<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: June 02, 2006<br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+opportunity+<br />1. amanda mcdonald crowley: Electrohype 2006<br />2. [vChannel]&quot;: Call for videos: image vs. music<br />3. Andrew Hutchison: Call for Papers - The Future of Digital Media Culture<br />4. Colleen Tully: Pixel Pops! in Praque<br />5. eb@randomseed.org: Call for artworks - INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition<br /><br />+announcement+<br />6. carlos katastrofsky: Media Ontology - Mapping of Social and Art<br />History of Novi Sad<br />7. Sreshta Premnath: SHIFTER 8: Rules &amp; Representations<br />8. Christiane Paul: jihui digital salon presents Ken Feingold – Thurs.<br />June 8, 6 PM<br /><br />+thread+<br />9. Curt Cloninger, Michael Szpakowski, Marisa Olson, marc, Patrick May,<br />Rob Myers, Alexis Turner, Eric Dymond, Ryan Griffis, Dirk Vekemans: notes<br />for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering Organizational Subscriptions, group memberships<br />that can be purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions<br />allow participants at institutions to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. For a discounted rate, students<br />or faculty at universities or visitors to art centers can have access to<br />Rhizome?s archives of art and text as well as guides and educational tools<br />to make navigation of this content easy. Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized Organizational Subscriptions to qualifying institutions in poor<br />or excluded communities. Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for<br />more information or contact Lauren Cornell at LaurenCornell@Rhizome.org<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />1.<br /><br />From: amanda mcdonald crowley &lt;amc@autonomous.org&gt;<br />Date: May 29, 2006<br />Subject: Electrohype 2006<br /><br />Call for entries. Electrohype 2006 ? the fourth Nordic biennial for<br />computer based art<br /><br />Deadline July 3rd 2006 ? material via ordinary mail should be postmarked<br />by this date.<br /><br />Electrohype is pleased to announce this call for entries for the<br />exhibition that will be a follow up to the previous large Electrohype<br />exhibitions in 2000, 2002 and 2004.<br /><br />The exhibition will take place in Lunds Konsthall from December 9th to<br />January 7th.<br /><br />This year the exhibition will be in both a new venue and a new city. Lunds<br />Konsthall is located in the central part of Lund, in the south of Sweden.<br />Lund is approximately 20 km north of Malmo where previous Electrohype<br />exhibitions has been presented.<br /><br />Lunds Konsthall, built in 1957, is a beautiful exhibition spaces in late<br />functionalist architecture style. The exhibition space has a flexible<br />semi-open layout with a total exhibition surface of approximately 600 -<br />800 square meters. The annual number of visitors in Lunds Konsthall is 95<br />000.<br /><br />The exhibition will present works by 8 ? 10 artists or artist groups. The<br />concept of the Electrohype biennial is that it shall be a Nordic<br />exhibition but this does not exclude works by artists from outside the<br />Nordic region. To give the exhibition a broad perspective we are usually<br />working with a 50/50model, 50 percent from the Nordic region and 50<br />percent from the rest of the world.<br /><br />Since the decision to realize the exhibition was made just recently we<br />have not yet decided on a theme or topic for this exhibition. This also<br />explains the short deadline.<br /><br />In addition to the main exhibition there will also be an exhibition with<br />the topic ?electronic art in public space? at the Museum of Sketches in<br />Lund, a museum dedicated to public art. Most of the artworks in the museum<br />are in the form of models, visualizations and sketches. This exhibition<br />will be presented during the same period as the main exhibition. This<br />call, and the application form, does not include this exhibition, however<br />if you have knowledge of, or have realized a project you think we should<br />know of feel free to send us a short description<br />(maximum 1/2 page) and link to a project page. Please write ?public? in<br />the subject line.<br /><br />Important dates<br />Deadline for this call for entries July 3rd 2006<br />Exhibition opening December 9th 2006<br />Exhibition closing January 7th 2007<br /><br />Please feel free to re-distribute this call.<br /><br />What kind of art are we looking for?<br />Electrohype has since the start in 1999 focused on what we choose to call<br />computer based art. Art that runs of computers and utilizes the capacity<br />of the computer to mix various media, allow interaction with the audience,<br />or machines interacting with each others etc. in other words art that can<br />not be transferred to ?traditional? linear media. This might seem as a<br />narrow approach but we have discovered that it gives us a better focus on<br />a genre that in no way is narrow.<br /><br />We are not looking for ?straight? video art (even if it is edited on a<br />computer) or still images rendered on computers and other material that<br />refers to more ?traditional? media forms. Forms were the traditional tools<br />have been replaced with computers and software.<br />Practical<br />An online application form and a PDF form can be found on this address:<br />www.electrohype.org/2006<br /><br />NOTE: Please do NOT send documentation material as attachments to e-mail<br />and do NOT send 8 pages CVs. Put your material online and send us the url<br />or ftp address or send us a CD in the mail. Please read the form and<br />follow the guidelines. We receive a large amount of proposals and all of<br />them are reviewed closely. To be able to do this we ask you to follow the<br />structure in the application form and the topics mentioned above.<br />Financial<br />We are still working on the fundraising for the exhibition. We will<br />hopefully have final numbers sometime during this summer. We will have to<br />adjust the final selection of works for exhibition according to the<br />financial situation. This is unfortunate but it is also necessary, art is<br />beautiful but financial reality is harsh.<br /><br />We will encourage everyone submitting material to look for possibilities<br />for local funding to help cover costs for transport, travel and rent of<br />technical equipment.<br /><br />In previous exhibitions we have managed to keep a high level both in<br />artistic content and exhibition design, even on a modest budget. It is<br />therefore very important for us to avoid unpleasant surprises, so please<br />keep this in mind when filling out the various posts in the form,<br />especially when it comes to technical requirements, transport weight etc.<br /><br />We are looking forward to see new and interesting works of art.<br /><br />Best regards from the Electrohype team<br /><br />Anna Kindvall and Lars Gustav Midboe<br /><br />For additional info please visit our web site at:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.electrohype.org/2006">http://www.electrohype.org/2006</a><br /><br />::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<br /><br />ELECTROHYPE<br />Drottninggatan 6A<br />212 11 Malm&#xF6;<br />SWEDEN<br /><br />+46 40 18 26 90<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.electrohype.org">http://www.electrohype.org</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />2.<br /><br />From: [vChannel] &lt;virtu@kulturserver-nrw.de&gt;<br />Date: May 31, 2006<br />Subject: Call for videos: image vs. music<br /><br />Call for propsals<br />Deadline 1 July 2006<br />——————————————————————.<br />VideoChannel<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videochannel.newmediafest.org">http://videochannel.newmediafest.org</a><br />videochannel@newmediafest.org<br /><br />organiser of<br />1st Cologne Online Film Festival (CologneOFF)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://coff.newmediafest.org">http://coff.newmediafest.org</a><br />featuring film &amp; videos on the theme &quot;gender identity&quot;.<br /><br />is now planning the<br />2nd Cologne Online Film Festival (CologneOFF)<br />to be launched in October 2006<br />in the framework of KlangDrang Festival Cologne (6-7 October 2006)<br />www.klangdrang.org<br />and to be screened in the framework of VideoChannel screenings during the<br />festival<br /><br />———————————————————————<br />VideoChannel<br />is looking for digital films/videos<br />dealing with the interaction of image &amp; music/sound,<br />a theme which is referring to the character of the festival of sonic art<br />(KlangDrang)<br />#<br />Film and video are basically visual media.<br />Even if used and recognized as an important component,<br />has music in this context mostly rather a colorizing and atmospheric<br />character.<br />The films/videos VideoChannel is looking for<br />should give image &amp; music an equal or music even a dominating status,<br />which may be worked out in most different ways, for instance—&gt;<br />music as the theme of the story, films reflecting music through images and<br />viceversa, the visalization of music, and much more.<br />#<br />There are no restricting categories, the submission of experimental works<br />is encouraged.<br />The call is inviting artists to submit up to three proposals.<br />The deadline is 1 July 2006<br />#<br />The entry information can be found on<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://netex.nmartproject.net/index.php?blog=8&cat=54">http://netex.nmartproject.net/index.php?blog=8&cat=54</a><br /><br />but can be also downloaded as PDF<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://downloads.nmartproject.net/videoCHANNEL_call_image_vs_music.pdf">http://downloads.nmartproject.net/videoCHANNEL_call_image_vs_music.pdf</a><br />———————————————————-<br />Visit also the online collection of VideoChannel<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://videochannel.newmediafest.org">http://videochannel.newmediafest.org</a><br /><br />VideoChannel started recently a complete<br />reconstruction and will be relaunched in September 2006<br /><br />———————————————————-<br />VideoChannel is a joint venture between<br />Cinematheque at MediaArtCentre<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://cinematheque.le-musee-divisioniste.org">http://cinematheque.le-musee-divisioniste.org</a><br />and [R][R][F] 200X - global networking project<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rrf200x.newmediafest.org">http://rrf200x.newmediafest.org</a><br />———————————————————-<br />Released by<br />NetEX - networked experience<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://netex.nmartproject.net">http://netex.nmartproject.net</a><br />powered by<br />[NewMediaArtProjectNetwork]:||cologne<br />www.nmartproject.net -<br />the experimental platform for art and New Media<br />operating from Cologne/Germany.<br />.<br />info&amp; contact<br />info (at) nmartproject.net<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />From: Andrew Hutchison &lt;a.hutchison@curtin.edu.au&gt;<br />Date: May 31, 2006<br />Subject: Call for Papers - The Future of Digital Media Culture<br /><br />Call for Papers - Please distribute to relevant forums<br /><br />perthDAC 2007 - The Future of Digital Media Culture<br />7th International Digital Arts and Culture Conference<br />15 -18th September 2007, Perth, Australia.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.beap.org/dac">http://www.beap.org/dac</a><br /><br />KEYWORDS - computer games, hypertext theory and literature, new media<br />narrative, streaming media, interactive and networked performance, digital<br />aesthetics, interactive cinema, theory, art, bio-art, nano-art, augmented<br />reality, cyberculture, electronic fiction, electronic music, electronic<br />art, games culture, games system design, games theory, interactive<br />architecture, cinema and video, MOOs, MUDs, RPG, virtual reality, virtual<br />worlds.<br />ABOUT perthDAC<br />perthDAC is the seventh iteration of Digital Arts and Culture. DAC was the<br />first conference to attract and present the work of researchers,<br />practitioners and artists working across the field of digital arts,<br />cultures, aesthetics and design.<br /><br />In September 2007, DAC will be hosted as the key international conference<br />in the public program of the Biennale of Electronic Arts Perth (BEAP) in<br />Perth, Australia. BEAP celebrates and critiques new and novel technologies<br />(digital, bio, nano, other) by showcasing artworks made with, or that are<br />about, new technologies. perthDAC's conference program will be closely<br />inter-woven with BEAP's exhibitions.<br /><br />perthDAC's academic programme is being developed with the close<br />co-operation and support of the fibreculture forum, who will also be<br />active on the perthDAC conference steering committee.<br /><br />CALL FOR PAPERS<br />Papers are sought for PerthDAC 2007 that will illuminate both the near and<br />long term Future of Digital Media Culture. Papers which present research<br />outcomes, track trends or developments, describe case studies or works in<br />progress, are speculative projection, challenge existing paradigms or<br />record a history, are all welcome. Submissions are encouraged from any<br />professional, craft or scholarly field that relates to communications<br />art/design, cultural expression, practice and aesthetics, and the<br />technical means by which they are enabled.<br /><br />perthDAC 2007 accepts submissions from fields such as the humanities,<br />social sciences, human-computer interaction and computer science studies,<br />as well as those working both practically and theoretically in specific<br />areas such as: digital/interactive art, digital/electronic literature,<br />game studies, online communities, new media studies, affective computing,<br />experience design, virtual environment design, etc.<br /><br />Topics of interests may include, but are not limited to, computer games,<br />hypertext theory and literature, new media narrative, streaming media,<br />interactive and networked performance, digital aesthetics, interactive<br />cinema, theory, art, bio-art, nano-art, augmented reality, cyberculture,<br />electronic fiction, electronic music, electronic art, games culture, games<br />system design, games theory, interactive architecture, cinema and video,<br />MOOs, MUDs, RPG, virtual reality, virtual worlds.<br />Artists, early career scholars and PhD students are particularly<br />encouraged to submit.<br />All abstracts and then full papers will be double blind peer reviewed by<br />an international panel, and will be published in the proceedings. Some<br />papers will be published as a special themed journal edition.<br /><br />Dates for the submission of 500 word abstracts and then full papers are:<br />Abstracts: 14th August 2006<br /><br />Full papers: 4th December 2006<br /><br />See the perthDAC website 'method' page for more details on the abstracts,<br />papers and presentations process.<br /><br />perthDAC website <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.beap.org/dac">http://www.beap.org/dac</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Support Rhizome: buy a hosting plan from BroadSpire<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/hosting/">http://rhizome.org/hosting/</a><br /><br />Reliable, robust hosting plans from $65 per year.<br /><br />Purchasing hosting from BroadSpire contributes directly to Rhizome's<br />fiscal well-being, so think about about the new Bundle pack, or any other<br />plan, today!<br /><br />About BroadSpire<br /><br />BroadSpire is a mid-size commercial web hosting provider. After conducting<br />a thorough review of the web hosting industry, we selected BroadSpire as<br />our partner because they offer the right combination of affordable plans<br />(prices start at $14.95 per month), dependable customer support, and a<br />full range of services. We have been working with BroadSpire since June<br />2002, and have been very impressed with the quality of their service.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />From: Colleen Tully &lt;colleen.tully@recol.com&gt;<br />Date: Jun 1, 2006<br />Subject: Pixel Pops! in Praque<br /><br />Pixel Pops! Submission Deadline Extension and Exhibition Date Change -<br />New Deadline: 8 July 2006<br /><br />Call for Submissions - Pixel Pops!<br /><br />International exhibition in October 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic.<br />This is an artist-organized exhibition, coordinated by Natalia Vasquez<br />(Miami, US), Michal Blazek (Prague, Czech Republic), and Joan Sanchez<br />(Barcelona, Spain).<br /><br />There are no fees to enter.<br />This will be a juried show based on work submitted.<br /><br />We will arrange to display a variety of digital works. All work must show<br />evidence of extensive computer manipulation or be otherwise highly<br />digital.<br /><br />Acceptable Formats:<br />—Web-based Works (No live Internet available for exhibit, all work<br />should be self-contained. See information below.)<br /><br />—Short Videos &amp; Animations (1-3 minutes preferred, will accept up to 7<br />minutes)<br />*Upload a tiny file (180x120 is OK) for jurying.<br /><br />*It is important that you also send us a file that is big enough for<br />display (up to 10megabytes by email) by the 8 July deadline.<br /><br />*Also send a DVD with your work by 22July (this will ensure high quality<br />resolution for projection)<br /><br />* see shipping address below<br /><br />—Interactive Works (Flash, Director, MaxMSP/Jitter)<br />Interactive works can be &quot;recorded&quot; and uploaded up to 10megabytes.<br />Interactive works must have an additional auto-run mode.<br /><br />Information:<br />*All submitted work must be able to run locally (on a hard drive) in a<br />web browser such as Netscape or Firefox. Please submit by sending an<br />email to poppingpixels@gmail.com with an attachment or web link to your work.<br /><br />*Attach a brief artist statement and a description of your work (up to 1<br />page) as a word document. Texts accepted in English, Espanol, Francais.<br /><br />*Copyright Info: All artists accepted for this exhibition will retain<br />ownership of copyright and all other rights to their artwork. We retain<br />the right to use images of accepted artwork for promotional reasons<br />concerning the exhibition or future projects.<br /><br />*Multiple submissions are accepted and encouraged!<br /><br />*All participating artists will have their work added to the Popping<br />Pixels site. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.poppingpixels.org">http://www.poppingpixels.org</a> (Last year's exhibition: New<br />Haven, CT, US- Coordinated by artists Cynthia Beth Rubin and Colleen<br />Tully)<br /><br />*Artists interested in selling your work, please specify with your<br />submission. We will have a list and will connect you with the interested<br />buyer. We will NOT handle sales directly!<br /><br />*********Digital Photographers- this will not be a photography exhibition,<br />but if you've made any remarkable slideshows, videos from stills, or have<br />made your images interactive, please submit!<br /><br />Accepted entries will be announced on Friday 18 August 2006<br /><br />SUMMARY:<br />-SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 8 July 2006<br /><br />-SUBMISSION E-MAIL: poppingpixels@gmail.com<br />(Subject: SUBMISSION)<br /><br />-ATTACH:<br />&amp;#8721; Submission(see above for formats)<br />&amp;#8721; Artist Statement<br />&amp;#8721; Description of your work.<br /><br />-CD/DVD DEADLINE: 22 July 2006<br /><br />Shipping Address:<br />Natalia Vasquez<br />Ondrickova 7<br />130 00 Praha 3<br />Czech Republic<br />*Please note that shipping time from the U.S. to the Czech Republic is<br />approximately 2 weeks. Mark your package &quot;No Commercial Value&quot; and use the<br />value of actual CD or DVD (approximately 5USD or Euros)*<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />From: eb@randomseed.org &lt;eb@randomseed.org&gt;<br />Date: Jun 2, 2006<br />Subject: Call for artworks - INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition<br /><br />———————————————————————-<br /> CALL FOR ARTWORKS - please forward<br />———————————————————————-<br /><br />INTERFACE and SOCIETY<br />a project by Atelier Nord <a rel="nofollow" href="http://anart.no">http://anart.no</a><br /><br />exhibition Nov.10th - Nov.19th 2006 at Henie Onstad Kunstsenter Oslo Norway.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/">http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/</a><br /><br />Atelier Nord is looking for artworks/installations concerning the<br />transformation of our everyday live<br />through electronic interfaces (see details below).<br /><br />APPLICATION DEADLINE 1st July 2006.<br /><br />Please apply via email to sense@anart.no<br />subject: INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition<br />with the following information:<br /><br />1) Project name / year of production<br />2) Artist name(s) + email / contact information<br />3) Short project description<br />4) Project URL + URL for online documentation (pdf, pictures, video)<br />5) Short CV<br /><br />Alternatively you can send the requested information via snailmail to:<br /><br />Atelier Nord<br />Lakkegata 55 D<br />N-0187 Oslo Norway<br />ad: INTERFACE and SOCIETY exhibition<br /><br />———————————————————————-<br /><br />INTERFACE and SOCIETY<br /><br />In our everyday life we constantly have to cope more or less successfully<br />with interfaces. We use the mobile phone, the mp3 player, and our laptop,<br />in order to gain access to the digital part of our life. In recent years<br />this situation has lead to the creation of new interdisciplinary subjects<br />like &quot;Interaction Design&quot; or &quot;Physical Computing&quot;.<br /><br />We live between two worlds, our physical environment and the digital<br />space. Technology and its digital space are our second nature and the<br />interfaces are our points of access to this technosphere.<br /><br />Since artists started working with technology they have been developing<br />interfaces and modes of interaction. The interface itself became an<br />artistic thematic.<br /><br />The project INTERFACE and SOCIETY investigates how artists deal with the<br />transformation of our everyday life through technical interfaces.<br /><br />With the rapid technological development a thoroughly critique of the<br />interface towards society is necessary.<br /><br />The role of the artist is thereby crucial. S/he has the freedom to deal<br />with technologies and interfaces beyond functionality and usability. The<br />project INTERFACE and SOCIETY is looking at this development with a<br />special focus on the artistic contribution.<br /><br />———————————————————————-<br /><br />INTERFACE and SOCIETY is an umbrella for a range of<br />activities throughout 2006 at Atelier Nord in Oslo.<br />Read more at:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/">http://anart.no/projects/interface-and-society/</a><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Exhibitions<br /><br />The GIF Show, open May 3-June 3, at San Francisco's Rx Gallery, takes the<br />pulse of what some net surfers have dubbed ?GIF Luv,? a recent frenzy of<br />file-sharing and creative muscle-flexing associated with GIFs (Graphic<br />Interchange Format files). Curated by Rhizome Editor &amp; Curator at Large,<br />Marisa Olson, the show presents GIFs and GIF-based videos, prints,<br />readymades, and sculptures by Cory Arcangel, Peter Baldes, Michael<br />Bell-Smith, Jimpunk, Olia Lialina, Abe Linkoln, Guthrie Lonergan, Lovid,<br />Tom Moody, Paper Rad, Paul Slocum, and Matt Smear (aka 893). GIFs have a<br />rich cultural life on the internet and each bears specific stylistic<br />markers. From Myspace graphics to advertising images to porn banners, and<br />beyond, GIFs overcome resolution and bandwidth challenges in their<br />pervasive population of the net. Animated GIFs, in particular, have<br />evolved from a largely cinematic, cell-based form of art practice, and<br />have more recently been incorporated in music videos and employed as<br />stimulating narrative devices on blogs. From the flashy to the minimal,<br />the sonic to the silent, the artists in The GIF Show demonstrate the<br />diversity of forms to be found in GIFs, and many of them comment on the<br />broader social life of these image files.<br /><br />Become MySpace friends with the exhibit!<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.myspace.com/gifshow">http://www.myspace.com/gifshow</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />From: carlos katastrofsky &lt;carlos.katastrofsky@gmx.net&gt;<br />Date: May 29, 2006<br />Subject: Media Ontology - Mapping of Social and Art History of Novi Sad<br /><br />Media Ontology -<br />Mapping of Social and Art History of Novi Sad<br />Curated by Zoran Panteli? and Kristian Luci?<br /><br />Opening: Wednesday, 31. 05. 2006, 7.00 p.m.<br />Symposium and book presentation:<br />Thursday, 01. 06. 2006, 2.00 - 6.00 p.m., &quot;On Media Ontology&quot;, moderated<br />by Georg Sch&#xF6;llhammer<br />(springerin, documenta)<br />With Cosmin Costinas (documenta B&#xFC;ro Wien), Vuc ?osi? (Netart Veterane),<br />Kristian Luki? (Museum of<br />Contemporary Art Novi Sad / Eastwood ), Zoran Panteli? (kuda.org /<br />Apsolutno), Felix Stalder (Openflows<br />Networks Ltd.).<br />Presentation of the book &quot;The Absolute Report&quot;, edited by Association<br />Apsolutno, in cooperation with<br />Inke Arns, Andreas Broeckmann, Lev Manovich, Geert Lovink, u.a.,<br />published by springerin/revolver<br /><br />Duration of the exhibition : 01. 06.- 21. 06. 2006<br />Monday - Friday, 2.00 - 6.00 p.m.<br />Place: Galerie ArtPoint<br />Universit&#xE4;tsstra&#xDF;e 5, 1010 Vienna<br />A Project by: KulturKontakt Austria in cooperation with<br />springerin - Hefte f&#xFC;r Gegenwartskunst and documenta-office Wien<br /><br />Admission free!<br /><br />________________________<br />Mag. Sabine Hochrieser<br /><br />KulturKontakt Austria<br />Culture + Sponsoring<br />Exhibition Coordination<br /><br />Universit&#xE4;tsstra&#xDF;e 5<br />1010 Wien/Vienna<br />t +43 1 523 87 65-45<br />f +43 1 523 87 65-50<br />sabine.hochrieser@kulturkontakt.or.at &lt;&lt;KudaKarte.pdf&gt;&gt;<br />www.kulturkontakt.or.at<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org 2005-2006 Net Art Commissions<br /><br />The Rhizome Commissioning Program makes financial support available to<br />artists for the creation of innovative new media art work via<br />panel-awarded commissions.<br /><br />For the 2005-2006 Rhizome Commissions, eleven artists/groups were selected<br />to create original works of net art.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/commissions/">http://rhizome.org/commissions/</a><br /><br />The Rhizome Commissions Program is made possible by support from the<br />Jerome Foundation in celebration of the Jerome Hill Centennial, the<br />Greenwall Foundation, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and<br />the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. Additional support has<br />been provided by members of the Rhizome community.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />From: Sreshta Premnath &lt;rit.premnath@gmail.com&gt;<br />Date: May 31, 2006<br />Subject: SHIFTER 8: Rules &amp; Representations<br /><br />SHIFTER 8<br />Rules &amp; Representations<br /><br />Mauro Altamura<br />Igor Baskin<br />Chris Bors<br />Cammi Climaco<br />Ben Colebrook<br />Sunoj D<br />Michael Eddy<br />Seth Ellis<br />Curtis Evans<br />Swetha Gowri<br />Benjamin Grasso<br />Alina Viola Grumiller<br />Vandana Jain<br />Sonia Jose<br />Misako Kitaoka<br />Miranda Maher<br />Alisdair McRae<br />Anne M. Platoff<br />Ana Prvacki<br />Kamya Ramachandran<br />Dan Levenson<br />Nora Schultz<br />Ruben Verdu<br />Anna Vitale<br />Bethany Wright<br />Joe Zane<br /><br />Editor: Sreshta Rit Premnath<br />Associate Editor: G?nner Heiliger Von L?gen<br />Critical Advisor: Pieter DeHeijde<br />Design + Copy: IF<br /><br />www.shifter-magazine.com<br />When the Committee on Symbolic Articles Related to the First Lunar Landing<br />(Apollo 11) convened, they discussed the technical difficulties of<br />planting the American flag in the absence of an atmosphere. They devised a<br />horizontal beam to hold up the still flag, and prevent it from hanging<br />limp. The flag as a signifier depends on certain contextual<br />(environmental) properties in order to function - in fact its performative<br />meaning is completely dependent on its ability to wave and hence a<br />prevalent wind.<br /><br />The emptiness of a displaced signifier is a preoccupation in this issue.<br /><br />Possibilities:<br /><br />4) Can rules that have been formulated for a specific purpose be<br />appropriated, salvaged and put to unforeseen uses? What happens to this<br />appropriated structure/ language? What is its relationship to the source<br />structure/ language?<br /><br />1) (How) Does the represented Subject use the rules of their given<br />symbolic space to find and articulate their subjectivity within the rules<br />of that space. Raising the question of where within the homogenized<br />spheres of production and consumption in this globalizing society, are<br />there spaces for subjective articulation? In the performance of everyday<br />life? In revolt?<br /><br />2) If the Subject is (I)tself constituted as a representation of these<br />rules, are its articulations also a representation of the same rules? If<br />so, must we remove the term 'Subject' from the previous sentence?<br /><br />3) If the Subject is amputated from language, who speaks? And who is<br />spoken to?<br /><br />5)<br />&gt;&gt;About Shifter Magazine<br /><br />&gt;&gt;Shifter's nature is such that it changes every issue. What worked in the<br />previous issue doesn't work anymore. What failed may be substituted with<br />new deficiencies.<br /><br />&gt;&gt;Push-pull. Friction implicates touch. A gathering/ forced together. A<br />bunch. A collection of a hunch. Almost. Neither/Always, Nor/Already.<br /><br />&gt;&gt;Text points to image, image points to text, text points to text, image<br />points to image, text points to itself, image points to itself, text is<br />image. Text is equal to image.<br /><br />&gt;&gt;A Shifter's nature is such that it is nothing except for its pointing;<br />to itself, to its surroundings (context). It presumes the body, it's<br />meaning in relational, like a dislocated vector it moves from 'here' to<br />'there.' A Shifter is void if dislodged, it knows this, while<br />acknowledging this it searches for its framework, self-reflexive, yet<br />dependent. How to look for the stratum that constructs it when the<br />looking is structured by the very same framework.<br /><br />&gt;&gt;Neither questions nor answers. Only enunciations and then waiting to<br />see. Only relations and in-betweens. Points of contact.<br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8.<br /><br />From: Christiane Paul &lt;Christiane_Paul@whitney.org&gt;<br />Date: Jun 1, 2006<br />Subject: jihui digital salon presents Ken Feingold – Thurs. June 8, 6 PM<br /><br />jihui Digital Salon<br />in cooperation with The Project Room@Chelsea Art Museum<br />presents<br />Ken Feingold<br /><br />Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 6-8 PM<br />Chelsea Art Museum, 3rd Floor<br />556 West 22nd Street<br />New York, NY 10011<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://agent.netart-init.org">http://agent.netart-init.org</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.chelseaartmuseum.org">http://www.chelseaartmuseum.org</a><br />Ken Feingold will discuss his recent works involving computer-generated<br />performances, including new works not yet shown in New York. These pieces,<br />which the artist refers to as &quot;cinematic sculptures,&quot; often include<br />extremely realistic, speaking animatronic human heads that talk and<br />respond to viewers (&quot;Sinking Feeling,&quot; 2001; &quot;Lantern,&quot; 2005) or to each<br />other (&quot;If/Then,&quot; 2001; &quot;You,&quot; 2004; &quot;What If?,&quot; 2005). The listening and<br />speaking figures - digitally and pneumatically activated silicone<br />portraits - explore the unpredictability and complexity that language and<br />mind create between people. The dialogs are not pre-recorded and are<br />always different, generated in real time by computer programs written by<br />the artist. Feingold uses technology to give each figure a personality, a<br />vocabulary, associative habits, obsessions, and other traits of<br />personality that allow them to behave as if in different takes of a scene<br />in a film, acting out their role over and over, but always changing.<br />However, Feingold is not involved with artificial intelligence as a<br />scientist might be and these works are not intended to create a literal<br />simulation of a human being. He employs metaphors of the artificial to get<br />to what we understand about the real, how we communicate, and how meaning<br />often is elusive or transient.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.kenfeingold.com">http://www.kenfeingold.com</a><br /><br />KEN FEINGOLD (USA, 1952) has been exhibiting his work in film, video,<br />objects, and installations since 1974. After first studying at Antioch<br />College (Yellow Springs, Ohio), he received his B.F.A. and M.F.A. degrees<br />in ?Post-Studio Art? from California Institute of the Arts (CalArts),<br />Valencia, CA. Among the numerous awards and honors Feingold has received<br />are a Rockefeller Foundation Media Arts Fellowship (2003) and a Guggenheim<br />Foundation Fellowship (2004). He has taught at Princeton University and<br />Cooper Union, among other institutions. His work &quot;Interior&quot; (1997) was<br />commissioned for the first ICC Biennale '97, Tokyo; &quot;Seance Box No.1&quot; was<br />produced by the ZKM Karlsruhe and shown in the exhibition &quot;net_condition&quot;<br />(1999?2000); and &quot;Head&quot; (2000) was commissioned for the exhibition &quot;Alien<br />Intelligence&quot; (Feb-May 2000) by the Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art,<br />Helsinki. His work &quot;If/Then&quot; (2001) was included in the Whitney Biennial<br />2002, and three of his installations were in the Corcoran Biennial 2002.<br />&quot;Self Portrait as the Center of the Universe&quot; (1998 ? 2001) was shown at<br />Tate Liverpool in &quot;Art, Lies and Videotape: Exposing Performance&quot; (2004),<br />and a &quot;mid-career survey&quot; of his work was on view at Ace Gallery in Los<br />Angeles between October 2005 and February 2006. His works are in the<br />permanent collections of the Museum of Modern Art (Film Study Collection),<br />NY; Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris; Kiasma, Helsinki; ZKM Center for Art<br />and Media, Karlsruhe, and others. He has traveled widely, living for<br />extended periods of time in India, Japan, and Argentina and working for<br />shorter periods in many other countries. He lives in New York City and is<br />represented by ACE Gallery, New York/Los Angeles.<br />CURRENTLY ON VIEW AT THE CHELSEA ART MUSEUM:<br />Timetrackers, a new body of work from celebrated French artist, Champion<br />M&#xE9;tadier. This is the first time that this series of sixteen large-scale<br />paintings and drawings will be shown in America. The exhibition, which<br />runs from May 11 to July 15, is curated by Julia Draganovic, Director of<br />the Chelsea Art Museum.<br /><br />jihui (the meeting point), a self-regulated digital salon, invites all<br />interested people to send ideas for discussion/performance/etc.<br /><br />jihui is where your voice is heard and your vision shared.<br />jihui is a joint public program by NETART INITIATIVE and INTELLIGENT AGENT<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.netart-init.org">http://www.netart-init.org</a> | <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.intelligentagent.com">http://www.intelligentagent.com</a><br />THE PROJECT ROOM is a special projects and education program that brings<br />together international artists, curators, cultural, educational and<br />corporate organizations.<br />Producer / Curator: Nina Colosi<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />9.<br /><br />From: Curt Cloninger &lt;curt@lab404.com&gt;, Michael Szpakowski<br />&lt;szpako@yahoo.com&gt;, Marisa Olson &lt;marisa@rhizome.org&gt;, marc<br />&lt;marc.garrett@furtherfield.org&gt;, Patrick May &lt;patrick@rhizome.org&gt;, Rob<br />Myers &lt;rob@robmyers.org&gt;, Alexis Turner &lt;subbies@redheadedstepchild.org&gt;,<br />Eric Dymond &lt;dymond@idirect.ca&gt;, Ryan Griffis &lt;ryan.griffis@gmail.com&gt;,<br />Dirk Vekemans &lt;dv@vilt.net&gt;<br />Date: May 27, 2006 12:43 PM<br />Subject: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura<br /><br />+ Curt Cloninger posted: +<br /><br />Walter Benjamin says that people used to attach an &quot;aura&quot; (roughly, sense<br />of awe) to the scarce, original unique, physical art object. Benjamin<br />observes that since everything is now infinitely reproducible, we've lost<br />this aura.<br /><br />As an artist not making one-of-a-kind objects, where can I relocate the<br />aura? To answer ,&quot;In the network&quot; is like answering &quot;in the air,&quot; or &quot;in<br />time,&quot; or &quot;in existence.&quot; I need a more specific, behavioral/tactical<br />description of this new locus of awe and aura.<br /><br />Designer Clement Mok says designers should describe their practice not in<br />terms of media deliverables (&quot;I make websites&quot;), but as doctors and<br />lawyers do, in terms of services performed and results achieved. A doctor<br />doesn't say, &quot;I make incisions.&quot; A lawyer doesn't say, &quot;I generate<br />paperwork.&quot; This seems like a better way for a &quot;new media artist&quot; to<br />describe her art. (Note: Even the term &quot;new media artist&quot; describes her<br />in terms of media deliverables.) She shouldn't say, &quot;I make net art.&quot; <br />Better to say, &quot;I cause x to happen. I orchestrate x. I'm investigating<br />x.&quot; Thus in describing &quot;where&quot; I relocate the aura, I should avoid<br />saying, &quot;It's in the podcast, weblog, RSS feed, wearable mobile computing<br />device, etc.&quot;<br /><br />As an artist, my self-imposed mandate is to increase a more lively<br />dialogue with the Sundry Essences of Wonder. If wonder is akin to awe is<br />akin to aura, I'd better figure out where to relocate the aura.<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />There are four places I can house the aura that seem interesting:<br /><br />1. In the destabilized/variable event/object. Generative software makes<br />this possible. My bubblegum cards are a personal example (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/">http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/</a> ) Cage and<br />Kaprow are precedences. The aura is embedded in the chance and<br />variability that the artist invites into the destabilized/variable<br />performance.<br /><br />2. In the perpetually enacted and iterated act/stance/position. My<br />ongoing [remix] series of posts to rhizome RAW are a personal example. <br />Ray Johnson's life/death and mail art, Joseph Beuys pedagogy, and D.J.<br />Spooky's perpetual remix as talisman are precedences. Even Howard<br />Finster, Daniel Johnston, and Henry Darger qualify, albeit in a less<br />consciously tactical capacity – prodigiously outputting without thought<br />of object uniqueness/scarcity/worth/market value. The act of perpetual<br />creation is the art, and the output is (to greater or lesser degrees)<br />incidental ephemera. William Blake almost qualifies. The stream is<br />perpetual; it becomes the new &quot;event object;&quot; and in this stream the aura<br />is embedded. Note: This approach takes lots of energy.<br /><br />3. In the boundaries of context. Our Deep/Young Ethereal Archive (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://deepyoung.org">http://deepyoung.org</a> ) is a personal example. Precedences and co-examples<br />are: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.mjt.org/">http://www.mjt.org/</a> ,<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.grographics.com/theysaysmall/small/RotherhitheUniversity/">http://www.grographics.com/theysaysmall/small/RotherhitheUniversity/</a> ,<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.museum-ordure.org.uk/">http://www.museum-ordure.org.uk/</a> .<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thatwordwhichmeanssmugglingacrossbordersincorporated.com/">http://www.thatwordwhichmeanssmugglingacrossbordersincorporated.com/</a> ,<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dearauntnettie.com/gallery/">http://www.dearauntnettie.com/gallery/</a> . This approach necessarily<br />involves disorientation and re-orientation. The contextual frame is soft,<br />and the aura is embedded into this soft frame. Keeping this frame soft is<br />a delicate matter. It requires a heightened, sometimes schizophrenic<br />sense of performative awareness (cf: Ray Johnson, David Wilson). It may<br />require the artist to alienate &quot;real&quot; art institutions wishing to fit the<br />art into their frame. As the artist of such work, I can't overtly<br />foreground the soft contextual frame as my intended locus of aura. If I<br />do, the soft frame I'm working so hard to construct and keep soft<br />immediately solidifies and is in turn meta-framed by a much more solid,<br />didactic, &quot;artist statement&quot; frame; and the aura flies away. Note: Warhol<br />well understood that an object's scarcity was a silly contemporary place<br />for the aura to go. Instead, he ingeniously embedded the aura in the<br />foregrounded concept of the object's scarcity. His deep awareness of this<br />ironic relationship may explain why his art objects now sell for so much.<br />(cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dream-dollars.com/">http://www.dream-dollars.com/</a> ).<br /><br />4. In human relationships. Personal examples might be<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lab404.com/data/">http://www.lab404.com/data/</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/">http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/</a> .<br />Co-examples might be <a rel="nofollow" href="http://learningtoloveyoumore.com">http://learningtoloveyoumore.com</a> ,<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.foundmagazine.com/">http://www.foundmagazine.com/</a> , and some of Jillian McDonald's performance<br />pieces ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/performance.html">http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/performance.html</a> ). You could<br />describe this as &quot;network&quot; art, but compare it to Alex Galloway's<br />Carnivore, which is also network art, and you realize &quot;network&quot; is too<br />broad a term. This human relationship art is not about the network as an<br />abstract monolithic cultural entity. It is about humans who happen to be<br />interacting with each other via networks. The aura is embedded not in the<br />network, but in the human relationships that the art invites. As with<br />locus #1 (In the destabilized/variable event/object), this locus<br />necessarily involves chance, because human relationships necessarily<br />involve chance.<br /><br />These four places for housing the aura are not mutually exclusive.<br />Conceivably, a single artwork could house the aura in all four places. <br />This warrants further artistic investigation.<br />+ Michael Szpakowski replied: +<br /><br />HI Curt I *love* Benjamin, but I do think he is best read as a species of<br />poet rather than as a exponent of logical argument, which stuff is frankly<br />fairly thin on the ground in his oeuvre. A lot of the time he was just<br />plain *wrong* factually, but *right* poetically &amp; I think this was the<br />case re the question of &quot;aura&quot;. The sense of rightness, of the sublime &amp;c,<br />put it how you will, actually seems to me to be independent of epoch or<br />medium. So, for me, Kentridge, Tarkovsky, Nauman &lt;multiples&gt;, just scream<br />&quot;AURA, AURA, AURA!&quot; whereas Vettriano, Hirst &lt; physical, one of a kind&gt;<br />kind of whisper &quot;DUD, COMMERCE, DUMBING DOWN, FLATTERY, DUD.&quot;<br />+ marc replied: +<br /><br />I suspect the 'aura', has changed into something else now, and perhaps, if<br />we are open to it - we can find it not only in art but also in the<br />everyday, rather than through objects alone, posing as unique. For<br />'unique' is not necessarily a signifier of what is beautiful, or the<br />'aura'. If one was genuinely interested in 'feeling' what could be<br />'authentic', then one is at least closer to the essence of something<br />special or of value, but to contain it as art or as anything else for that<br />matter, more reflects a desire to contain the sublime and control what is<br />untouchable…<br />+ Marisa Olson replied: +<br /><br />Hey, guys. This thread is interesting. My two cents…<br /><br />I don't really think that the loss of the aura is such a bad thing–or<br />something that Benjamin necessarily laments. I read the aura as 'stuff<br />that gets in the way' (ie perceived phenom of a distance), or moreover, as<br />the immaterial (but weighty) presence of history, hegemony, and<br />aesthetics.<br /><br />I think that, in Benjamin's discussion of property systems, and<br />particularly in his citation of Marinetti's futurist proclamation that<br />&quot;war is beautiful,&quot; that he's call for us to relieve ourselves of<br />aesthetic models that impose certain negative relationships between works<br />and individuals. I believe he's saying that these same models inscribe our<br />subjectivity–as traced by our models of consumption–as victims of the<br />property/fascist system(s) that have beget our aesthetic systems. In this<br />vain, &quot;war is beautiful&quot; is not such a confusing statement. A fascist<br />system begets an aesthetic system that says X, Y, and Z equal beauty; ergo<br />war equals beauty. It's a way of seeing how violent the aesthetic &quot;regime&quot;<br />(to perhaps overdo it a bit) has become…<br /><br />Anyway, I'm travelling and don't have the book with me so I can't offer<br />any relevant quotes, but it's something I've also been thinking about<br />lately, so I wanted to chime in.<br />+ Curt Cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Marisa (and all),<br /><br />It is interesting how historical context can so color a theorists writing.<br /> Here's a classic irony: Greenberg once associated kitsch with the<br />academy. He likened Beaux Arts academic aesthetic-by-numbers to what<br />would now be the equivalent of a faux Roman columnar bird bath at Home<br />Depot. The irony is, after the rise and fall of Greenberg, the academy is<br />now back to liking kitsch, but the context is totally changed from 1939.<br />I'm starting my MFA this summer, so I'm trying to think more like an<br />artist and less like a critic. My notes on aura were written from the<br />perspective of my own artmaking. My art doesn't want to be overtly<br />political. As such, I'm less concerned with whether Benjamin himself was<br />glad at the loss of aura or sad about it. It seems he was more<br />ambivalent toward it than you are reading, Marisa, but I've not read<br />enough of him to argue this convincingly.<br /><br />Benjamin was there at ground zero to realize that industrailized media was<br />changing something about the art object, and he was able to give this<br />&quot;something&quot; a name – aura. I'm guessing most folks read (or are assigned<br />to read) &quot;the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction&quot; less<br />because of Benjamin's particular marxian perspective, and more because he<br />was historically one of the first theorists to put his finger on this<br />shift regarding the art object (although Duchamp was already exploiting<br />the shift two decades earlier).<br /><br />But what was once liberating for Benjamin in 1936 (democratization of the<br />formerly aestheticized object) has led to certain artistic vacuums today<br />that are hardly exciting. Without lamenting the loss of &quot;aesthetic&quot; (lest<br />I rouse the rote response of &quot;who's aesthetic&quot;), some forms of<br />contemporary art, liberated from the &quot;bonds&quot; of the spiritual and<br />mystical, have lost something. I'd like to call that something awe and<br />wonder. Benjamin's &quot;aura&quot; is not perfectly synonamous with what I'm<br />talking about, but it seems related. Note the difference between<br />incarnation and reification: with incarnation, spirit enters body and the<br />two are enmeshed but still distinct; with reification, an idea becomes an<br />object. (Perhaps) Benjamin merely sees the unique art object in terms of<br />marxist commodity. I see the unique art object from a more incarnational<br />perspective – a physical body &quot;wherein&quot; something spiritual resides.<br /><br />Michael S. implies that Benjamin was wrong to associate the aura so<br />strongly with an object's singularity, and maybe this is so. But I'm<br />enough of a graphic design historian to get all sexed up about a potential<br />visit to the library of congress rare book reading room where I'll be able<br />to leaf through one one of the few extant copies of William Morris'<br />Kelmscott Press Chaucer. And I didn't spend an hour in Sao Paulo looking<br />at Bosch's &quot;Temptation of St. Anthony&quot; triptych simply because of the<br />subject matter and the brushwork. I'm willing to concede that the &quot;aura&quot;<br />is not housed exclusively in the object's singularity, but some of it<br />definitely accumulates there given enough time under the bridge. Assuming<br />Hirst's sheep doesn't rot, and barring another Satchi fire, even that dumb<br />thing will have accumulated some aura in 200 years.<br /><br />Anyway, maybe &quot;aura&quot; is too entrenched in a frankfurt school historical<br />context for me to take it and use it to mean &quot;awe and wonder.&quot; I'm<br />testing out the implications of such a reappropriation. As an artist, I'm<br />personally more interested in &quot;where&quot; such an &quot;aura&quot; might be tactically<br />relocated, now that there's not an art object any&quot;where.&quot; Call it a<br />subjective inquiry into non-objective incarnation.<br /><br />++++++++++++++<br />[Warning: I am about to use the terms &quot;good&quot; and &quot;bad&quot; quite freely.]<br />Regarding the connection Benjamin draws between aesthtics and fascist<br />control, even that connection is colored by the era in which he lived. In<br />this, Benjamin and Greenberg have something in common – a reaction<br />against a Nazi-sanctioned, state-approved art. The irony is that<br />something like Hirst's sheep – a work that Benjamin, Greenberg, and<br />Hitler could all have agreed to dislike (although for radically different<br />reasons) – is now state-approved art. What can we infer from this? <br />Correct politics don't always lead to good art. Intelligent art criticism<br />doesn't always lead to good art. Why? Because there is more to art (and<br />life) that intelligent criticism and correct politics.<br /><br />There is a Sex Pistols documentary called &quot;The great rock 'n' roll<br />swindle&quot; which is itself a Malcolm McLaren swindle. I'll call the<br />following proposition &quot;The great dialectic swindle&quot;:<br /><br />Nobody wants to get duped. Heaven freaking forbid you get duped. All<br />ideologies are suspected as tools to control the minds of the<br />proletariat/disenfranchised/duped to keep them from rising up, claiming<br />their due, and getting unduped. Thus the goal is to ever suspect and<br />critique – proving yourself intelligent, free, radical, enlightened, and<br />above all, not duped. To quote T. Rex, &quot;You won't fool the children of<br />the revolution!&quot; Of course, the only ones able to recognize that you are<br />not duped are the few free souls also not duped. Anyone unable to<br />recognize your lack of dupedness must themselves be duped. (They may have<br />read Derrida, but they didn't read him in French.)<br /><br />I propose that this inordinate fear of being duped is one of the biggest<br />dupes of all. If the human soul exists, if a spiritual realm exists, if<br />God exists, if certain objective truths exist, if certain universal<br />aspects of human nature exist apart from historical materialism – then<br />those who suspect such things as being &quot;duping constructs&quot; are getting<br />meta-duped. This is indeed a thorny, catch-22 mindfuck – to suspect as<br />duping constructs the very things that could free you, all the while being<br />duped by the very safeguards you think are keeping you from being duped.<br /><br />(Couldn't my own suspicion of the meta-dupe be an even bigger<br />meta-meta-dupe? So says Derrida in French.)<br />peace, curt<br />+ Michael Szpakowski replied: +<br /><br />Couple of things: I think when Benjamin talked about aesthetics &amp; fascism<br />he was doing something very simple - warning us not to forget real life,<br />not to be too insular, to be too delighted with the *formally attractive &amp;<br />seductive* - I can imagine the Nuremburg rallies were immensely exciting<br />events to be at, carefully choreographed by people who were *evil* but<br />*not at all stupid* &amp; in addition understood a thing or two about art. I<br />remember having a great night out a few years back at the son et lumiere<br />show at Stone Mountain near Atlanta -exhilaratingly atmospheric,<br />especially as we'd just climbed the mountain (wonderful!) &amp; then caught<br />the last cable car down to catch the show but..also..profoundly<br />disquieting.. not because it sought to *justify* slavery/confederacy but<br />because it sought to *neutralize* them in spectacle.. As for Benjamin's<br />Marxism ..well..it's a very odd species of Marxism.. Adorno was able to<br />pick formal holes in it with ease.. *but* of course when it came to the<br />test of supporting student anti racist, anti war activism in the 60's<br />Adorno failed it miserably. I do not believe Benjamin, bookish, naive,<br />unlucky in life &amp; love, would have failed such a test. For me,<br />politically, Benjamin was in general *deeply confused* in one, the formal,<br />sense. *But* there is something about him, a deep humanity, which<br />resonates with the humanism of an untainted ( by Stalinism, academicism,<br />sometimes -eg Althusser- one and the smae thing, always related) Marxism.<br />In this combination of confusion and humanity he resembles Brecht, with<br />whom he had a strange &amp; tense friendship.. I feel there are two ways of<br />rescuing *positions* from Benjamin -one is a retreat into the academicism<br />of the disappointed &amp; ageing generation of 68, whose retreat from<br />engagement with life continues to poison philosophy, critical theory &amp;c<br />-the other is to read him as *literature* in which somehow ( in the same<br />way as Proust, or Melville or Joyce) some kind of truth is embedded. Read<br />the essay on Kafka &amp; tell me you're not exhilarated..*then* precis it for<br />me :)<br />+ Curt Cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Dirk Vekemans suggested a fifth place in which to locate the aura – in<br />the psychologically constructed &quot;space&quot; of the non-linear narrative. I<br />hate to use the phrase &quot;virtual space&quot; because that seems like VRML and<br />Poser avatars, and that is way too limited (and techno-dorky) a definition<br />of this kind of mindspace. What I'm talking about is more like the<br />unconscious mental architecture that you naturally construct while<br />&quot;surfing&quot; a &quot;site.&quot; There's a way to hijack this mental architecture and<br />embed an aura into it via disorientation. In such works/spaces/places,<br />the &quot;site architecture&quot; isn't there to support the the &quot;content&quot; of the<br />&quot;plot.&quot; Instead, the opposite is true – the &quot;plot&quot; is the architecture<br />itself, and the content merely serves to give the architecture form. I<br />call such spaces &quot;fugal narratives&quot;: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://deepyoung.org/permanent/fugue/">http://deepyoung.org/permanent/fugue/</a><br />. Mine is here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://lab404.com/plotfracture/">http://lab404.com/plotfracture/</a> . Another favorite is<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.silverladder.com/links/badscary/intro.htm">http://www.silverladder.com/links/badscary/intro.htm</a><br />Dirk's cathedral is here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/">http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/</a><br />and this from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/presence.jsp">http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/presence.jsp</a> : In order to build<br />the game i need to create a universe here first . Now i don't have the<br />time nor the budget to go about it the Star Wars way so it's gonna be a<br />rather simple universe. Not a model of the universe, just a space with<br />places in them, so there's gonna be a lot of fiction involved. I don't<br />like the 'page' metaphor for files that are accessible by requesting them,<br />i prefer a fictionalisation into 'place'.<br />+ Patrick May replied: +<br /><br />First I thought we ought to forget about the aura / author, then I was<br />amused by the role of the &quot;scriptor&quot;:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author</a><br />+ Curt Cloninger replied: +<br /><br />&quot;[The scriptor] is born simultaneously with the text, is in no way<br />equipped with a being preceding or exceeding the writing, [and] is not the<br />subject with the book as predicate.&quot; (Barthes)<br />A fairly accurate description of several actionScript programmers I know.<br />cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.markamerika.com/filmtext/">http://www.markamerika.com/filmtext/</a><br />+ Rob Myers replied: +<br />&quot;[Relational Art] is auratic. Because without the aura of management - uh-<br />art, what differentiates the social and aesthetic incompetence of RA from<br />just actual social and aesthetic incompetence?&quot;<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/04/21/relational-aesthetics-the-">http://www.robmyers.org/weblog/2006/04/21/relational-aesthetics-the-</a><br />institutional-theory-suspension-of-judgement-radical-commitment-via-<br />rhizome-raw/<br /><br />This is the aura of value, of the addition of value through management of<br />human relations, which is a managerial aspiration.<br />+ Alexis Turner replied: +<br /><br />&quot;Awe and wonder&quot; are attached to the novel. The curve is an interesting<br />one - up to a point, the pleasure derived from such an experience<br />increases with the novelty of the object; however, once that certain point<br />of novelty is reached, the experience exponentially plummets into an<br />unpleasurable one. People's minds are tickled by a level of difficulty,<br />but when the object becomes too foreign, complex, or new, it is met with<br />revulsion and anger.<br /><br />In other words, Benjamin's &quot;aura&quot; and &quot;awe and wonder&quot; are really just a<br />metaphor for learning, and the concept can be applied to anything, not<br />just art. A little bit of a challenge in an object is pleasurable<br />precisely because it creates this learning experience and awakens<br />curiosity. If the understanding of an object is too far out of reach,<br />however, the person cannot &quot;get it&quot; and thus lashes out. It becomes<br />&quot;stupid&quot; or &quot;boring&quot; or &quot;wrong.&quot; How many times have you heard that in a<br />classroom/gallery/concert/world affairs?<br />So, in this regard, Benjamin (and your mission) is wrong - the locus of<br />the aura is not the object, it is the mind of the person experiencing the<br />object, and aura, as an experience, can never be lost if a person exists<br />who hasn't seen or learned everything there is to know. One person may<br />fail to express wonder at an object if it is familiar to them, but to<br />another it represents something they've never fathomed. Likewise, the<br />person bored by the first object will find others intriguing.<br /><br />I use the computer, and I make art, to discover (better?) (new?) ways to<br />teach and create understanding.<br />+ Eric Dymond replied: +<br /><br />I wonder if we have a collective time for auras today. They pop up in<br />personal time, but I think an aura as a shared aspect of an artwork is<br />counter productive and outside of any time-frame I can imagine in the<br />current state of art. I have a fear of these things anyway, it's not<br />rational, but it's there. &quot;war is beautiful&quot; was a celebration of the<br />increasing speed of machines. For me it's always been one of those<br />unintended but accidental truths. In one short phrase it demonstartes how<br />machines can act as a prosthesis and at the same time, turn into governor<br />(in the classic cybernetic sense) when used. The design of the machine in<br />the hands of malacious designers makes it more dangerous, and more<br />inviting. Summer days…. indeed.<br /><br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Rob,<br /><br />I assume this is referring to proposed aura relocation locus #4: &quot;In human<br />relationships.&quot; Yes?<br />This from Susanne Lacy's 1993 essay on &quot;new genre public art:&quot; &quot;What<br />exists in the space between the words public and art is an unknown<br />relationship between artist and audience, a relationship that may *itself*<br />become the artwork.&quot;<br /><br />Emphasis on the words &quot;unknown&quot; and &quot;may become.&quot;<br /><br />What if the aura is not embedded didactically and managerially by the<br />artist into these relationships? What if situations are constructed by<br />the artist and then observed to see what aura might arise from these<br />relationships? I liken it to generative art. The artist/author has a<br />modicum of control, but if he's in total control, it's not generative art.<br /> The paradigm is one of research rather than auteur artmaking. Do you<br />deny that such art is possible?<br />+ rob@robmyers.org replied: +<br /><br />Quoting curt cloninger &lt;curt@lab404.com&gt;:<br /><br />&gt; I assume this is referring to proposed aura relocation locus #4: &quot;In<br />&gt; human relationships.&quot; Yes?<br /><br />It's in relation to one of the current major descriptions of art<br />(Relational Aesthetics) and #4 is a good description of that so yes. :-)<br /><br />&gt; What if the aura is not embedded didactically and managerially by the<br />&gt; artist into these relationships?<br /><br />The aura is not at the level of the precise variation of content. I am not<br />talking about a blue or red aura, I am talking about the presence of a<br />coloured aura, and what the preence of a coloured aura means. The<br />managerial aura is at the level of the class of work (Relational Art) and<br />how such works are structured. The artist doesn't have to be didactic and<br />the managerial element is immanent to the nature of the work, not a chosen<br />stance of the artist.<br /><br />&gt; What if situations are constructed by the artist and then observed to<br />&gt; see what aura might arise from these relationships?<br /><br />They will have the aura of managed situations and evaluative observation<br />motivated by the creation or extraction of value, which is managerial.<br /><br />&gt; I liken it to generative art. The artist/author has a modicum of<br />&gt; control, but if he's in total control, it's not generative art. The<br />&gt; paradigm is one of research rather than auteur artmaking. Do you<br />&gt; deny that such art is possible?<br /><br />Given my generative background, not really. ;-)<br /><br />This is an interesting comparison. Certainly in both instances we have an<br />artistic system of constraints and (claimed) non-artist agency. But in the<br />case of generative art these are instrumental, whereas in relational art<br />they are the art. Relational art is more like push polling that scientific<br />research (or soft reseearch like market research).<br /><br />Relational Art gives (claims) results (aesthetic phenomena) at the level<br />of human relations. The nature of these relations may vary (and it doesn't<br />matter whether they are positive or negative, emergent or imposed). But<br />they are still relations. What gives these relations value is not their<br />precise nature but their general existence as part of a class of<br />phenomena, and their existence has been encouraged and identified as<br />valuable by the artist. This creation of value by directing human<br />relations for institutions in this way is managerial.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />That seems like a pretty open definition of &quot;managerial,&quot; almost to the<br />point of being tautological. You say the nature of the human relations<br />may be positive, so may I infer from this that &quot;managerial&quot; is not always<br />negative?<br /><br />Is the circus managerial? Is <a rel="nofollow" href="http://mjt.org">http://mjt.org</a> managerial? What kind of art<br />is not managerial? Are you one who believes that to enter into dialogue<br />is always an attempt to control another? If so, it seems any form of<br />output or social engagement is inherently managerial. Even<br />generatiive/reactive art that uses chance agency as a formal instrument<br />still traffics in human relationships once a user begins to interact with<br />it. Regardless of what the generative artist says about his own work and<br />intentions, it can be easily argued that a modicum of &quot;art&quot; (or &quot;aura&quot;)<br />exists between the user and the artwork (simply because the artwork is<br />purposefully reactive rather than static).<br /><br />I see an analogy between the generative art I make (<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/">http://computerfinearts.com/collection/cloninger/bubblegum/</a>) and the<br />networked/collaborative art I &quot;make&quot; ( <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.playdamage.org/quilt">http://www.playdamage.org/quilt</a> ). <br />Both invite chance. The former invites chance to play amongst formal<br />elements and artifacts of personal memory. The latter invites chance to<br />play amongst human releationships on the network. I don't ever know how<br />either are going to turn out. My hope is that both turn out to the<br />benefit of all involved, but this is not always the case. For example,<br />some of the iterations of my Bubble Gum Cards are not always as well<br />composed as I would like. And sometimes there are unscripted negative<br />side-effects to my networked projects (cf: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://lab404.com/getty/">http://lab404.com/getty/</a> and<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://lab404.com/misc/obits/">http://lab404.com/misc/obits/</a> ).<br /><br />If the artist whose art is primarily embedded in social relationships<br />stopped calling what she does art, would it be any less managerial? Is it<br />the art-whoring and institutional sanctioning of human relationships that<br />you are critiquing?<br /><br />Playing in punk bands, we always hoped that our music would affect<br />somebody, but we nevertheless continued to play even after everyone had<br />stopped their ears and left the room. If the &quot;art&quot; of your art is<br />dependent upon social engagement, and everyone leaves the room, then I<br />guess you stop playing. Which does seem kind of contrived to me. Also,<br />the idea of putting some random passerby in an awkward, &quot;artistically<br />constructed&quot; situation and then filming him to prove that your art put him<br />in an awkward situation, thus extracting &quot;your art&quot; from the situation –<br />I see how that is exploitatively managerial. But what if you just put a<br />random passerby in an awkward situation and then don't film it or call it<br />art? Malcolm McLaren filmed it and called it art. But John Lydon would<br />not be so easily commodified. Debord, the San Francisco Suicide Club –<br />there must be ways to do it right.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Ryan,<br /><br />We weren't bad or unrehearsed, we were just loud and perpetual. I'm<br />thinking of one particular instance, a Voodoo Bar-B-Q reunion circa 1990. <br />We hadn't played together in two years, and we were all back in town for<br />Christmas. We played an hour-long version of &quot;Sister Ray.&quot; After 15<br />minutes, the &quot;audience&quot; had adjourned to the neighbor room. We kept<br />playing because we were celebrating existence. It was veritably<br />transcendental.<br /><br />ryan griffis wrote:<br />i don't know about the contrived arg though… affective sincerity and the<br />&quot;doing it for you&quot; attitude can be just as contrived and delusional. now,<br />don't get me wrong, i don't say this in a cynical way to disavow sincerity<br />and &quot;doing it for yourself,&quot; but if you happen to believe that<br />communicating and dialogue, or even conflict, are what you're into, then<br />why would you keep playing after everyone's gone. of course, it's better<br />if you practice and actually get some kind of enjoyment out of what you<br />do.<br />+ Ryan Griffis replied: +<br /><br />On May 31, 2006, at 12:57 PM, curt cloninger wrote<br />&gt; &gt; That seems like a pretty open definition of &quot;managerial,&quot; almost to<br />&gt; the point of being tautological. You say the nature of the human<br />&gt; relations may be positive, so may I infer from this that<br />&gt; &quot;managerial&quot; is not always negative?<br /><br />i'm with curt on this question…<br /><br />&gt; &gt; Playing in punk bands, we always hoped that our music would affect<br />&gt; somebody, but we nevertheless continued to play even after everyone<br />&gt; had stopped their ears and left the room. If the &quot;art&quot; of your art<br />&gt; is dependent upon social engagement, and everyone leaves the room, &gt;<br />then I guess you stop playing. Which does seem kind of contrived<br />&gt; to me.<br /><br />i don't know about the contrived arg though… affective sincerity and the<br />&quot;doing it for you&quot; attitude can be just as contrived and delusional. now,<br />don't get me wrong, i don't say this in a cynical way to disavow sincerity<br />and &quot;doing it for yourself,&quot; but if you happen to believe that<br />communicating and dialogue, or even conflict, are what you're into, then<br />why would you keep playing after everyone's gone. of course, it's better<br />if you practice and actually get some kind of enjoyment out of what you<br />do. but i wonder what Rob's response to Warren Sack's take on the<br />&quot;managerial&quot; criticism of conceptual art (via Buchloh)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/publications.php">http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/publications.php</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/Publications/wsack-network-">http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab/Publications/wsack-network-</a><br />aesthetics.doc as i understood it, he's attaching a critical function to<br />the adoption of the bureaucratic (or managerial as you call it), since it<br />'s being used in order to create &quot;intimate bureaucracies.&quot; and his crit<br />also contains arguments against RA (as Bourriaud champions it) since it's<br />about denying conflict and difference. So, he arrives at an &quot;aesthetics of<br />governance&quot; in which not all relations are equal, and can be evaluated<br />aesthetically and politically (well, he uses &quot;ethics&quot; but i have problems<br />with &quot;ethics&quot; as a discourse). But, as Sack suggests, the &quot;managerial<br />element&quot; can be a chosen stance of the artist, at least it can be<br />acknowledged. while you may argue that the nature of the relations doesn't<br />matter, i think it can equally be argued that it does.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Eric,<br /><br />I agree that there are different learning styles. Maybe I over-described<br />my approach, skewing it toward those students who learn by doing. The<br />goal is to do whatever it takes to cause learning to occur, student by<br />student. Even with those who like rigour, at some point they still have<br />to own the material themselves. I teach in a program that's<br />interdisciplinary, so I get art students and programmers. Teaching<br />programmers graphic design is always a challenge. Teaching painters code<br />is usually easier.<br /><br />The aura in a podcast is in locus #2: In the perpetually enacted and<br />iterated act/stance/position. A perpetual stream from a consistent<br />perspective replaces the object as the locus of aura.<br />+ Alexis Turner replied: +<br /><br />Sorry, I still have to say that it is about as useful to describe an<br />object as having an &quot;aura&quot; as it is to describe it as having<br />honest-to-goodness &quot;magic.&quot;<br /><br />Historically, the art that awed, impressed, and created wonder was the art<br />that explained something fundamental about human nature or the world. It<br />showed people something they already knew (but in a new way), it improved<br />upon their existing body of knowledge, or else it exposed them to<br />something they had never realized was possible. For art to do this,<br />however, it must have 3 things at a minimum, and all ultimately go back to<br />the mind and how it processes said art: the work must be experienced, must<br />have meaning, and must have effect.<br /><br />None of these are magic.<br /><br />That said, I suspect the reason current art has no &quot;aura,&quot; as Benjamin<br />feared, is because current art has no meaning, insofar as it seems no<br />longer to be produced with the idea that it can inform or change the<br />people that make it or view it. Instead, it is just &quot;stuff&quot; produced by a<br />bunch of post-modern wankers who like the romantic idea of what it means<br />to be artists, and so sit around and hope that if they explain what they<br />are doing in pretty enough words (even if what they are doing is simply<br />pooping for a peephole), that somehow THAT makes it, not just art, but<br />BETTER art and it will thus awe people in accordingly bigger and better<br />ways. Fetishizing an object or an act simply because it exists (a<br />podcast) or because of an intrinsic quality (it takes a long time) does<br />not imbue it with meaning, and the viewer is certainly adept enough to<br />understand this at a fundamental level, even if they might not be able to<br />put their finger on it. In the end, the art fails to spark the mind, or<br />have &quot;aura.&quot; -Alexis<br /><br />PS: Your problem with the idea of the viewer engaged with their mind,<br />instead of their &quot;feelings&quot; (the whole Myers-Briggs diversion) is semantic<br />only. Feelings and the mind are inseparable. While one may respond more<br />logically or more emotionally to an object, the response is nonetheless<br />informed by a person's history and understanding of the world. I use mind<br />loosely to mean understanding.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Just because a bunch of sucky contemporary artists waste their time<br />delineating the nuances of a bunch of scatalogical theory that ultimately<br />doesn't amount to a hill of beans or make their art any less sucky, this<br />doesn't prove that all theoretical dialogue is bullshit. Merely asserting<br />that something seems like shit from your perspective doesn't really<br />dismantle that shitty something.<br /><br />You assert that current art has no aura because it has no meaning. But<br />art can have an aura without having meaning. A rock can have an aura<br />without having artistic meaning. If certain pieces of contemporary art<br />have no meaning, it's simply because they have no meaning. Yet they may<br />still have an aura.<br /><br />My understanding of humans also assigns thoughts and feelings to the mind.<br /> I further understand humans to operate out of a heart/core/will/spirit. <br />Then of course there is the body and the social relations. All of these<br />aspects are integrated into a single being. The integrating aspect is the<br />soul. So goes my understanding of humans.<br /><br />You assert that successful art must have three things: &quot;all ultimately go<br />back to the mind and how it processes said art: the work must be<br />experienced, must have meaning, and must have effect. None of these are<br />magic.&quot; I disagree. Successful art need not have &quot;meaning&quot; per se. <br />Furthermore, experience and effect don't solely happen in the mind. There<br />is something &quot;magical&quot; about how we experience art and how it effects us<br />(although magic connotes alchemy and a selfish manipulation of nature. I<br />would say &quot;spiritual.&quot;)<br />Explain instrumental music's effect on a listener in terms of mere<br />psychology. For one thing, instrumental music has no &quot;meaning.&quot; Is it<br />effective because the mathematical relationship of the rhythms and<br />melodies produce an ordered and harmonious effect that is interpretable<br />psychologically? I've heard all that argued and don't buy it. <br />Instrumental music has both psychological and spiritual characteristics. <br />Of course, neither of us can prove that it does or doesn't, so we<br />disagree.<br /><br />Music aside, I definitely agree that good art is going to be about<br />something other than merely its own mechanism of transference. That is<br />hopefully a given. Nevertheless, regardless of genre and subject matter,<br />there is something different about object art and non-object art. I'm not<br />saying that this difference solely constiutes all there is to the art. <br />I'm just saying this difference exists, and I'm thinking about it.<br />Is there not something different about a book from the library that has<br />been checked out and read by a bunch of people and the exact same book new<br />from Amazon? It's the same content, the same subject matter, but the<br />library book has a kind of history and provenance. Is that provenance<br />psychologically ascribed to the library book by the reader, or does it<br />emanate from the spiritual history of the library book itself? Whichever<br />it is, the library book is somehow different than the new book.<br /><br />+ Alexis Turner replied: +<br /><br /> Reply-To: Alexis Turner &lt;subbies@redheadedstepchild.org&gt; To:<br />list@rhizome.org Date: Jun 1, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re:<br />Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: notes for a hypothetical essay on relocating the aura<br /> Not to piss off the one person on the list who on occasion actually<br />agrees with me…but…<br />Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the aura of<br />MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what<br />Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was,<br />and so many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. If<br />you are truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should<br />really take up oils.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you truly want to retain the aura in digital art,<br />then you must give Mr. Walter a kick in the pants and rethink the thing<br />altogether, not just sort of half-assed moving it around. Until you are<br />willing to do that, I do not believe you will find the answer to your<br />question. At the very least, you must decide if you want the aura the<br />thing, or if you would be content to illicit the effect of the aura, which<br />you did actually seem kind of interested in, as your first post mentioned<br />some level of desire to create &quot;awe and wonder&quot; in your viewer.<br /><br />I have simply posited that a more appropriate locus is in the viewer, as<br />it allows you to both have your cake and eat it, too (and please, I will<br />personally beat to death the first person that brings up that damn Marie<br />Antoinette thread again…MANIK). You get to say there is an aura<br />involved with the piece, as well as illiciting appropriately giddy<br />responses in the viewer. Not to mention, as Eric pointed out, that the<br />meaning of an object and the artist's place as clever educator is just SO<br />much more interesting than the artist as a producer of things that people<br />want to have sweaty fantasies about. Nonetheless, this is no doubt hard<br />to swallow, as in order to do this I have just taken all the magical,<br />fetishistic, cultish power away from non-living art objects and put them<br />into the human mind. A book is a book whether from the library, the rare<br />book room, or Amazon, notwithstanding my *personal* preference for the<br />politics of the first, the feel of the second, and the smell of the third.<br /><br />Having said all of that, I am perfectly content to have you believe my<br />opinion is crap, but I really do refuse to enter into a debate about the<br />soul of a single, perfect, waving blade of grass. -Alexis<br />+ Dirk Vekemans replied: +<br /><br />&gt; Is there not something different about a book from the<br />&gt; library that has been checked out and read by a bunch of<br />&gt; people and the exact same book new from Amazon? It's the<br />&gt; same content, the same subject matter, but the library book<br />&gt; has a kind of history and provenance. Is that provenance<br />&gt; psychologically ascribed to the library book by the reader,<br />&gt; or does it emanate from the spiritual history of the library<br />&gt; book itself? Whichever it is, the library book is somehow<br />&gt; different than the new book.<br /><br />Patina &lt;it. patina [kind of lacquer, blacking for leather, oxidation on<br />bronze] &lt;lat. Patina,patena[flat shallow pan] from patere; being open,<br />accessible<br /><br />In a Cathedralic confusion of leibniz/deleuze/derrida the dual cycle goes<br />like<br />aura&lt;absence&lt;aura | | patina&lt;absence&lt;patina<br /><br />It's not that it happens beneath or above the human action/thinking level,<br />it happens because the initiating energy has made the book, and afterwards<br />it's just secreting/sacri-fying itself. Sure it's a death/decaying process<br />but what isn't? That is a personal choice, how you want to look at it.<br />There's always another side, and another…<br /><br />When you have this kind of aging, you get a material fold, a visible<br />referent of the same act spread in spacetime. But you need the basic,<br />initial inscription first. You can't inscribe running code. That's the<br />flattening aspect of the net, i suppose, turning us into geeks.<br /><br />&gt;From a literary point of view (the only one i'm a bit sure of)it's a basic<br />lack of digital/screen arty stuff you can't have this material link, all<br />the timely tiny inscriptions of all the people mostly beating their own<br />souls out of the book(thinking it's the book's soul, i think it's an<br />aggregate, nothing primary like a stone's soul, or an organism), 'cause<br />these things serve as a hook/handle for each new reader/reading, so you<br />gotta find/construct other ways of hooking up your audience. Instead the<br />net offers you different waves to connect to, but it's hard to find the<br />right rhytm. I make 'm scroll, so if i only got 3 seconds, at least i know<br />what they are doing. I don't like netvideo too much because i feel you're<br />throwing away the opportunity you have to connect rhythmically, making<br />them sit back again. Immersive games are a bit the same for me in the<br />sense that they don't need or automatically use the net thing. The hybrid<br />thing that it is/wants.<br />Things will change a bit when we get screens that you can actually look at<br />instead of these light sources, i suppose.<br /><br />The net thing is too important not to be trying to pour aura into. Click.<br />Poor aura. We'll need plenty of that if it comes to making that ai thing<br />work for our own survival. I guess that makes me rather radical at times.<br /><br />But art is too much a f** up word to make anything with, too much meat &amp;<br />soul's going to waste to be making &quot;art&quot; &amp; try to sell it, at least that's<br />how i see it. And identity on the net is just some code wit the @-char in<br />it, unless it hooks up, but then it isn't you anymore. In this case i put<br />this code here. Now where untsoweiter. It doesn't matter. Heck what do i<br />know.<br />+ Ryan Griffis replied: +<br /><br />On Jun 1, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Alexis Turner wrote:<br />&gt; &gt; Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the<br />&gt; aura of MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what<br />&gt; Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was,<br />and so<br />&gt; many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed. If you are<br />&gt; truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly, you should really<br />take up oils.<br /><br />this isn't really a disagreement or contribution into this thread, other<br />than an expression of my annoyance at the continuing interpretation of<br />Benjamin's text as simply nostalgic for a lost aura. i thought Marisa<br />already addressed this? he was pretty firmly situated in the camp that<br />believed in the progressive potential of technology and mechanical<br />reproduction to add to art's ability to be &quot;radical&quot; and become something<br />other than a luxury while critiquing the aestheticized politics of fascism<br />and politicized art of the communists. In a lecture delivered to a mostly<br />Marxist crowd of Popular Front/anti-fascists, he basically stated that<br />experimentation should be considered more politically radical than a<br />reliance on subject matter-as-content, ala socialist realism/ propaganda<br />(the whole &quot;commitment&quot; debate). While there is some &quot;mourning&quot; that could<br />be found in Benjamin's account, it's more related to the context of the<br />larger changes that occurred in the experience of material culture in<br />general, not specifically in visual art. it's a change in the relationship<br />between cultural/material producers and audiences that seemed important.<br />Digital art doesn't &quot;defy the very, very notion of what Benjamin was<br />discussing,&quot; it pushes the argument further. Think about all the discourse<br />on gaming, communication and telepresence… this is a clearly documented<br />extension of Benjamin's concerns (not that he was the originator of them).<br />And the concerns of people working with technology for its relationship to<br />mechanisms of war were preceded by Benjamin's concerns that mechanization<br />was a favorable condition to war and dominant property relations. To be<br />critical of &quot;mechanical reproduction&quot; is not the same as being nostalgic<br />for a pre-mechanical past. i'm not advocating the importance of Benjamin<br />or his writing, i just don't understand the consistent reference to a<br />text, if what's contained in the text really doesn't matter and just gets<br />used willy- nilly.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Alexis,<br /><br />I will answer in turn.<br />alexis: Do you find it rather absurd that you are trying to refocus the<br />aura of MECHANICALLY PRODUCED art? It defies the very, very notion of what<br />Benjamin was discussing. Digital art is the antithesis of what he was, and<br />so many of his accolytes continue to, carry on about so doey-eyed.<br /><br />curt: The issue is not whether the object is mechanically produced, but<br />whether the object is mechanically reproducible. The title could also be<br />translated &quot;art in the age of its own mechanical reproducibility.&quot; The<br />essay has to do with what happens to art when it is no longer a singular<br />object. Hence my selection of Benjamin as a launching pad for this<br />discussion.<br /><br />Digital production techniques can lead to the creation of object art (a<br />one-of-a-kind digital print), just as non-digital production techniques<br />can lead to the creation of non-object art (a Shakespeare play). I don't<br />necessarily care about digital art per se. I'm talking about non-object<br />art.<br /><br />alexis: If you are truly committed to holding on to his idea so dearly,<br />you should really take up oils.<br />curt: I'm about as committed to holding onto Benjamin's original idea of<br />aura as I am interested in taking up oils. Michael S. suggested that a<br />more poetic contemporary reading of Benjamin is in order. Maybe that's<br />what I'm inadvertantly doing. I am trying to advance a slightly skewed<br />reading of one of Benjamin's texts in order to explore some artistic<br />ramifications that interest me. Lyotard took a similarly skewed approach<br />to Kant's idea of the &quot;sublime.&quot; Forget Benjamin if he's such an anathema<br />to you. Just talk about the ideas we're talking about.<br /><br />alexis: On the other hand, if you truly want to retain the aura in digital<br />art, then you must give Mr. Walter a kick in the pants and rethink the<br />thing altogether, not just sort of half-assed moving it around.<br />curt: Benjamin seems more fruitful as a launching pad for dialogue than a<br />target for my boot.<br /><br />alexis: Until you are willing to do that, I do not believe you will find<br />the answer to your question. At the very least, you must decide if you<br />want the aura the thing, or if you would be content to illicit the effect<br />of the aura, which you did actually seem kind of interested in, as your<br />first post mentioned some level of desire to create &quot;awe and wonder&quot; in<br />your viewer.<br /><br />curt: the aura will never literally &quot;be&quot; anywhere, because it's just an<br />abstract notion. Art is not science. It's not simply some visual<br />aesthetic formula coupled with some didactic &quot;meaning&quot; that acts on the<br />mind and illicits awe and wonder. Maybe you're thinking about interactive<br />design.<br /><br />alexis: I have simply posited that a more appropriate locus is in the<br />viewer, as it allows you to both have your cake and eat it, too (and<br />please, I will personally beat to death the first person that brings up<br />that damn Marie Antoinette thread again…MANIK). You get to say there is<br />an aura involved with the piece, as well as illiciting appropriately giddy<br />responses in the viewer. Not to mention, as Eric pointed out, that the<br />meaning of an object and the artist's place as clever educator is just SO<br />much more interesting than the artist as a producer of things that people<br />want to have sweaty fantasies about. Nonetheless, this is no doubt hard to<br />swallow, as in order to do this I have just taken all the magical,<br />fetishistic, cultish power away from non-living art objects and put them<br />into the human mind.<br /><br />curt: you can't say the aura is located in the viewer. By definition,<br />that doesn't make sense. The resultant awe and wonder (if the art is good<br />enough) will be located in the viewer. But the art (whether it's an<br />object or a non-object) is the vehicle (conductor) which instigates awe<br />and wonder in the viewer. If the aura is already resident in the viewer,<br />then no conductor is required and there's no need to make art (object,<br />non-object, digital, painted, or otherwise). By definition, the aura<br />&quot;surrounds&quot; the art somehow. Even if the aura is invested in the art<br />solely by the viewer regardless of the artist's intentions, it still<br />surrounds the art. If you're uncomfortable with the artist asking &quot;where<br />do I locate the aura in non-object art,&quot; then think of it as the artist<br />asking, &quot;how do I create a locus in non-object art which will illicit the<br />investment of aura by the audience.&quot;<br /><br />alexis: A book is a book whether from the library, the rare book room, or<br />Amazon, notwithstanding my *personal* preference for the politics of the<br />first, the feel of the second, and the smell of the third.<br />curt: here we fundamentally disagree. If you can't follow me this far, I<br />understand why the rest of my argument seems inane to you.<br />+ curt cloninger replied: +<br /><br />Hi Ryan,<br /><br />It is indeed ironic that I would be criticized as a Benjamin disciple. <br />You and Marisa understandably challenge my reading of him, but I think my<br />reading is defensible, with some caveats. I'm not referring to his entire<br />canon, or to his biographical history. I am referring to one text. In<br />that text he himself says, &quot;We do not deny that in some cases today's<br />films can also promote revolutionary criticism of social conditions, even<br />of the distribution of property. However, our present study is no more<br />specifically concerned with this than is the film production of Western<br />Europe.&quot; Indeed, the footnoted connections he makes between film and<br />politics seem largely tenuous and speculative, almost like they are<br />incidental observations that he wasn't quite confident enough to include<br />in the body of the text.<br /><br />The epilogue seems particularly tacked on. He takes the marinetti quote<br />and runs with it, but in his rush to the tour-de-force finish line, he<br />doesn't satisfactorilly connect all the dots. Just because he wants me to<br />focus on the epilogue doesn't mean I have to buy it. Just because I don't<br />buy the epilogue doesn't mean I can't find use in some of his prior<br />observations.<br /><br />I probably should have prefaced my original post with some disclaimer<br />like, &quot;I know this goes against the accepted interpretation of Benjamin's<br />aura, but…&quot; Nevertheless, I don't think his observations are off limits<br />simply because I disagree with the larger conclusions he draws from them. <br />Am I not free to take his initial observations and draw my own<br />conclusions? I don't think aesthetics are a fascist control mechanism of<br />war just because Marinetti was loony and Hitler was an art school drop-out<br />who dug &quot;heroic&quot; art. I don't fear the re-injection of aura into<br />non-object art. I think it has probably already crept in anyway. I need<br />not subscribe to Benjamin's politics in order to reference him (any more<br />than he need subscribe to Huxley's politics in order to reference him). <br />David used the sword of Goliath to chop off Goliath's head. It<br />functioned.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of the<br />New Museum of Contemporary Art.<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard<br />Foundation,&#xA0;The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the<br />Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the<br />Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Marisa Olson (marisa@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 11, number 21. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org<br />are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art<br />and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome<br />Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org.<br /><br />To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>.<br />Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the<br />Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />