RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.03.03

discussion

Posted Oct. 2 2003 20:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.03.03

RHIZOME DIGEST: October 3, 2003 Content: +announcement+ 1. Jens Heitjohann: Fire the FAX and join in redirected #1 : PING - part of the plateaux-Festival/ Mousonturm/ Germany 2. Peter Ride: Symposium: Time, Space and the Artist's document +opportunity+ 3. Susan Sakash: A Call to Collaborate - Public Art Project +comment+ 4. Claude Hidber: SWAMP in Zurich 5. Darko Fritz: Media Art in Croatia @ culturenet.hr 6. Metaphorz: Art Software +feature+ 7. Shirley Shor, Andreas Broeckmann, Pall Thayer: Rhizome – Software Art Installation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 9.29.03 From: Jens Heitjohann (heitjohann@web.de) Subject: Fire the FAX and join in redirected #1 : PING - part of the plateaux-Festival/ Mousonturm/ Germany www.redirected-series.net redirected #1 : PING is part of a series of projects which explore the feedback of events and the structure of the web in real space. redirected #1 : PING provides a forum in which four essential web-related subjects - feeding, fucking, fighting and fleeing - are to be dealt with. Everybody is invited to participate and enrich the project. The results will become part of a performance presented at the plateaux-festival [Mousonturm, Frankfurt M./ Germany], 23rd - 26th of October. In this performance four virtual figures (avatars) shall acquire their own experiences and their own tongue. Starting point will be a chat in which the avatars deal with the prepared subjects in communication with virtual visitors. We call everybody to send us their imaginations of the avatars by email, FTP, postally or bring it in personally from 23rd - 26th of October. The submissions will be arranged in the avatar's plots according to your instruction. The development of the avatar's habitats will be observable on the site via Webcams or on-site in Frankfurt. Please be so kind to forward this email to everybody you know and link our site if possible. Please excuse any cross-posting. Jentzsch/ Heitjohann/ Popp www.redirected-series.net c/o Künstlerhaus Mousonturm Waldschmidtstr. 4 60316 Frankfurt am Main + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 10.01.03 From: Peter Ride (peter@da2.org.uk): Subject: Symposium: Time, Space and the Artist's document The Centre for Arts Research Technology and Education (CARTE) & DA2 presents: TIME, SPACE AND THE ARTIST'S DOCUMENT Exploring the interplay of physics, art and philosophy Saturday 1 Nov 10am - 5.00pm The symposium addresses how time and space are investigated and represented by artists and scientists in creative work. Presenters will address physics, art, philosophy, film-making and curatorial practices. Janna Levin: Keynote Acclaimed physicist with an international reputation for her work on cosmology, black holes and chaos and author of 'How the Universe got its Spots'. Now investigating art as Scientist-in-Residence at the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art, University of Oxford. Grace Weir: A fine line Artist whose work addresses Einstein's theories relating to time and space. Weir's video installations were included in the Venice Biennale 2001 and she currently has a major solo exhibition at Cornerhouse, Manchester. Based in Dublin. Robyn Ferrell: Time and its relationships, sensation and dreamtime Philosopher, University of Tasmania. Ferrell's research considers the connection between technology, feminist theory and the visual arts. Author of 'Genres of Philosophy' and 'Passion In Theory'. Francis McKee Writer and curator of new media at CCA Glasgow. McKee discusses strategies of film and video artists to represent, and play with time and how the installation of exhibitions can also question our perceptions of time and space. Rebecca Cummins: Where is noon? Artist, University of Washington. Cummins' work features series of sundials as public art pieces, made in collaboration with an astrophysicist, and reflects on the photographic measurement of time. Tony White & Ken McMullen: Pioneers in art and science Previewing a new documentary 'Art, Poetry and Particle Physics' that features John Berger and world-leading particle-physicists from CERN, Geneva. The project explores how a film-maker might create an observational position on the subject through form and content. Film produced by Arts Council England. Ray d'Inverno: Closing notes Mathematician, University of Southampton, and esteemed jazz pianist and composer. d'Inverno is author of 'Introducing Einstein's Relativity' and his main research is into numerical relativity. Convenors: Peter Ride and Jane Prophet The symposium coincides with a UK tour of 'Grace Weir: A Fine Line' by Cornerhouse, Manchester and is co-ordinated with the Interdisciplinary Arts Department, Arts Council England. Venue: Old Cinema, University of Westminster, 309 Regent St, London. Costs: Price per individual-40, concessions-25, institutions-80 (lunch is provided) Booking: If you would like to attend see <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.carte.org.uk">http://www.carte.org.uk</a> (online booking form) or contact S.Barker02@wmin.ac.uk or tel 020 79115000 ext 2675 – – ******************************************************************** Peter Ride Co-Director & Senior Research Fellow CARTE - Centre for Arts Research Technology and Education University of Westminster 70 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 7NQ 020 79115000 x 2637 P.E.Ride@wmin.ac.uk or peter@da2.org.uk supported by the Qunitin Hogg Trust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 9.28.03 From: Susan Sakash (nasus2391@yahoo.com) Subject: A Call to Collaborate - Public Art Project WANDERING ROCKS, REVOLVING DOORS In search of artists of all ilks (visual, sound, video, dance, performance, word-based, psychogeographical) for a collaborative project based on the Wandering Rocks episode of James Joyce's Ulysses. Project to be implanted throughout the streets of Dublin, Ireland as part of the ReJoyce events in June of 2004. Intent is to gather artists from as many different urban locations as possible. In particular, looking for artists (natives or transplants) living in cities outside the US and Ireland. Beforehand knowledge of Ulysses not as important as a willingness to engage creatively with your environs and fellow citizens. For further information, please visit: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://wanderingrocksrevolvingdoors.blogspot.com/">http://wanderingrocksrevolvingdoors.blogspot.com/</a> Any additional questions, please feel free to send an email. Many thanks. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 10.02.03 From: Claude Hidber (claude.hidber@co-lab.ch) Subject: SWAMP in Zurich SWAMP-Interactive Wellness Park, Zurich, 25th to 27th of Sept., 2003 To use a former Yoghurt factory as a venue for a small but impressive interaction design event seems not too inappropriate considering that it took place in the land where cows still happily roam on green pastures amidst overwhelming landscapes. On top, to call it SWAMP-Interactive Wellness Park is another indication that the Swiss besides stashing other people?s money and perfecting time measurement have taken on a lot from their neighbours to the south and to the west in terms of enjoying the nice things in life. The little festival took place in the ½Dachkantine?, a new club with original 60/70ies interior on the top of the former Toni Yoghurt Factory in Zurich, Switzerland. The organizers, a group called Co-lab (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.co-lab.ch">http://www.co-lab.ch</a>), describe themselves on their website as follows: ½The eight members of co-Lab have their professional background in a wide range of professional activities such as electronic engineering, architecture, fashion design, sociology, light design, design of interactive environments, public relations and photography.? Accordingly SWAMP was an all-round event, both highly informative and entertaining. In the centre of SWAMP some high class installations: Fur (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fursr.com">http://www.fursr.com</a> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fursr.com/">http://www.fursr.com/</a>) from Cologne had sent their infamous Painstation (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.painstation.de/">http://www.painstation.de/</a>) to enhance the wellness of the visitors. Two players oppose each other in good old Arcade game style, between them the monitor and S? the pain. While Pong does not seem to be the most exciting game in the world nowadays, it becomes quite thrilling if your left hand is placed on a panel that induces increasing electric shocks once you miss the ball. Quite often you could see the players disappear towards the bathroom in order to cool their blisters with cold water (The author himself proved to be a chicken and did not involve physically but was highly impressed by the tenacity of some players). The most impressive piece for me though was Instant City by Anyaffair (contact: anyaffair@freesurf.ch). Sybille Hauert, Daniel Reichmuth and Volker Böhm have produced a very poetic ½electronic music building and gaming automat?. Imagine you stand in front of a square board together with three other players on each side of it. The board is divided into small translucent squares just like a chessboard but all white. A spotlight illuminates the field. Each player has around 30 bricks neatly strung in front of him, all in the same white translucent material. The game starts: The players begin to place bricks onto the board. There are no rules or guidelines. With the first stone spherical sound patterns start to emerge, ever changing with every new brick. The players involve into mutual compositions of high complexity and individuality. Those are reflected beautifully in the three-dimensional constructions on the board, evoking the skyline of a city. Technically this is made possible by light sensors underneath the board detecting the changes in the light intensity from above. Therefore even piling up stones will lead to different sound patterns. The basic sounds were produced by seven different composers and before a new game the player or players would chose one of the composers represented in form of a master brick. Lic Lac, the ½Light-information-Cube? by Claude Hidber, Moritz Schmid, Christion Schoch and Valentin Spiess was especially appreciated by the visitors of the two club nights on Friday and Saturday. Lic Lac is an illuminated, translucent cube about 1.5m to 1.5m to 3m with a stripe of LED lights running around it. Anyone could send an SMS that would immediately shine up and run around the cube. The slowly changing color of the cube itself outside on the roof-deck was a very atmospheric experience at night (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.co-lab.ch/seiten/a1_projects.html">http://www.co-lab.ch/seiten/a1_projects.html</a>). The other six or seven installations also had their special qualities. E.g. the works of Mobiles Kino (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mobileskino.ch/">http://www.mobileskino.ch/</a>): ½Game Arcade, Interactive Super 8 Slots? are analogue video games, all of them based on Super 8 technology. Sound weird, but yes, it is possible: One of the installations was an ego-shooter. A super 8 camera hidden under a cardboard cladding that was designed in a retro console style. It was projecting the classical Alien Attack symbols onto a wall. With the pistol connected to the projector one could ½shoot? those symbols. The pull of the trigger would stop the projector while the heat of the projector lamp would physically destroy the image in front of the player?s eyes-A beautiful and poetic work. One of the biggest names around was John Klima from New York. (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cityarts.com/lmno/">http://www.cityarts.com/lmno/</a>) showing some work in progress from his newest piece "Earth discrete terrains /terrain machine?. What he showed though was too raw still to give more than a conceptual idea of the final work. Nevertheless his presence was fully justified and appreciated with the two hands-on workshops he was offering. In a few hours he showed us how to build a simple light sensor and how to connect it to the keyboard. The table slowly turned into a big mess of wires, cables, transistors soldering irons etcS? It felt like a mix of high-tec kindergarten and the mad professor?s laboratory. Finally I had my share of pain whilst grabbing the soldering iron the wrong way round. Outside on the roof-deck the stars of the Swiss new media art scene had put up their branded containers, event though Agent Marcos from etoy (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.etoy.com/">http://www.etoy.com/</a>) would heavily reject both: the ideas of stardom and art in relation to their activities, as well as being a Swiss organization. Etoy was collecting DNA samples for a new project: ½etoy.BIOTECH offers 20 etoy.SHARES (value: more than 200 USD) to each donator who provides a sample of endogenous material (organic body-fluid: blood, sperm or saliva) for the production of an absolutely unique artwork: the etoy.DNA-PORTRAIT - processed at etoy.TANK-PLANT2..? But what made this event really work was that all this technology driven art had its counterpoint in the e-free zone. Whoever entered into this room had to leave his Mobile, PDA, laptop, etcS? behind. During the round table discussions that took place the participants had to scribble their notes on the paper tablecloth, which was later used as part of the documentation. The mobiles, with a Velcro fastener stuck to the back, were displayed in a glass showcase in the gangway. Once in a while one could hear them whine for their masters from afar. One of the mentioned discussions was about virtual intimacy. It turned out that both virtuality and intimacy are very ambiguous concepts: can one be intimate with a machine or only in relationship to another human being? Can one even be intimate with oneself? On the other hand the term virtuality seemed well described with the notion of reality or ideas mediated by a computer. In a technical sense yes, but philosophically spoken, imagination can be seen as the basis of virtuality. Imagination plays a central role in all human communication, be it just simple talk or sexuality. The question then arises whether it needs mediation by machines to produce virtuality. Unfortunately we weren?t able to solve that one. The next day the discussion, led by Samuel Herzog, feature journalist of the Neue Zuricher Zeitung (NZZ), centered around Daniel Diemers Virtuelle Triade. Diemers, (daniel.diemers@co-lab.ch) who was present at the event, wrote a book and a relating manifesto in 2002 to start a discussion about the social impacts of new technologies and technology driven concepts such as virtuality, cyborgism and bionics. Among his several claims there are such as ½For a free and voluntary access to virtuality,? ½For the introduction of a voluntarily protection age with immersive virtual 3D-worlds?, ½For a life without life-augmenting implants?, etcS? The discussion was highly controversial and far from complete after four hours. To get into detail would be never-ending but as one participant said: It was amazing to see how much western society has changed in the recent years and how quickly acceptance for those technologies, e.g. mobiles, virtual worlds, implants, etcS? has risen. The same topics would have been discussed totally different and much more emotionally only a few years ago. But the e-free zone was not only a place for discussion: the marvelous opening dinner was served there and the second night had a reading/percussion performance. In the event-free times one could give oneself over to a shiatsu massage. Even though art/design festivals and conferences seem to spread like a disease, SWAMP was different: small, intimate but nevertheless with a high quality program. The attendance though was slightly below the expectations. One can hope that this does not keep Co-lab from repeating it. – [ redgreenblue.design [ Axel Vogelsang [ [ <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rgb.de">http://www.rgb.de</a> [ E-mail: axel@rgb.de + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 9.29.03 From: Darko Fritz (fritz.d@chello.nl) Subject: Media Art in Croatia @ culturenet.hr Media Art in Croatia written and edited by Darko Fritz <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/panorama.asp?id=39">http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/panorama.asp?id=39</a> First survey and attempt at defining the term Media art in Croatia in its historical context and setting up a relevant database. Media Art in Croatia is part of the culturenet.hr web portal to Croatian art and culture. . A brief overview of media art in Croatia (since 1960s) . Institutions, events, databases . Publications [magazines, TV, books, mailing lists and on-line texts; Bibliography of the Croatian video art] Databases: Craotian cultural institutions & subjects / media art: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/">http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/</a> catalogue_search_results.asp?lang=Eng&podrucje=8 festivals and other regular events / media art: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/category.asp?cat=4">http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/category.asp?cat=4</a> info servis [recent events, updated daily, in Croatian only] use pop-up menu 'po kategorijama' > novi mediji + press button 'listaj' <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/novo/infoservis/">http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/novo/infoservis/</a> ——————— A brief overview of media art in Croatia (since 1960s) Between 1961 and 1973, the Gallery of Contemporary Art (now the Museum of Contemporary Art) organized five international exhibitions entitled New Tendencies. The first New Tendencies exhibition was organized on the initiative of the art historians Matko Mestrovic, Radoslav Putar, Bozo Bek and Boris Kelemen, and the artists Ivan Picelj and Almir Mavignier. The New Tendencies strived at a synthesis of different forms of the arts of the 1960s and 1970s. In the beginning, the movement characterized broad issues but later the exhibitions veered towards neo-constructivism, lumino-kinetic objects (mostly mechanically made, often under group authorship) and finally computer art and conceptual art. The first exhibition (1961) - apart from the participants such as Almir Mavignier, Zero Group (Oto Peine, Hienz Mack) and Azimuth Group (Enrico Castellani, Piero Manzoni) - contained works that were bent mostly on a system research (Francois Morellet, Karl Gerstner) and optical research of the surface and the structure of objects (Marc Adrian, Julio Le Park, Gunther Uecker, Gruppo N - Biasi, Massironi, Chiggio, Costa, Landi). The origins of the preprogrammed and kinetic art whose characteristic language would mark New Tendencies as a movement as early as their following exhibition (1963) had also been noted. The demands for the scientification of art favored experimenting with new technical media as a means of researching the visual perception based on the Gestalt theory. The third exhibition of New Tendencies (1965) probed the relationship between cybernetics and art and a symposium on the same topic preceded the exhibition. Vjenceslav Richter, Aleksandar Srnec and Ivan Picelj exhibited lumino-kinetic objects. The fourth exhibition (1968/69) was dominated by the information theory and encompassed an international conference entitled Kompjuteri i vizualna istrazivanja. The same year, the Gallery of Contemporary Art started the Bit international magazine. I have to mention the computer light installation by Vladimir Bonacic DIN.21 as a paradigm for media art coming from the sphere of science. The work was installed in 1968 on the facade of the NAMA department store in Zagreb and was intended as a permanent exhibit. In 1968, Vladimir Bonacic and Ivan Picelj realized T4, an electronic (and computer programmed) object. Beside the computerized visual research section, a conceptual art section was also included in Tendencies 5 (1973). Vilko Ziljak exhibited ASCCI photographs, i.e. digital printouts. Tomislav Mikulic, working for the television where he made intentional computer animation and television graphics, created an artistic computer movie 1973. In the early stages of the development of media art since the 1960s, we note two, at the time irreconcilable sources: modernist (supporting the idea of progress and science) and the anarchistic-individual approach of conceptual art (building on the achievements of the student movements from the 1960s). Conceptual art and computer art were prominently marked on the Tendencies 5 exhibition poster. Matko Mestrovic was the main theorist of New Tendencies as a movement who tackled the problem of the relationship between art and society demanding the socialization of arts, abolishing the unique significance of a work of art and equaling art and science. See more on Tendencies under Institutions, data bases, and the on-line catalogue of a collection of works of early computer art by MSU exhibited as part of the I am Still Alive project (2000). Taking a point of view diametrally opposed to the scientification of art, we can consider part of the conceptual art practice from the 1970s and 80s as part of media art. Numerous works of the media-aware conceptual art were made in the 1970s, such as a series of exhibitions with posters as sole exhibits by Goran Trbuljak (1971-1981) and performances of listening to the radio, watching TV, reading newspapers and talking on the phone by Tomislav Gotovac (1980-1981). Free experiments with mixed media were part and parcel of the poetry of the so-called Group of six authors who mixed media such as photography, film, and photocopy in the form of visual art, art books and (street) performance. The following input came to media art from the film milieu. In addition to his primary interest in working with experimental film, Ivan Ladislav Galeta created numerous photo and video works, installations, and multimedia performances. Tomislav Gotovac made gallery and out-of-gallery performances and photo collages inspired by movies. Vladimir Petek set up in 1971 the FAVIT art association (film -audiovisual research - television) and created a series of multimedia works with a number of collaborators, mostly multivision (multi-channel video, film and slide projections), and realized ten computer movies with Tomislav Mikulic in 1976. Video art is the only form of media art dating back to 1971 and having a production that has reached critical mass. Sanja Ivekovic and Dalibor Martinis, both pioneers of Croatian video art, create jointly and individually a series of video works and installations and, as their personal preference, represent a duality of interests of media art from the position of conceptual artists. Martinis is preoccupied with media itself and its physical and semiotic possibilities and creates a series of video installations (video installations at table in The Supper at last, 1993, video installation in a form of a well filled with water Circles Between Surfaces, 1996), interactive digital video installations (Coma, 1997) and hybrid works in electronic media (Observatorium 1/2/3 exhibitions, 1997-98). On the other hand, Sanja Ivekovic moderates social (feminist) activity through art by setting up an association of women, Electra. She performs numerous video works and installations (In the Frozen Images video work, the image is projected on the ice and in the Travel Until the End of Thought work from 1994 the computer directs the video projection of body parts in stellar movement). She creates works in other media, too. Project Gen XX is a series of works published in the form of advertisements in print media in 1997 and 1998. The photographic reproductions show portraits of female top models and the name underneath (in the graphic form of logo) comes with a brief biography mentioned in connection to a heroine assassinated for her political activities in the anti-fascist struggle in WWII. In the late 1980s, the Nova Evropa (NEP, founded by Dejan Krsic) group, Studio imitacija zivota (SIZ; Darko Fritz and Zeljko Serdarevic), Grainer and Kropilak and the Katedrala project displayed artistic activity carried out under a collective authorship (in the Katedrala project a computer programmer has been included as a full-fledged author). The above-mentioned used the media as their basic material (reproductive, electronic, digital and mass media) and inaugurated sampling/cut-up/quotation/recycling as an expression without specific stylistic characteristics, i.e. the rejection of the idea about the original. The medium of photocopy in the pre-Photoshop aesthetics of the 1980s (in the wake of experiences of copy art of the 1970s) was the prime graphic tool. In the case of SIZ and NEP more indicative were their media projects than the produced objects. NEP inaugurated a new understanding of equaling politics and art, not just by ½borrowing? from political rhetoric but also by using it on an equal footing, in the spirit of post-modernist theories. In 1988, SIZ thrice opened an exhibition (of graphics) using three manners of opening: live broadcast over the radio, by a spoken word of an art historian, and by textual print-outs of interviews. In 1990, SIZ stopped working after having completed a three-year production and distribution (corporative) plan. The Katedrala project (Bakal, Fritz, Juzbasic, Marusic, Premec; 1988) took place on the anniversary of death of Andy Warhol and called for a transformation of image to sound of a Mussorgsky composition and the sound into a space performance of Kandinsky. It was a space generated by a computer using joint sound, light, and video elements set in motion through the movement of the audience and the signals of an EEC connected to the performer, Joska Lesaj, the opera signer. A witty subversive action Zagreb Virus 1990, whose author was Svebor Kranjc, took place at the 22nd Youth Salon exhibition (1990). Having sent a great number of (quasi)artistic products of various styles and under assumed names, the jury ½missed on? a certain number of works. At the opening itself, the author personally distributed his catalogue in which he explained how a ½virus that the body (jury) failed to recognize? entered thereby demystifying a part of authorship of the exhibits and leaving the other part undiscovered referencing the strategy of computer viruses. Kranjc had earlier on carried out a series of TV viruses (1989) where he had infiltrated the mainstream TV program by a system of simulacra as an art terrorist. He was a representative of the Image Liberation Organization. These strategies of simulation were characteristic of the conceptual art of the 1980s and were later often used in net art that could easily simulate a system of corporative representation. The interactive character in its primary form is present in every video installation involving a closed circuit system and a live video link. Similar works originated in the 1970s but enhanced the probing of the medium in the 1990s. In the above-mentioned Katedrala project, three rooms were connected by sound and video closed circuit. Simon Bogojevic Narath in his untitled work (Landscapes, 1991) set up a video link by using a small mirror that optically distorted the electronic image. Kristina Leko created a series of video link works with religious content, using wireless transmission across greater distances and employing to the fullest this technology for conceptual games with dislocation (Flowers, 1997, Veduta, Kamenita vrata, 1998). At the 1998 Zagreb Salon, Sandro Djukic set up a closed-circuit system with delay. Darko Fritz in his work on the End of The Message project used security video systems as a specific form of closed circuit (at the Obsessions exhibitions: From Wunderkamer to Cyberspace, 1995, and at Privredna Bank, T.EST, 1997). In collaboration with Ademir Arapovic, he has performed since 1998 a series of work space=space in which, using closed circuit only, they have extended architecture with the use of media. Andreja Kuluncic in her work Man Constructor (1996) used motion detectors as well as slide and sound detectors. In 1998, Sandra Sterle and Slobodan Jokic (Dan Oki) set up a complex interactive video installation To Forget to Remember and to Know on the subject of digitalized video image that changed according to the sound quality of the spoken text. The installation was created in an Amsterdam school for learning Dutch for Adults. Together they created an interactive internet work called Interstory (2001) where the participant was given the opportunity to work on partially pre-programmed film scripts. Sandra Sterle created a series of works, Round Around (1998), in the media of photography, linear video, and interactive CD-ROM. During a project called Go Home that lasted several months (in collaboration with Danica Dakic, 2001) she organized in New York a series of web cast dinners with guests and an Internet diary. Since 1997, Ivo Dekovic has been organizing summer workshops and directed a sub-art gallery underwater at Razanj. A web site contains a continual video signal showing the submerged gallery. In the numerous one-channel video works by Narath, Vladislav Knezevic and Igor Kuduz, a new reality in the specific phenomenon of the video medium has been set up by a virtuoso use of digital effects in combination with model making. The setting up of a parallel media reality is a topic of an imaginary journey in a project that spanned several years called Putovanje oko svijeta, which Sandro Djukic created in photo and video media. Ivan Marusic Klif created a series of interactive mechanized automata with picturesque figurative scenes in the ambiance of TV monitors that inverted the expectations of the electronic image. Klif also created computer-directed sound and space installations by specifically combining high and low-tech (the exhibition in the tunnel in 1995), a complex interactive manipulation of live video image (closed circuit), and by himself programming software for his own needs (the exhibition at Klovicevi dvori in 2000). Davor Antolic Antas created a series of works by setting up a line of electronically programmed neon lights in the architectural structures (Neon, 1998-2001). Magdalena Pederin performed interactive light installations that reacted to ambient sound. One of them, a composition of several meters made up of LED diodes, was also the (inter)active stage production of the Oko cuje, uho vidi performance (Marusic, Kuhta, Rascic, 1997-1999). The sensors on the body of the performers set in motion sound, video and light interactions. The Lights from Zagreb exhibition at the De Parel gallery in Amsterdam presented light works by Marusic, Pederin and Antolic 2001. Ivona Kocica and Kristina Babic have been working on the manipulation of the electronically generated and digital photography since 1994. Darko Fritz has explored different aspects of media art - as part of group projects such as SIZ, Katedrala and Balkania and various network art projects, as well as independently by staging fax actions (since 1991, Hype), digital photography (since 1990, La Strategia del regno), the laser installation Measure for Measure, 1992, the first attempt at webcast in 1994 (Keep the Frequency Clear) while one of the eight stages of the End of the Message project that spanned several years (1995-2000) has been on the internet since 1996. As part of the project, the End of Message (Archives live!) sound and video work takes place simultaneously in a gallery and over the radio (1996). Expert input was involved in the Theater Time project (1995) through the participation of theorists and critics in a TV program (that ran parallel to the event in the gallery and the movie theater). Since 2001, p.sound (remix), an open sound network piece has been taking place on the internet. A sound piece by Rino Efendic with taped sex phone conversations from 1998 inspired his colleagues from Split, the artist Petar Grimani and the curator and theorist Ana Peraica, to include sound pieces at the 21st Springtime event in 1998. Twenty-four authors created a series of sound performances and installations in a public space entitled ArtAKUSTIKA and the Technology of Sounded Space web project, presented at the Lada 98 exhibition (Rimini, 1998) that included a live audio stream. Ivan Marusic Klif created a series of sound performances in which he used various analogue and digital recordings and sound processors, as well as text-to-speech programs (Planet majmuna, 1997, Komunisticki Manifesto, 2000). In the Speaker System project by Kristina Leko, apart from various actions and public installations, a part of the project was performed on radio air (the 3rd channel of HRT, 1994). The Kad razmjena tezi maksimumu tad priljeze nuli work (1998) was comprised of remixes of intimate nature from his answering machine. In collaboration with Darko Fritz she created a piece called Kristina Leko, Darko Fritz and Nina Simone, a documentary recording of the exchange of the phone address books which was also an overview of their social and professional network. As part of the Big Torino exhibition (1999), Tomo Savic Gecan published an ad in the local newspapers with the date of the opening and the phone number of the gallery. The visitors could take turns answering the phone displayed in the gallery. Ivan Ladislav Galeta created a series of sound projects (Speed Up, 1977, Forwards-Backwards: Voice, 1977, Forwards-Backwards: Guitar, 1977, Minutenwalzer, 1978, Piano, 1979, Obrnuti Glas, 1985) Zvonimir Bakotin has created a series of web projects since the very beginning of the web. Examples of pioneering net.art work are Transnavigation and Fresh - shaped for the participation in the Refresh project, 1996, one of the first network art works on the internet. In 1996 he was awarded the first price for an experimental model of a 3D interface for the de DAM (De Digitale Stad Amsterdam). In 1997, he created a 3D project for the De Waag Society of the New and Old Media in Amsterdam. Between 1996 and 1998, he created a 3D model of the Diocletian Palace that underwent an extensive testing on the Digitale Stata network. The Diocletian Palace is still a work in progress and the project will be put on the internet in due time. Merzbau 3D is a joint project with the Van Gogh television (VGTV) for the Sprengel Museum Hannover from 1999, a 3D interactive (VRML) model. A member of the VRML-ART board, Helena Bulaja called the visual artist, Petar Grimani to join in an internet project descriptively entitled Freedom in the City or just illusion… 1/2OokS?.WWWSCULPTURES?.introducing real space to cyberspace and vice versa - METAPHORS, performed at the 1996 Youth Salon. The newly designed portal incorporates in the work a simultaneous and multiple choice of web works of other on-line authors, created in the then new frames on the browser (Netscape Navigator 2.0). The project was first shown in the Art Electronic web gallery in 1997. The next project that continues the idea - Freedom in the City of just Illusion - Urban Alphabet) also included the architect Vlatka Turniski and was first shown at the Zagreb Salon (architecture, 1997). The project used a new form of Netscape (3.0) and attempted at a fusion of about 50 web cameras from different cities. The project succeeded in exploiting the sending but not the receiving of the web cast. The interesting point of the architecture of this work is in the use of the web user that set in motion a web cast in the gallery without consciously controlling the action. In a series of his work, Tomo Savic Gecan used (that a group of people had conceived) new communication tools in order to make almost imperceptible alterations in space. The web users (by web cast) unpredictably set in motion (only a few millimeters) an architectonic element at the SKUC gallery in Ljubljana (1999). The sensorially detected presence of the visitors of the Begane Grond gallery in Utrecht briefly interrupted an escalator in the Kaptol shopping center in Zagreb (2001). In his next work, the sensors in a gallery in Los Angeles turned on and off the lights in the flat of the artist in Amsterdam (2002). Andrea Kuluncic has created a series of internet works since 1997. Closed reality: Embryo is an interdisciplinary web work that actively incited internet users to think out and participate in the discussion about the creation of new life. In 2002, with a group internet work called Distribucija pravde, she participated at the Big Torino and Documenta 11 exhibitions. After her postgraduate studies in interactive multimedia (1996-1997), Maja Kuzmanovic took residence in the Netherlands and Belgium. She created a great number of media work: web sites since 1996, CD-ROMs since 1995, performance, installation, video, hypermedia works, etc. In the Once Upon a Time project (1997) she used interactive photography, interactive film and interactive narration, and used and developed new technologies in collaboration with scientists. In 2001, she founded the FOAM association. Blazenko Karesin created a series of internet works. In 22% (1998), he used a web browser with the knjiga keyword since the project tackled the subject of (high) tax levied on book commerce in Croatia, and in the Strategic.Competitor work (2002) he created a politically engaged and, at the same time, intimate internet piece. In the late 1990s, a new aesthetic of internet works appeared that abolished the line between art and design, the so-called Flash generacija. Ingrid Stojic participated with her Interfaces work at dotCulture 2002. The Broadcasting project (dedicated to Nikola Tesla, Zagreb, 2002) involved a series of video streaming performances of Croatian authors (Lala Rascic and Ana Husman, Ivan Marusic Klif, Marjan Crtalic). The transformation of digital information into the analogue domain is present in the work of several authors. In the Biblioteka project, Sandro Djukic (since 1999) has been transforming media reality (digitalized video) into the archives of 200,000 video frames in the form of a book, being lost through the generations of digital compression, the possibility of returning to the re-establishment of primary (digital) format. In 2000-2001, in the 204_NO_CONTENT graphic folder (2001), Darko Fritz and the net. artist Mez - Mary Ann Breeze (Australia) transformed the text with www. Reports on server mistakes and coded artistic texts into a graphic language on paper. Dalibor Martinis performed works from the Binarni sistem series. In the Zabranjeno parkiranje work, the message coded in the binary code was written by parking 45 new silver and black cars in a line (150 meters) at the main square of the German town of Rosenheim. Several works with binary messages have been created by tolling the bells (since 2000). ———- We invite your comments and suggestions at info@culturenet.hr culturenet.hr web portal . <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.culturenet.hr">http://www.culturenet.hr</a> darko.fritz.propaganda . <a rel="nofollow" href="http://members.ams.chello.nl/fritzd">http://members.ams.chello.nl/fritzd</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 9.29.03 From: Metaphorz (fishwick@cise.ufl.edu) Subject: Art Software "Art Software" Paul Fishwick There has been some intense discussion targeting the subject of "Software Art". Even though the debate manifests itself within the context of Ars Electronica, some of the recent comments suggest that the issue is not so much the conference activity, but rather the issues that the conference has surfaced. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this conference, but would like to add some thoughts on Software Art and suggest a new direction that Software Art may lead, which would create new synergies with computer science. Software Art suggests that we consider how art can be created through programmmatic elements - code and software as the raw material of art. This could be seen as an offshoot of digital media except for the assumption that by programming and delving into the innards of code, one might produce a different sort of art or design than would otherwise be possible through off-the-shelf commercial programs. This would appear to be a correct assumption, with languages such as "Processing" [1] providing the artist with new materials and modalities of expression. Some of the criticism leveled at the Ars Electronica program was intriguing and requires further discussion. For example, let's consider a well-developed, recent Rhizome commentary by Lev Manovich [2]. Manovich makes numerous references to "larger" issues such as "sociology," "politics," and "contemporary cultural production" as if to pine for these attributes, and the lack thereof in Software Art. While it may be true that all art has a cultural context (be it an artificial or natural culture), to suggest that "larger" art need embed sociological or political elements is exaggerated. What ever happened to viewing digital media or software art from the perspective of sensory immersion, interaction, engagement, and sheer enjoyment? Are these now to be considered foreign artistic or design goals? Manovich may be correct when he states "Today's digital artists are typically proper formalists," which is not a bad thing. In fact, it may be a very good thing. Over the past two years, we have been developing a community of artists, mathematicians, designers, and computer scientists in an area called "Aesthetic Computing" [3]. The goal of Aesthetic Computing is slanted toward "Computing" by ensuring that any application of the theory or practice of art to computing result in something that "reflects" computing as a discipline (i.e., programming, visualization, HCI, discrete structures). From the standpoint of Aesthetic Computing, Software Art plays a key role of 1) introducing the computational material to the artist, and 2) suggesting that not only can the computational material be considered "raw material," but that it can also be considered "subject material." It is the range of activity between treating computing elements (data structures, programs, architectures) as material to treating the elements as subject material, which provides Aesthetic Computing with a diverse set of creative possibilities. Consider [4], which uses the Processing language to demonstrate a "matrix/array". This sort of formal construct is important to programming, and the piece provides an interactive artistic 'reflection' of an item of interest for computing. The piece not only uses code as a raw material, but also reflects and surfaces the underlying data structure as the subject material for the art. Software Art, with its emphasis on code and program as raw material, and Aesthetic Computing, with its focus on exploring the "Utility Space" extending from Software Art to Art Software (using art for new representations for all aspects of the computing discipline) will forge a stronger connection between art and computing. We are re-establishing a previously lost connection between usable artifacts and new cultures for artistic expression. The two need not be complementary goals. [1] <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.proce55ing.net">http://www.proce55ing.net</a> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.proce55ing.net/_">http://www.proce55ing.net/_</a> [2] <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=10269&text=20140#20140">http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=10269&text=20140#20140</a> [3] <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~fishwick/aescomputing">http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~fishwick/aescomputing</a> [4] <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.proce55ing.net/learning/examples/distance_2d.html">http://www.proce55ing.net/learning/examples/distance_2d.html</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 7. Date: 9.26.03-10.02.03 From: Shirley Shor (ShirleyS@friskit.com)–forwarded by Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org), Andreas Broeckmann (abroeck@transmediale.de), Pall Thayer (palli@pallit.lhi.is) Subject: Rhizome – Software Art Installation Shirley Shor (ShirleyS@friskit.com) posted: Begin forwarded message: From: "Shirley Shor" (ShirleyS@friskit.com) Date: Fri Sep 26, 2003 1:48:32 PM US/Eastern To: "Shirley Shor" (ShirleyS@friskit.com) Subject: Rhizome – Software Art Installation _____ Rhizome, 2003 Software Art and sound installation by Shirley Shor PC projection, custom software, balloon, speakers <a rel="nofollow" href="http://shirley.friskit.com/dance/rhizome_sfac.htm">http://shirley.friskit.com/dance/rhizome_sfac.htm</a> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://shirley.friskit.com/work.htm">http://shirley.friskit.com/work.htm</a>) (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://shirley.friskit.com/media/dance/rhizome.jpg">http://shirley.friskit.com/media/dance/rhizome.jpg</a>) "Is art programmable? Can software itself be art?" – Gerfried Stocker In this piece I'm using software as a material and a medium for artistic work. The visuals are dynamically generated in real-time by custom PC software and are projected on a 8' diameter weather balloon. the result is an evolving ambient light- sculpture. In Rhizome space itself becomes engulfed in time. Space becomes temporal. The environment is generated by software code that generates an on- going random path, and a playful evolving structure. The complex system is twisting around unfixed center point, and creates a notion of turbulence. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://shirley.friskit.com">http://shirley.friskit.com</a> (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://shirley.friskit.com/work.htm">http://shirley.friskit.com/work.htm</a>) Now on view @ San Francisco Arts Commission Gallery September 10 - October 26, 2003 ** Experimental electronic soundtrack credit: Alon Sadot + + + Andreas Broeckmann (abroeck@transmediale.de) replied: if shirley's project (which looks beautiful) were to fall under the category of 'software art', wouldn't that mean that we have to group everything that is 'generative design' under this header, just because there is a piece of code generating the graphics in realtime? for me, it still makes more sense to use the notion of 'software art' for projects that reflect on software as an artistic material and as a cultural artifact, rather than simply _using_ software. i have not seen the documentation for the piece, but from what i can see, it would not qualify for the transmediale software art competition. greetings, -a + + + Pall Thayer (palli@pallit.lhi.is) replied: I was almost tempted to agree. I'm not really sure why though. Maybe because we've become accustomed to accessibility to software art via the internet. In this case however, the internet doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. Then maybe it's because it appears that we don't get to use it (no interactivity). It's something created only for Shirley's use. Maybe because it includes elements that have nothing to do with the computer (weather baloon). The more I tried to come up with a reason to not categorize this as 'software art' the closer I came to actually classifying it as 'software art'. Of course the lack of information about the project doesn't really help. But what it comes down to is that if Shirley claims to be using artist made software in an art context then it must be 'software art'. How does this work (or at least our perception of it based on the information provided) differ from say, Mark Napier's "SpringyDotsApplet" in CODeDOC? I understand what you mean about the notion of 'software art' as reflection on software as an artistic material and cultural artifact and despite the preferred theories of ReadMe and Transmediale, I don't think this is the generally accepted idea of 'software art'. What I mean is that when people hear the term 'software art', I don't think your definition is the first thing to enter their minds. This may even be reflected in the transmediale '03 jury statement for the software category: "The jury was also very aware that the particular set of projects submitted to the competition do not completely reflect the full range of the activities that fit into the scope of the competition." It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have conflicting understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the case, that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on software and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff? Pall + + + Shirley Shor replied: Andreas, I think that we are beyond the point of thinking about software art (or code art) only as a tool separated from the art discourse. I agree that for a while we had a need to define this art form in order to investigate, understand, learn to use, and to realize what kind of medium/material we are dealing with. We had to find the limitations of this medium but also to find the cracks, and the folds. In this sense, it was natural to deal and to focus on works that reflect on software as an artistic material. My point is that we where in this situation about seven years ago. This doesn't mean that we need to stop asking those questions about that medium itself (did we ever stop asking about the nature of panting? photography?). What I'm saying is that we are now ready to express software art through fine art itself. In other words, to combine code (as a raw material) with other methods, other mediums, and other disciplines in order to create works of fine art. It doesn¹t mean that these work are not going to deliver the essence of "software art", on the contrary, in my opinion, a good software are piece is going reflect on this issue anyway as one of several layer of meaning. I would like one to understand what software is by experiencing it. The software-ness of the piece emerges with the real-time experience, without being talked about directly. In my personal work I attempt to create real-time visuals that are generated by a code, and based on a set of simple rules that create complex orders. My pieces usually consist of abstract lines and surfaces in motion. These generate organic-like architectures to challenge our perception of space, time and boundaries. I do software art because I feel it is the best medium for me to express the notion of real-time. It is the only way for text-image and the world to become one. Real-time allows me to reclaim the lost aura of the digital product, since every given moment is unique, and never self-repetitive. My piece ³Rhizome² is a software art installation. The physical space, the objects and the settings are the body of this piece, but the code is the heart and soul of it. Code keeps it alive. I have the access to penetrate it, to change it and to deconstruct it, I'm using the subtitle "software art installation" for several reasons. First, this is what the work is. It is not a Video or a DVD projection, it is not linear animation, and it is not a traditional installation. Secondly, the code that generates the piece is a very important component. It is actually not "just a piece of code", but a custom C++ software that took a large amount of time and effort to design and write. The code was born from a conceptual idea I had, and was evolved, modified and virtually grown to become a customizable platform that I'm using in several of my projects. This is a big part of the artistic process. In one level, the code operates as a raw material to be realized in the physical space. This allows me to specify concepts and ideas that are visually realized by the computer in the space. Simultaneously, on another level, the code generates stochastic mutations and variations of my ideas and constraints so it function more than a traditional physical material it is actively participating in the piece on the creative and dynamic level. Keep it real, Shirley Shor + + + Andreas Broeckmann replied: dear pall, thanks for your response, "But what it comes down to is that if Shirley claims to be using artist made software in an art context then it must be 'software art'. How does this work (or at least our perception of it based on the information provided) differ from say, Mark Napier's "SpringyDotsApplet" in CODeDOC?" well, maybe it doesn't, which is why Napier's piece may also not qualify; what i am trying to argue is that to say that any 'artist made software in an art context must be software art', is reductive and makes the term utterly redundant. you can do that, but it only means that we have to develop a different term that holds the notion of reflexivity which i am arguing for. "It sounds like they didn't receive the types of submissions they were expecting which may just be because the artists themselves have conflicting understandings of the term 'software art'. But if this is to be the case, that the term 'software art' applies only to work that reflects on software and software culture, then what term do we apply to the other stuff?" depends what it is: can be net art, can be generative design, can be interactive performance, all sorts of things; the way i understood the last jury at transmediale, what they meant was more in the line of what the tm.01 software jury also argued: within the field of software art ('restricted understanding'), many possible tracks have not been explored yet. you can also check out the many categories on runme.org. where, in this cosmos, would you locate shirley's work? regards, -a + + + Pall Thayer replied: Hi Andreas, My main concern is defining programming and scripting languages as artistic tools. I think they should be more widely taught in art academies and departments as artistic tools. It doesn't really matter what the end product is called. Anyone can try as much as they want to coin a certain term and decide it's meaning but in the end the artists themselves will provide the definition. The only reason I have a problem with what you are saying is this: take something like Napiers SpringyDots. It's art. It's software. Isn't it then software art? I think a term like 'software art' is too ambiguous to be something that defines a specific genre of computer related artwork (one of these days, we'll probably have a bunch of sub-categories like 'abstract visual software art', 'interface software art', 'data-relation software art', 'faulty error-prone software art', etc). Besides, doesn't work that reflects or critiques a certain element of daily life (such as the use of computers and computer programs) already have some kind of sub-category within the arts? Take for instance the project you mention by Matthew Fuller (the MS Word dialogue boxes). Let's say someone does similar work involving all the different street signs that can be found along Main Street in Mytown, Whereever (it's probably been done by someone). Isn't it the same sort of work? Aren't they addressing very similar issues? Should we then call the streetsign project 'street art'? Let's take another example, Eldar Karhalev and Ivan Khimin's Screen Saver. One of the winners of the Read_Me 1.2 festival. This type of instructional artwork isn't new and isn't unique to computers. Sounds to me more like Fluxus than software. I don't feel that we need a term that separates work about software from work about kitchen sinks. But I do feel that there is a need to establish the process of creating certain types of software as an artistic act so that it may be properly addressed within the art community and schools. As far as Shirley's work goes, as I said before, the artists will define what is and what is not software art. If she says it's software art, who are we to argue? Presenting this type of 'software art' as an installation piece is very interesting. Poses a lot of questions. As I mentioned sometime before, artists software is usually approachable by the public. You can download it and do stuff with it and gain a first hand experience of it as software running on your own computer. But why should that mean that it's 'more' software than Shirley's project? Appearantly she's using the same processes as artists who present their software on the internet and elsewhere in that she's using code and the essence of code to generate visual artwork. Pall + + + Andreas Broeckmann replied: dear pall, thanks for your interesting answer. i take your point and want to think about what you say, because it seems reasonable, and i don't want to argue just for the sake of an argument. my feeling is that a case should still be made for a less general notion of software art, but at the moment i could only repeat myself, so i will shut up and come back to it when i have a clearer mind. there are other people who have also argued against the notion of software art altogether, as it creates another niche, another imprecise sub-genre of the already contested media art field. i'm aware of that problem, but i also believe that strategically the attention to software in particular has some relevance. i'll leave it here and will respond later, if i have points to add. best regards, -a + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the New Museum of Contemporary Art. . Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Feisal Ahmad (feisal@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 8, number 40. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>.