[NetBehaviour] Despair Ballet

[Alan Sondheim]

Despair Ballet

https://youtu.be/EBvY7643inU VIDEO
http://www.alansondheim.org/despair.jpg

keep keep i a a a minute. want despair illness feeling absolute
besides are there feeling been the at keep to i a a a minute. to
to minute. a a a i to keep at at I've and there are besides the
world) the despair. despair death to want minute. a a a i keep
feeling illness despair want minute. a a a i keep age and wait a
minute

(inspired by Dina Vail)

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] analogy and AI poetry

[Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour]

NI sounds cool but the video sounds more like a typical advertisement;
every ad I see here for medicines for example uses similar rhetoric.
NI isn't going to work unless it's accompanied by something that will stop,
say, the Bransons from spending money on useless egoistic space travel and
investing hard cash in working to transform the planet.
Otherwise, NI ends up being as rhetorical as so much of the ecological
claims of the 60's on.
I wonder if re: Finsbury park, there will be any attempt at rewilding part
of it? In other words, like Alan Sonfist worked on years ago, fencing an
area off, letting it be/bee?

Best, Alan

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 10:21 AM Graziano Milano via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> Hi Eryk & all,
>
> Here is the other video by the The Centre4NI:
> The secret to innovation is NI (why biology will save us)
> 
>
> The Centre4NI  says on its website that:
> “Natural Intelligence is the intelligence that is as old as time. It knows
> what works, what lasts and what contributes to the future of life on Earth.
> It is the driver behind 3.8 billion years of continuous innovation,
> adaptation and, ultimately, regeneration. It is what enables nature to
> survive and thrive – despite limited resources and endless change and
> disruption. Tapping into NI is how we shift from tragedy to prosperity and
> build businesses, organisations and institutions that foster a healthier,
> wealthier and more viable future.”
>
> They could add that "Natural Intelligence has also built and will carry on
> building our artistic human creativity because as Da Vinci said *Nature
> is the source of all true knowledge.*"
>
> Graziano
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 14:20, Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
> >
> > Max, Paul & all;
> >
> > Thanks for all the thought-provoking links, everyone.
> >
> > Sometimes there are shades of panic in the way I see AI art. It’s like
> the machine is getting deep into my psyche, colonizing the culture as data
> and spitting something out that barely resembles art or beauty or play. I
> think that reflects the weaponized ideology of broader data practices
> today: this is exactly what machine learning is doing, often to
> catastrophic results. And much of that comes from how we imagine the links
> between our imaginations and the machine’s “imagination.”
> >
> > The machine’s "imagination" (whatever happens in "latent space," which
> seems to be the term we're using) is reaching to find patterns and
> relationships, even when such patterns and relationships may not exist. We
> hope that the way we take art into our minds is something different. But I
> don’t know for sure.
> >
> > At the moment, I can only respond to this machine “imagination” in the
> same way that we find meaning within a human-produced painting, or poem, or
> film, or television advertisement. We imagine ourselves within those
> worlds. We do this within our private mental spaces, but we hand over some
> internal control to the artists, poets, or marketing agencies. When we do,
> our story and their stories become temporarily intertwined with something
> external. Whether we are being manipulated by poets or design houses, we
> know it was human, and trying to meet us.
> >
> > With few exceptions, even the most alienating and experimental of these
> communication forms are shaped by that desire for human comprehension.
> Machines, in simulating art, do so without any desire to connect or
> reassure us. The machine is not concerned with being understood, because it
> doesn’t, and cannot, understand. It’s the cold indifference of a machine.
> In the distance between us and it, we project all that we fear from the
> Other: infallible, all-knowing, all-aware — and so we imagine the very
> things that make them so frightening. I am used to the sense that the
> screen is always there to take something from me, package it up, and offer
> it back through the recommendation of some distant system. So, I am also
> bringing that to my interactions with the system, in how I interpret
> (imagine) what it is doing. Generative art systems don't "do this," I do it
> to them.
> >
> > The uncanniness — that close-but-not-quite-human quality of machine
> generated text and images — is a different way of intermingling
> imaginations because we imagine it to be different. The image quality is
> not so clear, and so the limits of the machine imagination intertwines with
> a human desire to be immersed. I can see my own imagination reaching, and
> how sometimes imagination fails, and unmasking that lie can be terrifying.
> (The Lacanian "Real," etc.)
> >
> >
> > -e.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:38 PM Paul Hertz via NetBehaviour <
> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There's an essay, "Intelligence Without Representation" that Brooks
> wrote in 1987,
> http://people.csai

Re: [NetBehaviour] analogy and AI poetry

[Max Herman via NetBehaviour]

Hi Eryk,

Recently I started using "imaging" sometimes for "imagination" to get at the 
verbal/visual dynamic in Leonardo and Dante (as the earliest moderns, in a way).

I see Leonardo's painting Esperienza as a portrait of Experience which is akin 
to Imagination.  Also it is an Experiment -- an attempt, something ventured by 
some agency Leonardo had (if there is such a thing) -- just as imaging is 
improvisation in search of an effect sort of.

When I look at it, the painting, I see "imagination looking at imagination 
looking at imagination," a reference to the "experiment" or "Esperienza" of the 
lamp between two mirrors cited by Dante and repeated by Leonardo.  I also see a 
globe, an armillary sphere, and a clock among the rivers and mountains.

I see the point of Esperienza, then, to be saying "you have imagination too" 
but more than that, it induces the living of it -- by me, as by the autore, 
time being crossed in a way.  Leonardo made eye contact with those same eyes, 
which were in a way thus his as they become ours when we look, like an eternal 
golden braid.

Scouring and sticky-noting L's notebooks as I have been, using a lot of 
control-f and in Dante too, I do wonder what a computer crossmatching the word 
Esperienza from Leonardo and Dante and associating correlative visuals from 
both would find.  Allegorically though the word is a "clean slate" of sorts.

Nature reads its past and writes its future in the helpful water-like medium of 
time which giveth and taketh away.  Culture is similarly both geologic and 
erosive.  Esperienza incorporates this belief in the garment, with a bridge for 
input and finger as stylus, input output roughly, yet with human Esperienza "on 
the inside" and not a servant, not in the slightest except as a peer, despite 
being clothed.

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, Leonardo spelled out the correct answer 
not at all for us which must certainly have been on purpose.

Or at least I've convinced myself I see such things!  :)

All best,

Max


From: NetBehaviour  on behalf of 
Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 8:18 AM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 

Cc: Eryk Salvaggio 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] analogy and AI poetry

Max, Paul & all;

Thanks for all the thought-provoking links, everyone.

Sometimes there are shades of panic in the way I see AI art. It’s like the 
machine is getting deep into my psyche, colonizing the culture as data and 
spitting something out that barely resembles art or beauty or play. I think 
that reflects the weaponized ideology of broader data practices today: this is 
exactly what machine learning is doing, often to catastrophic results. And much 
of that comes from how we imagine the links between our imaginations and the 
machine’s “imagination.”

The machine’s "imagination" (whatever happens in "latent space," which seems to 
be the term we're using) is reaching to find patterns and relationships, even 
when such patterns and relationships may not exist. We hope that the way we 
take art into our minds is something different. But I don’t know for sure.

At the moment, I can only respond to this machine “imagination” in the same way 
that we find meaning within a human-produced painting, or poem, or film, or 
television advertisement. We imagine ourselves within those worlds. We do this 
within our private mental spaces, but we hand over some internal control to the 
artists, poets, or marketing agencies. When we do, our story and their stories 
become temporarily intertwined with something external. Whether we are being 
manipulated by poets or design houses, we know it was human, and trying to meet 
us.

With few exceptions, even the most alienating and experimental of these 
communication forms are shaped by that desire for human comprehension. 
Machines, in simulating art, do so without any desire to connect or reassure 
us. The machine is not concerned with being understood, because it doesn’t, and 
cannot, understand. It’s the cold indifference of a machine. In the distance 
between us and it, we project all that we fear from the Other: infallible, 
all-knowing, all-aware — and so we imagine the very things that make them so 
frightening. I am used to the sense that the screen is always there to take 
something from me, package it up, and offer it back through the recommendation 
of some distant system. So, I am also bringing that to my interactions with the 
system, in how I interpret (imagine) what it is doing. Generative art systems 
don't "do this," I do it to them.

The uncanniness — that close-but-not-quite-human quality of machine generated 
text and images — is a different way of intermingling imaginations because we 
imagine it to be different. The image quality is not so clear, and so the 
limits of the machine imagination intertwines with a human desire to be 
immersed. I can see my own imagination reaching, and how sometimes im

Re: [NetBehaviour] Space blocks time

[Max Herman via NetBehaviour]

Simon this is great!  I was just reading Calvino's second story in Cosmicomics 
yesterday, the nebula one, it reminds in the best sense.

Resonates too somehow with the Madonna of the Rocks, not Wasps haha, a picture 
confusing to me of which I prefer the more pointed Louvre version which got il 
pittore in trouble a bit.  :)


From: NetBehaviour  on behalf of 
Simon Mclennan via NetBehaviour 
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 7:37 PM
To: netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org 
Cc: Simon Mclennan 
Subject: [NetBehaviour] Space blocks time

Drawing is here - https://www.instagram.com/p/CRU5FR7n_GJ/?utm_medium=copy_link

So they had this illusion
About it all.
Came about around the time
Speech developed.
The relatively sudden, formal
Trappings meant they started to carve space and time into great blocks - bricks 
- layers and packages.
They carved it up with saws,
Chiselled it, stacked it in huge warehouses.
Sat on it. Gambled across it
With dice / men in blue overalls.
And the suites collated it and
Then decided to try to cut into it.
First with blow torches - it went rainbow coloured and glowed dull red.
Then with oxy/acetalyne and
Eventually they called in the
Thermic lance.
Great brutish men and some
Less macho types hauled in
The gear. These ex-cons and
Some villainous types had the beer bellies and the tattoos, the smart woollen 
jumpers in pastel shades, slicked hair and cologne - they worked the blocks of
Time and space with the
High end gear.
They crushed it and flowed it
Into reservoirs and compression vessels.
Some sautéed it with butter, and added onions with side
Orders of chips.
Then they tried to separate it.
They used the latest tech and science to do the difficult job.
They succeeded.
Time flowed like a river. It melted and Escaped through
Little cracks.
Space started to dry up. It
Started to wrinkle and pucker.
It got scaly and shrivelled, then a breeze blew it off the
Table.
Time was on the run. It got well ahead of them, it danced about, looped up and 
back, sideways and in
Little vortices it corkscrewed
About like a mad thing spreading its hairy arms and
Great ugly toes on the linoleum, slipping on the spilled fat, the toes finally
Finding the little pile left by
That ruddy cat in the dining
Room - the horrid feel of the
Soft cat shit getting stuck
Between three of the toes of
Time!
Time had had it this time.
It stood quite still and a funny
Look crossed its face. Its eyes went glassy and it got
A bit serious.
It glanced quickly about to find space. Space was under the dining table. It 
had a wind- Up clockwork mouse between its jaws and a brown paper bag over its 
head and was trying to suppress a great sneeze - all
That dust under there...
Time was not impressed.
Consequently time and space remained separated.
Humans disappeared.
Beings outside time and space found it quite interesting and even a bit
Amusing.
They laughed about it, and cried, and patted their heads
While rubbing their bellies,
Which why could do simultaneously because everything always happened
At the same exact moment
Because of the fact that time
And space, as we know it, didn’t exist in their bit of the
Giant cosmos. They had a pretty different system.
Their beings existed like a sort of small popping sound - Pop! But boy, what a 
pop it
Was - to them that popped!
The moral?
Keep the cat out of the dining room.
S




Sent from my spyphone
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] analogy and AI poetry

[Graziano Milano via NetBehaviour]

Hi Eryk & all,

Here is the other video by the The Centre4NI:
The secret to innovation is NI (why biology will save us)


The Centre4NI  says on its website that:
“Natural Intelligence is the intelligence that is as old as time. It knows
what works, what lasts and what contributes to the future of life on Earth.
It is the driver behind 3.8 billion years of continuous innovation,
adaptation and, ultimately, regeneration. It is what enables nature to
survive and thrive – despite limited resources and endless change and
disruption. Tapping into NI is how we shift from tragedy to prosperity and
build businesses, organisations and institutions that foster a healthier,
wealthier and more viable future.”

They could add that "Natural Intelligence has also built and will carry on
building our artistic human creativity because as Da Vinci said *Nature is
the source of all true knowledge.*"

Graziano


On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 14:20, Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>
> Max, Paul & all;
>
> Thanks for all the thought-provoking links, everyone.
>
> Sometimes there are shades of panic in the way I see AI art. It’s like
the machine is getting deep into my psyche, colonizing the culture as data
and spitting something out that barely resembles art or beauty or play. I
think that reflects the weaponized ideology of broader data practices
today: this is exactly what machine learning is doing, often to
catastrophic results. And much of that comes from how we imagine the links
between our imaginations and the machine’s “imagination.”
>
> The machine’s "imagination" (whatever happens in "latent space," which
seems to be the term we're using) is reaching to find patterns and
relationships, even when such patterns and relationships may not exist. We
hope that the way we take art into our minds is something different. But I
don’t know for sure.
>
> At the moment, I can only respond to this machine “imagination” in the
same way that we find meaning within a human-produced painting, or poem, or
film, or television advertisement. We imagine ourselves within those
worlds. We do this within our private mental spaces, but we hand over some
internal control to the artists, poets, or marketing agencies. When we do,
our story and their stories become temporarily intertwined with something
external. Whether we are being manipulated by poets or design houses, we
know it was human, and trying to meet us.
>
> With few exceptions, even the most alienating and experimental of these
communication forms are shaped by that desire for human comprehension.
Machines, in simulating art, do so without any desire to connect or
reassure us. The machine is not concerned with being understood, because it
doesn’t, and cannot, understand. It’s the cold indifference of a machine.
In the distance between us and it, we project all that we fear from the
Other: infallible, all-knowing, all-aware — and so we imagine the very
things that make them so frightening. I am used to the sense that the
screen is always there to take something from me, package it up, and offer
it back through the recommendation of some distant system. So, I am also
bringing that to my interactions with the system, in how I interpret
(imagine) what it is doing. Generative art systems don't "do this," I do it
to them.
>
> The uncanniness — that close-but-not-quite-human quality of machine
generated text and images — is a different way of intermingling
imaginations because we imagine it to be different. The image quality is
not so clear, and so the limits of the machine imagination intertwines with
a human desire to be immersed. I can see my own imagination reaching, and
how sometimes imagination fails, and unmasking that lie can be terrifying.
(The Lacanian "Real," etc.)
>
>
> -e.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:38 PM Paul Hertz via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>>
>> There's an essay, "Intelligence Without Representation" that Brooks
wrote in 1987, http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf,
that offered what was then a new point of view on how to consider AI.
>>
>> // Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 2:10 PM Paul Hertz  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Max,
>>>
>>> The robotics researcher Rodney Brooks back in the late 1980s argued the
AI based on the construction of a "knowledge base" was bound to fail. He
made the case that a robot adapting to an environment was far more likely
to achieve intelligence of the sort that humans demonstrate precisely
because it was embodied. Some of his ideas are presented in the movie Fast,
Cheap, and Out of Control, directed ISTR by Errol Morris. If you haven't
seen it yet, I can recommend it.
>>>
>>> -- Paul
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:38 PM Max Herman via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:


 Hi all,

 I know virtually nothing about AI, beyond what the letters stand 

Re: [NetBehaviour] analogy and AI poetry

[Eryk Salvaggio via NetBehaviour]

Max, Paul & all;

Thanks for all the thought-provoking links, everyone.

Sometimes there are shades of panic in the way I see AI art. It’s like the
machine is getting deep into my psyche, colonizing the culture as data and
spitting something out that barely resembles art or beauty or play. I think
that reflects the weaponized ideology of broader data practices today: this
is *exactly* what machine learning *is* doing, often to catastrophic
results. And much of that comes from how we imagine the links between *our*
imaginations and the machine’s “imagination.”

The machine’s "imagination" (whatever happens in "latent space," which
seems to be the term we're using) is reaching to find patterns and
relationships, even when such patterns and relationships may not exist. We
hope that the way we take art into our minds is something different. But I
don’t know for sure.

At the moment, I can only respond to this machine “imagination” in the same
way that we find meaning within a human-produced painting, or poem, or
film, or television advertisement. We imagine ourselves *within* those
worlds. We do this within our private mental spaces, but we hand over some
internal control to the artists, poets, or marketing agencies. When we do,
our story and their stories become temporarily intertwined with something
external. Whether we are being manipulated by poets or design houses, we
know it was *human, and trying to meet us*.

With few exceptions, even the most alienating and experimental of these
communication forms are shaped by that desire for human comprehension.
Machines, in *simulating* art, do so without any desire to connect or
reassure us. The machine is not concerned with being understood, because it
doesn’t, and cannot, *understand*. It’s the cold indifference of a machine.
In the distance between us and it, we project all that we fear from the
Other: infallible, all-knowing, all-aware — and so we imagine the very
things that make them so frightening. I am used to the sense that the
screen is always there to take something from me, package it up, and offer
it back through the recommendation of some distant system. So, I am also
bringing that to my interactions with the system, in how I interpret
(imagine) what it is doing. Generative art systems don't "do this,"* I* do
it to *them*.

The uncanniness — that *close-but-not-quite-human* quality of machine
generated text and images — is a different way of intermingling
imaginations because we imagine it to be different. The image quality is
not so clear, and so the limits of the machine imagination intertwines with
a human desire to be immersed. I can see my own imagination reaching, and
how sometimes imagination fails, and unmasking that lie can be terrifying.
(The Lacanian "Real," etc.)

-e.




On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 3:38 PM Paul Hertz via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> There's an essay, "Intelligence Without Representation" that Brooks wrote
> in 1987, http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf,
> that offered what was then a new point of view on how to consider AI.
>
> // Paul
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 2:10 PM Paul Hertz  wrote:
>
>> Hi Max,
>>
>> The robotics researcher Rodney Brooks back in the late 1980s argued the
>> AI based on the construction of a "knowledge base" was bound to fail. He
>> made the case that a robot adapting to an environment was far more likely
>> to achieve intelligence of the sort that humans demonstrate precisely
>> because it was embodied. Some of his ideas are presented in the movie Fast,
>> Cheap, and Out of Control, directed ISTR by Errol Morris. If you haven't
>> seen it yet, I can recommend it.
>>
>> -- Paul
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021, 1:38 PM Max Herman via NetBehaviour <
>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I know virtually nothing about AI, beyond what the letters stand for,
>>> but noticed this new article in Quanta Magazine.  Does it pertain at all?
>>> Interestingly it concludes that in order for AI to be human-like it will
>>> need to understand analogy, the basis of abstraction, which may require it
>>> to have a body!  🙂
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/melanie-mitchell-trains-ai-to-think-with-analogies-20210714/?mc_cid=362710ae88&mc_eid=df8a5187d9
>>>
>>> I have been interested in the book *GEB *by Hofstadter for some time,
>>> and have been researching how it was referenced (specifically its Chapter
>>> IV "Consistency, Completeness, and Geometry" and its Introduction) by Italo
>>> Calvino in *Six Memos for the Next Millennium*, so Mitchell's
>>> connection to Hofstadter and *GEB *is interesting on a general level.
>>>
>>> Coincidentally I contacted her a year ago to ask about the Calvino
>>> connection but she replied she hadn't read any Calvino or the *Six
>>> Memos*.  However, his titles for the six memos -- Lightness, Quickness,
>>> Exactitude, Visibility, Multiplicity, and Consistency -- might be exactly
>>> 

Re: [NetBehaviour] Monica Ross

[marc garrett via NetBehaviour]

Hi Jorn,

Yes, Ele would have been around in Newcastle, before Sheffield and later in
London, now living in Sweden.

I often think we need more books that issue forth timelines where histories
and current themes and contexts are examined in a way not as new or old but
as an assemblage of connecting energies and explorations, rather than the
typical linear canons we're fed. This would make representation more
humane, less cruel and less isolating culturally.

All these past links with artists and places out there.

A warm thanks.

Marc

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 13:21, Jorn Ebner  wrote:

> Hi Marc
>
> Thanks for the response -
>
> Ele would have been around in Newcastle, when some of the performances
> were streamed in the 2000s… we were all part of the same, sort of, community
> between 2001 and 2005. Besides Ncl.ac.uk , there was also what has now
> been re-labeled D6: Culture.
>
> My personal connection: Monica was my 3rd year tutor at Saint Martins in
> 1997/1998. Later we were Ono the same  AHRB research fellowship at
> Newcastle university, one year apart. We shared a flat for two years,
> discussed art and socialism (sort of). I participated in one her
> performances, „reading human material“ 2005. We presented our works
> together at a Digiville talk at Lighthouse, Brighton. In 2009 we organized
> a happening called "House Warming" on the site of our former shared council
> flat in Newcastle. After I moved to Berlin, she performed "Anniversary - an
> act of memory", Act 08 17.05.2009 with Maria Morata in my flat, labeled
> Jorn Ebner Showroom. When Suzy Treister and Susan Hiller asked me to write
> an essay for the compendium about her work, "Ethical Actions: A Critical
> Fine Art Practice“, I focussed on our collaborative performances – and also
> spoke about those at the conference that was staged in the British Library
> prior to publication.
>
> When "Just for Now" appeared online, we were both in Newcastle, and
> discussed our respective approaches to online works. For Monica, I think,
> the piece was a repository of scattered pieces: prints, books, drawings,
> live performance and streaming performances; my own approach was slightly
> different, but we shared the interest in the performative in general, and
> in fractured browser window displays. "Just for Now", I believe, is also a
> stepping stone, an instance of her engagement with Walter Benjamin, of the
> act of rewriting, translating and immersing. In the same way, "reading
> human material" was a communicative act of translation: "Just for now“
> translates the various acts of engagement with philosophy and art practice
> into this, then still fairly new thing.
>
> I feel I can’t say much on her behalf. Apart from: the piece was mirrored
> on rhizome at the time; she worked with hyperkit, who did the programming.
>
> All the best
>
> Jorn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 12.07.2021 um 12:00 schrieb netbehaviour-requ...@lists.netbehaviour.org
> :
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 09:04:44 +0100
> From: marc garrett 
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> 
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Monica Ross
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Jorn,
>
> Thanks for sharing this. It's nice to revisit a net artwork again.
>
> Browsing through the HTML interface is refreshing. It is a shame the videos
> are not there because to view a Monica Ross performance would give it a
> visceral element in contrast to the clean conceptual side of the whole
> piece.
>
> Also, I think there are some strong links between Ross's work and current
> feminist artists such as Cassie Thornton and Ele Carpenter, where their
> art, ethics and politics merge.
>
> I notice you were part of a symposium discussing Monica Ross and her use of
> Technology - https://www.bl.uk/events/monica-ross--a-symposium#
>
> Could you unpack some context about this work you've shared with us, such
> as how much you have involved in it yourself and what did her work mean to
> you?
>
> Wishing you well.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 at 13:53, Jorn Ebner  wrote:
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have been meaning to send this brief info to this list for some time:
> Monica Ross, who passed in June 2013, produced the online repository for
> "Just for Now" in the 2000s (the project itself started in 1997). It has
> been republished recently, again at
> http://justfornow.net/
> The piece(s) deal with transcriptions in a larger context. Check for
> yourselves.
>
> Unfortunately the videos haven?t been updated yet, but I think it is a
> beautiful online piece.
>
> Best
>
> Jorn
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>


-- 
Wishing you well

Marc

--