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)

R: RHIZOME_RAW: Thieves of the Invisible

you built a really smart (in many ways) and hypnotizing (practically and
aesthetically) mechanism....

download freaks will be happy. culture freaks will be happy.

you should go fetish and remix all the extracted books, and share the remixes,

>----Messaggio originale----
>Data: 14/12/2006 17.04
>Ogg: RHIZOME\_RAW: Thieves of the Invisible
>Thieves of the Invisible
>Text by Alessandro Ludovico vs. Paolo Cirio feat. UBERMORGEN.COM
>We have stolen the invisible.
>Amazon, the motherly bookseller, always sensitive to her customer
>needs like an affectionate friend, was outraged in her own intimate
>affects. Her most precious resource, an infinitely beautiful body of
>culture, able to mesmerize your eyes for hours, was somehow deprived
>and exposed, after we had eluded her copyright protection. Amazon had
>been a witty advisor to millions of happy customers, and had spent
>the last decade researching how to improve her service.
>She had dedicated all her time and energy to building the best
>collection of purchasable culture possible. She never wasted her time
>investing in public mass advertising or in spamming the profiled
>potential new customer. All she counted on and needed to count on was
>the grand word of mouth that happy customers passed on one another.
>That was a killer application - together with the software platform
>that made books the center of an interrelated universe. She started
>then to hyper-contextualize every piece of her inventory, researching
>the overlaps of tastes her happy customers kind of anonymously
>displayed. Furthermore, she incited customers to compile lists,
>review, comment, discuss and tag all books. But all her love was
>finally expressed in allowing users to peek into the inner side of
>her treasures: the original texts. She worked hard from the beginning
>and even if many were skeptical at first, she succeeded in realizing
>a new model: 'the imagined book', more real than the one you would
>look at in a physical bookstore. Now the customers got more motivated
>than ever, seeing their objects of desire not only described by their
>own technical details, but also by their many external references.
>At this very moment, Amazon placed a gamble with the future. She did
>something no other bookseller had ever done before: She disembodied a
>substantial part of her books, thus filling a huge database (the
>literary correspondent of the music 'celestial jukebox'). By doing
>so, customers were able to text-search whole books ('Search Inside
>the Book' option, they called it) and then see the search results
>displayed within the respective paragraphs of the book searched. This
>provoked a global joy and ecstatic use, but exposed the nudity of the
>book to too many eyes. We, the Amazon Noir gang, were simply
>astounded and started to endlessly play with this umpteenth content toy.
>So, we couldn't stop until we stole the invisible.
>We couldn't resist her beauty. She was a beautiful rich body of
>culture, continuously unveiling her generous and attractive forms at
>request, but never saying: "Yes, you can take me away". This free
>cultural peep show started to drive us crazy. Many others were in the
>same condition, but reacted differently: crashed their computers and
>were never again online, or found another pay-per-view drug. Some of
>them described it "like being constantly titillated, regularly being
>asked for money in order to possess one of the too many physical
>bits". In fact adopted software doesn't give access to the whole
>content, but only to bits of it. Nevertheless, it is clear and
>understood to anybody that the whole content was 'there', behind a
>few mysterious clicks away. A cornucopia of texts, an astonishing
>amount of knowledge, a compelling body of culture, infinitely put on
>hold, for marketing reasons. So this virtual interface was a never-
>ending blinking to the disclosed magnificent beauty sold one bit a time.
>Then we definitively stole the invisible.
>We hacked the system, we built a malicious mechanism (Amazon Noir)
>able to stress the server software, getting back the entire books we
>wanted, at request. It was a question of creating a so-called
>'foolingware'. We actually think that in the future we will be
>remembered as the predecessor of 'foolingware', and now we feel
>guilty about that. So we started to collect piece by piece the
>yearned body of culture with increasing excitement and without a pause.
>We wondered. What is the difference between digitally scanning the
>text of a book of yours, and obtaining it from Amazon Noir? There is
>no difference. It would be only discussed in terms of the amount of
>wasted time. We wanted to build our local Amazon, definitively
>avoiding the confusion of continuous purchasing stimuli.
>So we stole the loosing and amusing relation between thoughts. We
>stole the digital implementation of synapses connections between
>memory, built by an online giant to amuse and seduce, pushing the
>user to compulsively consume.
>We were thieves of memory (in a McLuhan sense), for the right to
>remember, to independently and freely construct our own physical
>memory. We thought we did not want to play forever under the peep-
>show unfavorable rules.
>But we failed.
>We failed and we were in the end corrupted, and we had to surrender
>to the copyright guardians.
>We failed breaking into the protectionist economy.
>We failed, because we wanted to share and give away.
>Hans Bernhard
>UBERMORGEN.COM / etoy.holding
>Skype Hans\_Bernhard
>Studio +43 1 236 19 85
>Mobile +43 650 930 00 61
>-> post:
>-> questions:
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>-> give:
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at


R: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Tabula Visum - Funding?

> Roy Pardi wrote:
>please forgive me but I don't get all the hyperbole around this piece.

exactly: the message wasn't about the work itself.

>The funding part - I must have missed the initial comment- so I don't quite
>follow all that. Most artists fund their own work. Some artists make
>(regular) sales; some artist get (usually pretty meager) grants but for the
>most part we foot the bill. Or was I not paying attention in the "how to be
>an artist" class? ;-)

i probabily missed that class, too!

"funding" was only one of the words of the sentence, and by no means the most
significant one. But it was the one that hit the spot and caused the replies.


R: Tabula Visum - Funding?

.... finally, we get to talk a bit on the list :)

>patrick lichty said:
>we are living on an edge. now.
>As have we for many years in many eras. However, we live in the history
>of the future, and we are in one of many eras of rapid development. So,
>to consider us that 'unique' or 'edgy' is a matter of scope.

perfect! i agree completely!

my message wasn't about your work.

in my point of view you are not important, nor am i. just as no one else is..

we shouldn't have "important" people. because it doesn't make any sense in
this kind of world.

even better: why don't we all just go anonymous and stop signing what we do?

>we are right in the middle of the evolution of the things we are talking
>Of course! But there is _some_ history to discern our position from.

yes, but everything is always too focused on the "people". and on an obsolete
point of view. when i say _obsolete_ i don't say it because i would love it to
be avantgardist or technologically socially artistically advanced, but just
because it doesn't fit in this world. like the children toys where you stick
geometrical blocks into the holes: it's like trying to stick a cube inside the
triangular hole.

>Again, of course - there cannot be a view outside the system one is in.
>With a little self-reflection and acknowledgemtnt as such, should this
>be a problem? As long as the awareness of the problem is understood and
>part of our discussion, this should be the first step to sufficiency.

so what you say is that i should/might just as well settle, relax, take a deep
breath and wait for something to happen... :)

>it was a critique on the way things get shown, funded, pushed.
>No money.


again: the original mesage doesn't talk about _you_.

and that's the whole point. _you_ don't make any sense. _i_ don't either.
neither does anyone else.

i don't have any money either. i usually get money by making security systems
for companies, and use it for me, my dogs and art.

but that's not the problem.

the problem is that new media art (i hate the term) is art. and that it
doesn't make any sense when we say "us" and "them". and thet the "outdated"
"useless" thing is the other one : the institutional contemporary art, the
institutional art world, etcetera...

so why do we mimic them? why do we need stars? (as there are "stars" among new
media artists ... sorry if i throw up if i say n.m.a. again)

the whole attitude (not mine or yours.. the whole) is that of someone who
criticizes sociey/culture/media/... and that uses out_of_the_box
society/culture/media/... to do it. honestly: can i "protest" against war by
making a war, without even distorting a single concept? i focus on _process_,
not on _products_.

many of you create some really astounding things: things that make important
statements, conceptually, aesthetically and in the actions that they perform or

but humans are weak. they need appreciation. _personal_ appreciation.

the whole "system" is based on desire/satisfaction, used as a weapon. with
media acting as the hypnotizing/consensus_forming force.

we put too much emphasis on singularities. we observe all with the eye of
yesterday. we impersonate. we _want to appear_. we _quote_. we refer to a
history that has probabily rewritten a couple of times alltogether.

this is the sense of what i wrote.

>Rhizome isn't rich,
>Neither is Thing, Turbulence, HTTP, and many other new media sources.
>Same for our org, Intelligent Agent.

i know all of this, and i always had the deepest respect for all of you/them,
even by contributing economically whenever i could afford it...

again, to clarify what i wrote with an example: why don't we all resign from
our identities ? it's the only important statement that we can make.



R: Re: R: RHIZOME_RAW: Turbulence Spotlight: "Tabula Visum: Tabular Vision & HTML Cinema" by Patrick Lichty

Hello there!

Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>Sometimes the most interesting art is that which
>consolidates rather than makes technical or even
>aesthetic breakthroughs.

we are living on an edge. now.
we are right in the middle of the evolution of the things we are talking
about. it just isn't possible to look at things from a distance: how is it
possible to consolidate anything? anything that isn't just an unsignificant
personal view, that is.

my message wasn't a negative critique on Patrick's work, as i actually like
and appreciate it.

it was a critique on the way things get shown, funded, pushed.

most galleries and exhibitions are insignificant. and "old", conceptually
obsolete. The structure through which works get evaluated, promoted, funded has
nothing in common with the contemporary era, with the concepts expressed, with
the structure of the works themselves.


R: Re: R: RHIZOME_RAW: Turbulence Spotlight: "Tabula Visum: Tabular Vision & HTML Cinema" by Patrick Lichty

Hello Annie,

I'm not saying that I don't like Patrick's work, because I actually do like
it! :)

What I was saying is that too many times you stick a concept on something only
with words. The word "narrative" has a lot to do with it.
Infact, I love Patrick Lichty's work for reasons that are totally different
from the ones expressed in the statement and review.

Me? :)

I once did a lot of stuff using html tables. The narrative ones seemed to me
like "another guy making graphical artifacts, still or moving, using HTML
tables". Just lookup the terms on google and you'll be flooded with works from
several people. With some very interesting distorsions, as well.

So what I did at the time was to release a single, playful toy which you can
find at

and just about all over the rest of the website. I even released javascript
libraries to program the stuff, and they have been used a lot.


thank you for the kind answer!

>----Messaggio originale----
>Data: 18/11/2006 18.36
>A: <>
>Cc: <>
>Ogg: Re: R: RHIZOME_RAW: Turbulence Spotlight: &quot;Tabula Visum: Tabular
Vision &amp; HTML Cinema&quot; by Patrick Lichty
>Dear Salvatore
>This might be a good question.
>I must say I do like "Tabula Viusum a lot" and I have also seen more
>work in this vein (maybe yours)
>It could be something about the context of presentation that makes you
>think, react to it in a certain way.
>I guess for me it's the relation to film, the time element that makes
>the difference.
>Could you please send us the url of your work doing this stuff?
>On 11/18/06,
><> wrote:
>> i know i don't have all the "titles" and that it might sound a foolish
>> question:
>> but haven't loads of folks been doing this stuff?
>> even i've been doing this stuff, and i'm the laaaaaast little meaningless
>> of a crowd...
>> yes, yes, i know, you/we all grab stuff and attach meanings to it. we all
>> and blablabla...
>> but isn't there something more interesting to "Spotlight"? :)
>> this is meant to be a constructive criticism.
>> >----Messaggio originale----
>> >Dal:
>> >Data: 17/11/2006 23.59
>> >A: "Jo-Anne Green"<>
>> >Ogg: RHIZOME_RAW: Turbulence Spotlight: &quot;Tabula Visum: Tabular Vision
>> &amp; HTML Cinema&quot; by Patrick Lichty
>> >
>> >November 17, 2006
>> >Turbulence Spotlight: "Tabula Visum: Tabular Vision & HTML Cinema" by
>> >Patrick Lichty
>> >
>> >
>> >Both static and dynamic digital images have often been represented as
>> >'translated' images, reinterpreted from an intermediate image file stored
>> >the web. Beginning with these files, Lichty has translated the images and
>> >videos to pure HTML code. As such, they represent a very 'direct' method
>> >representation in the browser. In addition, there is a time-based element
>> >that occurs when the tables load into the browser. Thus, "HTML Cinema" has
>> >two dimensions; the time of the load, and the time of the serial.
>> >
>> >Many of these images are excerpts from Lichty's wristcam photography and
>> >video works. After conversion to pure code, several of the pages were
>> >unmanageable; therefore, they are a hybrid of code and console handicraft
>> >the artist.
>> >
>> >
>> >Patrick Lichty is a technologically-based conceptual artist, writer,
>> >independent curator, animator for the activist group "The Yes Men," and
>> >Executive Editor of Intelligent Agent Magazine. His work spans over 15
>> >years, dealing with media narrative/criticism and information aesthetics,
>> >many different contexts. He works in diverse technological media,
>> >painting, mobile media, printmaking, kinetics, video, VR, generative
>> >and neon. Venues in which Lichty has been involved with solo and
>> >collaborative works include the Whitney Biennial and the International
>> >Symposium on the Electronic Arts (ISEA). Lichty is a faculty member in the
>> >Interactive Arts and Media Department at Columbia College Chicago.
>> >
>> >For more Turbulence Spotlights please visit http://turbulence.
>> >
>> >Jo-Anne Green, Co-Director
>> >New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.:
>> >New York: 917.548.7780 . Boston: 617.522.3856
>> >Turbulence:
>> >New American Radio:
>> >Networked_Performance Blog:
>> >Upgrade! Boston:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >+
>> >-> 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
>"FearingS" Participate in creating a collective voice about "fear".
>Help revealing it's actual tendencies.
>"Peurs" Participez a la creation d'une voix collective autour de la
>"peur". Aidez a en reveler les tendances actuelles.
>-> post:
>-> questions:
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>-> give:
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at