Re: interview with Gazira Babeli
On 3/28/07, Tilman Baumg=E4rtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tilman, I don't know why my message appeared so many times; sorry! > >But getting to specifics, I was curious by what she meant saying that > >"Second Life seems to offer a Renaissance Perspective." If she means a > >"renewal of the sort of pranks she said she admires, then that would be > >"welcome, but isn't SecondLife, having a fairly narrow audience, a very > >"different kind of context? Or does she think the current press coverage > >"of "SL will allow her work and other's to jump the >borders, as it were? > > Well... > > as an interviewer I assume that she means what she says. I thought this myself-- right after I clicked to send! > As a reader I would think that this was meant to be a clever remark > that is supposed to make her come across as a new and improved > version of the net.art of old. This was partly what I meant to ask; I suppose it's a worthwhile ambition except it seems to assume that her work exists in the same world in the sense that she assumes people will make that connection. That's what led me to comment on the narrow audience. But then, in the 90s, did everyone recognize different net.art projects as part of the same field fairly quickly, or did that come later when curators and juries started defining categories? > I also think that SL is such a small place compared to the utopian > space of the internet of the 90s, that the net.artists explore. But I > might be biased. Since to even get in to look at anything in SL people have to register and immediately start worrying about money--for clothes, hair, textures, defense shields and what have you--I would agree that SL is both very small and _far_ from utopian! > Anyway, she was very happy about the whole net.art comparison. Who wouldn't be? ;-) > I hope that answers your question (that was asked out of interest or > in the name of research?) Yes, thanks. I asked out of both; I'm always interested if someone is doing something new and interesting online, but also I've been wondering whether we're seeing a fundamental cultural shift. Has something changed that makes the kind of net.art that arose in the '90s, that was prankish and sly, less likely to be created? I haven't heard of much being done lately, and I similarly noticed when I was teaching at MIT a few years ago, a real downturn in the frequency of hacks on campus, which I think most faculty rather regretted. I'm not sure if the reason would be a change in the potential audience or in the potential artist/pranksters or both. --Of course maybe I'm just completely out of the loop lately, which is yet another reason to ask! Cheers, Kim # 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: interview with Gazira Babeli
Hi Tilman, Thanks for this interview. I'm glad to see someone is trying to do something interesting in SecondLife. I've poked around a little but so far have resisted it because most people there seem to either be just playing dress-up or running around shooting people at random. That's rather tiresome, but at the same time people seem to be hypersensitive to events or performances like Babeli's. It seems like a weird paradox. But getting to specifics, I was curious by what she meant saying that "Second Life seems to offer a Renaissance Perspective." If she means a renewal of the sort of pranks she said she admires, then that would be welcome, but isn't SecondLife, having a fairly narrow audience, a very different kind of context? Or does she think the current press coverage of SL will allow her work and other's to jump the borders, as it were? -- Though maybe if there is more work like this on the horizon, more people will find a visit to SL worthwhile. Cheers, Kim On 3/22/07, Tilman Baumg=E4rtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > Here is an interview with Italian artists Gazira Babeli, who does > interesting virtual performance pieces in Second Life. For more > material, check her website at: http://www.gazirababeli.com/ (Gee, > posting this interview to nettime, feels almost like way back in the > glory days of net.art... ;) <...> # 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: the next layer or the emergence of open source culture
On 2/17/07, Armin Medosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi nettimers, I wonder what you think about this ... > armin > > The Next Layer or: The Emergence of Open Source Culture > > Draft text for Pixelache publication, Armin Medosch, London/Vienna 2006 > - 2007 > > > First we had media art. In the early days of electronic and digital > culture media art was an important way of considering relationships > between society and technology, suggesting new practices and cultural > techniques. It served as an outlet for the critique of the dark side of > computer culture's roots in the military-industrial complex; and it > suggested numerous utopian and beautiful ways of engagement with > technology, new types of interactivity, sensuous interfaces, > participative media practices, for instance. However, the more critical, > egalitarian and participative branches of media art tended to be > overshadowed by the advocacy of a high-tech and high-art version of it. > This high-media art conceptually merged postmodern media theories with > the techno-imaginary from computersciences and new wave cybernetics. > Uncritical towards capitalisms embrace of technology as provider of > economic growth and a weirdly paradoxical notion of progress, high-media > art was successful in institutionalizing itself and finding the support > of the elites but drew a lot of criticism from other quarters of > society. It stuck to the notion of the artist as a solitary genius who > creates works of art which exist in an economy of scarcity and for which > intellectual ownership rights are declared. > > > In the course of the 1990ies media art was superseded by what I call The > Next Layer or, for help of better words, Open Source Culture. I am not > claiming that the hackers who are the key protagonists of Open Source > Culture are the new media artists. Such a claim would be rubbish as > their work, their ways of working and how it is referenced is distinct > from media art. I simply say that media art has become much less > relevant through the emergence of The Next Layer. In the Next Layer many > more protagonists come together than in the more narrowly defined field > of media art. It is much less elitist and it is not based on exclusivity > but on inclusion and collaboration. Instead of relying on ownership of > ideas and control of intellectual property Open Source Culture is > testing the limits if a new egalitarian and collaborative culture. Later on you acknowledge the historical root, which I think enriches your discussion. Here though, it sounds like you are saying that Open Source sprang forth in the 90s, without precedent, which I think you don't mean. So you might want to add some line that foreshadows your historical discussion. --But on the other hand, this is me deliberately reading as an impatient American, who expects everything to be laid out step by step with absolute explicitness. So clarifying this small point may not be very important, depending on the intended audience. > In the following paragraphs I would like to map out some of the key > components of Open Source Culture. It has been made possible by the rise > of Free, Libre and Open Source Software. Yet Open Source Culture is > about much more than just writing software. Like any real culture it is > based on shared values and a community of people. > > > Open Source Culture is about creating new things, be they software, > artefacts or social platforms. It therefore embraces the values inherent > to any craft and it cherishes the understanding and mastery of the > materials and the production processes involved. Going beyond > craftmanship and being 'open source', it advocates free access to the > means of production (instead of just "ownership" of them). Creativity is > not just about work but about playfulness, experimentation and the joy > of sharing. In Open Source Culture everybody has the chance to create > immaterial and material things, express themselves, learn, teach, hear > and be heard. > > > Open Source Culture is not a tired version of enforced collectivism and > old fashioned speculations about the 'death of authorship'. It is not a > culture where the individual vanishes but where the individual remains > visible and is credited as a contributor to a production process which > can encompass one, a few or literally thousands of contributors. > > > Fundamental to Open Source Culture's value system is the belief that > knowledge should be in the public domain. What is generally known by > humans should be available to all humans so that society as a whole can > prosper. For most parts and whereever possible, this culture is based on > a gift economy. Each one gets richer by donating their work to a growing > pool of publicly available things. This is not a misguided form of > altruism but more like a beneficial selfishness. Engaged in a sort of > friendly competition everyone is pushing the whole thing forward a bit > by trying to do someth
Re: An Infinite Seance
On 1/30/07, Tilman Baumg=E4rtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:03 28.01.2007, you wrote: > > Apart from that, I don=B4t understand what is wrong > with YouTube as a medium for the distribution of > short films (apart from the legal restrictions > they harass their users with and the unclear > situation regarding copyright). Wasn=B4t the good > thing about the Internet, that everybody can put > their stuff there? It certainly helped film > makers such as Martyn See, whose documentary > "Singapore Rebel" was banned in Singapore, but > found an audience on YouTube. So, obviously > YouTube is not every film makers greatest fear. This is my observation as well; the volume of material on YouTube might make getting noticed a little harder, but the site iis easily searched and careful tagging would make most viedoes locatable by their intended audience. Of course artists are trading control over viewing conditions for wider audiences, but as Olia pointed out initially, they have never had much control anyway. How much of a loss is it? In fact this kiind of easy distribution puts video/film artists in the same boat as those working in text have "enjoyed" since the printing press was invented. (or arguably writing). Perhaps we should consider how much any art should depend on the circumstances of it's presentation, apart from those designed as temporary, site specific installations or performances. > > If a film goes unnoticed there, maybe it was > probably not very good in the first place. If I > had the choice of reaching a handful of people at > a video festival in a curated selection, or > potentially reaching billions of people on an > Internet video site on the Internet, I would know where to put my stuff. > > (Ok, ok, that is populist rhetoric, but since > when are these festivals the only place where you > can show your work in dignity?) And what's wrong wiith populist rhetoric, anyway? Kim # 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: An Infinite Seance
On 1/29/07, Florian Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Samstag, 27. Januar 2007 um 20:03:22 Uhr (+0100) schrieb olia lialina: > > It is interesting how this form of presentation blurs the boundaries > between the "theatrical" medium film and the "home" medium video. > While you explicity speak of "film", it has also become the dominant > installation form of video-based art work, for example at Documenta > XI. Perhaps the oldest materialization of this presentation form were > early 1960s/1970s porn movies, 16mm short films that were screened as > endless "beaver loops" shops in sex shops, as first prototypes of porn > video viewing booths. This form of presentation has also become quite common in actual homes; I have attended quite a few festive events where some sort of homemade video was being screened in a repeated loop for the entertainment of guests. I think that boundaries are blurring between audiences and creators as well, at least to the degree that just about everyone with a computer and a cell phone can make some kind of video, not to mention re-mixing things they download. And of course Olia has mentioned YouTube; I take a more positive view that now so many people have at least a rudimentary sense of the work and thought needed for a video, they may be better prepared to appreciate video and film art. > I wish you were right, Olia, but can't see it happening. On > the contrary, "interactive" installation art seems to thrive, > dominate "media" festivals and continue to be the canonical form of > institutional electronic art all the while net art continues to be > declared "dead". Before it was - temporarily - hacked by net artists, > the field of "media art" was essentially an outgrowth of 1960s/1970s > cybernetic audiovisual computer art. This art never had much, if any, > relevance and credentials in the field of contemporary art. Since > net artists rather came from "actual" art than institutional media > research lab practice, they temporarily changed the game, much to the > frustration of those in electronic art who were more interested in > high tech "interactivity", "artificial intelligence", photorealistic > graphic simulations etc. Yet it seems to me as if these old paradigms > have been restored, and the old cybernetic fallacies, with their > confusions of interaction with machine feedback and cognition with > computation, continue to rule at least in European institutional > electronic arts. In the US I've noticed strange parallel development to interactive art in children's and science museums. Many of the exhibits my children enjoy might not appear out of place re-labeled in an exhibition space. On the one hand I'm inclined to think this similarity is damning for interactive art, but on the other hand maybe it proves the educational value. --Assuming that those going to interact with the art have the mental capacity of 3-10 year olds. Kim # 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: An Infinite Seance
Olia, let me see if I have this right: to sum up, it sucked before and in spite of seeming improvements, still sucks now. Ok, maybe that's how the majority of film and video authors have felt, though that's not been my impression. As viewers have we all always felt a little cheated? I haven't, but maybe I'm easily entertained. But forget that, becaue wiithout specific examples of works that were somehow spoiled or at least had their impacted reduced by the circumstances of presentation, I can't really judge whether I agree with your conclusions. Instead, I would very much like to hear about what would work better so that maybe we could try improving the situation. Even if things aren't as bad as you describe, we can always aim for improvement. Best, Kim On 1/27/07, olia lialina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > programs put together by festival curators were "ghettos", meaning the > curators' lack of respect for authors and films alike, Lately, several new > ways of screening short films and videos have come into existence: <...> # 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
strange collisiion of porn and tech
Some of you might find this NY Times article interesting; apparently porn manufacturers feels HD will let viewers feel even closer to the action, closer to reality, but it turns out that reality is not what it's cracked up to be. Many of us were onto that idea already; I think that while on the one hand people say they want "reality" the notion of reality is slipping. Since most commercial videos and still images are digitally enhanced to make all the people more attractive (at least in the US), I'm not sure most viewers actually know what real people look like. Or even consider what is meant when something is labeled "real" or "reality." Cheers, Kim January 22, 2007 In Raw World of Sex Movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real By MATT RICHTEL SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 21 =97 The XXX industry has gotten too graphic, even for its own tastes. Pornography has long helped drive the adoption of new technology, from the printing press to the videocassette. Now pornographic movie studios are staying ahead of the curve by releasing high-definition DVDs. They have discovered that the technology is sometimes not so sexy. The high-definition format is accentuating imperfections in the actors =97 from a little extra cellulite on a leg to wrinkles around the eyes. Hollywood is dealing with similar problems, but they are more pronounced for pornographers, who rely on close-ups and who, because of their quick adoption of the new format, are facing the issue more immediately than mainstream entertainment companies. Producers are taking steps to hide the imperfections. Some shots are lit differently, while some actors simply are not shot at certain angles, or are getting cosmetic surgery, or seeking expert grooming. "The biggest problem is razor burn," said Stormy Daniels, an actress, writer and director. Ms. Daniels is also a skeptic. "I'm not 100 percent sure why anyone would want to see their porn in HD," she said. The technology's advocates counter that high definition, by making things clearer and crisper, lets viewers feel as close to the action as possible. "It puts you in the room," said the director known as Robby D., whose films include "Sexual Freak." The pornographers' progress with HD may also be somewhat slowed by Sony, one of the main backers of the Blu-ray high-definition disc format. Sony said last week that, in keeping with a longstanding policy, it would not mass-produce pornographic videos on behalf of the movie makers. The decision has forced pornographers to use the competing HD-DVD format or, in some cases, to find companies other than Sony that can manufacture copies of Blu-ray movies. The movie makers assert that it is shortsighted of Sony to snub them, given how pornography helps technologies spread. "When you're introducing a new format, it would seem like the adult guys can help," said Steven Hirsch, co-chief executive officer of Vivid Entertainment Group, a big player in the industry. Mr. Hirsch added that high definition, regardless of format, "is the future." Despite the challenges, pornographers =97 who distributed some 7,000 new movies on DVD last year and sold discs worth $3.6 billion in the United States =97 are rapidly moving to high-definition. One major company, Digital Playground, plans to release its first four HD-DVD titles this month, and plans four new ones each month. In March, Vivid plans to release "Debbie Does Dallas ... Again," its first feature for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Vivid, like Digital Playground, has been shooting with high-definition cameras for two years to build up a catalog of high-definition movies. Both studios have released the movies in standard definition but plan to make the high-definition versions available as compatible disc players and televisions become more popular. The studios said their experience using the technology gives them an advantage in understanding how to cope with the mixed blessing of hypercrisp images. Their techniques include using postproduction tools that let them digitally soften the actors' skin tone. "It takes away the blemishes and the pits and harshness and makes it look like they have baby skin," said the director known as Joone, who made "Pirates," one of the industry's top-selling videos. It will be available this month in high-definition. Joone does not use a last name, but he does use a number of techniques to keep his films blemish-free. They include giving out lifestyle tips. "I tell the girls to work out more, cut down on the carbs, hit the treadmill," he said. Within the industry, the issue seems to have created a difference in perspective that cuts roughly along gender lines. Some male actors have begun using makeup to mitigate wrinkles or facial flaws, but generally they, and the male directors, are less worried about high-definition's glare and more enamored of the technology. Ms. Daniels said that attitude was just so typical of men. "Men are all about outdoing each other, being up wit
Re: history lesson
On 1/21/07, Brian Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I read in the New Left Review an article by a guy named R. Taggart >Murphy called "East Asia's Dollars." He says this: > >"There is no secret about the identity of the biggest dollar holders. >They are the central banks and other Financial institutions of Japan, >China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf >Emirates. If the dollar is going to crash, one or more of these places >is going to have to change its stance towards the American currency. >They display such a seemingly reflexive commitment to accumulating and >retaining dollars that some commentators have described the current >global financial order as ???Bretton Woods II??a continuation by other >means of the dollar-centred international order that prevailed in the >postwar decades. The label does not itself explain why these states >behave as they do. But it suggests that, for whatever reason, they have >motives other than maximizing returns on their foreign-currency >holdings; that they have a vested interest in the continuation of a >US-led ???nancial system." (1) I suspect that China is soon (if not already) going to be in a position to take a much firmer stance against American policies with which they disagree. On the one hand they've just demostrated their own anti-satellite capabilities, are sending people to the moon, and generally proving they've caught up in technology, on the other, if anyone in Washington starts promoting any real action against them, they have the US on a pretty strong economic choke chain, especially given the insane levels of our national debt. --I don't actually buy into the paranoid fears of a "dragon rising," however I do wonder what the people behind the US china policy are actually thinking. >>It may be that the American public needs educating about its >>own passive role in generating this nightmare. > >I think they do (or we do!) and I also liked Kimberley de Vries' idea >that we oughtta actually do something with all the discussion on the >subject. But what? An open letter to the Americans on the eve of their >(our) next godawful election? I lay at bed last night (Ok, I'm a little >feverish) thinking about the chances of a nettime-organized bot-net >revolution massively spamming the US population with the most finely >tuned and clearly worded explanation ever dreamable of why the whole >world-system is sick and what can be done about it Tactical >economics anyone? I'm not sure spamming everyone would accomplish what we want, but hitting a lot of news outlets might, not to mention political leaders. Because some newspapers, like the NY Times, now only let paying subscribers read their op ed columnists, these statements against Bush's policies and questioning the war (among other things) are now only reaching a narrower, wealthier readership. On the other hand, letters sent from "regular" people is visible for free. --the economic distinction here bears investigating as well, but that's another topic... So, yes, let's do something. Whom exactly shall we try and reach? Best, Kim # 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: Iraq: The Way Forward
We who oppose the war have been acting apathetic, it's true. I think the reason for some is that it seems our efforts are useless. When the war was beginning there were huge protests; many contacted their politicians,marched, etc. And that accomplished nothing. The mass of Americans swallowed the Bush/Cheney fabrications about links to Sept. 11, and "weapons of mass destruction." Our so-called representatives voted for the war in spite of anything we said or did. Not to mention being called treasonous for even questioning and having websites appear at which students could report "leftist" faculty who were "forcing their opinions on students." And ever since the media is mealy-mouthed, reports little about any protest that does happen, and doen't really investigate. Bush has seemed coated in teflon until just recently, and even still, it looks like he could get a way with sending even more troops. I'm afraid many who opposed this war now do spend more energy on local issues where they actually can make some difference, rather than resisting the war. Kim On 1/11/07, Benjamin Geer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/01/07, Michael H Goldhaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > b) Venice is in fact becoming de-populated, with its natives moving > > to the car-unfree mainland; > > That's because tourism has driven up real estate prices to the point > where locals can no longer afford to live there. There are ways to > prevent this from occurring in car-free cities, and some of these are > discussed in the book _Carfree Cities_. The author emphasises that > Venice is not an ideal car-free city, and that it should be possible > to build better ones; hence his detailed design proposal. <...> # 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
The Premature Birth of Video Art
> So the myth of Paik's first work of video art appears to pre-date its own > possibility. While Paik undoubtedly was a pioneer user of portable video > equipment, he probably shared the original moments of video art with other > artists, including Frank Gillette, Ira Schneider, Les Levine, and Juan > Downey. The mythic story of Nam June Paik shooting the first > Portapak-generated video art out of the back of a taxi in 1965 is > apparently just that, a myth. This could be a case in which the vehicle of a metaphor has changed its tenor (and our collective memory): Paik is regarded as a pioneer and we generally think of pioneers as people who plunged ahead of the rest, surviving with bare essentials and without reliable connections back to civilization. I guess conceiving someone filming from a window with a camera firmly plugged into the wall is too dissonant with our notions of "the pioneer" :-) --or perhaps there's some other perfectly logical and clear explanation of the discrepancy, but what fun is that? ;-) Kim De Vries # 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
