<br />RHIZOME DIGEST: July 30, 2004<br /><br />Content:<br /><br />+announcement+<br />1. Jessica Ivins: Rhizome.org Organizational Subscriptions Program<br />2. Marieke Istha: upcoming exhibition: Channel Zero<br />3. kurt bigenho: Fun With Videophones : The Hookup<br /> <br />+opportunity+<br />4. Carol Hobson: CRCA/UCSD Job Opening<br /><br />+work+<br />5. huong ngo: dream machine<br />6. Pall Thayer: Proximity Mapper - Matias Arje, Java (M)applet - Pali<br />Thayer (Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland inside and out)<br /><br />+comment+<br />7. Color's Torrid Function!: on network art<br />8. Jim Andrews: "Digital Writing Circa 2004"<br /><br />+book review+<br />9. Andrew [unwrinkled ear] Choate: Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the<br /><net.net.net> conference<br /><br />+thread+<br />10. Valery Grancher, mark cooley, marc, curt cloninger, trashconnection,<br />ryan griffis, steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org, neil jenkins, Jess Loseby,<br />//jonCates: After net.art on 1998, my personal view…<br />11. mark cooley, Lemmy Caution, steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org: Some thoughts<br />on computer security and the living dead<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />1.<br /><br />Date: 7.25.04<br />From: Jessica Ivins <jessica@rhizome.org><br />Subject: Rhizome.org Organizational Subscriptions Program<br /><br />To the Rhizome Community:<br /><br />My name is Jessica Ivins, Intern/Assistant with the staff at Rhizome. I?m<br />writing on behalf of Rhizome to seek your assistance in promoting our<br />organizational subscriptions program. Purchased at the institutional<br />level, these subscriptions are offered so that staff/faculty/members can<br />have access to Rhizome without having to pay for individual memberships.<br />Subscriptions are available to institutions worldwide such as museums,<br />universities, art centers, media centers, libraries, etc.<br /><br />As you know, Rhizome depends primarily upon foundation funding and<br />individual membership fees for financial support. Organizational<br />subscriptions help to expand our membership base while earning funding for<br />Rhizome.<br /><br />We are especially seeking colleges and universities to subscribe with us<br />for the upcoming academic year beginning in August/September. A list of<br />colleges, universities, and other institutions currently subscribing to<br />Rhizome can be viewed at the organizational subscriptions page:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a>.<br /><br />Please contact me, Jessica Ivins at Jessica@rhizome.org, or Rachel Greene,<br />Executive Director, at Rachel@rhizome.org, with any questions regarding<br />organizational memberships. A wealth of information about organizational<br />subscriptions, including pricing and sign-up procedures, is also available<br />at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a>.<br /><br />If your organization is in a poor or excluded community, contact me as we<br />can subsidize memberships for qualifying institutions.<br /><br />Please help us expand the ranks of who can use and access Rhizome by<br />passing on this information to colleagues, friends, etc.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Jessica G. Ivins<br />Intern/Assistant, Rhizome.org<br />Jessica@rhizome.org<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />2.<br /><br />Date: 7.26.04<br />From: Marieke Istha <istha@montevideo.nl><br />Subject: upcoming exhibition: Channel Zero<br /><br />The Netherlands Media Art Institute presents the exhibition:<br /><br />Channel Zero<br />28 August ­ 23 October 2004<br />Opening 27 August 17.00 - 19.00 uur<br /> <br /><br />Participating Artists: Sergei Bugaev Afrika (RU), Maja Bajevic ( F/BA), Marc<br />Bijl (NL), Heather Burnett (UK), Ritsaert Ten Cate (NL), Nikos Charalambidis<br />(CY), David Claerbout (B), Christophe Draeger (CH), Rainer Ganahl (A),<br />Kendell Geers (SA), Kostas Ioannides (GR), Katarzyna Kozyra (PL), Boris<br />Mikhailov (RU), Elahe Massumi (IR), Personal Cinema (International),<br />Francesco Simeti (I), Eliezer Sonnenschein (IL), Lina Theodorou (GR), Palle<br />Torsson (S), Simone Zaugg (CH)<br /><br />Curator: Katerina Gregos (GR)<br /><br />We live within a culture marked by violence, both real and simulated. In the<br />society of the spectacle where the image exercises an all-pervasive power<br />and everything tends to be reduced to mere representation, images of<br />violence have become commonplace, yet another product for consumption.<br /><br />In the wake of the recent war in Iraq, the international ?war against<br />terrorism¹ and the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this culture of<br />violence seems to be heightened. As a result, it appears we increasingly<br />exist in a state of (almost) constant alert; post-1989 euphoria and optimism<br />have given way to cynicism, pessimism and the return of fear as a very real<br />issue. Invisible walls of terror, ignorance and hate have replaced the walls<br />of the cold war. Within this expanding culture of violence, the relationship<br />between fact and fiction has been conflated, as it is often difficult to<br />distinguish between the two. Real life events involving explicit violence<br />have become the basis of a perverse sort of entertainment in television and<br />the entertainment industry; on the other hand, news casting and journalism<br />have become increasingly formulaic, sensational and less ?neutral¹ and<br />?objective¹. The barrage and repetition of a specific kind of media-related<br />violent imagery in many cases causes detachment and indifference. The fact<br />is, that calamity (of any kind) remains largely ungraspable and<br />un-representable as we, the audience, increasingly experience the world<br />through the filter of the media.<br /><br />The artists participating in Channel Zero make art that responds to the<br />culture of violence that surrounds us and explore representations of<br />violence in the media, entertainment industry or society in general to<br />analyze, undermine, deconstruct or simply critique them. They examine the<br />social, political, and cultural as well as the personal aspects of violence<br />through film, video, photography, digital media and the Internet. In many<br />ways, this is an exhibition about media using new media.<br /><br />However, apart from being fixated with images of violence and catastrophe<br />Channel Zero will also aim to offer a redemptive alternative, which reflects<br />the ever-increasing desire for a culture of peace and a critique of<br />war-mongering. Through their works, the comment on, counter, and transform<br />the conventions of the mass media which frequently objectifies violence.<br />Sifting through the often-deceptive images created by the media, they point<br />to the heavily mediated perceptual field of the representation of violence<br />and offer alternative readings of them.<br /><br /> <br />For more information / Images: Marieke Istha (Communication)<br /><br />+31 (0)20 6237101 / istha@montevideo.nl<br />Exhibition open: Tuesday - Saturday and the first Sunday of the month 1:00 -<br />6:00 pm<br /><br />Entrance 2,50 (1,50 with discount)<br /><br />Netherlands Media Art Institute<br />Montevideo/Time Based Arts<br />Keizersgracht 264 <br />1016 EV Amsterdam <br />The Netherlands<br />T +31 20 6237101 <br />F +31 20 6244423 <br />istha@montevideo.nl<br />www.montevideo.nl <br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships<br />purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow<br />participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded<br />communities.) Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more<br />information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel@Rhizome.org.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />3.<br /><br />Date: 7.30.04<br />From: kurt bigenho <kurt@unfinished.com><br />Subject: Fun With Videophones : The Hookup<br /><br />July 8, 2004 (San Francisco)<br /><br />Multiverse presents "Fun with Videophones: The Hookup" a live, interactive<br />reality spectacle using (or perhaps mis-using) the marvels of videophone<br />technology. Our two contestants hop from bar to bar trying to score; the<br />imagery is sent back to the gallery via videophones where the audience gets<br />to decide what happens next! *Fun with Videophones: The Hookup* takes place<br />Thursday August 5, 2004, at Rx Gallery. Doors open at 8pm, show begins at<br />9pm. Rx Galllery, recently voted best gallery by the SF Weekly, is located<br />at 132 Eddy Street, in San Francisco.<br /><br />The premise is simple. During the show, our contestants are sent out<br />accompanied by a "videophonographer" equipped with a video-enabled mobile<br />phone, to capture the action as it unfolds. Each contestant will go "on the<br />prowl", trying to score in bars throughout San Francisco. The crew records<br />the action, then emails it back to Rx Gallery, where the video is displayed.<br />The audience then votes on what happens next: where to go, who to talk to,<br />what to say. Basically, the audience writes the script!<br /><br />"Fun with Videophones: The Hookup" is the first show ever to use video phone<br />technology for the purposes of live entertainment, brought to you in-part by<br />the creator of the Mobile Phone Photo Show. It's reality art! It's a<br />spectacle! It's embarrassing! It's ridiculous! It's fun with video phones!<br /><br />A special afterparty produced by Soda will follow the show, with djs Philip<br />Sherbourne (Soda, Flavorpill) and The Fresh Blend (Soda, Iris Distribution).<br /><br />"Fun with Videophones: The Hookup", is a production of Multiverse, the<br />genre-bending art-party that always keeps you guessing. "Fun with<br />Videophones: The Hookup", was created by Kurt Bigenho and Harmon Leon, with<br />assistance by Hal Philips. Visit the Multiverse website (www.multiverse.tv)<br />for additional information.<br /><br />Kurt Bigenho is a multidisciplinary artist, curator, and designer. More<br />information about his projects and provocations can be found at his personal<br />site, unfinished. (www.unfinished.com). He is the creator of The Mobile<br />Phone Photo Show (www.mpps.tv), the first exhibition in the nation to<br />examine the artistic potential of mobile phone photography, which was<br />exhibited in San Francisco from May 20-June 18th, 2004. A primary on-going<br />project is The Dept. of Shape Research, an organization which is currently<br />hard at work developing many 1000s of completely useless shapes<br />(www.dsr.org). He is the curator of Multiverse, a monthly art-party at Rx<br />Gallery. He has shown work at New Langton Arts, Southern Exposure, four<br />walls, Somarts, the Webbys, Rx Gallery, and the Oakland Museum of Art. He<br />has a degree in architecture from UC Berkeley and consults as a brand,<br />experience, and information strategist through his consultancy Kurt for Hire<br />(www.kurtforhire.com); clients include Leapfrog Toys and Robert Mondavi<br />Wines. <br /><br />Harmon Leon is a San Francisco comedian/writer. Heâ??s the author of the<br />award-winning book The Harmon Chronicles, as well as a writer for Details,<br />Salon, NPR, High Times, Black Book, Cosmopolitan, Wired, Stuff, Maxim, Salon<br />and National Geographic. Harmon has appeared on the Howard Stern Show, and<br />performed solo-comedy shows around the globe, including at The Montreal<br />Comedy Festival, The Edinburgh Fringe Festival and the Melbourne Comedy<br />Festival. Recently, Harmon co-starred with OJ Simpson in a hidden camera<br />show called Juiced. Harmon described the experience as "creepy." His other<br />TV credits include Penn&Teller's Showtime series, the Jamie Kennedy<br />Experiment, Blind Date, as well as writing and performing on the BBC.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />4.<br /><br />Date: 7.27.04<br />From: Carol Hobson <chobson@ucsd.edu><br />Subject: CRCA/UCSD Job Opening<br /><br />The position of TECHNICAL DIRECTOR is open at the UC San Diego Center for<br />Research in Computing & the Arts (CRCA). As the Technical Director and<br />Systems Administrator, this position will implement and manage network and<br />upgrades, support new and ongoing research activities, and participate in<br />planning and implementation of new facilities and infrastructures for the<br />New Media Arts within the California Institute for Telecommunications and<br />Information Technology (Cal-(IT)2).<br /><br />Applicants should check the UCSD online posting (see link below for job<br />#33614), where you may also apply for the position. NO resumes will be<br />considered sent via email or direct post. You MUST apply via the online<br />system. The filing Deadline is August 4, 2004. The payroll title for this<br />position is a Programmer/Analyst III.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?cat=new&job_id=33614">http://joblink.ucsd.edu/bulletin/job.html?cat=new&job_id=33614</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://crca.ucsd.edu/">http://crca.ucsd.edu/</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />5.<br /><br />Date: 7.25.04<br />From: huong ngo <huong@huongngo.com><br />Subject: dream machine<br /><br />Record your dreams : Trade your dreams<br />Share your subconscious as we archive your dreams. Call 773-HUM-9035, and<br />record your dream after the beep. If you leave a phone number, we'll send<br />you another dream from our archive. Call and record as often as you like:<br />immediately after waking, perhaps before you're even fully awake, before you<br />realize it was all just a dream.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huongngo.com/ssri/dream-machine.gif">http://www.huongngo.com/ssri/dream-machine.gif</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome is now offering organizational subscriptions, memberships<br />purchased at the institutional level. These subscriptions allow<br />participants of an institution to access Rhizome's services without<br />having to purchase individual memberships. (Rhizome is also offering<br />subsidized memberships to qualifying institutions in poor or excluded<br />communities.) Please visit <a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/info/org.php">http://rhizome.org/info/org.php</a> for more<br />information or contact Rachel Greene at Rachel@Rhizome.org.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />6.<br /><br />Date: 7.29.04<br />From: Pall Thayer <palli@pallit.lhi.is><br />Subject: Proximity Mapper - Matias Arje, ava (M)applet - Pall Thayer<br />(Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland inside and out)<br /><br />The Trans-Cultural Mapping: Iceland Inside and Out workshop produced<br />some really exciting projects. One of these projects, the Proximity<br />Mapper by Matias Arje, has now been finished and can be viewed at<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/?readme=51">http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/?readme=51</a><br /><br />It was agreed upon that all projects would be released with source-code<br />under the GPL license. Enjoy.<br /><br />More projects to come soon.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Another project to come out of the Iceland Inside and Out project, was<br />of course the java map that can be seen on the website. The source code<br />for this has now been made available and can be downloaded here:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/index.php?readme=53">http://pallit.lhi.is/insideout/index.php?readme=53</a><br /><br />On the same page you can see and use the applet.<br /><br />More projects coming soon.<br /><br />Pall Thayer<br />– <br />_________________________________<br />Pall Thayer<br />artist/teacher<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.this.is/pallit">http://www.this.is/pallit</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://130.208.220.190">http://130.208.220.190</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://130.208.220.190/nuharm">http://130.208.220.190/nuharm</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://130.208.220.190/panse">http://130.208.220.190/panse</a><br />—————————–<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />7.<br /><br />Date: 7.26.04<br />From: Color's Torrid Function! <llacook@yahoo.com><br />Subject: on network art<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://art.paultulipana.net/essay/onnetwork/on_network_art.pdf">http://art.paultulipana.net/essay/onnetwork/on_network_art.pdf</a><br /> <br />excellent essay on network art by someone you may be familiar with<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />For $65 annually, Rhizome members can put their sites on a Linux<br />server, with a whopping 350MB disk storage space, 1GB data transfer per<br />month, catch-all email forwarding, daily web traffic stats, 1 FTP<br />account, and the capability to host your own domain name (or use<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.net/your_account_name">http://rhizome.net/your_account_name</a>). Details at:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://rhizome.org/services/1.php">http://rhizome.org/services/1.php</a><br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />8.<br /><br />Date: 7.30.04<br />From: Jim Andrews <jim@vispo.com><br />Subject: "Digital Writing Circa 2004"<br /><br />"Digital Writing Circa 2004"<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com/writings/essays/DigitalWritingCirca2004.pdf">http://vispo.com/writings/essays/DigitalWritingCirca2004.pdf</a> (139 kb)<br /><br />This is an attempt to say something about digital writing in the current<br />social and political context (and with reference to wider contexts).<br /><br />It was written as a talk for the trAce symposium on "Writing and the<br />Internet" earlier in July.<br /><br />By the time the symposium roled around, I actually had some new hypermedia<br />cooking ("War Pigs", still not finished), so I showed the hypermedia and<br />distributed print copies of the essay for people to read at their leisure.<br /><br />ja<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://vispo.com">http://vispo.com</a><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />9.<br /><br />Date: 7/30/04<br />From: Andrew [unwrinkled ear] Choate <ralphleo@sbcglobal.net><br />Subject: Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the <net.net.net> conference<br /><br />Remaining Adventures: NTNTNT and the <net.net.net> conference<br /><br />NTNTNT is four and one quarter inches wide, five and a half inches tall and<br />one inch thick. It is a book. <net.net.net> was a series of lectures<br />initiated and curated by Natalie Bookchin at the California Institute of the<br />Arts and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. This conference<br />took place under the <net.net.net> rubric from the Fall of 1999 until the<br />Spring of 2000. A visiting artist or artistic collective working with the<br />Internet or via media technology appeared every few weeks. Participants<br />included Vuk Cosic, the Critical ArtEnsemble, Fiambrera, Irational, I/O/D,<br />Cornelia Sollfrank, Alexei Shulgin, @rtmark and others.<br /><br />Before the project began, Bookchin nursed a desire to publish the<br />proceedings of the interviews and speeches. As the project unfolded,<br />CalArts students disappeared into graduates, transcripts decomposed, the<br />stock bubble burst, and hype about the Internet and its art metamorphosized<br />into an often unchallenged proliferation of gripes. Enthusiasm from two of<br />the students involved in Bookchin¹s original class lingered. Ultimately, Zoe<br />Crosher became the managing editor of NTNTNT and Jason Brown became its<br />editor. <br /><br />NTNTNT, © 2003, sprang from <net.net.net> the way leftovers spring from a<br />meal: by remaining when all else is gone. Three teams of CalArts students<br />assembled and dissolved over the course of the book¹s production, dividing<br />responsibilities, finding/ misplacing/ transcribing the recordings and<br />brainstorming what to do with what remained. What we hold in our hands when<br />we pick up NTNTNT is a montage of the <net.net.net> proceedings, relevant<br />journalism from the time period in question, print reproductions of net.art<br />from the artists featured, and historical texts ­ Benjamin, Borges,<br />Burroughs, Gibson, etc. ­ which provide philosophical and cultural context<br />for the ideas discussed during the conference and presented in the book.<br />NTNTNT is less a document of the <net.net.net> project than it is a trove of<br />cogent fragments. None of the original interviews are presented in full;<br />rather, they are cut up into significant bits, scattered across the book¹s<br />six main sections (there are twenty-seven subsections) and placed within the<br />area of investigation most akin to their respective focus of attention.<br /><br /> Excluding the introductory texts ­ essays by Crosher and Brown, and an<br />interview with Bookchin ­, no sample from the book is over 500 words long.<br />Brown¹s editing determines how we read the book, while the book, in turn,<br />forcefully demonstrates that a collection of framed fragments is more useful<br />and more representative to our time than documentations of ³what happens.²<br />With the history of texts, images and urls at his fingertips, Brown compiled<br />a book of evocative ideas which read much like Henri Michaux¹s Tent Posts or<br />Franz Kafka¹s Blue Octavo Notebooks, except that here we have a lot of<br />people who work with computers talking poetically ­ in a way that incites<br />thought ­ about technology and culture, and these dialogues are embedded<br />within a selection of resonant historical and commercial reproductions. For<br />example, Geert Lovink, in a 9 February 2000 interview with Dee Dee Halleck<br />and Sarah Diamond at MOCA, says ³Europe is in immediate danger of being<br />turned into a sort of reality park where you can go and experience<br />history?Amsterdam runs on the Rembrandt and Van Gogh industry?Culture in<br />Europe is in immediate danger of being reduced to a description of national<br />heritage. (p. 25, 26)² This brief passage from Lovink is included in the<br />MELANCHOLY subsection of the book, which includes four other items: a<br />reproduction of Paul Klee¹s painting ?Angelus Novus;¹ an email from Aureia<br />Harvey to praystation.com regarding the blues of writing code, impermanence<br />and ³the point of it all;² an excerpt from Walter Benjamin¹s diaries<br />interpreting the ?Angel of History;¹ three sentences from a 2002 Los Angeles<br />Times article about the statute of limitations for insider trading as it<br />would effect Silicon Valley inhabitants in the wake of the dot.com<br />boom-bust. By using the power of conjunction as a diagnostic tracking of<br />modern cultural trajectories, NTNTNT identifies the constellation of issues<br />at stake for concerned citizens and agents of the mediated class. Without<br />depending on the accumulative effect of exhaustive analysis for the<br />production of intellectual potency, NTNTNT¹s fragments burst on a subject<br />and reveal it from a fresh perspective, self-consciously divulging the<br />underpinnings of NTNTNT¹s own methodology while illuminating how these<br />processes are at work on larger scales. As the Giorgio Agamben quotation on<br />p. 297 demonstrates: ³Alienating by force a fragment of the past from its<br />historical context, the quotation at once makes it lose its character of<br />authentic testimony and invests it with an alienating power that constitutes<br />its unmistakable aggressive force?[T]he authority invoked by the quotation<br />is founded precisely on the destruction of the authority that is attributed<br />to a certain text by its situation in the history of culture.²<br /> <br /> Readers inclined to turn to the book for answers to questions like ³what is<br />net.art?² are sure to be disappointed. The 10 page NET.ART subsection is<br />probably the most boring one in the book, as it contains expected<br />repudiations of the term by various conference luminaries and banal<br />digressions on other problematic self-referential semantics. Few of the<br />excerpts are explicitly about net.art, thankfully, but the subject is<br />well-explored when it remains under the surface and in the background of the<br />discussions taking place about more specific topics. Focusing on how<br />software ­ Microsoft Word in particular -­ programs its users, Matt Fuller¹s<br />May 2000 interview with the <net.net.net> collective penetrates into the<br />heart of the most basic and profound issues regarding human relationships<br />with technology. Picking up the baton from Marx, Fuller begins: ³We (I/O/D)<br />believe that every form of technical innovation affects social composition<br />(p. 193.)² As we use computer technology to express ourselves and construct<br />our society, we become inextricably coupled with this medium. Fuller tracks<br />this process by examining the edifice of Microsoft Word:<br /><br />Word has solidified, in a sense, what word processing ?is.¹ It has become<br />our model of interacting with all kinds of text from love letters to<br />literary texts to resumés? These [templates] lock certain types of language<br />into place. If you look at the grammar checker, it constantly tells you<br />that your grammar is incorrect because you have what they call ?passive<br />sentences,¹ sentences which are not straight sequences of well-formed<br />grammatical objects. You get caught up in it, and this is a negative<br />because people begin to write like computer manuals in order not to be<br />judged as ?passive.¹ (p. 194)<br /><br /> Fuller is careful to point out that there is no overarching conspiracy<br />behind the manufacturing of such software; instead, the unfortunate and<br />uncontrollable menace is that the software successfully propagates a<br />standardization of language, especially among uncertain and non-native<br />authors. There is no ghost in the machine, in other words, but the<br />development of language is haunted by programming code.<br /><br /> The excerpt from the Unabomber¹s essay ³Industrial Society and its<br />Future² is a crucial inclusion in the context of the internet¹s boom and<br />bust years so serendipitously charted by <net.net.net> and NTNTNT.<br />Kaczynski¹s primary grievance is against the injustices that gush from the<br />fact that ³technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration<br />for freedom. (p. 108)² This is obvious, especially in hindsight, throughout<br />history. The 9/11 hijackers didn¹t want freedom; they wanted to be<br />sheltered from our technology and the affects it has on people and social<br />arrangements. A sentimental resonance between the people that are the most<br />negatively affected by technology and the people that are its most eminent<br />critics and artists subliminally recurs throughout the book.<br /><br /> The dissolution of the Internet bubble is summarily addressed in two<br />pages ­ one white, the other black (pages 19-20). On the left (white) page<br />is a report from internetnews.com documenting the purchase of Flyswat Inc.<br />by NBC Internet Inc. (NBCi) for ³about $100 million in stock.² The bottom<br />of the page features a graph representing the NASDAQ monthly averages from<br />1994 till late 1999. The right (black) page continues the graph until 2002,<br />while the top of the page includes one sentence from a searchenginewatch.com<br />report documenting the closing of NBCi by NBC. This kind of critical<br />montage expresses the story more accurately and more swiftly than any kind<br />of analysis could, while it also serves the function of balancing the<br />content of the interviews with the immediate history we¹re all familiar with<br />now. Another image containing emotional and practical polysignificance is<br />The Skeletal Remains of Utopia (p. 32), a one-page map of the internet circa<br />1998 created by the Lumeta Corporation. I can¹t look at this image without<br />feeling nostalgia for my own ignorance and naiveté.<br /><br /> All of the interviewees were asked about their conceptions of themselves<br />as artists or as activists. They unanimously agree that the distinction is<br />beside the point, but several articulate vital positions while answering the<br />question. ³The highest level of return that we could obtain as cultural<br />profit is by furthering activism against corporate rights and making that<br />activism known (p. 211)² says ?Raoul¹ of @rtmark. ?Frank¹ goes on to<br />describe how @rtmark¹s activities negotiate and challenge the relations<br />between culture and capital, ³We fund sabotage. We attempt to do the worst<br />taboo with money, which is to give it away and not expect a financial<br />return. (p, 212)² ?Raoul¹ elaborates:<br /><br />Our job is publicity and propaganda. Five thousand dollars isn¹t going to<br />change anyone¹s life, but the idea of it can. The fact that there¹s five<br />thousand dollars going to somebody to do something politically active, or<br />one thousand dollars, or even five hundred dollars ­ suddenly it makes it<br />seem serious. (p. 212)²<br /><br />Not only does it make political action and critical sabotage serious, it<br />stimulates neophytes and amateurs to get into the fray. Brown soberly notes<br />in his introduction that the ³notion of activism [is] radically different<br />from post-Seattle 1999 to post-New York 2001, (p. xlviii)² an understatement<br />to which Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) co-founder Steve Kurtz¹ recent arrest<br />can attest. Intelligent, rigorous subversion as practiced by @rtmark and<br />CAE seems even more necessary and treacherous after the intervening W years.<br />The 2 November 1999 interview with CAE dissects the popular but<br />fundamentally flawed ³Trojan Horse approach to subversion.² CAE pinpoint<br />the inherent paradox at work when artists or activists try to subvert the<br />system from within without becoming who they pretend to be:<br /> <br />When I have students who talk about going into business administration<br />because once they rise up through the ranks they will screw the system up, I<br />am [suspicious]. That notion is a complete fantasy, absolute insanity,<br />because the only way you can rise up is when you have been socialized to get<br />into that position, and that is an assurance that you won¹t screw anything<br />up. And to think that you can maintain radical subjectivity while going<br />through that kind of socializing process of grooming for the elite is<br />absolutely naïve. (p. 53)<br /><br /> Readers will be grateful that a book filled so precisely with only the<br />most coherent and incisive portions of interviews and paragraphs of sampled<br />text also leaves ample room available for humor. One of my favorite<br />lighthearted, but still appropriate, entries are the Bizhaq Field Data<br />reports from Starbucks #5308; one report publishes the transcript of an<br />overheard cell phone conversation, including the dress, mannerisms, and<br />technical possessions of the subject, and another documents an overheard<br />conversation regarding trade show freebies. Rachel Baker and Heath Bunting,<br />as members of Irational, crop up in five out of the six main sections, but<br />the publication of this April 2000 interview bomb speaks to what makes the<br />book so pleasurable: its only pretensions are toward readability and<br />evocativity. <br /> <br /> Bunting> Rachel, what are you doing?<br /> Baker> I¹ve got sore feet.<br /> Bunting> Do you have to pick them into the dinner?<br /> Collective> You¹re lovers. You eat her feet. My feet itch too,<br /> Rachel.<br /> Baker> Do you guys have a bathtub here?<br /> Collective> No, there¹s no bathtub. There¹s a sink?<br /> Baker> There¹s no bathtub here?<br /> Collective> There¹s a shower and a sink.<br /> Baker> Oh, that sucks. In a big apartment like this? That¹s<br /> crazy.<br /> Collective> Pretty weird with all this space you guys have.<br /> Collective> Okay, yeah, we¹re going to delete that part.<br /><br />Without a playful spirit to accompany all the scissoring and juxtaposing,<br />NTNTNT would read like a sepulcher of good ideas from vanished times.<br /><br /> As a collection and demonstration of ideas and their kernels, NTNTNT is<br />a success. It is not a successful explication or elaboration of these<br />ideas, nor is it a strict documentation of the <net.net.net> conference. It<br />just so happens that the ideas originated in a single project while Brown<br />created their lineage: his editing makes the ideas come alive to share<br />interhistorical force. If the interviews were simply collated and<br />presented, the reader would be left with a hodge-podge of idle talk and<br />enlightened perspicacity, but the fast-snipping editing bestows coherency<br />and impact when there isn¹t any immediately apparent. Brown begins his<br />introduction with the famous anecdote about the first Internet transmission<br />from UCLA to the Stanford Research Center in 1969: due to a bug, the system<br />crashed after three letters were typed. But, on second try, it was fine.<br />He then points us to the 9 September 1947 discovery of an actual moth in the<br />Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator; the moth was saved and taped to a report<br />sheet, now on view in the Smithsonian. ³First actual case of bug being<br />found² was written on the report sheet. NTNTNT ends with a translation of<br />the last line of Guy-Ernest Debord¹s film Hurlements en faveur de Sade: ³We<br />live like lost children, our adventures incomplete.² How we relate to<br />technology ­ whether we try to become the bug in the system or we try to<br />extract it ­ will always be an incomplete adventure, but an adventure<br />nonetheless. NTNTNT retains and manufactures the childlike sensitivity<br />essential to keeping the adventure inspired.<br /><br />­ Andrew Choate<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />10.<br /><br />Date: 7/25/04 - 7/26/04<br />From: Valery Grancher <vgrancher@nomemory.org>, mark cooley<br /><mgc868f@smsu.edu>, marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>, curt cloninger<br /><curt@lab404.com>, <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>, trashconnection<br /><www@trashconnection.com>, neil jenkins <neil@devoid.co.uk><br />Subject: After net.art on 1998, my personal view…<br /><br />Valery Grancher <vgrancher@nomemory.org> posted:<br /><br />"Webpaintings": 1998-2004<br />After net.art on 1998, my personal view…<br /><br />If you look art history and how it is dealing with paintings, you can<br />perceive that the main topic is always the subject painted on canvas: From<br />Giotto to today. Paintings has dealt with physical subject, dealt with<br />sometimes narration or no narration, and has interacted with other media<br />like photography or with just its materiality and iconology…<br /><br />For artist from my generation, we grew up with video games and computers.<br />The first iconology I perceived were icons from interface and software. The<br />screen has defined a new window and has killed the camera obscura. The<br />screen is not reflecting and difracting the light like pigment but is<br />generating electronic light. So today how to paint something ? The skill<br />doesn't matter. The main topic is to paint something that nobody painted<br />before you (Miltos Manetas (1)). And in my case, I would like to add: to<br />paint something by defining a new iconoly (painting semiology)…<br /><br />Some peoples from my art public were surprised on 1998 to see that a<br />conceptual artist like me who was one of the first to use internet media on<br />1994, 4 years later during the time when Net Art was really the most<br />successfull art practice, is taking brush to produce images on canvas !<br /><br />I would say that I always perceived internet as a dynamic process, a network<br />space where nothing may be freezed. Internet is dealing with new concept of<br />time and space, and is defining on another way human identity and<br />phenomenolgy. Net art is a process.This media has evolved from 1998 until<br />today to a huge market where we cannot find any TAZ (Hakim Bey (2)) like on<br />1994 when net art was conceived! The web and internet is today a space where<br />branding icons are bringing a new kind of consumerism (the hyperconsumerism)<br />where also language may be commercialized ("google adwords", C. Bruno (3)) ,<br />a new kind of 'pop' with its visual signs, logo, VIP and so on, so on…<br /><br />Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! (4) it<br />is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist<br />anymore…<br /><br />But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be produced<br />in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net art' anymore ! I<br />do and I will also…<br /><br />But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious',<br />'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical way:<br />'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using on the<br />screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5), in my case I felt clearly<br />that the only thing to do was to reverse the process:<br />How should be paintings during internet time ? How to use computer iconology<br />in paintings ?<br /><br />I think quite differently than some painters of my generation: I said that<br />we should paint something which was never painted before… that is true…<br />but painting is also a language and is not dealing with just images and<br />subject and that's why I'm talking about iconology. I deeply think that the<br />only way to paint a painting in our internet time should not be to paint<br />computers objects (still life) but what computers has brought in our reality<br />theater, to paint what computer technology has changed in our way of seeing.<br />That's why I choosed to paint website screen, computer screen, computer<br />codes. By doing this, I try to show that the computer iconology is changing<br />all the time and paintings are perfect Flat Dead Things which are freezing<br />the topics painted. The result is that the paintings produced are always<br />reflecting dead icons: The design of the website are changing all the time,<br />the software are changing also, and this is the same for the codes…<br /><br />Otherwise, I would say that the internet screen are little bit like<br />landscape and still life. These pictures are osbsolete, and were used so<br />much that we cannot define anything specific, but at the same we are always<br />fascinated by them. This is like a sunset, this is a stupid and very kitsch<br />'cliché', but all the time by facing this natural phenomenon we are always<br />fascinated because a specific and undefined detail inside this phenomenon is<br />catching us: Miltos Manetas is calling it "Neen"(6).<br /><br />I will finish by saying that this is the first time in history that human is<br />consuming language and iconology like daily products:<br />I defined my own way of seeing by being confronted to my generation computer<br />iconology, but my son will get another way of seeing by being confronted to<br />other technologies iconology.<br /><br />We jumped from the 'nature' phenomenology based on nature perception to<br />cyber-phenomenology based on technologies interactions with our perception !<br /><br />Valéry Grancher<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nomemory.org">http://www.nomemory.org</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint">http://www.nomemory.org/webpaint</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nomemorybazaar.com">http://www.nomemorybazaar.com</a><br /><br />N.B: This text will be published in my book "internet drawing" on fall 2004<br />onestarpress editions: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.onetsarpress.com">http://www.onetsarpress.com</a><br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />mark cooley <mgc868f@smsu.edu> replied:<br /><br />"Like Vuk Cosik (the father of net art) is saying, NET ART IS DEAD ! (4) it<br />is dead because the context where net art was produced doesn't exist<br />anymore… <br /><br />But on the other I still think that some art form would and will be produced<br />in interactions with Internet, but we cannot call it 'net art' anymore ! I<br />do and I will also…<br /><br />But at the same time I decided to jump into the most 'prestigious',<br />'serious', 'outdated' and 'unpolitically correct' media on an ironical way:<br />'Paintings' ! Many artist came from paintings to net art by using on the<br />screen the paintings iconology and metaphor (5),"<br /><br />At the risk of opening up the "death of net art" debate again. It seems<br />that you are saying that you switched from net art to painting-the-net<br />because the context for net art was dead, but, one could argue that the<br />context for painting was dead when the photograph was developed over a<br />hundred years ago, yet you are calling what you do "Painting." So why do<br />artists who use networks as an approach to making art have to rename the<br />practice? Why not rename what you do something else besides "painting?"<br /><br />Personally, i think this whole "the death of net art" stuff stinks of<br />avant-gardism, which one may think died with Modernism, but i guess both<br />myths are alive and well. the myths vary but often go something like<br />this… declare the practice that you do extinct (along with everyone doing<br />it) and go on to the NEXT LEVEL (which in this case is something much older<br />and arguably out of date than net art) and then declare yourself THE FIRST<br />to do that. but i say art only exists as a simple hierarchical timeline if<br />you want to be reductionist (and a modernist). If the newness of painting<br />exists in the subject as you suggest (painting what has never been painted)<br />then why does the newness of net art exist in the context of the technology?<br />…and on a related note the whole "Father of Net Art" stuff is so<br />patriarchal and boring.<br /><br />+ + +<br />Valery Grancher replied:<br /><br />Dear Mark Cooley,<br /><br />If you read my seconde text egarding my webpaintings, I say after 'post net<br />art' and 'post paintings', for the reason you are mentionning.<br />Webpaintings is also mentionned as an ironical project for the same reason,<br />but on the other hand webapintings is modernist by rversing the modernism<br />process, this is waht is interesting on conceptual level.<br />Of course net.art regarding technology was also a myth and something<br />neverdefined before ….<br /><br />All the art may be symbolized as socks: we may use them sometimes by<br />reversing them, puting inside space outside and aoutside space inside…<br />This is the way I am playing<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> replied:<br /><br />Hi mark,<br /><br />I agree…with you. I am so bored with all this shoulder jumping via<br />institutionally led propoganda.<br /><br />Yep - Vuk Cosik can say whatever he wants, but it certainly is not<br />reflecting the reality of what is actually going on right now in many of our<br />lives as practicing networked/relational artists, and soft groups. Surely<br />this is all about claiming a section of history, (yawn) yet again, taking<br />away the 'authenticity' of what many of us are actively continuing without<br />the insecure need of institutional justification. Killing and placing a flag<br />on that mythical 'hermitcally sealed' moon, just so one's name can be seen<br />in lights as part of the delusory spectacle, instigated by provincially<br />minded academics, and tired and worn out institutionally dissatisfied<br />dependents. A sad state of affairs indeed. It is a very interesting time -<br />and we can observe now more than ever where people's real intentions lie…<br /><br />We are in the process of setting up a gallery in London, UK called HTTP (The<br />house of technological termed praxis), and we are already filled up with a<br />whole year of artists/soft groups who are actively involved with with net<br />art, sound art and relational art; young and old. We set up this gallery,<br />because we feel that fine art and connected institutions and some curators<br />have failed in democratizing, showing what is of value out there, we are<br />left with no other choice but reclaim what has been taken away from<br />networked creatives by institutionally bound power hungry centralists, with<br />an aim re-balance the ever changing picture out there. And what is great<br />about this is that we are getting a lot of genuine interest from new,<br />independent fine art groups, nationally and locally and people, who would<br />not normally view net art, and things related - so all of this 'trying to<br />kill' is a tactic to place certain people on thrones, and it does nothing<br />that is positive or progressive to open up debate, or even empower the<br />fluidity of the artist, curator or connected creatives, or culture in the<br />wider context.<br /><br />Let those who rode the dot.com boom who are have run out of imagination and<br />fresh verve, fizzle out inside their bursted, restrictive bubble - who in<br />reality were obviously desperately reliant on capitalist-led trappings and a<br />need for historical mirrors to see themselves rather than the larger<br />picture, reflecting a weakness and failure to transcend canon-led protocls -<br />yes, may be they are dead. But there are plenty more who are vibrant and<br />alive, and they are the ones who will teach the so called encased 'heroic<br />period' - DEAD gurus, how to move beyond lip-service. There is a lot going<br />on, and it is linked to non-linear behaviour, flexible manouvering, and<br />beyond the remits of imposed gate-keeping.<br /><br />And yes - history will unfold…and it will not be fine art or singular<br />'minded', visionless academics who will be looked upon positively as new<br />histories/stories are declared, but the ever flourishing expansionist<br />individuals and groups, who are exploring their, collective, collaborative,<br />and authentic, re-evalutaing progressions of a socially networked, and<br />relationally 'embodied' creative world, beyond institutionally directed<br />mythologies - the real heroes (if there is such a thing anymore).<br /><br />'Kill the patriarch, not net art - you muppets…'<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> replied:<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html">http://www.easylife.org/netart/catalogue.html</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/">http://ps2.praystation.com/pound/assets/2001/09-04-2001/</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://pleine-peau.com/top/">http://pleine-peau.com/top/</a><br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />mark cooley replied:<br /><br />i understand that the paintings are somewhat ironic, yet i don't see how<br />modernism is being reversed (rather it is being progressed - so maybe<br />"postmodern" is a better term?) because the subject of painting has changed<br />from so-called landscape, still life etc. to the web, which could be thought<br />of as an extention of still-life or landscape. Whereas much of the history<br />of European/U.S painting can be seen as a celebration of private property<br />(capitalism) whether through representing actual objects (still-life) or<br />landed property (landscape), web-paintings can be seen as a representation<br />of capital in the information economy. you are capturing the icons of<br />global capital (uncritically from what i can gather) - the digital landscape<br />(not as a battleground of different interests and powers) but as stable,<br />static (painting) landed property - google - the final frontier!<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />mark cooley added:<br /><br />very nicely put marc. it is ironic that the essay that sparked alot of this<br />death business "the death of the author" can be read itself as an attack on<br />capitalism, authenticity and avant-gardism. oh well…<br /><br />good luck with the new gallery space - sounds great.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org replied:<br />I am kind of amused and saddened by all of this. This happened<br />a couple of years ago in the zine community. What it really meant<br />is that one or two of the luminaries decided he (rarely she) kind<br />of woke up one day and decided "the thrill is gone".<br /><br />I know this will sound like sour grapes, but some years ago, well<br />it was around the time of the Loma Preita Earthquake (1989) someone<br />academics mainly art and lit types gave a conference on "cyberspace" and<br />some of us techies submited proposals but none of us got accepted because<br />we didn't fit "Gibson's vision" who was the author William Gibson of<br />Cyberpunk Science Fiction Fame at the time. It certainly did not relate to<br />how "cyberspace" was evolving at the time. Now luckily a local person<br />with better academic art credentials than I produced a pretty good book on<br />how cyberspace as evolving through the local<br />tree structureed(think threaded message mode) computer bulliten<br />boards in the local (Santa Cruz, California 1980s-1990s era).<br /><br />Now I am techie, and I left my academic art side in stasis i.e. I was<br />probably still am a printmaker)…From my world view the technology is<br />finally getting rich enough and powerful enough that really reaaly<br />interesting stuff could be done, so it is hard to say it is dead.<br /><br />In ways it is just beginning, this was why I was/am still so alramed with<br />the intrusion of the federal government into the doings of the the CAE<br />(Creative Arts Ensemble). I was hoping that a full and rich interaction<br />between the arts and biological sciences would start.<br /><br />I dunno whether this whole think of declaring patricarchs is kind<br />of a high arts thing or something. I know that Bill Joy has made<br />all sorts of declarations about technology. I now that Bill Gates<br />makes his statements about technology and Linus Torvaldis and Richard<br />Stallman propose perfectly viable alternatives and no one takes any of<br />their statements as "the last word". But I notice that "X is Dead" is a<br />favourite proclamation of people in the arts and alternative<br />communities. Why would one person presume so much power over things? Seems<br />kind of arrogant to me.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Valery Grancher replied:<br /><br />Dear Mark;<br /><br />That is the point !<br /><br />perfectly understood ! this is the second meaning layer of these project, a<br />way to criticize it as I said in my text:<br />"paintings are perfect dead flat stuff…"<br />they becaome alive through the meaing given by its context, modernism,<br />capital fetichism….<br />as you said google is the last frontier…..<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Valery Grancher added:<br />Dear All,<br /><br />As i said net.art is term invented by some guy which is corresponding to one<br />specific context and time which are over today.<br />Like I said in the same text it doesn't mean that produceing art with<br />internet is over also ! but that is emaing that producing art or whatever<br />with or through internet is still alive and doesn't match anymore with<br />'net.art' as defined by Vuk.<br />There is no debate regarding this jsut an evidence, we shoud be integrist<br />regarding a ghost or a shadow…<br />Since 1998, thing has evolved and art practice with or throough internet is<br />terribly strong today:<br />Website numbers has explosed, same for biennial , festival and so on and so<br />on….<br /><br />The eaming of my text is to show how 'net.art' defined by Vuk is so much<br />much modernist as was paintings on 19th.<br />By mixing this two practice I show how much that is weird and post painting<br />and post internet on ironical way by producing like i said in my texte<br />"perfect flat dead stuff".<br /><br />By seeing your text I can feel how much I am right, net.art today is much<br />more like a ghetto than an open land. Tell me why paintings should not be<br />net.art for example ? you can say only if you are defing criteria which is<br />defining 'net.art' that is meaning this is a kind of academism:<br />A perfect dead practice like paintings.<br /><br />That's whyu today we are just mixing practice thourgh media… and you<br />should call it whatever…<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />trashconnection <www@trashconnection.com> replied:<br /><br />VG> A s i said net.art is term invented by some<br />VG> guy which is corresponding to one specific<br />VG> context and time which are over today.<br /><br />Over today? Today of all days I get a message called Net Art News.<br />Possibly is this discrepancy artistically demanding. Does the point<br />between 't' and 'a' make difference? Let's try to translate.<br /><br />(net.art is over today) News<br /><br />Looks like somebody's ironic project I participate in.<br />I feel a bit ****ed over.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />neil jenkins <neil@devoid.co.uk> replied:<br /><br />the only 'problem' is the 'dot' and the difference between 'net' and<br />'network'<br />there are oh so many rules you can tie to a 'genre'<br /><br />'net' art forever<br /><br />ps: can i get a tattoo done like abe's ? mail me :)<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />11.<br /><br />Date: 7/29/04<br />From: mark cooley <mgc868f@smsu.edu>, Lemmy Caution <llacook@yahoo.com>,<br /><steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org><br />Subject: Some thoughts on computer security and the living dead<br /><br />mark cooley <mgc868f@smsu.edu> posted:<br /><br />Right-to-Life<br /><br />The term "Virus" is meant to associate a dead thing (and not really dead<br />having never been living) with a living biological body. A so-called<br />computer virus is linked to biology in language (and in reality) only<br />insofar as biology is made dependent on digital technology. The virus is<br />not neutral, and is seen as an attack on supposed life systems which are<br />widely viewed as, but are not either, neutral (techno culture). The<br />CorporateState defines the virus (with help from lots of technophiles),<br />while claiming that its own technology is a natural living organism with an<br />inherent right-to-life. It is interesting to note the ongoing case in<br />Florida involving a Husband's attempts to disconnect his wife's feeding<br />tube. Jeb Bush, the State and other interests have stepped into the matter<br />by declaring the case an issue of right-to-life vs. the so-called<br />right-to-die interests. What is omnipresent, but largely invisible to<br />mainstream debate (at least within the conservative bounds of mainstream<br />media) is the tendency to naturalize medical technology itself. The<br />technology itself becomes an invisible life force to which bodies must obey<br />(or defy). The feeding machine is viewed as a neutral (and natural)<br />necessity, and in the minds of right-to-lifers stands in for God itself. To<br />cut the body from the machine, that in fact lives for the body, is seen as<br />cutting the body itself. To kill the machine becomes confused with (and<br />then practiced as) killing the body. Computers are not alive, they are not<br />human, they cannot contract "viruses," they cannot be "attacked,"<br />"terrorized," or "infected," unless they are alive, unless they are human,<br />unless their "infections," and "attacks" are indistinguishable from human<br />infections, attacks, etc. Techno culture makes it possible for the murder<br />of thousands of humans to be discussed in the language of "surgical<br />strikes," and "smart bomb technology." Techno culture also makes it<br />possible for the pentagon to use the language of "Terrorism" when speaking<br />of a virtual sit-in!<br /> , or sim<br />ple hacker prank. <br /><br />Vampirism<br /><br />"Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living<br />labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks." - Karl Marx<br /><br />Computer networks are reproduced and modified continuously to work with and<br />to facilitate the trading of information (Capital) to predefined and often<br />highly secure locations. In this narrow system anything that slows the<br />speed of supply and demand is perceived as an attack on the body of capital,<br />therefore, dominance is needed, the body must be regulated to ensure the<br />continuity of power relationships within the system. The blood supply must<br />not be interrupted for vampires are relentless, don't die very easily, and<br />often have very little sense of humor.<br /><br />Sweden's not a target<br /><br />Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear of technology, and yet<br />a hammer is technology. Technophilia is described (much less often) as an<br />irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle and thimble are<br />technology. The fact that fears aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a<br />car for that matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more than<br />irrational love for these things are spoken of as technophilia) reveals a<br />primary myth about technology: Namely, that technology acts independent from<br />human social systems, that technology is "out there" working for us (or<br />against us) toward some utopia (or dystopia). A hammer or needle and thread<br />are pretty benign in their effects on global power structures, but if they<br />were not we'd have reverse-hammer-engineers and needle hackers. A network<br />"attack" is possible only when the power relationships guarding a network<br />are so solidified, predictable and controlled that anything counter to it is<br />defined as dangerous and alien. Dangerous? perhaps, alien no. Violent<br />Domination and violent resistance always work hand-in-hand, which goes along<br />way toward explaining why the U.S. is a primary target for terrorism and<br />Sweden's not, why the New York Times web site is a target for hackers and<br />crackers "Joe's homepage" is not.<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />Lemmy Caution <llacook@yahoo.com> replied:<br /><br />mark cooley <mgc868f@smsu.edu> wrote:<br />Technophobia is often described as an irrational fear<br />of technology, and yet a hammer is technology.<br />Technophilia is described (much less often) as an<br />irrational adoration for technology, and yet a needle<br />and thimble are technology. The fact that fears<br />aroused by forks and spoons, or driving a car for that<br />matter, are not spoken of as technophobia (any more<br />than irrational love for these things are spoken of as<br />technophilia) reveals a primary myth about technology:<br />Namely, that technology acts independent from human<br />social systems, that technology is â??out thereâ??<br />working for us (or against us) toward some utopia (or<br />dystopia).<br /><br />+ + +<br /><br />steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org replied:<br /><br />Fun with words. Can I play?;) After one faux pas a couple more<br />would be fun. My thought it is that "virus" was a reasonable<br />way to look at it, but of course it stretches a whole lot.<br />Although the image is enticing. You have a piece of code that<br />carries instructions that has does act like a biological virus.<br />But in other ways it is vastly different. For example computer<br />viruses often have things like "mailing engines" thar allow it<br />to send out copies of itself and a variety of forms. Or in case<br />of some it can be dormant until activated. This is strange in<br />the bio-image. It is like having a mini-brain that would for example<br />if it existed in the biological world might act like this. Mark catches<br />a virus from Steve. It somehow already has a mini-brain in it that<br />gets mark to write a bunch of letters, sigh them in Steve's handwriting<br />and style or lack thereof;). It might even make Mark's memory<br />work better!<br /><br />The interesting thought which comes into my mind when reading Mark's<br />essay is not whether I agree with it or not. It is the idea thar our<br />society has "electrotechnophilia" and "biotechophobia" . I can easily<br />plan to build all sorts of electronic devices that people interact<br />with and that could change their interactions with the world in all<br />sorts of ways. If I try to do this by some biological or chemical<br />mechanosm, even at a lowest level as we see with the CAE case I am<br />apt to have the authority of the state come down on me in a very<br />intense way. Heaven forbid I should grow certain species of fungi<br />and share them with friends. It is very odd that an embryo that is<br />created to a fertility clinic and will be thrown away anyway can't be<br />used for stem cell research on any piece of equipment that has been<br />bought with one cent of public monies.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of<br />the New Museum of Contemporary Art.<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is supported by grants from The Charles Engelhard<br />Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Andy Warhol Foundation for<br />the Visual Arts, and with public funds from the New York State Council<br />on the Arts, a state agency.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br /><br />Rhizome Digest is filtered by Kevin McGarry (kevin@rhizome.org). ISSN:<br />1525-9110. Volume 9, number 31. 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 />Please invite your friends to visit Rhizome.org on Fridays, when the<br />site is open to members and non-members alike.<br /><br />+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +<br />
