[NetBehaviour] second editon of "Line of Influence " exhibition has launched featuring Kate Pullinger (last was Vuk Cosic)

[hight]

The Line of Influence

http://binarykatwalk.net/kate/kate.html

We are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd edition of Binary
Katwalk's "Line of Influence".

This edition features the important interactive narrative work of Kate
Pullinger and her line of influence, works by Caitlin Fisher, Renee Turner
and Christine Wilks.

Binary Katwalk is an online exhibition space for experimental digital
work. Each edition will feature artists from around the world and from
different points in the spectrum of new media.

This edition is the second in a series of a few artists selected to show
their work alongside their influences and those they see as kindred
spirits who are emerging onto the scene. This is not an ordinary
exhibition, but instead a chance to show how ideas and works progress over
time and how no artist is a solitary force out there.

The artists selected have opened doors for others and have stayed true to
a particular path with their work. Each artist has selected their
companions in their showcase to paint in an arrow in time if you will and
to tell the tale of communication and ideas in time. This edition features
 five new mini-stories  created for  Kate's Flight Paths project which is
a mixed media communal net based narrative on a large scale.


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] This is really impressive

[Joseph Gray]

there's a few methods for doing this stuff.  the easiest way to start out is
to set up a drawing program (like photoshop) in full screen on the projector
and use something like a wacom tablet to trace out different portions of
whatever object you're using.

This link is to one of my first experiments in this stuff, and I've tried to
explain how it was made a bit:

http://grauwald.com/art/light_paper_sound/


Recently I've been projecting 3D stuff onto the real stuff, the first step
was to do this on a cube.  Other folks have used this technique using more
complex objects as well:

http://grauwald.com/art/light_paper_sound/


again, take a look at that Vimeo group to get other ideas, HC Gilje has also
done some nice work in this and even created some software specifically for
the technique:

http://hcgilje.wordpress.com/resources/video-projection-tools/

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
-Joe




On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Ian Smith-Heisters  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Olga wrote:
> > Thanks Pall and Joseph for these links!
> > I really like this stuff, but I only knew the work of AniVj, they do
> > really cool work. http://blog.antivj.com/2009/live-painting-shackleton
> > We actually got obsessed with some friends one afternoon trying to
> > figure out how they map the surface. We used flash and a projector.
> > Projecting onto the wall we drew very simple shapes on a few objects
> > that were there hanging.. It wasn't completely accurate but this is
> > the closest we got to using the technique.. Have any of you tried it?
> > Do you have any advise to share? :)
> >
>
> not sure AntiVJ is doing this, but perhaps the scrim they painted on
> is slightly transparent, the paint is slightly less transparent, and
> they rear-projected. Rear projection would also make it a lot easier
> to trace the painting.
>
> > Cheers!
> >
> > --
> > Olga
> > http://www.ungravitational.net
> > http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
> > ___
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> >
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] questions of faith

[Alan Sondheim]

There's a difference between the ideology of doing science and science 
itself; most scientists tend to take somewhat of an idealist viewpoint. As 
far as science as ideology - science is based on experiment - as David 
Finkelstein once said, you're fucking reality and you don't know what will 
come back; even cosmology is based on testability (see On Space and Time, 
Cambridge, or Susskind's or Smolin's works, not to mention any of the 
physics/cosmology courses you can download on utube). Things such as the 
tachyon theory (I interviewed the discoverer of that) prove false and are 
mostly dropped; things like Einstein's cosmological constant return in 
other guises through the mathematics. You might as well call everything 
ideological, in which case the word uses meaning - science works through 
testifiable premises, and gets corrupted when people like Lysenko batter 
the results for ideological purposes.


- Alan


On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, mark cooley wrote:

i agree with Michael here.? There needs to be some criticism of 
enlightenment ideology. As was stated, it's not too difficult to 
criticize religion as strictly ideological, but if we can apply Marx's 
critique of ideology to many other realms - including science. The 
definition of ideology that I like and comes from Marx's line of 
thought, specifically Althusser is - habits, values and beliefs that are 
assumed to be natural.? This definition is not limited to religion and 
would include the natural sciences of course. Religion is ideological 
but so is science - that is if you take a Marxist / Poststructuralist 
perspective. When folks pit the against one another as if they're doing 
battle they're missing this point.



Message: 5
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Szpakowski 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] questions of faith
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
??? 
Message-ID: <980525.99829...@web110713.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1


I think Marx had it right:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and 
the soul of soulless conditions."

Look

at the strength of the attraction of religion for the poor, the
dispossessed , the wretched of the earth...( "Pie in the Sky when you
Die" as Joe Hill had it)

The danger with the uber rationalists, the

Dawkins &c, is that they are not neutral seekers after truth but
ideologues of militant liberalism and as with all liberals they claim
to be ideology free but they end up supporting the status quo -here in
particular offering intellectual succour to the Islamophobes at a time
when Islamophobia is the principal and most potent form of racism in UK
society.

They are also in general horribly smug, as if being opposed

to religion is such a terribly difficult and demanding thing to do,
when of course it costs no serious political commitment, risk or effort
at all.


I'm an atheist and ultimately opposed to religious ideas

but I don't believe religion is currently the main enemy? - capitalism
, imperialism and the consequent drive to war are. When I hear the
supporters of the Iraq war, the Straws, the Blunketts, the Blairs use
defence of the enlightenment arguments to ,for example, bash Moslem
woman who choose to wear traditional dress I both reach for my sick bag
and I know precisely which side I'm on.


Just as a matter of

interest here's a little film, transmuted into gif format, I made of
young Moslem women on the defend Palestine demonstration earlier this
year -they don't look too oppressed or incapacitated by their manifest
religious belief to me...


http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/from_the_river_to_the_sea/index.html

michael

PS

and just to be ecumenical about it, it's certainly been the case that
on the whole the Church of England leadership has been *far to the
left* of all the mainstream political parties on most (not all, it's
nuanced) social and political issues for about the last ten years...



| Alan Sondheim Mail archive:  http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
| Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
| sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Netless

[Ian Smith-Heisters]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Olga wrote:
> This is a very nice project, I thought netbehaviourists would like it!
>
>
> == NETLESS =
>
> netless. a digital network that is using city public transport as its
> information carrier. distributed and friend-2-friend, netless is an
> independent communication tactic; invisible digital network that does
> not need wires or dedicated radio frequencies. alternative
> communication device that helps its users to avoid such controlled and
> observed space as the internet. free from governmentally owned medium
> channels (radio frequency ranges, emission power), proprietary locked
> technologies and cable networks, netless stays Yours Truly.
>
> http://k0a1a.net/netless/
>

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon full of tapes"

> --
> Olga
> http://www.ungravitational.net
> http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] This is really impressive

[Ian Smith-Heisters]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Olga wrote:
> Thanks Pall and Joseph for these links!
> I really like this stuff, but I only knew the work of AniVj, they do
> really cool work. http://blog.antivj.com/2009/live-painting-shackleton
> We actually got obsessed with some friends one afternoon trying to
> figure out how they map the surface. We used flash and a projector.
> Projecting onto the wall we drew very simple shapes on a few objects
> that were there hanging.. It wasn't completely accurate but this is
> the closest we got to using the technique.. Have any of you tried it?
> Do you have any advise to share? :)
>

not sure AntiVJ is doing this, but perhaps the scrim they painted on
is slightly transparent, the paint is slightly less transparent, and
they rear-projected. Rear projection would also make it a lot easier
to trace the painting.

> Cheers!
>
> --
> Olga
> http://www.ungravitational.net
> http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Times, Things, Spaces // Triptych of Synthetic Reality #01 // Yann Le Guennec // 2009

[yann le guennec]

Hello,

I'm currently testing a whole new approach to my works, based on 
picture/image as a result of my global practice involving software, 
installation, photography. The website aims to function as a gateway 
able to generate localized exhibitions. First implementation of this 
approach is called 'Times, Things, Spaces // Triptych of Synthetic 
Reality #01 // Yann Le Guennec // 2009' and can be found directly at my 
home page: http://www.yannleguennec.com

questions and feedbacks are welcome,
cheers,


-- 
Yann Le Guennec
http://www.yannleguennec.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] questions of faith

[mark cooley]

i agree with Michael here.  There needs to be some criticism of enlightenment 
ideology. As was stated, it's not too difficult to criticize religion as 
strictly ideological, but if we can apply Marx's critique of ideology to many 
other realms - including science. The definition of ideology that I like and 
comes from Marx's line of thought, specifically Althusser is - habits, values 
and beliefs that are assumed to be natural.  This definition is not limited to 
religion and would include the natural sciences of course. Religion is 
ideological but so is science - that is if you take a Marxist / 
Poststructuralist perspective. When folks pit the against one another as if 
they're doing battle they're missing this point.


Message: 5
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Szpakowski 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] questions of faith
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
    
Message-ID: <980525.99829...@web110713.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1


I think Marx had it right:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world 
and the soul of soulless conditions." 

Look
at the strength of the attraction of religion for the poor, the
dispossessed , the wretched of the earth...( "Pie in the Sky when you
Die" as Joe Hill had it)
The danger with the uber rationalists, the
Dawkins &c, is that they are not neutral seekers after truth but
ideologues of militant liberalism and as with all liberals they claim
to be ideology free but they end up supporting the status quo -here in
particular offering intellectual succour to the Islamophobes at a time
when Islamophobia is the principal and most potent form of racism in UK
society.
They are also in general horribly smug, as if being opposed
to religion is such a terribly difficult and demanding thing to do,
when of course it costs no serious political commitment, risk or effort
at all.

I'm an atheist and ultimately opposed to religious ideas
but I don't believe religion is currently the main enemy  - capitalism
, imperialism and the consequent drive to war are. When I hear the
supporters of the Iraq war, the Straws, the Blunketts, the Blairs use
defence of the enlightenment arguments to ,for example, bash Moslem
woman who choose to wear traditional dress I both reach for my sick bag
and I know precisely which side I'm on.

Just as a matter of
interest here's a little film, transmuted into gif format, I made of
young Moslem women on the defend Palestine demonstration earlier this
year -they don't look too oppressed or incapacitated by their manifest
religious belief to me...

http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/from_the_river_to_the_sea/index.html

michael

PS
and just to be ecumenical about it, it's certainly been the case that
on the whole the Church of England leadership has been *far to the
left* of all the mainstream political parties on most (not all, it's
nuanced) social and political issues for about the last ten years...


  ___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] July issue of Furthernoise.org

[info]

Welcome to the July issue of Furthernoise.org - Furtherfield.org's
sister site...

www.furthernoise.org

As always we are stocked up with new reviews and features on a host of
innovative noise makers for your listening & reading pleasure.

Furthernoise issue July 2009
http://www.furthernoise.org/index.php?iss=80

"Infrequency Modulators" (feature)
Infrequency is Jamie Drouin and Lance Olsen's platform for small
editions of minimalist soundworks. It's been true to its name in terms
of releases, a sizeable sample of which follows. Most notable is a
keynote compilation, striking both for its archaeological concept and
its imaginative conceit, uniting polarities of primitive and
hyper-modern recording.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=295
feature by Alan Lockett

"A Quiet Reverie - Mark Peter Wright" (review)
A Quiet Reverie is an exploration of the ruined abbeys of North East
England. It explores the relationship between phonography, history,
architecture and psychology by transporting the listener through sonic
environments.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=301
review by Alex Young

"Breathletters - Sublamp" (review)
Los Angelos-based sound artist Ryan Connor uses the Sublamp monikor to
craft an airy pastiche of glacially evolving soundscapes in his recent
release Breathletters. He presents these conceptual sound works as
unwinding sculptural elements, abstract in form, yet suggesting natural,
environmental processes.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=300
review by Derek Morton

"Cristophe Baulleau - Air Resort" (review)

http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=294
review by Mark Francombe

"Escaping from Color, Rapoon Recomposed and Remixed - Various" (review)
The Ulkraine based Quasi Pop label have been quietly releasing
consistently innovative albums since 2001, and with a roster of a
virtual who's who of the sound art fraternity, this latest offering is
no exception. Escaping from Color, Rapoon Recomposed and Remixed is
fifteen track compilation of contributions from various artists remixing
audio from Rapoon's “Tribal Sci Fi” CD-ROM.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=298
review by Roger Mills

"Gity - Homework" (review)
Homework is the project of one Andreas Lang from Munich and Gity is his
first release on his own very interesting q-tonelabel.The philosophy is
to release no specific style, although it's often rooted in minimalism,
sound-experiments or abstraction, with one interesting limitation; they
reject pure electronic music - it has to be partially recorded acoustically.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=293
review by Mark Francombe

"Opus Spongebobicum & Frank Genius is Star Struck - Frank Rothkamm" (review)
Citing Jean Paul Satre from the Critique of Dialectical Reason in the
sleeve notes, 'the dialectic reveals itself only to [.] an
investigator who lives his investigation' very much defines the approach
that I have come to expect from the one man label, composer, film maker
and theorist Frank Rothkamm
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=299
review by Roger Mills

"Persistent Repetition of Phrases - The Caretaker" (review)
Under the moniker Install is an independent record label run out of New
York. They specialize in experimental music and found sound., James
Kirby puts out music that can perhaps be most appropriately described as
quietly harrowing.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=297
review by SongMing Ang

"Primal elements - Scott Baker" (review)
Abre Ojos creates hypnotic dystopian meditations, where images from our
collective past appear in mirrors, drawing the eye to the mandalic
figure in the center. The focus is narrowed further with the deep drones
that swell to fill the audio spectrum, ominous harbingers of a world
pared to the primal elements.
http://www.furthernoise.org/page.php?ID=296
review by Caleb Deupree

Roger Mills
Editor, Furthernoise


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.

[marc garrett]

It's so good I posted it again ;-)

marc
> FYI
>
> Olga posted this last week : )
>
>
> -Original Message-
> *From*: marc garrett  >
> *Reply-To*: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>  >
> *To*: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
>  >
> *Subject*: [NetBehaviour] KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.
> *Date*: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:52:49 +0100
>
> KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.
>
> It has been almost ten years since the launch of Life Sharing by the
> (then) enfants terribles of net.art known as 0100101110101101.org. The
> project, which lasted three years, involved the automatic publication in
> real time of all the data stored on the artists' computer. Documents,
> emails and incomplete projects could all be accessed via a web interface
> mirroring the local file system. With the provocative slogan "privacy is
> stupid", Life Sharing anticipated the mass sharing mania that informs
> the contemporary web 2.0 industry. The most representative example of
> this trend is the success of the microblogging service Twitter, which
> enables people to publish short updates from various devices. Artistic
> interventions on Twitter aren't really the norm but some interesting
> examples can foretell the emergence of a new strand of net.art.
>
> Read more about this on Neural.it - by Paolo Pedercini
> http://www.neural.it/art/2009/07/keytweeter_twitting_without_fi.phtml
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org 
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>   
> 
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.

[Ruth Catlow]

FYI

Olga posted this last week : )


-Original Message-
From: marc garrett 
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Subject: [NetBehaviour] KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:52:49 +0100


KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.

It has been almost ten years since the launch of Life Sharing by the
(then) enfants terribles of net.art known as 0100101110101101.org. The
project, which lasted three years, involved the automatic publication in
real time of all the data stored on the artists' computer. Documents,
emails and incomplete projects could all be accessed via a web interface
mirroring the local file system. With the provocative slogan "privacy is
stupid", Life Sharing anticipated the mass sharing mania that informs
the contemporary web 2.0 industry. The most representative example of
this trend is the success of the microblogging service Twitter, which
enables people to publish short updates from various devices. Artistic
interventions on Twitter aren't really the norm but some interesting
examples can foretell the emergence of a new strand of net.art.

Read more about this on Neural.it - by Paolo Pedercini
http://www.neural.it/art/2009/07/keytweeter_twitting_without_fi.phtml
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.

[marc garrett]

KeyTweeter, Twitting Without Filters.

It has been almost ten years since the launch of Life Sharing by the
(then) enfants terribles of net.art known as 0100101110101101.org. The
project, which lasted three years, involved the automatic publication in
real time of all the data stored on the artists' computer. Documents,
emails and incomplete projects could all be accessed via a web interface
mirroring the local file system. With the provocative slogan "privacy is
stupid", Life Sharing anticipated the mass sharing mania that informs
the contemporary web 2.0 industry. The most representative example of
this trend is the success of the microblogging service Twitter, which
enables people to publish short updates from various devices. Artistic
interventions on Twitter aren't really the norm but some interesting
examples can foretell the emergence of a new strand of net.art.

Read more about this on Neural.it - by Paolo Pedercini
http://www.neural.it/art/2009/07/keytweeter_twitting_without_fi.phtml
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] this thing...

[marc garrett]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your generous words regarding 'this thing'

the anguish is from real-life.  I wanted to communicate it on the list
without actually declaring what it was.

wishing you well.

marc
>
> This is really beautiful and moody and there's a whole phenomenology of 
> doubt, surrender, anguish in it I think - alan
>
>
>
> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive:  http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
> | sondh...@panix.com, sondh...@gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>   

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Fourth Plinth.

[Mark Hancock]

>>> Doesn't "Speakers Corner" (Hyde Park) serve a similar function?


I think you're right actually. It occurred to me when I was watching it the
other day, Maybe someone will stream Speakers Corner after having received a
large art grant?

2009/7/13 info 

> sent by Neil Jenkins...
>
> watching live via  'skyARTS'
> it's quite hilarious.. tune in now
> http://www.oneandother.co.uk/
>
> On 13/07/2009, at 8:13 PM, dave miller wrote:
>
> > Doesn't "Speakers Corner" (Hyde Park) serve a similar function?
> >
> > dave
> >
> > 2009/7/13 marc garrett :
> >> Fourth Plinth.
> >>
> >> By Mark Hancock on the furtherfield blog...
> >>
> >> Anthony Gormleys' latest project One & Other, which is taking place on
> >> the Fourth Plinth (why do I insist on the caps?) at Trafalgar Square in
> >> London, is all at once: incredibly simple and very complex. Is it even,
> >> in fact, art? If we decide that it is art, then what kind of art is it?
> >>
> >> The simple premise of One & Other is that over 100 days, people are
> >> invited to spend an hour on the plinth. So that’s 2400 people. What are
> >> the criteria? Nothing more that having to sign-up on the website. I’m
> >> assuming that you are allowed to do whatever you like, as long as it
> >> isn’t illegal (at the time of writing, nobody has done anything illegal,
> >> but it could change). You are set up on it, on the change of the hour,
> >> with a large JCB (who are part sponsors of the event, along with
> >> SkyArts) and picked up 60 minutes later. Simple.
> >>
> >> more...
> >> http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/
> >> ___
> >> NetBehaviour mailing list
> >> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[patrick simons]

To the point as usual, Mr Biggs :)
I suspect they believe in us, its just that they can't comprehend how much
they wind everybody up!
And... you can't have a god complex without someone to hold dominion
over ha... there, I have proven not only the existence of Americans, but
also of myself!
Patrick

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Simon Biggs  wrote:

>  But how many Americans believe in the rest of the world?
>
> Simon Biggs
> Research Professor
> edinburgh college of art
> s.bi...@eca.ac.uk
> www.eca.ac.uk
> www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>
> si...@littlepig.org.uk
> www.littlepig.org.uk
> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
>
> --
> *From: *patrick simons 
> *Reply-To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> *Date: *Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:29:35 +0100
> *To: *NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
> netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans
> believe in evolution
>
> how about only 33% of the rest of the world believe in Americans?
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Geert Dekkers  wrote:
>
> Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while 33%
> of  Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science important
> (or was it "extremely" important?)  And I'd add, even the most fanatical
> creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to get to their
> meetings, showing that being religious and (at least) the use of scientic
> achievements don't rule each other out.
>
> Geert
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no
> serious scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by natural
> selection. If there were they would replace evolution as experiments and
> studies confirmed them. That's the beauty of science when it works.
>
> Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical assumption than
> religion. The practice of science requires personal drive and curiosity, and
> is subject to social pressures, but it is the least worst means we have of
> acquiring knowledge about the world. Art is a complement to it but religion
> has declared itself a rival.
>
> - rob.
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga"  wrote:
>
> This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
>  alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
>  little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
>  challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
>  bit more information on those?
>
>  And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...
>
>  --
>  Olga
>  http://www.ungravitational.net
>  http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
>
>
> ___ NetBehaviour mailing list
> netbehavi...@netbehaviour
>
>
>
>  ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
>
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> --
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number 
> SC009201
>
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Fwd: Fourth Plinth.

[Neil Jenkins]

watching live via  'skyARTS'
it's quite hilarious.. tune in now
http://www.oneandother.co.uk/


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Fourth Plinth.

[info]

sent by Neil Jenkins...

watching live via  'skyARTS'
it's quite hilarious.. tune in now
http://www.oneandother.co.uk/

On 13/07/2009, at 8:13 PM, dave miller wrote:

> Doesn't "Speakers Corner" (Hyde Park) serve a similar function?
>
> dave
>
> 2009/7/13 marc garrett :
>> Fourth Plinth.
>>
>> By Mark Hancock on the furtherfield blog...
>>
>> Anthony Gormleys' latest project One & Other, which is taking place on
>> the Fourth Plinth (why do I insist on the caps?) at Trafalgar Square in
>> London, is all at once: incredibly simple and very complex. Is it even,
>> in fact, art? If we decide that it is art, then what kind of art is it?
>>
>> The simple premise of One & Other is that over 100 days, people are
>> invited to spend an hour on the plinth. So that’s 2400 people. What are
>> the criteria? Nothing more that having to sign-up on the website. I’m
>> assuming that you are allowed to do whatever you like, as long as it
>> isn’t illegal (at the time of writing, nobody has done anything illegal,
>> but it could change). You are set up on it, on the change of the hour,
>> with a large JCB (who are part sponsors of the event, along with
>> SkyArts) and picked up 60 minutes later. Simple.
>>
>> more...
>> http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/
>> ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

[NetBehaviour] Netless

[Olga]

This is a very nice project, I thought netbehaviourists would like it!


== NETLESS =

netless. a digital network that is using city public transport as its
information carrier. distributed and friend-2-friend, netless is an
independent communication tactic; invisible digital network that does
not need wires or dedicated radio frequencies. alternative
communication device that helps its users to avoid such controlled and
observed space as the internet. free from governmentally owned medium
channels (radio frequency ranges, emission power), proprietary locked
technologies and cable networks, netless stays Yours Truly.

http://k0a1a.net/netless/

-- 
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[Simon Biggs]

But how many Americans believe in the rest of the world?

Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
s.bi...@eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/

si...@littlepig.org.uk
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk



From: patrick simons 
Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:29:35 +0100
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity

Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans
believe in evolution

how about only 33% of the rest of the world believe in Americans?
Patrick

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Geert Dekkers  wrote:
> Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while 33% of
>  Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science important (or
> was it "extremely" important?)  And I'd add, even the most fanatical
> creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to get to their meetings,
> showing that being religious and (at least) the use of scientic achievements
> don't rule each other out.
> 
> Geert
> 
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
> 
>> There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no serious
>> scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by natural selection.
>> If there were they would replace evolution as experiments and studies
>> confirmed them. That's the beauty of science when it works.
>> 
>> Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical assumption than
>> religion. The practice of science requires personal drive and curiosity, and
>> is subject to social pressures, but it is the least worst means we have of
>> acquiring knowledge about the world. Art is a complement to it but religion
>> has declared itself a rival.
>> 
>> - rob.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
>>>  alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
>>>  little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
>>>  challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
>>>  bit more information on those?
>>>  
>>>  And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...
>>>  
>>>  --
>>>  Olga
>>>  http://www.ungravitational.net
>>>  http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ___ NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> netbehavi...@netbehaviour
>> 
>> 
>>  ___
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> 
>> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 
> 
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> 


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number 
SC009201


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[patrick simons]

how about only 33% of the rest of the world believe in Americans?
Patrick

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Geert Dekkers  wrote:

> Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while 33%
> of  Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science important
> (or was it "extremely" important?)  And I'd add, even the most fanatical
> creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to get to their
> meetings, showing that being religious and (at least) the use of scientic
> achievements don't rule each other out.
> Geert
>
> On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>
> There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no
> serious scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by natural
> selection. If there were they would replace evolution as experiments and
> studies confirmed them. That's the beauty of science when it works.
>
> Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical assumption than
> religion. The practice of science requires personal drive and curiosity, and
> is subject to social pressures, but it is the least worst means we have of
> acquiring knowledge about the world. Art is a complement to it but religion
> has declared itself a rival.
>
> - rob.
>
> On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga"  wrote:
>
> This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
> alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
> little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
> challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
> bit more information on those?
>
> And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...
>
> --
> Olga
> http://www.ungravitational.net
> http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
>
> ___ NetBehaviour mailing list
> netbehavi...@netbehaviour
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
>
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Fourth Plinth.

[dave miller]

Doesn't "Speakers Corner" (Hyde Park) serve a similar function?

dave

2009/7/13 marc garrett :
> Fourth Plinth.
>
> By Mark Hancock on the furtherfield blog...
>
> Anthony Gormleys' latest project One & Other, which is taking place on
> the Fourth Plinth (why do I insist on the caps?) at Trafalgar Square in
> London, is all at once: incredibly simple and very complex. Is it even,
> in fact, art? If we decide that it is art, then what kind of art is it?
>
> The simple premise of One & Other is that over 100 days, people are
> invited to spend an hour on the plinth. So that’s 2400 people. What are
> the criteria? Nothing more that having to sign-up on the website. I’m
> assuming that you are allowed to do whatever you like, as long as it
> isn’t illegal (at the time of writing, nobody has done anything illegal,
> but it could change). You are set up on it, on the change of the hour,
> with a large JCB (who are part sponsors of the event, along with
> SkyArts) and picked up 60 minutes later. Simple.
>
> more...
> http://blog.furtherfield.org/?q=node/
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[Geert Dekkers]

Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while  
33% of  Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science  
important (or was it "extremely" important?)  And I'd add, even the  
most fanatical creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to  
get to their meetings, showing that being religious and (at least) the  
use of scientic achievements don't rule each other out.


Geert

On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote:

There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no  
serious scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by  
natural selection. If there were they would replace evolution as  
experiments and studies confirmed them. That's the beauty of science  
when it works.


Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical  
assumption than religion. The practice of science requires personal  
drive and curiosity, and is subject to social pressures, but it is  
the least worst means we have of acquiring knowledge about the  
world. Art is a complement to it but religion has declared itself a  
rival.


- rob.



On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga"  wrote:

This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
bit more information on those?

And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...

--
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
___ NetBehaviour  
mailing list netbehavi...@netbehaviour




___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour


___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[Rob Myers]

There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no serious
scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by natural selection.
If there were they would replace evolution as experiments and studies
confirmed them. That's the beauty of science when it works.

Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical assumption than
religion. The practice of science requires personal drive and curiosity, and
is subject to social pressures, but it is the least worst means we have of
acquiring knowledge about the world. Art is a complement to it but religion
has declared itself a rival.

- rob.

On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga"  wrote:

This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
bit more information on those?

And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...

--
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com

___ NetBehaviour mailing list
netbehavi...@netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] [stuff-it] FW: Only 33 per cent of Americans believe in evolution

[Olga]

This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
bit more information on those?

And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...

-- 
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] This is really impressive

[Olga]

Thanks Pall and Joseph for these links!
I really like this stuff, but I only knew the work of AniVj, they do
really cool work. http://blog.antivj.com/2009/live-painting-shackleton
We actually got obsessed with some friends one afternoon trying to
figure out how they map the surface. We used flash and a projector.
Projecting onto the wall we drew very simple shapes on a few objects
that were there hanging.. It wasn't completely accurate but this is
the closest we got to using the technique.. Have any of you tried it?
Do you have any advise to share? :)

Cheers!

-- 
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour