
>I would argue for an approach to one of the official aims of art (to be as
>creative as possible) similair to that Greek guy,
>approaching medusa. Never to look at her directly.
>er ,,
>what the hell am I on about?
>Oh yes,
>Not that I want to
> a)get into bringing up Greek mythological references that I plainly know
>nothing about, or
>b)start talking about the "muse" as a woman or anything as pathetic as that,
>Just that finding aims, functions, issues to focus on (your reflective shield
>- gedditt?) instead of "creativity",
>will,, er,
>slay the evil snake headed monster.
>Anyway,
>
>i was just thinking that tied in with the post about piero della francesca &
>to real world projects/applications/structures being more creative than ones
>made by artists.
>Like that experiment to represent atomic reactions, which had a scientist
>dropping a ping pong ball into a gymnasium full of 1000's of mouse traps with
>ping pong balls on them, or industry creating practicle structures that make
>lots of sculpture look really tame.
>what do y'all think?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Flunstellas Are All around Us."
>
> www.flunstellas.org
>
> www.myspace.com/rob_petrov
>
>
>
>+
>-> 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

R: RHIZOME_RAW: new media meltdown


>> Well,
>> no more lazy art. No More easy graphics.
>> If New Media wants to grow up, then it has to set some
>> rigorous standards and demand that the work ACTUALLY be
>> culturally significant on a broad scale. Self indulgence is fun,
>> but it's
>> lazy and middling, and stupid.

yes, eric, you're right.

http://www.artisopensource.net/bd/

no more art and artits at all. nothing more for the eye, nothing more for the
ears, nothing for touch, smell or taste.

let's all become scientists.

>> My avatar died last month, send condolences to Dymes Mulberry on
>> Second Life. Eric

mine was having a great time filling up every single island it came across
with enormus sound objects made of a lovely blue jelly. then it got bored.....
is it the same as dying?

what happens when a player (resident!) of these games (worlds!) gets bored and
doesn't login anymore? does his avatar sit and wait patiently? is it in a
suspended reality in the cylinders of a harddisk? does it try to slash its
wrists because it gets bored too much?

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

R: RHIZOME_RAW: The way of the net. And art. And business.


http://www.artisopensource.net/stats/webalizer/

statistics are useless :)

>----Messaggio originale----
>Dal: subbies@redheadedstepchild.org
>Data: 22/12/2006 20.17
>A: <list@rhizome.org>
>Ogg: RHIZOME_RAW: The way of the net. And art. And business.
>
>Well, isn't lack of discussion the way of the net in general, not just here?
>Quantity over quality - it's not about having something interesting to say,
it's
>about empowering any two-bit retard to say whatever pathetic drivel they can
>crank out, and as long as it goes to as many people as possible, it's
>successful. Spam, blogs, wikis, youtube. Congratulations. Web 2.0 is all
the
>same in its infinite mediocrity and incessant noise, but hallelujah amen I
think
>30,000 people just heard me say that, and isn't THAT the importance of
>networking, after all? It's not what you know, it's who and how loud.
>
>Networking and nepotism for dummies. The way of the world.
>-Alexis
>
><blink><font size="100000000">redheadedstepchild.org</font></blink>
>+
>-> 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
>