RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.02

discussion

Posted Oct. 17 2002 20:00

RHIZOME DIGEST: 10.18.02

RHIZOME DIGEST: October 18, 2002 Content: +editor's note+ 1. Rachel Greene: We're Being Didactic - Online Learning +announcement+ 2. Step Dinkins: Call for Submissions 3. joy garnett: Tim Griffin essay online 4. goldberg@ieor.berkeley.edu: ATC@UCB: Victoria Vesna, 10.21.02 +work+ 5. t.whid: Endnode (AKA Printer Tree) +feature+ 6. McKenzie Wark: Review - Critical Art Ensemble, Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1. Date: 10.18.02 From: Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org) Subject: We're Being Didactic - Online Learning Rhizome.org is working with the New School Online University to offer distance learning classes. Sign up for classes like Advanced Java, Intro to PHP, Why New Media Isn't New: A History, or others. Not only will you help Rhizome.org generate income as you learn, but you'll be able to study, practice and commune with other students and faculty from the comfort of your own CPU. Private feeback from instructors, online materials, and DIY scheduling… Sign up ends this Monday, the 21st. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +ad+ Metamute is now running a specially commissioned article a week. In the last 3 weeks, we've published Ben Watson's in-depth review of The Philistine Controversy, Eugene Thacker's analysis of the state-endorsed biotech 'debate', and James Flint's urbanist reading of Glastonbury and Sonar festivals. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.metamute.com">http://www.metamute.com</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 2. Date: 10.17.02 From: Step Dinkins (sdink@yahoo.com) Subject: Call for Submissions The SAC Gallery at Stony Brook University seeks new media and technologically mediated works (video and new media for example) for ³[ ]: In Pursuit of An American History² an exhibition to celebrate, explore, challenge and re-imagine African-American History Month. Send submissions on VHS, DVD, CD-ROM or Zip Disk and a CV to African-American History Month, Department of Art, Staller Center for the Arts, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794. Include a SASE for the return of materials. Deadline: Monday, December 16, 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +ad+ ARTMEDIA VIII CO-SPONSORED BY LEONARDO/OLATS in PARIS http:://www.olats.org From "Aesthetics of Communication" to Net Art November 29th - December 2nd 2002 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3. Date: 10.15.02 From: joy garnett (joyeria@walrus.com) Subject: Tim Griffin essay online Lab71 - International Art Content <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lab71.org/">http://www.lab71.org/</a> "Physically and emotionally speaking, intimate space is no longer strictly intimate. On the one hand, intimate space is monitored, obtaining those informational, bureaucratic attributes that function under the sign of surveillance. In other words, all space is at once concrete and abstract, as it is codified and assumes legislative character, becoming the stuff of coordinates. Any city is a potential target, for example, the sense of which only heightens bureaucracy's mesh with corporeality." [Tim Griffin, *Night Vision* 2001] …read the full catalogue essay at: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.lab71.org/">http://www.lab71.org/</a> Tim Griffin is a poet, critic and associate editor of Art Forum, former editor of ArtByte, and former art editor at TimeOut NY. Night Vision is a traveling exhibition curated by Joy Garnett. It presents artists who are influenced by advanced technologies developed by the military and government intelligence agencies for use in research, surveillance and combat. Lab 71 is an artist run, not-for-profit online publication that features contemporary art from around the world. Ideas and issues that concern artistic communities from diverse countries will be addressed, providing opportunities for dialogue between writers, curators and artists. Lab 71 is interested in all media: painting, sculpture, video, installation, digital art, collaboration, performance and public art. SUBMISSIONS Lab71 is accepting submissions for publication. MFA papers welcome. Please submit to info@lab71.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Date: 10.15.02 From: (goldberg@ieor.berkeley.edu) Subject: ATC@UCB: Victoria Vesna, 10.21.02 ATC@UCB: Mind Shifting and Future Bodies: From Networks to Nanosystems Victoria Vesna, UCLA The Art, Technology, and Culture Colloquium Mon, 21 Oct, 7:30-9:30pm: UC Berkeley, Location: 160 Kroeber Hall All ATC Lectures are free and open to the public. Since the 1920s, when ecologists began studying food chains, understanding networks has been of interest to scholars in many areas. More recently, neural networks have been proposed as models for the enormously complex structure of the human brain, containing 10 billion neurons linked by a trillion synapses. Comparisons of the human brain to our global interconnected communications networks abound. Looking at patterns and geometric forms that appear repeatedly in nature can provide insight into art projects that actively involve audiences in social environments. For example, hexagons appear in beehives, are used in the technological infrastructure of cellular phone systems, and are the primary structure of buckyballs, the molecule that has helped launch nano-science. This new science pushes the limits of our rational minds - working at the level of atoms and molecules, using the measure of a nanometer, about 1/80,000 of the diameter of a human hair. This talk will look at work that addresses these ideas and to our current collaborative project: 'zero@wavefunction: nano dreams and nightmares'. ………….. Victoria Vesna is an artist, professor and chair of the department of Design | Media Arts at the UCLA School of the Arts. She defines her work as experimental research that resides in between disciplines and technologies. She explores how communication technologies effect collective behavior and how perceptions of identity shift in relation to scientific innovation. She is co-director with Katherine Hayles and Jim Gimzewski of SINAPSE, a center that promotes transdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. Victoria has exhibited her work in 16 solo exhibitions, over 70 group shows, published 20 papers and gave over 100 invited talks in the last ten years. She is recipient of many grants, commissions and awards, including the Oscar Signorini award for best net artwork in 1998 and the Cine Golden Eagle for best scientific documentary in 1986. Vesna's work has received notice in publications such as Art in America, the Los Angeles Times, as well as Spiegel (Germany), The Irish Times (Ireland), Tema Celeste (Italy), and Veredas (Brazil). These and other projects are linked from: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/">http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/</a> and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://notime.arts.ucla.edu">http://notime.arts.ucla.edu</a> ********************************************************************** Victoria Vesna will be introduced by Greg Neimeyer, Asst. Prof. of Art Practice, UC Berkeley ********************************************************************** The ATC Colloquium continues our partnership with the Berkeley Art Museum and the Walker Art Center to present online video of ATC talks, available both in QuickTime (highlights) or MP3 audio. For links and the full 2002-2003 series schedule, please see: www.ieor.berkeley.edu/~goldberg/lecs/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 5. Date: 10.17.02 From: t.whid (twhid@mteww.com) Subject: Endnode (AKA Printer Tree) Endnode (AKA Printer Tree) MTAA's new work is being launched tonight at Eyebeam (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.eyebeam.org/artists/air02.html">http://www.eyebeam.org/artists/air02.html</a>) and we invite everyone to join the "Endnode" list-serv and take part in the work. short description (from Eyebeam's site): The arts collaborative MTAA has created a life-sized sculpture of a tree with a networked print server in its trunk and printers on each branch that print and release a rain of email-leaves that cascade to the ground. The public is encouraged to email the tree through the Endnode Mailing List. see <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.endnode.net">http://www.endnode.net</a> for more information. the list: Join the "Endnode" mailing list here: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.endnode.net/mailman/listinfo/endnode">http://www.endnode.net/mailman/listinfo/endnode</a> The Endnode list-serv is an unmoderated email list which we hope will focus on new media art. Remember, there will be hardcopy of your email falling from the "Endnode" sculpture when you post to the list. – t.whid www.mteww.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 6. Date: 10.11.02 From: McKenzie Wark (mw35@nyu.edu) Subject: Review - Critical Art Ensemble, Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media Critical Art Ensemble, Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media, Autonomedia, New York, 2002 reviewed by McKenzie Wark (mw35@nyu.edu) Even a cursory scanning of Critical Art Ensemble¹s website (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.critical-art.net/">http://www.critical-art.net/</a>) reveals a distinctive and distinguished body of work that boldly restates the possibilities of working in the ?avant garde¹ tradition, while connecting it to the latest practices in low-tech tactical media. Digital Resistance, their fourth book, collects some recent papers by the group, and includes the best statement yet of their overall approach to the nexus of theory and practice. In making such a statement, I play into what Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) call the "haunting problem of the archive" namely, the restriction of the open potential of the work to generate new challenges to the status quo, by defining a space for it alongside once challenging movements, now safely dead. While I recognize why CAE might want to avoid too strong an identification of their work with a current movement or historical precursor, perhaps one can look at this the other way around. We have taken on faith the self-interested remarks by art-market publicists in the 80s and 90s that the ?avant garde is dead¹, and hence no longer look to it as a source of ongoing attempts to negate the self-evident rightness and normality of the world. Moreover, in considering complete the avant garde tradition that runs from Dada to the Surrealists, Situationists, Art and Language group and beyond, the analyses of commodified culture and reified life offered by those movements becomes the last word. No new critique emerges if there can be no new cultural-political-media practice. The value of CAE might well be that they embark on a new kind of critical art, and in the process develop a new critical theory. Or at least some elements of such a theory, as we shall see I think it incomplete. Digital Resistance contains a now-famous contribution to the debates on tactical media, which it critiques the established practices of triggering media spectacle, and proposes instead to bypass the media and establish clandestine practices of subversion. CAE contend that "The indirect approach of media manipulation using a spectacle of disobedience designed to muster public sympathy and support is a losing proposition." There was a time, they recognize, when this worked. The Civil Rights Movement, for example. But they claim that the examples where working through the media is effective are mostly instances in which the movement in question is at least in part furthering the interests of the development of capitalist society, rather than opposing it. To the extent that the Civil Rights Movement was a challenge to the archaic social order of the American South, it could effectively work through triggering media reactions. When it moved on to a deeper critique of capitalism, and the racist order of the north, this strategy failed. CAE also acknowledge examples from the underdeveloped world. The use of media feedback loops by the Chinese Democracy Movement in Tiananmen Square (which I examined in my book Virtual Geography) might be a seminal example. CAE¹s position is a pessimistic one, and seems to me to generalize an American experience, where it is a cultural given that the critical is marginal. It might not be appropriate for those parts of the world where the historic social movements are alive and more or less well. All the same, there¹s something bracing in CAE¹s pessimism, which forecloses nostalgia and obliges one to think again about how to engage with the present: "But what do we do now²? they ask, ³having reached the point where visible, diversified ideologies in the West no longer exist, and history is nothing more than a homogeneous construct that continuously replays capitalist victories?" The kind of tactics CAE advocate seek to work outside the media¹s echo chamber and engage directly with the communication practices of institutions. "The infighting that already occurs within and between government and corporate institutions makes them a self subsidizing target." They admit that such "a fully developed covert approach" is a long way off. Actually, I think it is not so far off in places where there are surviving historic social movements, which tend over time to acquire stakeholder status within institutions. The pristine oppositionalism combined with insider effectiveness that CAE dream of seems to me a fantasy, peculiar to the culture of the American left. What is more interesting than this somewhat notional theorizing about tactical media is CAE¹s discussion of how to speak "semi publicly". In an era in which social movements become NGOs, and NGOs develop marketing campaigns, closing the circuit back to normality, it is timely to read proposals for avoiding self-representations that lend themselves to business as usual in the media. To avoid becoming fodder for the Fox News cycle, "all that is necessary is to make it 'bad copy'." There is a role for theory as a language of general models and hypotheticals in keeping certain things unsaid. There¹s a long tradition of this poetics of political speech, from Hegel¹s elusive philosophical language to the terse epigrams of the Situationist Guy Debord. CAE¹s antipathy toward working through the media rests not just on a bleak assessment of tactical worth, however. In their analysis, the media space has lost its centrality as a locus of power. "The control of spectacular space is no longer the key to understanding or maintaining domination. Instead, it is the control of virtual space… that is the new locus of power." Digital Resistance contains a very suggestive statement of CAE¹s underlying philosophy. They argue that a ³new cosmology² is emerging, which will replace the analog principle (order from chaos; chaos from order) with a digital one (order from order). In the feudal order, the analog predominated; capital, on the other hand unleashes the digital. This paradigm shift eventually changes all aspects of life. The tension between analog and digital expresses itself under capitalism in the ambiguous attributes of the commodity. On the one hand, what has most value is the analog the art object for example, unique product of the artist¹s ?genius¹. On the other, the foundation of capitalist value is mechanical reproduction. ³The consumer wants the assurance of reliability provided by digital replication, and on the other hand, desires to own a unique constellation of characteristics to signify he/r individuality.² With the development of the computer, communication and media industries, the digital principle inherent in capital reaches its fullest expansion and while CAE do not develop this point surely the clearest point of internal contradiction. The digitization of information at one and the same time advances capital¹s goal of making the commodity completely abstract and interchangeable, but also threatens to undermine its value by removing any connection to a unique material object. The analog/digital divide is also a stratification principle for the workforce. Mass industrial labor is pure digital slavery. Any worker can substitute for any other. With capital able to traverse the whole space of the globe, the price any laborer can get for their labor is pushed to or even below subsistence. On the other hand, among the laboring elite, the specialization that results from the division of labor, particularly in science or the culture industries, is in CAE¹s terms ?analog¹ because it is all about differentiating workers on the basis of unique abilities, and attributing the value of their work to their ?genius¹. Everyone expects a bonus at the end of the year just for being ?special¹. CAE¹s art confronts this (mostly) western version of everyday working life with a digital practice that devalues authorial genius with strategies of copying and counterfeit. The digital may have its apocalyptic side in the Satanic Mills erected across the underdeveloped world, but it also has its utopian side. Were CAE to develop more fully the relationship both the digital and the analog have to private property in the commodity economy, this aspect of their very suggestive use of the analog/digital concepts might be more useful still. The digital may be the principle of mass production, but the very repeatability of the object devalues it. We live in an everyday world where commodities which that are more and more interchangeable try to present themselves under the aura of analogic singularity through elaborate marketing strategies. The thing is supposed to be intimately connected to a brand that at one and the same time guarantees unique (analog) value and (digital) repeatability. The ?digital aesthetic¹ is under these conditions mostly a denial of the digital, and in a double sense. The origins of the thing in the 'sweatshop digital' factories of the underdeveloped world origins of the thing are erased by a fetishizing of the aura of its designer¹s signature. The origins of what the commodity appears to mean in the 'Photoshop digital' world of PR origins of its ?brand values¹ are erased by presenting the material essence objecthood of the thing as the unique bearer of these otherwise purely virtual qualities. The trace of material history is hidden in the image; the fetish of the image is hidden in the material thing. And so there may indeed by a value in a digital aesthetic that emphasizes the utopian potential of the copy, as something that escapes at least the second kind of fetish, if not the first. And as CAE show, this utopian digital aesthetic has a history. ³Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It presses after an author¹s phrase, uses his expressions, erases a false idea, replaces it with a correct one.² So wrote the self-styled Comte de Lautréamont, favorite poet of the Surrealist and Situationists movements, those two great 20th century expressions of the organized avant garde. Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) give Lautréamont¹s maxim a 21st century twist: "In three sentences, Lautréamont summed up the methods and means of digital aesthetics." In an essay he wrote with Gil Wolman, Guy Debord saw in Lautréamont¹s phrase the basis for a ³literary communism². If the ³author¹s phrase² can be detached from the author¹s proprietary control, it becomes common property. Perhaps, after the failure or retreat of attempts to socialize material property, perhaps a socialization of intellectual property is the best we can hope for. However, by focusing on the digital and the analog, rather than on the way they become embedded in property, particularly the emerging role of intellectual property, CAE limit the power of their analysis. This emerges a little more clearly in the other candidates CAE nominate for a counter-history of the digital aesthetic tradition. As they say, ³Duchamp is the avatar of the digital.² He attacked the analog value of the art object with his readymades, which reveal how the value of the art object under capitalism is really only produced by its context. Warhol further develops this aesthetic of ³no more unique objects². Both Duchamp and Warhol play upon the contradictory nature of the commodity, its analog value of singularity and its digital value of repeatability. But they don¹t quite push this contradiction as far as Debord and Wollman intuit that it can go, once the cultural commodity is on the same digital basis as the literary text, and literary communism becomes the utopian promise of a digital culture of free information. Like all CAE books, Digital Resistance is available as a free download a gesture toward the freeing of information from the commodity form. Yet in the main, CAE understand the digital aesthetic as it applies to their own practice as an avoidance of specialization and the division of labor. By making this an attribute of the digital, they are able to open a dialogue with a body of work not usually seen as part of the counter-history of radical art what they call the ?theater of everyday life.¹ Judith Malina and Julian Beck¹s Living Theater might stand as the best known example, particularly their late 60s performances of Paradise Now, which attempt to turn the audience into participants in a process of achieving their own collective liberation. CAE draw a useful connection between the theater of everyday life and Alan Kaprow¹s ?happenings¹, which are usually treated separately as belonging to the art world rather than the theater world. CAE¹s practice is nothing if not ?interdisciplinary¹, and indeed is a critical reminder of the limits of what usually poses as boundary breaking under that name. >From the theater of everyday life, CAE take the principles of ³participation, process, pedagogy and experimentation.² One of the best qualities of CAE¹s work is the consistent thinking through of their practice both in terms of what happens ?inside¹ the group and its projection into a world ?outside¹. Digital Resistance contains a thoughtful justification for working in nonspecialized ?digital¹ groups: "Collectives reside in that liminal zone – they are neither an individual nor an institution." They can avoid the egoism of the former as well as the bureaucracy of the latter. CAE advocate working in a cellular structure, in groups of limited size. This allows for a floating hierarchy, with different members taking responsibility for different projects. Their model is one of coalition, not community. "CAE is unsure who really wants community in the first place." In keeping with the preferences of the tactical media approach, they favor tools over rules. The group structure also solves the problem that Art & Language group member Ian Burn identified: the artist as the brain power of a work that others, not allowed the exalted title of artist, have to carry out. "By working in a group, CAE members are able to resist the Warhol syndrome of factory production with underpaid laborers." All of these proposals reflect a knowledge of the troubled history of avant garde groups of the past, from Dada and Surrealism to the Situationists, the Living Theater, and Art & Language. One problem such groups encounter is in their internal organization, which can easily come to reflect the power relations of the outside world. The hierarchical and dictatorial practices of the Surrealists and Situationists are a case in point. The other problem is external, in the sense that the discovery of the group by the media leads to its naming and defining by outside forces, which in turn starts to turn the group¹s activities toward a reactive practice of responding to the shadow of their own image in the media. Dada and the Living Theater both experienced this problem. This awareness of the past history of avant garde follies, of capitulation to internalized notions of ?analog¹ authority, or external pressures to become reactive, colors CAE¹s tentative embrace of the ?tactical media¹ label. It is best to work outside the framework of labels that people can either feel ownership towards within the group, or which can have their meaning altered by publicity. Tactical media, CAE suggest, enters into a period of decline precisely as it becomes popularized. "Its recuperation by capital is almost inevitable." Names have to be treated tactically too, rather than as sites of long term investment. CAE found themselves ³complicit with this categorizing process just so we could start conversations with people uncomfortable with the unnamed." Even the most carefully anonymous practices end up leaving their traces in the archives. Or in other words, the representation of something is an essential part of turning it into property. What is named can be owned. With those protocols acknowledged, CAE stake out a position on tactical media that sees it as a form of "digital interventionism". It starts with the plagiarism of the everyday itself. "The already given and the unsaid are the material of a tactical media event." In keeping with their views on organization, they recommend a pragmatic approach to tools: ³By any media necessary.² If there is indeed a new cosmology at work in the world, the best and most frightening expression of it is the rise of biotechnology. While physics remains for CAE the analog science par excellence, biology has stepped boldly into the digital realm with the discovery of genetic coding and its exploitation for commercial medicine and food production. The problem for CAE is how to take the marginal cultural practices of the digital aesthetic and the theater of everyday life and use it to combat the new cosmology of biotech. When many other avant garde groups are still fighting rearguard battles against the power structures of the 20th century, CAE have embarked on a more forward looking project of contestation. There¹s not much point in repeating the Dada gestures of attacking art or the church. The limit to the theater of everyday life is that it cannot escape the politics of everyday life. What CAE want to add to its practices is a more conceptual approach to the abstract forces of power at work in the world. ³Globalization has created a new theater that bursts the boundaries of the theater of everyday life. We now have a theater of activism that has emerged out of the necessity of taking material life struggles into hyperreality.² The point where CAE will work in digital culture is ?analogous¹ to the point that digital science has reached en route to its full commodification: the point where the abstraction of the digital meets the singularities of the analog. All that seems to be missing is a recognition that the concept of property is precisely what lies at this juncture, in both culture and science. CAE are highly critical of most uses of the new technology in theater, however. So called ?virtual theater¹ merely represents the ³worst elements of the disembodiment of the technocratic class.² The much ballyhooed virtual communities are for CAE merely examples of what Guy Debord called ³enriched privation². Confronted with a theater of everyday life trapped in a pattern of engaging in local struggles, and a virtual theater reproducing the alienating aspects of consumer technology, CAE look for a practice of looping the virtual into the real. ³The body is still the key building block of theater², they say, but the task is to explore in collaboration with a fully participating audience how digital biology is abstracting the analog body into digitized commodity value. What CAE advocate is a ³recombinant theater². It is analogic in that it is aimed at opening up ³multiple lines of desire², exploring both the rational and irrational investments of the participants. Yet it will use digital technologies in combination with a digital aesthetic to undermine the analogic hierarchy of value on which the authority of the scientific (or cultural) ?expert¹ rests. In a challenging remark, CAE note that ³eugenics is an invisible social dynamic that is quietly emerging out of the pancapitalist institutions of the economy of excess and the nuclear family.² While they don¹t expand on this point, their notion of the tension between the analog and the digital could be useful for exploring the bizarre ways in which genetic science is producing commodified life. On the one hand, genetic manipulation undermines the analogic value of singularity and uniqueness. On the other hand, it offers the analogic value of the expert geneticist as a valuable resource for reengineering the organism for increased productivity. "If the virtual functions and is perceived as a superior form of being, it becomes a monstrous mechanism of control for the class that regulates access to it and mobility within it." It¹s a challenging remark, and it can be seen to apply to both the culture industries and the emerging biotech industries. What both have in common is an ability to use the state to turn intellectual property into an absolute private property right, within which to ?trap¹ the virtuality of both culture and nature. CAE want organic being in the world to be established as the locus of reality and here we find, underneath the very contemporary language CAE deploy, the old desire of the romantic revolutionary avant garde the desire for a life without alienation. But it is just possible that what scares CAE is not the virtual as such, but the virtual as it appears under the control of property the virtual in the service of commodification. CAE never really specify just who the ruling class are or how they rule, and yet everything in their provocative work around biotechnology points toward the possibility that this is not your grandfather¹s capitalism they and we are confronting. The practice has outrun the theory. CAE discover the positive potential of the virtuality that the digital unleashes, not least in the avant garde tradition. So it is not the virtual that is the enemy here. Rather, it is what becomes of the virtuality of the digital when it is trapped within the confines of the emerging property regime that may well be the foundation of a class beyond capital as we know it. But what if we were to re-imagine the utopian dimension of the avant garde, as something beyond the mere overcoming of alienation? What would the power of the virtual, particularly the virtual released by a digital paradigm, be like were it freed from commodification and class rule? McKenzie Wark is the author of A Hacker Manifesto <a rel="nofollow" href="http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html">http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html</a> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization. If you value this free publication, please consider making a contribution within your means at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/support">http://rhizome.org/support</a>. Checks and money orders may be sent to Rhizome.org, 115 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law and are gratefully acknowledged at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/10.php">http://rhizome.org/info/10.php</a>. Our financial statement is available upon request. Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rhizome Digest is filtered by Rachel Greene (rachel@rhizome.org). ISSN: 1525-9110. Volume 7, number 42. Article submissions to list@rhizome.org are encouraged. Submissions should relate to the theme of new media art and be less than 1500 words. For information on advertising in Rhizome Digest, please contact info@rhizome.org. To unsubscribe from this list, visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/subscribe">http://rhizome.org/subscribe</a>. Subscribers to Rhizome Digest are subject to the terms set out in the Member Agreement available online at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/29.php">http://rhizome.org/info/29.php</a>. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +