Dirk Vekemans
Since 2005
Works in Kessel-Lo Belgium

ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (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.

Discussions (292) Opportunities (0) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

WVW#5 (exused to betence) - this one needs flash player 8


WITVLEESWIT
BACKFACEBLUE

25 Dead Screenleaves &
Converse-allied EUROcoded
11/11/11 Re-collective
SeaShore Scrolls

#5

greetings,

dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee

oh & there's a new feedback button on (almost) each file, please feel free
to use it to make comments, thank you.

DISCUSSION

Re: RE: x 13 the random


Lewis LaCook published a very thorough article on stochastic computing in
Rhizome Digest back in 2004. He kindly reposted this on his new open blog:

http://www.lewislacook.org/node/6

greetings,
dv

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org]
> Namens judsoN
> Verzonden: zondag 22 januari 2006 22:32
> Aan: Rhizome listserv; Nad
> Onderwerp: RHIZOME_RAW: RE: x 13 the random
>
> i agree. but there seem to be 3 kinds of "random". we only
> have one word.
>
>
> random: as in some event that truly has no causality. it's actually
> impossible to determine and may not even exist. even at a quantum
> level. simply because we have no way of determining the outcome,
> doesn't at all imply there's no causality. likewise, we often assume
> causes. in standard billiard ball physics, we assume ball A
> hits ball
> B and thus A causes ball B to move. that's an assumption
> though. it's
> presumptuous for us even to determine any true randomness or causes
> exist at all. (incidentally many use "arbitrary" to mean "random",
> though it really means the opposite.)
>
> pseudo-random: like from a rand() function. called "pseudo" because
> actually they choose (usually based on the time of day or how cycle
> count of your CPU) from a (fixed) list of jumbled numbers.
> the result
> is technically pre-determined. just impossible for us to guess.
>
> random: chaos. the stars may appear to be placed randomly. but of
> course, they are not. a stranger's sneeze doesn't REALLY occur at a
> random time, but it appears so to us. even brownian motion, the path
> of electrons, etc. someone decided to call it random, but at
> most they
> can only say "we are way too far from guessing now". humans can't
> objectively know if they are ever correct in determining causality.
> much less ruling out the infinite possibilities of all
> possible causes
> of an event, merely because we think we can rule out a few.
>
>
> but that still leads me to believe that, even if the word is rather
> wishy-washy, there's a function to "randomness" (of whichever kind).
> there is a use for not knowing a result, leaving it up to
> other forces.
> especially, since those other forces will probably be
> determining it
> any way. we are only humoring ourselves to think we decide any
> outcomes at all.
>
> i may think i choose to paint a brush stroke here. [sfx: thwip] but
> there are very real neurological chains of events that determine my
> choice. that are only afterwards called my preferences. there's no
> point in arguing determinism vs. free will though, because we can't
> possibly know free will objectively exists. and whether it does or
> doesn't the end result is the same, i feel satisfied by my choice of
> paint strokes or not. even if my satisfaction is also a result of
> those chains.
>
>
> but it's inspiration (at least to me) when i can say "this result is
> not up to me, it's up to RANDOMNESS." maybe inspiration is a
> result of
> stripping away the illusion of determinism. the responsibility of
> guessing is relieved, which (for me) tends to spark new ideas.
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Nad wrote:
>
> > Eric Dymond wrote:
> >
> >> so in other words:
> >> We can only exist in a closed universe.
> >> Any amount of randomness will always create complex numbers.
> >> Complexity abounds, randomness however always exists as an
> >> immeasurable and non-quantifiable condition.
> >>
> >
> > Frankly speaking, i haven't understood what you mean.
> > are you referring to pseudo-random numbers?
> >
> > However I wanted to remark that we do not know what kind
> > of universe we are living in.
> > There is a video called "the shape of space", which
> > i can recommend:
> > http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/video/sos/about.html
> > its about about some aspects of how one could possibly observe
> > the shape of space.
> >
> > there is also to remark that we do not really understand
> > quantum mechanics.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

WVW #4


WITVLEESWIT
BACKFACEBLUE

25 Dead Screenleaves &
Converse-allied EUROcoded
11/11/11 Re-collective
SeaShore Scrolls

#4

http://www.vilt.net/nkdee/soldaten4.jsp

greetings,
dv @ Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee

DISCUSSION

Re: Dirk,you are right


Schizophrenia is important issue! We know that every topic on Rhizome last
about one day(unfortunately),which is to short time to make something good
for sick people.

To bad for them and for us.Maybe we could do something...
MANIK
[dv:---] ok never mind about being right,so let's move on: mental sanity is
indeed a growing problem in the rat-races we call our societies. Important
art is concerned with important issues, Marisa is very right to draw
attention to it and Millie's work does stand out as a major contribution.
She and other people involved in her project are and have been doing
something for a long long time. Absolutely nothing random about it ...