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

a lovesick nerd's message for summer :)


digital arts are incredible.. and they are best experienced by camping in
a lovely mountain scenery

i've been at interferenze.org's festival this weekend, and it was brilliant

lots of people attracted by dance floor expectations were beautifully surprised
by all the lovely works gathered for the occasion.

one for all: the sine wave orchestra ( http://swo.jp ) drove everyone nuts
with their beautiful egg-shaped soundtoys.

when art brings people together i'm more than happy

the only thing that was left suspended in time/space/ip_address was my personal
search for something that's really specific and personal: netart for lovesick
nerds? :)

http://www.artisopensource.net/int/index.html

have a nice summer

s

DISCUSSION

Re: dot.com implosion killed net art?


netart is not dot.com

dot.com's existence might have helped by making new media more visible, by
making technologies available, by enabling other communication channels

netart sits there as the proof that humans need to express themselves through
art, just as they need a mystical dimension, just as they need love, hate,
feelings...

the media doesn't matter, after all... humans always used the media they
had available, no matter what it was.

internet's still alive? so will be netart.

at least one programming language exists? software art will be there,too.

etcetera..

s

>-- Original Message --
>From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
>To: <list@rhizome.org>
>Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: dot.com implosion killed net art?
>Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 22:42:00 -0700
>Reply-To: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
>
>
>
>> The dot.com was a toin-coss in order to generate energy.
>> Net.art is for the most part a complete and total failure.
>> There is no recollection of a single intelligent use of
>> computers in the past decade. Isn't that sad?
>
>if that is really how you feel, it's sad for you.
>
>also, success and failure, in matters of art and life, are ambiguous.
>there's winning and losing, but which is which is sometimes confusing.
>
>ja
>http://vispo.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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?


>The difference between work done by people who have really taken the
>time to discover, understand and conquer (or succumb to) their chosen
>medium or media and the work done by those who barely spend enough
>time with it to scratch the surface before they move on to something
>else, is huge.

:)

this is perfect.

.. and who cares if it's on screen, on the net or in a museum's basement,
or in mine.

s

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: net art?


once i was just plain tired.. i used to do strange stuff at rave parties
or in other peculiar situations... and if i said i made digital art they
went like "oh, so are you a dj or a vj"? :)

mixing medias is a great idea. leveraging the paths to "globality" offered
by netart is another wonderfully great idea.

but/and we're stuck in this physical world: we want to see humans, touch
humans, talk to humans. the human body, the physical environment, natural/unnatural
hierarchy ... we want it and we aim to be part of it.

i would love a world where a netart performance could get me the effects
i get, let's say, with a live performance with a nice lady getting icons
body-painted while my software automas eat everything up and show it on a
projection screen.

other things that are, possibly, more beautiful just don't get the same effect.
the physical body is so strong, and it is a preferential path to the mind.

the real problem is: why am i so much happier if i see 100 people enjoy a
live performance of mine than if i see a web counter telling me 100 people
browsed a netart piece of mine for a couple of hours each?

even if the concept is so much stronger ...

it's like when you play electronic music along with analog intruments.. when
a "real" guitar joins in you, simply, notice it, and it stands out.

nothing's dead and all medias have same dignity. and, possibly, everything
can be used as a lesson.

i am a nerd. :) i love what i do with technology. i have a fetish for technology.
and, specifically, for networks.

but i am a punkish nerd. i need the feel of the body as well.

when i added "post-media" to the discussion, i was talking about this. post
media could have been my little heaven, joining tech and body. instead it
has become, too many times, a way to gratify the body, sacrificing the concepts.
it looks as if people are so much happier if they have something nice to
show "live" in a nice and famous venue (and possibly sell it), than to create
something *really* significative on the web, for example.

"I did this beautiful project on the web, and i showed it at the MOMA" :)

the concept shifts.

I saw loads of beautiful things hanging on walls, coming out from beautifully
written software: paintings, for example. but what's the point?

it's not that i don't like them, and contaminating other disciplines has
a meaning in itself, too. it's just that you loose the grasp on the breakthrough:
you easily become *another* artist trying to sell something "hanging on a
wall".

does pureness pay?

i don't kow. all i know is that i'm getting loads of festival invitations
to perform the "digital sabba" (a performance on mysticism where a ritual
is decontextualized into a digitally mystical one.. the lady dances, a guy
gets tied, live music performance, body art and software automas doing conceptually
esotheric stuff). And i'm receiving none for let's say, OpenSourceIdentities
(a website where you post your personal data, ID scans, email address passwords,
grocery list .... a self-spyware ), which is a much more powerful concept,
but it doesn't have the lovely lady in it :)

s

> So, in a sense, international net art is a part
> of an ideal of global communications.
> And it isn't a cure all, global communications.
> But it beats a situation where people are treated
> like mushrooms: keep em in the dark and feed them shit.
>
> And part of that ideal is access to work that in some
> sense transcends not only national boundaries but language
> boundaries. Art that is for the world. The art of global
> communications. I hope that is around for a long time.
> And screen-based net art is an important part of it.
>
> Moreover, the artistic possibilities it presents,
> it seems to me, are a very long way from exhaustion.

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: net art?


> "post-media" was invented quite a while ago, i believe. i think it's a guattari term?

yup! it's correct. and i'm not referring to post-post media either :)

the two essential theoretical components of the theory ("equal dignity of all medias", and "mix'em up", as correctly reported by aleph-arts, which is a quite good site!) have some breathtakingly wonderful effects, and some darker ones. as with everything.

on on side, this "declaration" of dignity is a formalization of some of the concepts that helped make netart, software art, webart (and the rest of the family! :) ) concrete practices and disciplines (somehow too beautifully chaotic in essence, to be referred to as "disciplines" in the classical way... but that's the nice part of it, isn't it? ).

on the oter side it formalized, in too many cases, a merge in perspective of two very different worlds. digital is essentially different from physical. this does not mean it shouldn't have connections, or that you shouldn't mix both up, but the difference is something to understand and to use, if you feel like it.

and this created a.. what shall we call it.. a "tension", a little nervous twitch...

in one way or another there is this distributed feeling of "searching" .. is it the search for a definition? is it a search of recognition? of fame and money? of something to sell in galleries and the like?

too many times it's just a search of something that sounds like "i have A and B... i distort the way i use A and/or B and then i mix them up.. then i show it" .. and it reminds me too much of every art fair that i go to: the painting stuff is too many times a sterile search of the "next thing", in the same way ...

this i think is the main glitch in things. as eric said in a wonderful way "networked art vs net art": do you use the media? do you build using the media? do you communicate through the media?

and, most of all: do you care about the concept? about the action? about the effect? about the significate? about me?

which are extremely different things!

s

Eric Dymond wrote:

> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> > is it my imagination or is it the case that there are fewer and
> fewer
> > posting on rhizome.org concerning net art, as opposed to news items
> > about
> > gallery or museum etc work?
> >
> > does this reflect more concern among the rhizome people for such
> work
> > rather
> > than net art?
> >
> > ja?
> > http://vispo.com
> >
> is this a net aet vs networked art question7
>
> >