Feisal Ahmad is the content coordinator for Rhizome. He has an M.A. in Communications Theory, focusing on propaganda and electronic mail, and enjoys the company of the good folk at the RZA.
BIO
FW: SELECTIONS at ARCO 2003
----------
From: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:26:09 +0200
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:@main1.ezpublishing.com;>
Subject: SELECTIONS at ARCO 2003
Hello,
I'm featured in SELECTIONS '03 in the current issue (#28) of ARCO magazine.
If you don't have acces to the paper version, please, follow the link below
to see a shot.
take care,
cz
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.zanni.org/arco_03.htm
---------------------------------------
//
elective affinities
SELECTIONS ' 03
-Experts pick their favourite works from ARCO 03-
||
New Visions Of Contemporary Landscape by Roberta Bosco and Stefano Caldana
http://www.zanni.org/arco_03.htm
\
\
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sincere apologies for cross posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe please return this mail with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject. Thank
you.
From: "cz" <cz@zanni.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:26:09 +0200
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:@main1.ezpublishing.com;>
Subject: SELECTIONS at ARCO 2003
Hello,
I'm featured in SELECTIONS '03 in the current issue (#28) of ARCO magazine.
If you don't have acces to the paper version, please, follow the link below
to see a shot.
take care,
cz
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.zanni.org/arco_03.htm
---------------------------------------
//
elective affinities
SELECTIONS ' 03
-Experts pick their favourite works from ARCO 03-
||
New Visions Of Contemporary Landscape by Roberta Bosco and Stefano Caldana
http://www.zanni.org/arco_03.htm
\
\
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sincere apologies for cross posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe please return this mail with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject. Thank
you.
Re: Re: Re: no problems logging on just the five monthproblem of...
Now that it's cleared up,
Hope you stick around Eduardo--your posts have always brought a unique and interesting perspective to the discussion around here and I for one would be very sad to see that go away,
= feisal
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> Hello Ivan,
>
> Response follows your message below:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
> To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>;
> "Francis
> Hwang" <francis@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: no problems logging on just the five
> monthproblem of...
>
>
> > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
> > >
> >
> > > But the problem that I want to address now is that Francis used my
> e-mail
> > > address to answer me publicly, on the list. As I already stated
> below,
> I
> > > find this insulting, and demand an explanation behind his logic of
> using
> my
> > > e-mail address to respond to me publicly. As the date on the
> e-mail
> below
> > > shows, I have waited a few days to hear from Francis, or other
> staff at
> > > Rhizome, but the response has been to ignore my reply to his
> offensive
> > > gesture.
> > >
> > > I demand an explanation,
> >
> > I thought Francis already gave what seemed like a perfectly innocent
> > explanation: he logged on as you to see if he could replicate the
> problem.
> > While he was logged on, forgetting that he was logged on as you, he
> sent
> you
> > an email about the problem. OK, a bit daft, but innocent. Unless
> there is
> > more to it, e.g. that there is a plot to insult you? Why would that
> be.
> > Cheers,
> > Ivan
> ----------------------
> my response:
>
> I received an e-mail from T.Whid explaining the same thing.
>
> For some reason I never received the e-mail which Francis sent to the
> list
> directly (like all the other ones, had been). I went to the rhizome
> website
> and looked on the thread as it appears on the posting board, and sure
> enough
> there was Francis's e-mail response where he apologized.
>
> So, if I had received such e-mail in my box a few days ago, I never
> would
> have sent a follow-up message asking for an explanation. I think it
> is
> understandable that I asked for him to explain his behavior,
> especially
> since I was not aware of his apology.
>
> In the past, I have refrained from sending responses to both the list
> and
> the person whose post I may be responding to, and have decided to send
> messages only to the list, but I can see why it is a good idea to send
> the
> message to both addresses, even if this means that the person who is
> receiving the response will receive an e-mail twice.
>
> It will save the frustration of pulling out extra e-mails to ask why
> one is
> being ignored, when this is not the case.
>
> Glad that is cleared up.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
Hope you stick around Eduardo--your posts have always brought a unique and interesting perspective to the discussion around here and I for one would be very sad to see that go away,
= feisal
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> Hello Ivan,
>
> Response follows your message below:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ivan Pope" <ivan@ivanpope.com>
> To: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>; <list@rhizome.org>;
> "Francis
> Hwang" <francis@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 1:59 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: no problems logging on just the five
> monthproblem of...
>
>
> > > From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net>
> > >
> >
> > > But the problem that I want to address now is that Francis used my
> > > address to answer me publicly, on the list. As I already stated
> below,
> I
> > > find this insulting, and demand an explanation behind his logic of
> using
> my
> > > e-mail address to respond to me publicly. As the date on the
> below
> > > shows, I have waited a few days to hear from Francis, or other
> staff at
> > > Rhizome, but the response has been to ignore my reply to his
> offensive
> > > gesture.
> > >
> > > I demand an explanation,
> >
> > I thought Francis already gave what seemed like a perfectly innocent
> > explanation: he logged on as you to see if he could replicate the
> problem.
> > While he was logged on, forgetting that he was logged on as you, he
> sent
> you
> > an email about the problem. OK, a bit daft, but innocent. Unless
> there is
> > more to it, e.g. that there is a plot to insult you? Why would that
> be.
> > Cheers,
> > Ivan
> ----------------------
> my response:
>
> I received an e-mail from T.Whid explaining the same thing.
>
> For some reason I never received the e-mail which Francis sent to the
> list
> directly (like all the other ones, had been). I went to the rhizome
> website
> and looked on the thread as it appears on the posting board, and sure
> enough
> there was Francis's e-mail response where he apologized.
>
> So, if I had received such e-mail in my box a few days ago, I never
> would
> have sent a follow-up message asking for an explanation. I think it
> is
> understandable that I asked for him to explain his behavior,
> especially
> since I was not aware of his apology.
>
> In the past, I have refrained from sending responses to both the list
> and
> the person whose post I may be responding to, and have decided to send
> messages only to the list, but I can see why it is a good idea to send
> the
> message to both addresses, even if this means that the person who is
> receiving the response will receive an e-mail twice.
>
> It will save the frustration of pulling out extra e-mails to ask why
> one is
> being ignored, when this is not the case.
>
> Glad that is cleared up.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>
>
Re: Re: problems logging on to site
Hi Eduardo,
I'm not sure if you saw Francis' reply--it was directly after what happened. Text of it is below:
"Eduardo,
I'm terribly sorry about that. It was an accident; I was logged into the site as you (looking for that bug you experienced) and then I forgot to log out and log back in again as me before I posted using the web form. It wasn't intended to be any sort of gesture at all. Just a stupid mistake on my part.
Again, sorry.
Francis "
* * * *
Again, on behalf of the Rhizome staff, sincere apologies--it certainly seems to be an innocent mistake...one which Francis addressed the minute you called it to his attention (see his clipped post from September 27th above). If you'd like, I can try and contact him to send you a personal e-mail as well, but he did address the issue very promptly. And certainly his explanation is more than reasonable. Thanks,
= feisal
* * * *
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> Below is the correct e-mail corresponding to an explanation for using
> my
> e-mail address account.
>
> Please reply your explanation Francis.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>]
I'm not sure if you saw Francis' reply--it was directly after what happened. Text of it is below:
"Eduardo,
I'm terribly sorry about that. It was an accident; I was logged into the site as you (looking for that bug you experienced) and then I forgot to log out and log back in again as me before I posted using the web form. It wasn't intended to be any sort of gesture at all. Just a stupid mistake on my part.
Again, sorry.
Francis "
* * * *
Again, on behalf of the Rhizome staff, sincere apologies--it certainly seems to be an innocent mistake...one which Francis addressed the minute you called it to his attention (see his clipped post from September 27th above). If you'd like, I can try and contact him to send you a personal e-mail as well, but he did address the issue very promptly. And certainly his explanation is more than reasonable. Thanks,
= feisal
* * * *
Eduardo Navas wrote:
> Below is the correct e-mail corresponding to an explanation for using
> my
> e-mail address account.
>
> Please reply your explanation Francis.
>
> Eduardo Navas
>]
FW: DIGITAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LAUNCHES IN CYBERSPACE
----------
From: <press@dmoma.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:32:26 -0400
To: feisal@rhizome.org
Subject: DIGITAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LAUNCHES IN CYBERSPACE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2003
Contact: W. Logan Fry
Press Office
press@dmoma.org / Wloganfry@aol.com
DMOMA - http://www.dmoma.org
DIGITAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LAUNCHES IN CYBERSPACE
The Digital Museum of Modern Art opened its portals to the public July 31,
2003.
It can be accessed from anywhere in the world - from a catfish farm in the
outfields of Cleveland a high rise apartment in Kuala Lampur. Anytime, day
or
night: "Art Never Sleeps".
Go to: http://www.dmoma.org
DMOMA is dedicated to new forms of visual expression, as well as adaptation
of
old techniques and processes to new purposes. The immediate focus is digital
art,
including art in digital format, physical art made by digital process, and
art in
every media and format that speaks to the advancing technologies of our era.
DMOMA tests the underlying premise: << All art can be reduced to a sequence
of
binary bits. . . zeros and ones in endless succession. >>
Not only art, but architecture, can manifest itself solely as binary bits,
and
exist solely in cyberspace. To paraphrase Nicholas Negroponte in "Being
Digital":
<< As we go online and deliver more and more bits and fewer and fewer atoms,
the
leverage of maintaining a physical museum will disappear. Even having a
dedicated
staff of officers, curators and preparators will lose some its significance
as as
the museum becomes an electronic venue brought directly into your office,
home
and classroom. >>
And into space DMOMA will go also, with DMOMA Deimos scheduled to open in
June,
2004.
The paradigm shift is upon us.
Artists are invited to submit their art, under the precepts of the Viridian
Green
Manifesto, for possible inclusion in the museum collection; or to send
proposals
for special exhibitions. Go to: www.dmoma.org.
From: <press@dmoma.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:32:26 -0400
To: feisal@rhizome.org
Subject: DIGITAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LAUNCHES IN CYBERSPACE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2003
Contact: W. Logan Fry
Press Office
press@dmoma.org / Wloganfry@aol.com
DMOMA - http://www.dmoma.org
DIGITAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART LAUNCHES IN CYBERSPACE
The Digital Museum of Modern Art opened its portals to the public July 31,
2003.
It can be accessed from anywhere in the world - from a catfish farm in the
outfields of Cleveland a high rise apartment in Kuala Lampur. Anytime, day
or
night: "Art Never Sleeps".
Go to: http://www.dmoma.org
DMOMA is dedicated to new forms of visual expression, as well as adaptation
of
old techniques and processes to new purposes. The immediate focus is digital
art,
including art in digital format, physical art made by digital process, and
art in
every media and format that speaks to the advancing technologies of our era.
DMOMA tests the underlying premise: << All art can be reduced to a sequence
of
binary bits. . . zeros and ones in endless succession. >>
Not only art, but architecture, can manifest itself solely as binary bits,
and
exist solely in cyberspace. To paraphrase Nicholas Negroponte in "Being
Digital":
<< As we go online and deliver more and more bits and fewer and fewer atoms,
the
leverage of maintaining a physical museum will disappear. Even having a
dedicated
staff of officers, curators and preparators will lose some its significance
as as
the museum becomes an electronic venue brought directly into your office,
home
and classroom. >>
And into space DMOMA will go also, with DMOMA Deimos scheduled to open in
June,
2004.
The paradigm shift is upon us.
Artists are invited to submit their art, under the precepts of the Viridian
Green
Manifesto, for possible inclusion in the museum collection; or to send
proposals
for special exhibitions. Go to: www.dmoma.org.
Rachel Greene's Interview with David Ross about Radical Software
I first heard of Radical Software in an Artforum article by David
Joselit published in May 2002. Joselit gave a history of the magazine
(of which I had never heard) and I was intrigued by how OEnet culture
Joselit published in May 2002. Joselit gave a history of the magazine
(of which I had never heard) and I was intrigued by how OEnet culture