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.
DO: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the random
Agreed. Let's drop the matter at this last RE, and save it as a DO
differently.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2006 12:56
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Re: the random
>
> Hi Dirk
>
> yes this is more or less what i meant. However I think its a
> big question, what the role of perception or more important
> the role of cognition is here in this context.
> I feel unable to comment sensefully on this in brief.
>
> or in very short, I really think that this is
> nontrivial: how come that we come up with such concepts like
> e.g. a CIRCLE? Why do we "find" this concept at all? Is it
> about us in our space-time environment?
>
> I dont know wether it makes sense to discuss this particular
> thing on the raw list. its very hard to keep track of threads
> and its very time consuming to sort out comments. one needs
> some redundancy for this kind of communication and may be i
> feel this is not suited for the subject. at least for me:
> redundancy can blur understanding sometimes.
>
>
> nad
>
> p.s. your definition of a circle supposes that you have the
> notion of a distance. You can still define a circle without
> having a distance, like in topology.
>
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>
> > Certainly, one needs to make the distinction, even in my
> very private
> > mess of things, where math is the first order coding process, or
> > better
> > still:
> > the Code itself, the core of knowledge that, if anything,
> stands out
> > as Kant's a priori body of knowledge. For,as you put it, us humans
> > just find the code, when we think of things like a circle
> or a line,
> > we indeed think of things that have been before us and will
> 'survive
> > us' in eternity.
> > In
> > fact, let's be clear about it, no irony whatsoever, so
> there can be no
> > misunderstanding later on: we think of them as outside of time,
> > circles don't change, they're on some divine plane of
> consistency that
> > for some reason unintelligable for humans, just is there,
> waiting for
> > us to unravel more of its splendour as we make progress, not by
> > invention but by discovery.
> >
> > A static system of truth. Unshakable. The only thing
> changing about it
> > is our perception of it, how much we have discovered, how many
> > mistakes we have made or are making, but those are
> irrelevant because
> > they don't change the things themselves.
> +
> -> 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
>
differently.
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2006 12:56
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Re: the random
>
> Hi Dirk
>
> yes this is more or less what i meant. However I think its a
> big question, what the role of perception or more important
> the role of cognition is here in this context.
> I feel unable to comment sensefully on this in brief.
>
> or in very short, I really think that this is
> nontrivial: how come that we come up with such concepts like
> e.g. a CIRCLE? Why do we "find" this concept at all? Is it
> about us in our space-time environment?
>
> I dont know wether it makes sense to discuss this particular
> thing on the raw list. its very hard to keep track of threads
> and its very time consuming to sort out comments. one needs
> some redundancy for this kind of communication and may be i
> feel this is not suited for the subject. at least for me:
> redundancy can blur understanding sometimes.
>
>
> nad
>
> p.s. your definition of a circle supposes that you have the
> notion of a distance. You can still define a circle without
> having a distance, like in topology.
>
>
> Dirk Vekemans wrote:
>
>
> > Certainly, one needs to make the distinction, even in my
> very private
> > mess of things, where math is the first order coding process, or
> > better
> > still:
> > the Code itself, the core of knowledge that, if anything,
> stands out
> > as Kant's a priori body of knowledge. For,as you put it, us humans
> > just find the code, when we think of things like a circle
> or a line,
> > we indeed think of things that have been before us and will
> 'survive
> > us' in eternity.
> > In
> > fact, let's be clear about it, no irony whatsoever, so
> there can be no
> > misunderstanding later on: we think of them as outside of time,
> > circles don't change, they're on some divine plane of
> consistency that
> > for some reason unintelligable for humans, just is there,
> waiting for
> > us to unravel more of its splendour as we make progress, not by
> > invention but by discovery.
> >
> > A static system of truth. Unshakable. The only thing
> changing about it
> > is our perception of it, how much we have discovered, how many
> > mistakes we have made or are making, but those are
> irrelevant because
> > they don't change the things themselves.
> +
> -> 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: 3D display technology
Utilising the after-image effect to recognize the plasma emission and
modulating the z-axis with a diffusion lens, but ofcourse! They're using
bleu-kesseloise (cfr http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/ceci.jsp)! The linear motor
system's the tricky part, but perhaps...
Seriously: thanks Nad, it's great news!
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2006 11:32
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: 3D display technology
>
> Hi everybody, especially Dirk who was interested in getting a
> real 3D image into air.
>
> This technology seems to me at the moment to be the most
> promising way to get real 3D images into air:
> http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/200
> 60210.html
>
> I got this information first via the blog:
> http://www.my-os.net/blog/
>
> nad
> +
> -> 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
>
modulating the z-axis with a diffusion lens, but ofcourse! They're using
bleu-kesseloise (cfr http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/ceci.jsp)! The linear motor
system's the tricky part, but perhaps...
Seriously: thanks Nad, it's great news!
dv
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] Namens Nad
> Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2006 11:32
> Aan: list@rhizome.org
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: 3D display technology
>
> Hi everybody, especially Dirk who was interested in getting a
> real 3D image into air.
>
> This technology seems to me at the moment to be the most
> promising way to get real 3D images into air:
> http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/20060210/200
> 60210.html
>
> I got this information first via the blog:
> http://www.my-os.net/blog/
>
> nad
> +
> -> 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: 3D display technology
>
> Uh. It's an interesting epistemological problem, and, uh, I'm
> sure, uh.
> Deleuze.
>
> - Rob.
>
Actually it's more of a technological solution with some clarifying
potential ontologically (you'll only see the Cathedral _after_ it's
appearance), but i'm not sure anybody would readily accept its
epistemological consequenses. Yet. Your reference to Deleuze is equally
relevant only in ontogenetic terms, but i doubt whether the installation
would be capable of convincingly proof his thesis, inspired by Simondon's
reworking of ontogenesis, that differentiation presupposes individuation as
a field of intensity.
Sorry, i only had eyes for Madonna.
dv
> Uh. It's an interesting epistemological problem, and, uh, I'm
> sure, uh.
> Deleuze.
>
> - Rob.
>
Actually it's more of a technological solution with some clarifying
potential ontologically (you'll only see the Cathedral _after_ it's
appearance), but i'm not sure anybody would readily accept its
epistemological consequenses. Yet. Your reference to Deleuze is equally
relevant only in ontogenetic terms, but i doubt whether the installation
would be capable of convincingly proof his thesis, inspired by Simondon's
reworking of ontogenesis, that differentiation presupposes individuation as
a field of intensity.
Sorry, i only had eyes for Madonna.
dv
graphTing Gallery
The garphTing gallery is now open at
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp
[graphTing is a (seemingly?) pointless way of contributing to the
Cathedral's content. You can use the very basic flash vector drawing tool at
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp>
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp to scratch your doodles in the
Cathedral's skin of code. If (and only if) you 'save' your doodles they will
be saved to textfiles on the server and added to the anonymous gallery.
Children seem to love it.]
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/show_graphting.jsp
[graphTing is a (seemingly?) pointless way of contributing to the
Cathedral's content. You can use the very basic flash vector drawing tool at
<http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp>
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/graphting.jsp to scratch your doodles in the
Cathedral's skin of code. If (and only if) you 'save' your doodles they will
be saved to textfiles on the server and added to the anonymous gallery.
Children seem to love it.]
greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
Re: fractal geometry
> i'm sure you also know 'anemone' from Ben Fry ?
> http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/anemone/
>
> programming with web server logs is now like painting with acrylics.
No i didn't, can you imagine. I only knew about the Processing work. It's
rather stupid but my project sometimes makes me do these things on a hunch
regardless of what others might have achieved in similar situations. I'm
just meeting project requirements, it's a bad habit from my commercial work,
in fact it's a bad habit alltogether.
Fry's thesis seems an interesting read.
I like your acrylics metaphor. It doesn't show from the east thing but i'm
more an aquarel guy, i guess, searching for a way to extend the metaphor in
that way, if that doesn't sound completely nuts to you.
Have you tried anything in a 3d way? Somehow i feel a lot of the
visualisation things fail for lack of dimension, a need for the user to get
a feel of 'getting hold' of the data, getting a grip on things.
I definitely should make a serious effort using Processing instead of Flash,
i keep falling back to Flash for lack of time, and apart from using Flash is
kinda cutting me off from the open source world, it really isn't up to much
in the 'painting' section and there's no 3d support to speak off.
> > What's your experience with the runme.org?
> > Getting any feedback there?
>
> no, runme is a good database but not a good place for
> feedback or discussion.
Too bad. I've been digging somewhat further in your site, you're doing some
cool stuff. An English translation is a bit lacking,no? it certainly
deserves all the attention it could get
Best,
dv
>
> +
> ARN
>
> > dv
> >
>
> >>Dirk Vekemans wrote:
> >>
> >>>Everybody dripping differently,
> >>>mastery would then be something like being gifted with a
> talent for
> >>>beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years
> >>
> >>through a
> >>
> >>>feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the
> >>
> >>intense moments).
> >>
> >>oups, sorry for self-promo, but you should also check this
> 'statistic
> >>dripping' experiment:
> >>
> >>http://www.datapainting.com/infoscape/01/index.html
> >>
> >>'click to re-generate'
> >>
> >>"In Statistic Dripping, the canvas is a picture selected on the
> >>network by the painter. The painter is the user of the application.
> >>The movement is the trace of website visitors
> displacements, treated
> >>by the software."
> >>
> >>http://www.runme.org/project/+StatisticDripping/
> >>
> >>+
> >>ARN
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>
> http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/fry/anemone/
>
> programming with web server logs is now like painting with acrylics.
No i didn't, can you imagine. I only knew about the Processing work. It's
rather stupid but my project sometimes makes me do these things on a hunch
regardless of what others might have achieved in similar situations. I'm
just meeting project requirements, it's a bad habit from my commercial work,
in fact it's a bad habit alltogether.
Fry's thesis seems an interesting read.
I like your acrylics metaphor. It doesn't show from the east thing but i'm
more an aquarel guy, i guess, searching for a way to extend the metaphor in
that way, if that doesn't sound completely nuts to you.
Have you tried anything in a 3d way? Somehow i feel a lot of the
visualisation things fail for lack of dimension, a need for the user to get
a feel of 'getting hold' of the data, getting a grip on things.
I definitely should make a serious effort using Processing instead of Flash,
i keep falling back to Flash for lack of time, and apart from using Flash is
kinda cutting me off from the open source world, it really isn't up to much
in the 'painting' section and there's no 3d support to speak off.
> > What's your experience with the runme.org?
> > Getting any feedback there?
>
> no, runme is a good database but not a good place for
> feedback or discussion.
Too bad. I've been digging somewhat further in your site, you're doing some
cool stuff. An English translation is a bit lacking,no? it certainly
deserves all the attention it could get
Best,
dv
>
> +
> ARN
>
> > dv
> >
>
> >>Dirk Vekemans wrote:
> >>
> >>>Everybody dripping differently,
> >>>mastery would then be something like being gifted with a
> talent for
> >>>beautiful motion (dancing) and developing it over the years
> >>
> >>through a
> >>
> >>>feedback process (the paintings-residual output of the
> >>
> >>intense moments).
> >>
> >>oups, sorry for self-promo, but you should also check this
> 'statistic
> >>dripping' experiment:
> >>
> >>http://www.datapainting.com/infoscape/01/index.html
> >>
> >>'click to re-generate'
> >>
> >>"In Statistic Dripping, the canvas is a picture selected on the
> >>network by the painter. The painter is the user of the application.
> >>The movement is the trace of website visitors
> displacements, treated
> >>by the software."
> >>
> >>http://www.runme.org/project/+StatisticDripping/
> >>
> >>+
> >>ARN
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>