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.
FW: [eu-gene] WolframTones (generative music)
Wow!
-----Original Message-----
From: eu-gene-bounces@generative.net [mailto:eu-gene-bounces@generative.net]
On Behalf Of Jelle Herold
Sent: donderdag 29 september 2005 22:25
To: eu-gene@generative.net
Subject: [eu-gene] WolframTones (generative music)
Dear list,
While doing my *cough* "homework", I came across this.
Most interesting.
WolframTones Launched by Wolfram Research
A new system of computer-generated music known as WolframTones has
been launched by Wolfram Research. WolframTones works by taking
simple programs in the form of cellular automata and using music
theory and Mathematica algorithms to render them as music. Each
program can be viewed as defining a virtual world and WolframTones
captures that computational world as a musical composition
See here for a short introduction:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2005-09-12/wolframtones/
And here is the site itself:
http://tones.wolfram.com/
Enjoy.
-----Original Message-----
From: eu-gene-bounces@generative.net [mailto:eu-gene-bounces@generative.net]
On Behalf Of Jelle Herold
Sent: donderdag 29 september 2005 22:25
To: eu-gene@generative.net
Subject: [eu-gene] WolframTones (generative music)
Dear list,
While doing my *cough* "homework", I came across this.
Most interesting.
WolframTones Launched by Wolfram Research
A new system of computer-generated music known as WolframTones has
been launched by Wolfram Research. WolframTones works by taking
simple programs in the form of cellular automata and using music
theory and Mathematica algorithms to render them as music. Each
program can be viewed as defining a virtual world and WolframTones
captures that computational world as a musical composition
See here for a short introduction:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2005-09-12/wolframtones/
And here is the site itself:
http://tones.wolfram.com/
Enjoy.
Re: New web site on contemporary art - SPIRIT ART
A valuable resource, sufficiently factual to be useful : congratulations!
dv @Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Andrej Tisma
Sent: dinsdag 20 september 2005 21:48
To: RHIZOME list
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: New web site on contemporary art - SPIRIT ART
Please visit the new web site on contemporary art:
SPIRIT ART
http://www.webheaven.co.yu/spiritart/
...BEUYS-ABRAMOVIC-FILLIOU-ONO-DUCHAMP-KLEIN-BYARS-LIGHTNING-OHO-CLEAR
BROOKS-MANDIC-WIJERES-POGACNIK-TURRELL-DE MARIA...
=================================================================
Guide to the past, present and future of the nonmaterial, mental and
spiritual art and numerous phenomena linked to them.
Explore how art, science and spirituality meet.
Site authors:
Andrej Tisma and Arleen Hartman
dv @Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
_____
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Andrej Tisma
Sent: dinsdag 20 september 2005 21:48
To: RHIZOME list
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: New web site on contemporary art - SPIRIT ART
Please visit the new web site on contemporary art:
SPIRIT ART
http://www.webheaven.co.yu/spiritart/
...BEUYS-ABRAMOVIC-FILLIOU-ONO-DUCHAMP-KLEIN-BYARS-LIGHTNING-OHO-CLEAR
BROOKS-MANDIC-WIJERES-POGACNIK-TURRELL-DE MARIA...
=================================================================
Guide to the past, present and future of the nonmaterial, mental and
spiritual art and numerous phenomena linked to them.
Explore how art, science and spirituality meet.
Site authors:
Andrej Tisma and Arleen Hartman
Re: PLEASE DO NOT SPAM ART
Quite a while yes. First of all professionally because i was involved in a
commercial project that required me to do some research to see if we could
use some of the techniques based on ontologies, next artistically and,
within my limits, philosophically because, well, it's all rather
mindblowing.
One of my difficulties in communicating about my Cathedral project is that
very few people in the artistic branche seem to be aware of the status in
this field, let alone of the implications. Some of my statements will sound
real awkward if you don't know about these things, I can imagine.
I don't have the time right now to respond to your first conjectures on the
subject, will try later...
greetings,
dv
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: woensdag 21 september 2005 12:02
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: PLEASE DO NOT SPAM ART
> The way research on Semantic Web is going and how the
> 'modern' approach to AI is laid out, the construction of meaning
> won't be up
> to humans exclusively anymore (in some ways that is already so, for some
> views it has never been so). That is, if some advocates of the feasibility
> of constructing an upper ontology have their way.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
That's a terrific link, Dirk, thanks very much. Fascinating stuff.
The notion of an 'upper ontology' is new to me and interesting from many
points of view, isn't it. Philosophically. Politically.
Mathematically/logically.
If I understand the notion as outlined in the article, then were there to be
any agreement on a standard 'upper ontology', it would have to be quite a
powerful abstraction which would be independent of any particular natural
language. Independent in the sense that the upper ontology could work with
any given language or even multiple languages (like people do). It would
also have to be independent of any particular collection of facts
(knowledge), just as people may differ concerning what is factual.
Otherwise, there is no real possibility of any concensus concerning an
'upper ontology'. It would have to be sufficiently flexible to permit any
desirable world view to evolve from the ontology. Just as our world views
evolve from our shared innate capacities when we are born, ie, it seems
likely that all humans have roughly the same mental hardware and
software--though of course they can be configured in vastly different ways
'out of the box' (at birth), not to mention the ways we change over years of
experience. An acceptably general 'upper ontology' would have to come close
to modelling many of the fundamental mental capacities of humans at birth,
wouldn't it? Or if not the fundamental mental capacities of humans at birth,
then the capacities of humans more or less independent of their age?
I'll have to check out some of the example ontologies they mention.
Have you been delving into this stuff for a while, Dirk?
ja
http://vispo.com
+
-> 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
commercial project that required me to do some research to see if we could
use some of the techniques based on ontologies, next artistically and,
within my limits, philosophically because, well, it's all rather
mindblowing.
One of my difficulties in communicating about my Cathedral project is that
very few people in the artistic branche seem to be aware of the status in
this field, let alone of the implications. Some of my statements will sound
real awkward if you don't know about these things, I can imagine.
I don't have the time right now to respond to your first conjectures on the
subject, will try later...
greetings,
dv
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Jim Andrews
Sent: woensdag 21 september 2005 12:02
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: PLEASE DO NOT SPAM ART
> The way research on Semantic Web is going and how the
> 'modern' approach to AI is laid out, the construction of meaning
> won't be up
> to humans exclusively anymore (in some ways that is already so, for some
> views it has never been so). That is, if some advocates of the feasibility
> of constructing an upper ontology have their way.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
That's a terrific link, Dirk, thanks very much. Fascinating stuff.
The notion of an 'upper ontology' is new to me and interesting from many
points of view, isn't it. Philosophically. Politically.
Mathematically/logically.
If I understand the notion as outlined in the article, then were there to be
any agreement on a standard 'upper ontology', it would have to be quite a
powerful abstraction which would be independent of any particular natural
language. Independent in the sense that the upper ontology could work with
any given language or even multiple languages (like people do). It would
also have to be independent of any particular collection of facts
(knowledge), just as people may differ concerning what is factual.
Otherwise, there is no real possibility of any concensus concerning an
'upper ontology'. It would have to be sufficiently flexible to permit any
desirable world view to evolve from the ontology. Just as our world views
evolve from our shared innate capacities when we are born, ie, it seems
likely that all humans have roughly the same mental hardware and
software--though of course they can be configured in vastly different ways
'out of the box' (at birth), not to mention the ways we change over years of
experience. An acceptably general 'upper ontology' would have to come close
to modelling many of the fundamental mental capacities of humans at birth,
wouldn't it? Or if not the fundamental mental capacities of humans at birth,
then the capacities of humans more or less independent of their age?
I'll have to check out some of the example ontologies they mention.
Have you been delving into this stuff for a while, Dirk?
ja
http://vispo.com
+
-> 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: Re: Call for Proposals at Readme 100 SoftwareArt Factory
Ah, so you are the guy who's doing the original painting. Thanks mate, great
job!
dv
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Lee Wells
Sent: dinsdag 20 september 2005 22:13
To: ivansafrin@gmail.com; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Call for Proposals at Readme 100 SoftwareArt
Factory
Importance: Low
Wow you are really out of control.
Take a chill pill and don
job!
dv
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
Lee Wells
Sent: dinsdag 20 september 2005 22:13
To: ivansafrin@gmail.com; list@rhizome.org
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Call for Proposals at Readme 100 SoftwareArt
Factory
Importance: Low
Wow you are really out of control.
Take a chill pill and don
Re: PLEASE DO NOT SPAM ART
> so how does shannonian information theory relate to 'meaning'? it doesn't.
> at all, really. it doesn't say anything about it. that, apparently, is up
> to
> people, not machines. so far, anyway. so far, so good. AI is still without
> grand semantic theories (as far as I know, which isn't far) or, as
> Wittgenstein said, "Meaning is what an explanation of meaning explains."
> ja
> http://vispo.com
Well that's just it. The way research on Semantic Web is going and how the
'modern' approach to AI is laid out, the construction of meaning won't be up
to humans exclusively anymore (in some ways that is already so, for some
views it has never been so). That is, if some advocates of the feasibility
of constructing an upper ontology have their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
The arguments listed in the paragraph 'Why an upper ontology is feasible'
are exemplary in their pragmatic and logicist reasoning:
There's a strong belief within research groups that once you do away with
'the conflation of ontology, language and knowledge', you're left with
computable conceptual objects that make the construction of _the_ upper
ontology possible. Now this is where the computer science field of
'ontology' starts invading the philosophical field of ontology, where the
names become omens, because those conceptual objects and such statements on
them only make sense in a formalist ontology based on second order logic
(Frege, Hartman,...).
In the philosophical tradition that is a very one-sided approach (*) , so
what is being done in some reseach centers is that all 'Continental',
heuristic approaches to the same 'conflation of ontology, language and
knowledge' is thrown overboard as apparent nonsense. One strain in our rich
philosophical tradition is therefore economically promoted to the standard
to which any system should adhere.
I speak of 'invasion' because it has the potential of becoming a threat to
what you indicate with 'so far so good'. It has that potential because the
approach that is advocated here will obviously lead to some immediate
successes, therefore they are backed by very un-theoretical, very real
economic power, so what could be called the 'war of competing standards' is
really over before it started.
In a larger, socio-political sense you could (my present opinion: should)
interpret this as the ultimate star wars program for the capitalist system:
an impenetrable ontological shield of defense against the feeble human voice
of differenciation. Zooming in on "the clear and present danger" of
terrorism: it may be exactly that kind of bolstering of economical power and
its subsequent systematic negation of ontological difference that actually
invokes the acts of terrorism: the only escape route out of never being
validated in claims of injustice, because they 're not using the standard
ontology. Beware: that's a possible 'meaning', not a justification.
In that sense Bush is not using words devoid of meaning at all: his use of
'freedom' and 'democracy' succesfully invoke the ontological standard, a
virtual system that is establishing its reality and prohibiting the 'free'
use of natural language more thoroughly every day. In that sense the 'war of
standards' already ended in 1989, and my humble attempts to construct
alternatives are post-historic and rather hilarious.
Finally, and luckily, these ontological mechanisms of stratification are
procedural themselves and much can be expected of the economic
'endorsement'of ontological schemes coming from the equally rich Eastern
tradition. I can't resist referring to a historical parallel of Leibniz
taking his system on a promotional tour to China here.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
dv
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
(*) Indeed many of the early twentieth century philosophers in this
tradition were considered of marginal importance until they were
'rediscovered' because of their 'usefulness' in formal ontological schemes.
> at all, really. it doesn't say anything about it. that, apparently, is up
> to
> people, not machines. so far, anyway. so far, so good. AI is still without
> grand semantic theories (as far as I know, which isn't far) or, as
> Wittgenstein said, "Meaning is what an explanation of meaning explains."
> ja
> http://vispo.com
Well that's just it. The way research on Semantic Web is going and how the
'modern' approach to AI is laid out, the construction of meaning won't be up
to humans exclusively anymore (in some ways that is already so, for some
views it has never been so). That is, if some advocates of the feasibility
of constructing an upper ontology have their way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29
The arguments listed in the paragraph 'Why an upper ontology is feasible'
are exemplary in their pragmatic and logicist reasoning:
There's a strong belief within research groups that once you do away with
'the conflation of ontology, language and knowledge', you're left with
computable conceptual objects that make the construction of _the_ upper
ontology possible. Now this is where the computer science field of
'ontology' starts invading the philosophical field of ontology, where the
names become omens, because those conceptual objects and such statements on
them only make sense in a formalist ontology based on second order logic
(Frege, Hartman,...).
In the philosophical tradition that is a very one-sided approach (*) , so
what is being done in some reseach centers is that all 'Continental',
heuristic approaches to the same 'conflation of ontology, language and
knowledge' is thrown overboard as apparent nonsense. One strain in our rich
philosophical tradition is therefore economically promoted to the standard
to which any system should adhere.
I speak of 'invasion' because it has the potential of becoming a threat to
what you indicate with 'so far so good'. It has that potential because the
approach that is advocated here will obviously lead to some immediate
successes, therefore they are backed by very un-theoretical, very real
economic power, so what could be called the 'war of competing standards' is
really over before it started.
In a larger, socio-political sense you could (my present opinion: should)
interpret this as the ultimate star wars program for the capitalist system:
an impenetrable ontological shield of defense against the feeble human voice
of differenciation. Zooming in on "the clear and present danger" of
terrorism: it may be exactly that kind of bolstering of economical power and
its subsequent systematic negation of ontological difference that actually
invokes the acts of terrorism: the only escape route out of never being
validated in claims of injustice, because they 're not using the standard
ontology. Beware: that's a possible 'meaning', not a justification.
In that sense Bush is not using words devoid of meaning at all: his use of
'freedom' and 'democracy' succesfully invoke the ontological standard, a
virtual system that is establishing its reality and prohibiting the 'free'
use of natural language more thoroughly every day. In that sense the 'war of
standards' already ended in 1989, and my humble attempts to construct
alternatives are post-historic and rather hilarious.
Finally, and luckily, these ontological mechanisms of stratification are
procedural themselves and much can be expected of the economic
'endorsement'of ontological schemes coming from the equally rich Eastern
tradition. I can't resist referring to a historical parallel of Leibniz
taking his system on a promotional tour to China here.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
dv
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee
(*) Indeed many of the early twentieth century philosophers in this
tradition were considered of marginal importance until they were
'rediscovered' because of their 'usefulness' in formal ontological schemes.