Re: fundigested [rosler, jaeger]
> Thirdly, I don't see this 'digital boom' that others have mentioned, nor do > I see the jobs that it is preparing us for (Maya Texutre modeling? > .ASP/XML/CSS/Perl Programmer? I suppose these are out there but most rely on > skills taught at trade schools, DeVRY, or self-taught..) I think Trebor > Scholz has written about this. In fact, it seems that budget cuts are > happening across the board. If the computing/arts department at UCSD can get > additional funding that provides more research opportunities for graduate > students, then me and my friends/fellow graduate students will be happy > campers. ;) You don't see the digital boom because it is over. You missed its growth stage. It has reached a plateau--just about every art department in North America in the last eight or nine years has managed to stock itself with at least some instructors in new media/digital media, whether that's in a graphic design area, printmaking area, photo area, or in an area simply called new media. Sometimes in all these areas, often starting from zero. The hiring has leveled off. I remember the academic jobs listings in around '96 and '97 suddenly being flooded with ads describing openings for people with electronic/digital/new media skills, all over the country. Only a couple years before, there weren't that many, and then, along with the internet bubble and all the rest, the departments all went mad for digital. I think a lot of them probably didn't feel like they had a choice. Maybe this was the beginning of 'market realities' encroaching on the art department in such a pronounced, immediately effective way. Demanding that faculty (and especially the new media newcomers) come up with self-funding or worse surplus revenue generating schemes seems the logical next step. What interested me at the time (and I guess still does) is that just about every academic job listing included (and still does) the 'EOE' 'WMA' and 'AA' abbreviations at the end of the listing, meaning of course that the department was/is supposedly an Equal Opportunity Employer, that Women and Minorities are encouraged to Apply, and that it adheres to Affirmative Action guidelines in hiring. Compared to the way scores of art departments within several years managed to fill multiple digital media positions, including with a lot of practitioners who were learning skills as they went, making up curriculum, and in many cases possessing a questionable expertise...and yet could not do the same when it came to finding half-qualified women and (especially) minority facultyFor me, that was the real drag, although I must thank the boom for revealing starkly the priorities in play, and the near non-existent market pull of the Affirmative Action partisans. Dan w. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: EMI still sucks!
Where is the problem? I think local languages are fine, there are millions of dying languages, even the differences between people on the balkans are ok, civilisation, that the STATE (or whatever chief) allows killing, butchering, expulsions, is something COMPLETELY different. H. On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Ivo Skoric wrote: > One would think they would learn something from their debacle with > Sex Pistols almost 30 years ago. I this scandalous story they did not > allow a Hungarian Roma Hip-Hop band "Fekete Vonat" (Black Train) to > use their own (Roma) language in their lyrics. An international > record company acting as an agent of local bigotry?! > > http://www.shift.jp.org/world/048/budapest.shtml <...> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
art vs science
well, i don't know about the sciences taking a hit for art scenario. Take Jackie Stevens' analysis of the biotech/PR/culture industry for example. http://rtmark.com/rockwell.html And there are enough ongoing collabs between science-based industry and art http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD003458.html (for example) to point to culture's lucrative value for science. Of course, this is industrial applications of science i'm referring to, but looking at the direction most science departments at research universities are going, i'm not sure there's much of a distinction between applied science and research. i've also been speaking to people (in art academia) that have been approached by scientists (especially from CS) about the need to integrate cultural R&D into their programming and the availability of new funding sources that are looking for "culturally innovative" research projects. i think the criticism Coco might be making (not to speak for anyone, of course), is that the funding for "research" in education coming from industry (whether gaming or biotech) is never "no-strings attached." you might not be feeling the pull as a grad student at UCSD in art just yet, but just wait till the speculative phase gives way. i don't know if there will be Ignacio Chapelas in new media http://www.aaup-ca.org/chapela.html but i think it's extremely naive to think that money's going to pour in for critical gaming from the industry without it somehow benefitting them. This is a larger issue about influence and economics, of course. it's not that this is any different that traditional art world financing, or science funding for that matter, that's exactly the point. take care, ryan On Mar 12, 2005, at 6:28 AM, nettime-l-digest wrote: > Secondly, in pairing with the sciences in such a brutally obvious way, > it shows that art has much to gain from such pairings. Does science > have much to gain from the art world (in other words, are scientists > looking for the same grants that artists are?) Of course not. It's > actually a win-lose situation in art's favor (consider the scientists > who lose funding to an art/science collaboration). # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: [_arc.hive_] Re: On Code and Codework
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, [windows-1252] Bj=F8rn Magnhild=F8en wrote: You're right about the entities; I should have stated at x, y, z, are independent, classical Aristotelian entities. > But isn't this where meaning is produced, contrary to eg. a tautology? > So it would be to go to the source of meaning, and making a problem > out of it, as long as it's not self-evident, which it isn't because > the source is lost or already coded. No, entanglement is different, inseparable. If I do a sieve and produce primes I'm saying something that's fairly clear within well-defined domains. > I'm linking it back to to the anecdotial of 'not having a real basis'. > It's a false link. And I don't understand the 'real' of 'real basis.' > It's kind of a paradox in the middle of propositional logic - > X | X :: -X (|=3DSheffer's stroke) > X operated onto itself gives its negation, x|x=3D-x. > Or equivalent, with the same truthtable - > X | -X :: -X > X and its negation gives its negation. Or like - > -X | -X :: X > Sheffer's stroke could be viewed as a binary negation operator, and since > it's expressional complete, the core of propositional logic, producing its > own negation. But it's not a negation operator, that's -. And it's precisely that the Shef. & dual _aren't_ paradoxes but functions, operators, that makes it worthwhile to consider further. There's also Nicod's theorem, but that's more difficult to unpack. > Btw, it's a bit like complex numbers, having a real and an imaginary > part, where the imaginary ,i, is defined as the square root of -1, so > i squared is -1. Could it be another approach to view code similary as > a complex entity with a real and an imaginary part? It's imaginary > because it's not real, and still the calculations make sense, via 'an > imaginary bridge' as Musil writes somewhere, paraphrased, you begin in > the real and you're doing all these things in the imaginary which in > the end, surprisingly, leaves you in the real. Ah well.. For me, this is again a metaphor with problematic metaphysics behind it. There's nothing imaginary one way or another about code; it's real, just a different ontology, like a prime number is ontologically different than a stone; on the macro-level they're within different domains. For me it's like seeing if you add four apples and three apples, you're jumping into the imaginary and out again. I think not, that all you're doing is mapping different ontological domains - which for me brings up, not meta- physics, but issues of threshold logic and the conceptual geometries I mentioned. You might want to order the Eco book, which talks about the different planes of code; it's an approach which I think is just about the only useful one, outside of formal, i.e. mathe- matical definitions. > - A subject is all input - what is subject-object is already lost in > transmission - Perhaps I'm subject, and perhaps I'm object - or I'm > certainly both, coded and coding - I lose you here. I don't think it has anything to do with subject/object or all input. I'm talking about praxis. Encoding produces something that doesn't look back. You translate out of Morse, you have a message. The source or coding methodology are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you're coding, you're concerned with articulation on a different plane. > Not sure, encoding - the passive/tacit, that code has the effect of > pacifying us by being the active/visible/promulgated, while encoding - > disapperance of code - would support more interaction - correlate our > functioning? I was thinking, suppose A writes a program x; then B uses the program with input y -> x -> y' or some such. So B's concerned obviously with y' - or rather, y' goes out to C - as happens when you do something with code and send out the result. C has y', doesn't have x or y, they may be of interest, but y' stands by itself. On the other hand, A is concerned with x, with the ongoing articulation; A produces a structure which is somewhat 'in-itself', perhaps almost a parasitic process on y. For B, encoding is passive, just happening; someone knows a software program really well, but doesn't know how it's made, etc. Like driving a car. For A, on the other hand, it's the interiority that's critical, the aesthetics of the code, etc. - Alan # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
