ARTBASE (1)
BIO
born in 1962 in Lier, Belgium.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
studied filology at Louvain, Belgium.
worked a lot in bars and restaurants before i became obsessivly addicted to producing stuff on computers.
i once won a design contest of cgi-magazine and they let me go to New York for four days, that was nice.
i think in terms of writing mostly (or programming, but those are very similar processes for me)
painting is a very different process and i'm very bad at it but i do it anyway because i like the differences it produces and i like the freshness of amateurism, i guess.
what i produce new media-wise is also very much influenced by my daily practice of webdesign and programming with its concerns of usability and the pragmatic approach it implies.
Re: Re: Re: isabelle dinoire
i thought sth similar for a moment too, but i find that's (sorry for the
pun) stretching it a bit, art i mean: no way this is going to register as an
event to that effect, it would have to matter before it could do that and it
doesn't matter because it doesn't escape the (monstrous) repetition it
re-enacts. Art fails, thank god and these things are orchestrated for
failure.
You're taking the metaphor where it doesn't go, it's mistaking what we put
into it for what gets out, including its unwonted side effects. Cartoons and
cartoonists don't kill people, mediatised avalanches of hatred and
frustration do.
In the unlikely event i.d. (sic) get's to see this, she'll (hopefully) just
classify it as more media bs. If there's any real moral issue here it's
restricted to us, Lincoln's piece making us perhaps painfully aware of what
might be, or how we fail to make the audience aware, or even ourselves. Art
silencing art. Remixing as an artistic process encourages silence,
encapsulating the encapsulation.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens Turbulence.org
> Verzonden: dinsdag 7 februari 2006 23:45
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: isabelle dinoire
>
> Two human faces, side by side, stretched taught as a drum,
> manipulated and toyed with (much like a cat toys with a mouse
> before he kills it). As if this is not monstrous enough,
> Linkoln has cut her vocal chords, silenced her, period.
>
> Truth?
>
> The artist's?
> The subject's?
> Mine?
>
> Jo
>
>
> annie abrahams wrote:
>
> > I just watched the video again
> >
> > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary,
> more exciting
> > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more
> interesting
> > and even more artistic )
> >
> > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
> > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap
> without her
> > conscent.
> >
> > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
> > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
> > better with Orlan as the subject.
> >
> > bye
> > Annie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > > I fully understand where you are coming from in saying
> that Linkoln
> > might
> > > have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece
> > doesn't
> > > read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps
> in the sense
> > that
> > > it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which
> > are, in
> > > themselves, often "fun."
> > >
> > > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a
> > face.
> > > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to
> juxtapose tissue
> > > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to
> overstate or
> > > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can
> > definitely
> > > be read in that way.
> > >
> > > I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously
> > just one
> > > person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another
> > subjective
> > > response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants.
> > The
> > > subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part
> > of a
> > > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
> things in a
> > media
> > > saturated culture.
> > >
> > > And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense
> > policy
> > > debate about both cloning and copyright.
> > >
> > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
> > > > this is not about truth or falsity
> > >
> > > I agree with you here, Annie.
> > >
> > > This video reads, to me, like an animation of the
> "techniques of the
> > > observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself,
> > is a
> > > complex operation...
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work.
> > Dare I
> > > ask in what way "the images on the t? were a lot more
> > impressive," and
> > > how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
> > > sentiment about the footage?
> > >
> > > I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy
> headlines and
> > media
> > > treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with
> implications
> > far
> > > broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
> > >
> > > Marisa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
> > > > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
> > > >
> > > > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't
> > understand you.
> > > > > For me the images on the t? were a lot more impressive.
> > > > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when
> > certainly
> > > > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons) and you didn't
> > > > > denounce anything
> > > > >
> > > > > you were
> > > > > just making fun?
> > > > >
> > > > > did I miss something?
> > > > >
> > > > > best Annie Abrahams"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
> > > > this is not about truth or falsity
> > > >
> > > > maybe about morals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
> > > > >
> > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
> > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
> the source
> > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. It was very engaging.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
> > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
> > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
> > > > > > truth*...
> > > > >
> > > > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
> > > > >
> > > > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
> > > > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of
> > art?
> > > > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
> > > > > *[How] does it lie?
> > > > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to
> human subjects
> > or some
> > > > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?) *Is
> > > > > this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its
> > use of
> > > > > "documentary" material?
> > > > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true
> > enough?
> > > > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie
> > true
> > > footage
> > > > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
> > > > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just
> > jumping to the
> > > > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically
> problematic"
> > to draw
> > > > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Marisa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
> > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
> > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
> the source
> > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
> > > > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
> > > > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
> particular
> > > > > > fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I call as my
> witness the
> > > > > > music, accomplished as it is, and the synching of the final
> > > > > > frames to the music, the convulsive quality of it -
> & I don't
> > > > > > think I am simply projecting any personal
> squeamishness here)
> > > > > > onto a current event,the story of which moreover, even
> > > > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our media, is
> > > > > > clearly a complex web of tragedy, resourcefulness,
> gratitude,
> > > > > > ( oh -& a deep strangeness, I don't deny)..
> > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
> > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
> > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
> > > > > > truth*...
> > > > > > michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
> >
> +
> -> 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
>
pun) stretching it a bit, art i mean: no way this is going to register as an
event to that effect, it would have to matter before it could do that and it
doesn't matter because it doesn't escape the (monstrous) repetition it
re-enacts. Art fails, thank god and these things are orchestrated for
failure.
You're taking the metaphor where it doesn't go, it's mistaking what we put
into it for what gets out, including its unwonted side effects. Cartoons and
cartoonists don't kill people, mediatised avalanches of hatred and
frustration do.
In the unlikely event i.d. (sic) get's to see this, she'll (hopefully) just
classify it as more media bs. If there's any real moral issue here it's
restricted to us, Lincoln's piece making us perhaps painfully aware of what
might be, or how we fail to make the audience aware, or even ourselves. Art
silencing art. Remixing as an artistic process encourages silence,
encapsulating the encapsulation.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens Turbulence.org
> Verzonden: dinsdag 7 februari 2006 23:45
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: isabelle dinoire
>
> Two human faces, side by side, stretched taught as a drum,
> manipulated and toyed with (much like a cat toys with a mouse
> before he kills it). As if this is not monstrous enough,
> Linkoln has cut her vocal chords, silenced her, period.
>
> Truth?
>
> The artist's?
> The subject's?
> Mine?
>
> Jo
>
>
> annie abrahams wrote:
>
> > I just watched the video again
> >
> > What I saw yesterday on the television, was more scary,
> more exciting
> > and more confusing. ( and I would like to add : also more
> interesting
> > and even more artistic )
> >
> > In my opinion the remixing didn't bring around an extra that might
> > justify the use of the image of a person with a handicap
> without her
> > conscent.
> >
> > I don't think the metaphor of remixing a face is chosen quit well.
> > Isabelles face was repaired. Remixing a face would have been served
> > better with Orlan as the subject.
> >
> > bye
> > Annie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > > I fully understand where you are coming from in saying
> that Linkoln
> > might
> > > have "made a cartoon out of an act of courage," but this piece
> > doesn't
> > > read to me as someone "just making fun"--except perhaps
> in the sense
> > that
> > > it employs many techniques that are common to his work and which
> > are, in
> > > themselves, often "fun."
> > >
> > > To put it very crudely, we are talking about an act of remixing a
> > face.
> > > Given Linkoln's body of work, it's interesting to
> juxtapose tissue
> > > sampling and the sampling of media. It's not my role to
> overstate or
> > > impose such an "intention" upon this work, but I think it can
> > definitely
> > > be read in that way.
> > >
> > > I honestly see nothing immoral about this video. That's obviously
> > just one
> > > person's subjective response, but it's one informed by another
> > subjective
> > > response to the mainstream discourse surrounding face transplants.
> > The
> > > subject is scary, exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part
> > of a
> > > generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
> things in a
> > media
> > > saturated culture.
> > >
> > > And it just so happens that this all occurs in a time of intense
> > policy
> > > debate about both cloning and copyright.
> > >
> > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
> > > > this is not about truth or falsity
> > >
> > > I agree with you here, Annie.
> > >
> > > This video reads, to me, like an animation of the
> "techniques of the
> > > observer," as Jonathan Crary famously put it. Observation, itself,
> > is a
> > > complex operation...
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, it's interesting to observe the response to this work.
> > Dare I
> > > ask in what way "the images on the t? were a lot more
> > impressive," and
> > > how they were any more "moral" than Linkoln's video? Is this your
> > > sentiment about the footage?
> > >
> > > I have to say that I personally find some of the pithy
> headlines and
> > media
> > > treatment of this story to be more outrageous...
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think this is an important conversation with
> implications
> > far
> > > broader than the reception of Linkoln's video.
> > >
> > > Marisa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/7/06, aabrahams <aabrahams@bram.org> wrote:
> > > > This is what I wrote to Abe this morning :
> > > >
> > > > > "I do appreciate your work a lot, but this time I don't
> > understand you.
> > > > > For me the images on the t? were a lot more impressive.
> > > > > you made a cartoon out of an act of courage. (even when
> > certainly
> > > > > inspired/obliged by for-fame-looking surgeons) and you didn't
> > > > > denounce anything
> > > > >
> > > > > you were
> > > > > just making fun?
> > > > >
> > > > > did I miss something?
> > > > >
> > > > > best Annie Abrahams"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > it's impossible to tell the truth.
> > > > this is not about truth or falsity
> > > >
> > > > maybe about morals?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/7/06, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
> > > > >
> > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
> > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
> the source
> > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. It was very engaging.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
> > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
> > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
> > > > > > truth*...
> > > > >
> > > > > I find this to be an interesting point. Some questions...
> > > > >
> > > > > *Why is it artistically important to tell the truth?
> > > > > *Why is it ethically important to tell the truth in a work of
> > art?
> > > > > *How does this piece fail to tell the truth, in your opinion?
> > > > > *[How] does it lie?
> > > > > *Is this simply a question of humane reference to
> human subjects
> > or some
> > > > > larger point about the responsibility of art? (all art?) *Is
> > > > > this an expectation imposed on a work of art because of its
> > use of
> > > > > "documentary" material?
> > > > > *Is the "reality" of the source material, itself, not true
> > enough?
> > > > > *Or do you find this to be some sort of "double positive" (ie
> > true
> > > footage
> > > > > plus true footage equals falsity..)?
> > > > > *Without implying that this piece tries to do so, but just
> > jumping to the
> > > > > larger question, is it "artistically and ethically
> problematic"
> > to draw
> > > > > from verite to escape from and/or parody reality?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry--I had to use at least one French word in this post. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Marisa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/7/06, Michael Szpakowski <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is as well made as one would expect it to be.
> > > > > > The music is great & the creation of a kind of 'arc of
> > > > > > suspense', of crafting an implied narrative out of
> the source
> > > > > > material is done with consummate skill.
> > > > > > Why then do I feel so uncomfortable with it?
> > > > > > I think because it seems to impose a narrative from
> particular
> > > > > > fictional genres, horror, SF ( & here I call as my
> witness the
> > > > > > music, accomplished as it is, and the synching of the final
> > > > > > frames to the music, the convulsive quality of it -
> & I don't
> > > > > > think I am simply projecting any personal
> squeamishness here)
> > > > > > onto a current event,the story of which moreover, even
> > > > > > allowing for the hype & distortion endemic to our media, is
> > > > > > clearly a complex web of tragedy, resourcefulness,
> gratitude,
> > > > > > ( oh -& a deep strangeness, I don't deny)..
> > > > > > I can't help feeling that this piece, effective as it is (&
> > > > > > perhaps precisely because of this) somehow fails in an
> > > > > > artistically and ethically problematic way to *tell the
> > > > > > truth*...
> > > > > > michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- abe linkoln <abe@linkoln.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://dvblog.org/isabelle-dinoire
> >
> +
> -> 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
>
Re: isabelle dinoire
> exciting, and confusing. I think Linkoln is part of a
> generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
> things in a media saturated culture.
>
>
> Marisa
>
>
>
Nice wording and the artist might agree, but personally i don't see how
remixing media into more media brings you or your audience any closer to
making sense of things. Can be fun but it only adds more media to the media,
reiterates pointless referrals to referrals to prrt prrt building up to an
endless repetition of the global amen to the the state of things. If this
particular instance is a statement (the indicative artistic framing of it),
it is a (funny/sarcastic/whathaveyou) statement of echoing the statement of
that amen. Sure it _also_ echoes the other (?) media's disrespect for the
individual once called isabelle d., but who could hold anyone responsible
for such a minor moral injustice when he's part of a generation of artists?
OTH Abe's work is nice enough, i admire it's vitality, but that part of it
that makes it that vital sure isn't the remixing methodology, more in spite
of it like what often happens to a good artist using a method. There's that
old delicate balance of punk in it, sometimes, haha. And then this, well no,
it doesn't/didn't get really through to me, hence it fails for me, no
truthbells ringing, or, to be more exact, i see no way out hiding behind it,
only some well-crafted powerful images that stick to your retina a while,
until the usual dumbness of give-us-our-daily-horror takes over.
just my 2 cents,
dv
> generation of artists who make remixes to make sense of
> things in a media saturated culture.
>
>
> Marisa
>
>
>
Nice wording and the artist might agree, but personally i don't see how
remixing media into more media brings you or your audience any closer to
making sense of things. Can be fun but it only adds more media to the media,
reiterates pointless referrals to referrals to prrt prrt building up to an
endless repetition of the global amen to the the state of things. If this
particular instance is a statement (the indicative artistic framing of it),
it is a (funny/sarcastic/whathaveyou) statement of echoing the statement of
that amen. Sure it _also_ echoes the other (?) media's disrespect for the
individual once called isabelle d., but who could hold anyone responsible
for such a minor moral injustice when he's part of a generation of artists?
OTH Abe's work is nice enough, i admire it's vitality, but that part of it
that makes it that vital sure isn't the remixing methodology, more in spite
of it like what often happens to a good artist using a method. There's that
old delicate balance of punk in it, sometimes, haha. And then this, well no,
it doesn't/didn't get really through to me, hence it fails for me, no
truthbells ringing, or, to be more exact, i see no way out hiding behind it,
only some well-crafted powerful images that stick to your retina a while,
until the usual dumbness of give-us-our-daily-horror takes over.
just my 2 cents,
dv
fiction, cash and content
You all probably know about it, but is this BS or what? Rhizome.org is worth
B$66,008.46 a share, and it's 'available for trade'. As a blog, that is.
Grab it while you can 'cause with an outgoing Link Value of B$4,722.03
you've got a sure winner on today's soaring market.
The site at www.blogshares.com offers to engage you on an adventurous roll
to fortune by investing your fictional BS-dollars in acquiring blog(url's).
A stock trading game. With a 6/10 google PageRank it seems a real goldmine
for the producers charging hard cash for adds.
So if you wake up one day and your blog counter is going through the roof,
it's not gonna be last night's brilliant post that made it happen. Someone
started a rumour somewhere and your BS value just tripled...
dv
B$66,008.46 a share, and it's 'available for trade'. As a blog, that is.
Grab it while you can 'cause with an outgoing Link Value of B$4,722.03
you've got a sure winner on today's soaring market.
The site at www.blogshares.com offers to engage you on an adventurous roll
to fortune by investing your fictional BS-dollars in acquiring blog(url's).
A stock trading game. With a 6/10 google PageRank it seems a real goldmine
for the producers charging hard cash for adds.
So if you wake up one day and your blog counter is going through the roof,
it's not gonna be last night's brilliant post that made it happen. Someone
started a rumour somewhere and your BS value just tripled...
dv
Re: flash vector drawing
you can save the Tings now, here's one my younger daughter (8) made:
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp?
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp?&id=1139255087604>
&id=1139255087604
(i decided against SVG and sticked to a propriety flash readable txt-file
with a funny extension (.grphtng), just to make sure it'll be obsolete soon
enough & somehow it says 'ouch', instead of Ting, now that must be a bug)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Dirk
Vekemans
Verzonden: zondag 5 februari 2006 22:05
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: flash vector drawing
graphTing, version 0.1: a time based vector drawing plaything -
actionScript code included
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp
(it doesn't say Ting yet, still need to do the export and saving to SVG
stuff)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp?
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp?&id=1139255087604>
&id=1139255087604
(i decided against SVG and sticked to a propriety flash readable txt-file
with a funny extension (.grphtng), just to make sure it'll be obsolete soon
enough & somehow it says 'ouch', instead of Ting, now that must be a bug)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Dirk
Vekemans
Verzonden: zondag 5 februari 2006 22:05
Aan: list@rhizome.org
Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: flash vector drawing
graphTing, version 0.1: a time based vector drawing plaything -
actionScript code included
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp
(it doesn't say Ting yet, still need to do the export and saving to SVG
stuff)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
flash vector drawing
graphTing, version 0.1: a time based vector drawing plaything -
actionScript code included
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp
(it doesn't say Ting yet, still need to do the export and saving to SVG
stuff)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
actionScript code included
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp
(it doesn't say Ting yet, still need to do the export and saving to SVG
stuff)
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee