BIO
RE: EnBW Spamrecycler - Ihre Spammail ist eingegangen (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:28:17 +0000
From: EnBW Spamrecycler <spam@spamrecycling.com>
To: subbies@redheadedstepchild.org
Subject: RE: EnBW Spamrecycler - Ihre Spammail ist eingegangen
Hallo,
danke fur Ihre Spammail. Wir recyceln nun
5.60 Kilobyte und
0 Anhange
Was aus Ihrer Spammail wird, sehen sie unter
www.spamrecycling.com/index.php?senderid=e69627d17b8ff79d9f950a931ced1c3f
Viel Spass,
Ihr EnBW Team von spamrecycling.com
___________________________________
Dear,
thank you for your spam mail. We will now recycle
5.60 kilobyte and
0 attachment/s
To see what is beeing made from your spam, go to
www.spamrecycling.com/index.php?senderid=e69627d17b8ff79d9f950a931ced1c3f
Enjoy!
The EnBW Team at spamrecycling.com
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 22:28:17 +0000
From: EnBW Spamrecycler <spam@spamrecycling.com>
To: subbies@redheadedstepchild.org
Subject: RE: EnBW Spamrecycler - Ihre Spammail ist eingegangen
Hallo,
danke fur Ihre Spammail. Wir recyceln nun
5.60 Kilobyte und
0 Anhange
Was aus Ihrer Spammail wird, sehen sie unter
www.spamrecycling.com/index.php?senderid=e69627d17b8ff79d9f950a931ced1c3f
Viel Spass,
Ihr EnBW Team von spamrecycling.com
___________________________________
Dear,
thank you for your spam mail. We will now recycle
5.60 kilobyte and
0 attachment/s
To see what is beeing made from your spam, go to
www.spamrecycling.com/index.php?senderid=e69627d17b8ff79d9f950a931ced1c3f
Enjoy!
The EnBW Team at spamrecycling.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
Why does this conversation sound suspiciously like the ones everyone used to
have in high school, as they tried desperately to figure out what the teacher
"wants?"
-Alexis
On Mon, 8 May 2006, T.Whid wrote:
::Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:11:52 -0400
::From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
::
::Hi,
::
::Some notes below:
::
::On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
::>
::>
::>
::> ++++++
::>
::> No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com
::
::
::IMHO pretty should never be funded, beautiful, yes; handsome, perhaps;
::pretty, no.
::
::No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org
::
::
::funky? I'm unsure if it should be funded, but probably.
::
::No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com
::
::
::absurd should, of course, always be funded.
::
::What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that
::> links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey
::> necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project
::> description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on
::> absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."
::>
::> The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is
::> unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of work
::> that gets filtered.
::
::
::I really can't agree with this. If someone wanted to do a superbad-ish site
::I think it could be easily described with visuals/examples/etc backing up
::the bits that are difficult/impossible to describe.
::
::Quick one sentence:
::
::+++
::
::An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction within
::the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter culled
::from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom, the news
::of the day and niche science.
::
::+++
::
::I'm no writer. Is it so hard?
::
::best,
::> curt
::>
::>
::>
::> Jim Andrews wrote:
::>
::> > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
::> >
::> > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
::> > the next
::> > few days.
::> >
::> > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
::> > got
::> > voted for?
::> >
::> > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
::> > community,
::> > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
::> > more
::> > interested in what voting supports as art.
::> >
::> > ja
::> > http://vispo.com
have in high school, as they tried desperately to figure out what the teacher
"wants?"
-Alexis
On Mon, 8 May 2006, T.Whid wrote:
::Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 13:11:52 -0400
::From: T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Commission Voting: Finalist Ranking
::
::Hi,
::
::Some notes below:
::
::On 5/8/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
::>
::>
::>
::> ++++++
::>
::> No pretty web visuals like http://oculart.com
::
::
::IMHO pretty should never be funded, beautiful, yes; handsome, perhaps;
::pretty, no.
::
::No funky reactive softwares like http://www.re-move.org
::
::
::funky? I'm unsure if it should be funded, but probably.
::
::No absurd non-linear narratives like http://www.superbad.com
::
::
::absurd should, of course, always be funded.
::
::What would the "project description" of superbad be? "It's this place that
::> links kind of like a labyrinth and there's a story about bees and turkey
::> necks and Captain America and... nevermind." What would the "project
::> description" of oculart be? "It feels kind of like Lautrec on
::> absinthe-soaked mushrooms and... nevermind."
::>
::> The structure of the call for proposals acts as a major filter, which is
::> unavoidable and perhaps desirable. I'm just foregrounding the kind of work
::> that gets filtered.
::
::
::I really can't agree with this. If someone wanted to do a superbad-ish site
::I think it could be easily described with visuals/examples/etc backing up
::the bits that are difficult/impossible to describe.
::
::Quick one sentence:
::
::+++
::
::An exploration of visual design, animation and non-linear interaction within
::the web browser with an eclectic and sometimes absurd subject matter culled
::from the vagaries of the artist's interest in pop cultural flotsom, the news
::of the day and niche science.
::
::+++
::
::I'm no writer. Is it so hard?
::
::best,
::> curt
::>
::>
::>
::> Jim Andrews wrote:
::>
::> > I'm curious about what sort of art gets voted for.
::> >
::> > I haven't gone through the finalist list yet. Plan to, though, over
::> > the next
::> > few days.
::> >
::> > Has anybody done so and have any pithy obs on the type of things that
::> > got
::> > voted for?
::> >
::> > One may ask quite validly, as Marc has, what voting does for a
::> > community,
::> > but I confess I am less interested in community than I am in art, am
::> > more
::> > interested in what voting supports as art.
::> >
::> > ja
::> > http://vispo.com
Schools, art, censorship, and the net
Although not specifically about net.art, this will affect any of you who run a
website. Please see the archive link included in the body of this message - I
assure you that most of you reading this have already been indexed (eg I saw
berkeley.edu, vectorsjournal, manovich.net, rhizome, etc already indexed)
-Alexis
PS: If the owner of neverendingrejection.com is on this mailing list, let's
talk. I have a great project in mind....
++----------------------------------++
From blog entry:
http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page 1736
++----------------------------------++
I noticed some unusual activity in my logs today. The visitor was clearly a
robot, slammed the servers for every ounce of content over only about 1 minute,
and never bothered to check robots.txt. So, I took a little visit to <a
href="http://www.lightspeedsystems.com/">Lightspeed Systems</a> to figure out
what the hell it was.
Lightspeed, it turns out, has a very cool <a
href="http://archive.lightspeedsystems.com/archive/Internet.aspx?Domain=redheadedstepchild.org">Archive</a>
that includes every unique word that appears on a site, as well as some
statistics on the most common words, what it believes the subject of the site
is, and a list of all outgoing links. I started to get pretty excited about
having such a sweet-ass spider crawling my site! I would love the idea of
seeing every word on a site!
Then I read their <a
href="http://support.lightspeedsystems.com/article.aspx?id654&query=robots">explanation
of why they do not honor robots.txt</a>. Rats. Lightspeed's clients pay it to
monitor sites based on content filtering rules, and then allow or disallow their
users access based on what Lightspeed finds. Lightspeed, in other words, is
their clients' Big Brother in every sense of the word - sanitizing the web and
selectively choosing what info to allow. And if that didn't blow enough just in
its own right, their smug self-satisfaction in the explanation was truly
vomitous, including gems about "safeguard[ing] the innocents in our classrooms."
... Oh, yes. That is the best part. Lightspeed's clients are <b>schools</b>.
Almost as good as "the innocents" was the line, <i>"Believing that a 'Robots
Directive', not reinforced by law, will protect copyrights as well as moral
sensitivities is a naive notion at best."</i> In other words, <i>my</i> moral
sensitivity at having companies whose entire business model concerns limiting
access to information in schools and libraries are naive, misplaced, and stupid;
however, the paying clients moral sensitivities, which presumably compel them to
seek out Lightspeed's services in the first place, are wise and good and, most
of all, lucrative.
Too bad. The stats they generated were interesting. Lightspeed is now banned
from my site. I highly recommend all other webmasters do the same. Although I
have redirected the spiders to neverendingrejection.com, I would recommend
others redirect straight back to lightspeedsystems.com.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} lightspeedsystems.com [NC]
RewriteRule .* http://neverendingrejection.com [R01]
website. Please see the archive link included in the body of this message - I
assure you that most of you reading this have already been indexed (eg I saw
berkeley.edu, vectorsjournal, manovich.net, rhizome, etc already indexed)
-Alexis
PS: If the owner of neverendingrejection.com is on this mailing list, let's
talk. I have a great project in mind....
++----------------------------------++
From blog entry:
http://redheadedstepchild.org/destruct/?page 1736
++----------------------------------++
I noticed some unusual activity in my logs today. The visitor was clearly a
robot, slammed the servers for every ounce of content over only about 1 minute,
and never bothered to check robots.txt. So, I took a little visit to <a
href="http://www.lightspeedsystems.com/">Lightspeed Systems</a> to figure out
what the hell it was.
Lightspeed, it turns out, has a very cool <a
href="http://archive.lightspeedsystems.com/archive/Internet.aspx?Domain=redheadedstepchild.org">Archive</a>
that includes every unique word that appears on a site, as well as some
statistics on the most common words, what it believes the subject of the site
is, and a list of all outgoing links. I started to get pretty excited about
having such a sweet-ass spider crawling my site! I would love the idea of
seeing every word on a site!
Then I read their <a
href="http://support.lightspeedsystems.com/article.aspx?id654&query=robots">explanation
of why they do not honor robots.txt</a>. Rats. Lightspeed's clients pay it to
monitor sites based on content filtering rules, and then allow or disallow their
users access based on what Lightspeed finds. Lightspeed, in other words, is
their clients' Big Brother in every sense of the word - sanitizing the web and
selectively choosing what info to allow. And if that didn't blow enough just in
its own right, their smug self-satisfaction in the explanation was truly
vomitous, including gems about "safeguard[ing] the innocents in our classrooms."
... Oh, yes. That is the best part. Lightspeed's clients are <b>schools</b>.
Almost as good as "the innocents" was the line, <i>"Believing that a 'Robots
Directive', not reinforced by law, will protect copyrights as well as moral
sensitivities is a naive notion at best."</i> In other words, <i>my</i> moral
sensitivity at having companies whose entire business model concerns limiting
access to information in schools and libraries are naive, misplaced, and stupid;
however, the paying clients moral sensitivities, which presumably compel them to
seek out Lightspeed's services in the first place, are wise and good and, most
of all, lucrative.
Too bad. The stats they generated were interesting. Lightspeed is now banned
from my site. I highly recommend all other webmasters do the same. Although I
have redirected the spiders to neverendingrejection.com, I would recommend
others redirect straight back to lightspeedsystems.com.
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} lightspeedsystems.com [NC]
RewriteRule .* http://neverendingrejection.com [R01]
Re: Hey you kids - get off my lawn.
I agree with Mark, not the least reason of which is that it is nice to know that
I am not the only grumpy bitch on the list.
net.art hasn't found itself yet. It's still bumbling along in the dark trying
to figure out what makes it different than other media, and how the power of the
processor can push it to do things that have never been done before, or how to
express ideas that have been out of reach for various reasons (complexity,
etc). So, yes, innovation is necessary, and the same-old-same-old rehashed
stuff is not getting us anywhere. net.art will keep being a sad and pathetic
copy of other media until it can figure out what makes it unique...and that
won't happen until it stops mimicking and framing itself within everything that
has come before.
-Alexis
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jason Nelson wrote:
::Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
::From: Jason Nelson <newmediapoet@yahoo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Hey you kids - get off my lawn.
::
::Although I agree with some of the evaluation, something I couldn't place
:: at first bothered me about Mark's comment. It wasnt so much any exact
:: phrase but rather the tone of "its been done before".
::
:: What is disconcerting is that somehow much of what we do is defined by
:: the next new use of technology or the next technical innovation or application
:: of a theme or idea to that application.
::
:: But then it seems if we do that, if we follow this, then we are living in a hit and run
:: art field. Where each new idea is brought up, turned into a few works and then
:: the rush is on for the next thing.
::
:: In poetry certain forms have been around for thousands of years, so who cares
:: if someone last year created an interactive video engine for dogs and dog killers,
:: and now this year someone wants to do it again. I am thinking hell yes, I wonder
:: what that persons take will be on the whole videos for dogs and dog killer thing.
::
:: Sorry for the rant...but wanted to throw a vote out there for all the rehashes and
:: repeats. Bravo on your allegiance to historical 2005 or god forbid 2000.
::
:: Jason Nelson
::
::Mark River <mriver102@yahoo.com> wrote:
:: ...around 12 out of 195
::
::I'm not interested in your MFA
::
::Straight video delivered via the internet is called
::youtube.
::
::If someone already made the same artwork 6 years ago,
::why should you get money for it?
::
::Asking for money based on some else's suffering is
::called United 93, the movie.
::
::It's Sunday morning and I have not had coffee.
::
::M.River of MTAA, making friends on the internet since
::97'
::
::
::http://mteww.com
::http://tinjail.com
::
I am not the only grumpy bitch on the list.
net.art hasn't found itself yet. It's still bumbling along in the dark trying
to figure out what makes it different than other media, and how the power of the
processor can push it to do things that have never been done before, or how to
express ideas that have been out of reach for various reasons (complexity,
etc). So, yes, innovation is necessary, and the same-old-same-old rehashed
stuff is not getting us anywhere. net.art will keep being a sad and pathetic
copy of other media until it can figure out what makes it unique...and that
won't happen until it stops mimicking and framing itself within everything that
has come before.
-Alexis
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jason Nelson wrote:
::Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
::From: Jason Nelson <newmediapoet@yahoo.com>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Hey you kids - get off my lawn.
::
::Although I agree with some of the evaluation, something I couldn't place
:: at first bothered me about Mark's comment. It wasnt so much any exact
:: phrase but rather the tone of "its been done before".
::
:: What is disconcerting is that somehow much of what we do is defined by
:: the next new use of technology or the next technical innovation or application
:: of a theme or idea to that application.
::
:: But then it seems if we do that, if we follow this, then we are living in a hit and run
:: art field. Where each new idea is brought up, turned into a few works and then
:: the rush is on for the next thing.
::
:: In poetry certain forms have been around for thousands of years, so who cares
:: if someone last year created an interactive video engine for dogs and dog killers,
:: and now this year someone wants to do it again. I am thinking hell yes, I wonder
:: what that persons take will be on the whole videos for dogs and dog killer thing.
::
:: Sorry for the rant...but wanted to throw a vote out there for all the rehashes and
:: repeats. Bravo on your allegiance to historical 2005 or god forbid 2000.
::
:: Jason Nelson
::
::Mark River <mriver102@yahoo.com> wrote:
:: ...around 12 out of 195
::
::I'm not interested in your MFA
::
::Straight video delivered via the internet is called
::youtube.
::
::If someone already made the same artwork 6 years ago,
::why should you get money for it?
::
::Asking for money based on some else's suffering is
::called United 93, the movie.
::
::It's Sunday morning and I have not had coffee.
::
::M.River of MTAA, making friends on the internet since
::97'
::
::
::http://mteww.com
::http://tinjail.com
::
Re: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?
Why does one have to reveal it in a web browser? It is not "web art," it is
net.art, and the Internet and the Web are very different entities, even if
people like to play very fast and loose with the two terms. And this
observation doesn't even touch on the fact that "browsers" are not a natural
law of viewing items on the web. Computer science, and, following, the web, the
internet, browsers, and net.art, are inherently subject to change by their very
nature. They are evolving disciplines, and defining a frame for their use is an
excercise in futility. No tangent. Just the nature of code. Off the top of my
head, I can imagine several scenarios where a person could create a net.art
object which could be walked around and seen from all sides. The INTERNET and
its underlying CODE are the only required framework, and those can take many
physical and ethereal forms.
-Alexis
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:04:48 -0700
::From: Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?
::
::Hi Ryan,
::These are great points, but I am trying to zero in on web art vs traditional art framing.
::I understand traditional contexts, they have such a great history, and a great expectation.
::The current disourse doesn't address the fact that my computer is expected to reveal art in the context of a web browser (with back buttons, history, lnks etc..) or software that always has an escape key.
::This is a pretty significant difference between older static works and the new works that address the issue of the computed frame.
::When I look at a Barnett Newman, in person or online, I am framed by the substances that created the work. He meant for things to be seen in person, in situu. He also was very particular about insisting that the existence that created the work be remembered.
::Thats not true of online work. Often I spend very little time worrying about the programming/imaging/author that created the work.
::The significance that the 'making' brings is so important in older art.
::Don't we now tend to ignore the drag of a brush(which Newman felt was all important) and deal with the social/technological/mediated event as it presents itself to us? Its event driven, not individually expressed.
::In other words when we take up the digital, we bring with it some baggage that never entered into the discourse of the older abstract and conceptual artists? The new baggage could be CNN, Yahoo, Google, Rhizome, The Thing, NetTime, and on and on.
::I think most older abstraction was insulated from these issues
::Could the old world of abstraction even be possible in the electronic digest?
::Eric
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::
net.art, and the Internet and the Web are very different entities, even if
people like to play very fast and loose with the two terms. And this
observation doesn't even touch on the fact that "browsers" are not a natural
law of viewing items on the web. Computer science, and, following, the web, the
internet, browsers, and net.art, are inherently subject to change by their very
nature. They are evolving disciplines, and defining a frame for their use is an
excercise in futility. No tangent. Just the nature of code. Off the top of my
head, I can imagine several scenarios where a person could create a net.art
object which could be walked around and seen from all sides. The INTERNET and
its underlying CODE are the only required framework, and those can take many
physical and ethereal forms.
-Alexis
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Eric Dymond wrote:
::Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:04:48 -0700
::From: Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>
::To: list@rhizome.org
::Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: considering abstraction in digital art?
::
::Hi Ryan,
::These are great points, but I am trying to zero in on web art vs traditional art framing.
::I understand traditional contexts, they have such a great history, and a great expectation.
::The current disourse doesn't address the fact that my computer is expected to reveal art in the context of a web browser (with back buttons, history, lnks etc..) or software that always has an escape key.
::This is a pretty significant difference between older static works and the new works that address the issue of the computed frame.
::When I look at a Barnett Newman, in person or online, I am framed by the substances that created the work. He meant for things to be seen in person, in situu. He also was very particular about insisting that the existence that created the work be remembered.
::Thats not true of online work. Often I spend very little time worrying about the programming/imaging/author that created the work.
::The significance that the 'making' brings is so important in older art.
::Don't we now tend to ignore the drag of a brush(which Newman felt was all important) and deal with the social/technological/mediated event as it presents itself to us? Its event driven, not individually expressed.
::In other words when we take up the digital, we bring with it some baggage that never entered into the discourse of the older abstract and conceptual artists? The new baggage could be CNN, Yahoo, Google, Rhizome, The Thing, NetTime, and on and on.
::I think most older abstraction was insulated from these issues
::Could the old world of abstraction even be possible in the electronic digest?
::Eric
::
::+
::-> post: list@rhizome.org
::-> questions: info@rhizome.org
::-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
::-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
::+
::Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
::Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
::