Jess Loseby
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (3)
BIO
Jess Loseby is a digital artist from the UK whose main medium is the internet. Her work ranges from small and intimate online installationsto large scale digital projections and video. In a relatively brief time, her work has become known internationally such as the ‘cyber-kitchen’ (lead artist and co-curator) and ‘the Digital Pocket’ (lead artist and co-curator), which is currently listed in the Whitney Artport. In August 2003, she became the first virtual artist in residence at Furtherfield.org (FurtherStudio) one of the first virtual artists residencies of its kind. She has exhibited in digital festivals such as the Split Film Festival, Pixxelpoint 2003, FILE 2003 and the Stuttgart Filmwinter. In 2003 she created interactive digital sets for the production of ‘The Dadaists’ at The Met Theater in Hollywood. Also in 2003 she was also awarded a grant from the Daniel Langlois Foundation, with the resulting work 'views from the ground floor...' being currently exhibited internationally.

Thematically, her projects continue her fascination with borderlands and ‘beautiful seams’ between the ubiquitous worlds of computing and the ‘real’ (domestic). A staunch opponent of new media's absorption with VR, her on and offline installations create flows and streams in the relational space of art and technology. Loseby’s unashamedly low-tech approach to new media build comparisons of the network and digitally (in its frustrations, attention to triviality and repetition) as absurdly compatible to the female domestic routine.

Jess Loseby has 3 children, 2 wheels, 1 husband and 0 days off.

Discussions (201) Opportunities (2) Events (1) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq..well that is where we started...


<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">hi dyske,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; &gt; I would
guess this comes from your views on the importance of language. My</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; &gt; deal on
this is that words are important but you are getting hung up on the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; &gt; wrong ones.
You've used the minefield of language in race as an example, let</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; &gt; me call
another heavily loaded language such as disability. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; I'm not sure
what this has to do with my example of Halle Berry, but I'll</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; respond to this
as a new discussion. The last question seems to sum up all</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; of the questions
that precedes it, so I'm going to answer that.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">It's actually not a new discussion
I'm just trying to bring the discussion
out of your 'safe' areas.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> You used Halle Berry as an example
of neutrality (and your
disappointment that she was unable to remain neutral) to expand on
why is neutrality was your given choice of action in that example and
with the anti-war dialogue. From my reading of your mails you are using
you ideas of language, semantics and neutrality in carefully distanced
case studies. What I am attempting to challenge you with is that it </span></font><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size:10pt"><i>is
</i></span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">easier and takes little effort to
remain neutral in these two cases and to
suggest others misapplication of language is responsible for the ills and
ramifications of the outcomes within these situations</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(&quot;</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span
style="font-size:10pt">What if your decision ended up contributing to something disastrous
and inhumane?&quot;)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">as it&#160; absolves yourself of any
personal responsibility within those
outcomes. I am trying to get you to apply these same 'rules' of neutrality
that you applied to ruths (and others) texts to your own responses and
interpretations.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> By bringing the debate of neutrality
and language (and difference) into
the minefield of the language of disability I am attempting to threaten
both your neutrality and your absolution of responsibility because the
language of disability is not removed (unlike a war unless it's in your
city or talking about </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>some elses</i>
race or colour) but demands a personal
and immediate response. If responsibility cannot be absolved by
neutrality within this framework&#160; it would follow that responsibility might
occur (whether you like it or not) by your other neutral stands. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">To give an example I am trying to
show you that to remain neutral within
this language of disability is impossible as your neutrality becomes
active and powerful. Suddenly the&#160; your same ideas of semeotics and a
lanuage that you previously said </span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&quot;..concocts
its own world and we
project</span></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">that</span></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
style="font-size:12pt"> </span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">back
to reality, and we act on this simulacrum&quot; </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">now</span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">
becomes </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">&quot;</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span
style="font-size:10pt">I see that the meaning of a word is in its specific use, in its
specific context and circumstances...&quot;&#160;&#160; </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">&amp; </span></font><font
face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&quot;...their use may be perfectly
appropriate.&quot; </span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">If lanuage applied
within the language of disability are
&quot;perfectly appropriate&quot; to describe difference&#160; why is the same language
to describe colour (black/ afro-american) or an anti-war protests (ruths,
michaels&#160; text) questionable? Who makes the rules here in the
application of this pick'n' choose theory?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> Within the original discussion you
said that</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt"> &quot;...many
people are
pressured to decide which side to be on, [this ]is also an effect of our
language&quot; and that you refused to engage in this by taking your 'neutral'
stance but &quot;</span></font><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">...This
does not mean that I am apathetic to the situation&quot;
What I am suggested in you have constructed&#160; a perfect theoretic frame
work for apathy and and absolution of responsibility. Unfortunately, only
when this are removed, distant and safe subjects. By keeping the theory
as applicable only to debate in which your personal neutral response
has no meaning or effect&#160; you can continue to blame-shift, question
others motivation, words and responses without effort, engagement or
responsibility on your part</span></font></div>
<p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="font-size:12pt">&quot;Apathy: Lack of interest
or concern, especially regarding matters
of general importance or appeal; indifference. Lack of emotion or
feeling; impassiveness&quot;</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">neutrality is apathy.</span></font></p>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">. Derrida himself
is a very politically involved individual. He</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; feels strongly
about anti-Semitism. If he were to deny the notion of</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; difference, then
he could not possibly support his own efforts.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">yes thats why is lifes work has been
to express theory which
appearance and reality are ultimately untenable... he accepts and
embraced difference. (!?!)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">derrida is intellectual snobbery for
beginners. I didn't say he denied the
notion of difference&#160; (I said neutrality denied the notion of difference) I
did say the concept weak/strong binary is not subverted by derrida
(central deconstuction just produces and&#160; strong/weak infinite so long
as 'weak' is seen as a negative) Difference and differAnce are to
different discussion (arggh!! I hate him)&#160; However I'm bored bored
already. I can't point to anything that not already out there (in terms of
books) just reading them with a different take.(urg)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; Please see this
website.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; http://www.isna.org/</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> I suggest you see read it again yourself..</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">&quot;</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">We
certainly would like to see people become less gender-phobic, but
we don't think dumping intersexed kids into a gender-phobic world with
no gender or with a &quot;third gender&quot; is the way to go&quot;</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">&quot;</span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><i>Second,
and much more importantly, we are trying to make the world a
safe place for intersexed kids, and we don't think labeling them with a
gender category that in essence doesn't exist would help them</i></span></font><font face="Arial"><span
style="font-size:10pt">&quot;</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b>&quot;ISNA recognizes that it can be damned hard
to be intersexed, or
to have an intersexed child. That's why we exist. That's why we
</b></span></font><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b><i>don't</i></b></span></font><font
face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><b> advocate &quot;doing nothing.&quot; &quot;</b></span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">ISNA believes that medically necessary surgeries
should be employed
when a child or adult's physical health is threatened. We believe that,
for example, if a child's urine is not draining in a healthy way, the child
should receive medical treatment for that problem. </span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">....I still say you are looking at very complicated
issue in very simplistic
terms. As an advocate of difference I agree with some of the issue
raised by this pressure group. As an advocate of child health I find
much of their medical/shared 'proof' badly researched and too big is
their generalizations for me to agree that corrective surgery as a
general approach is either unnecessary, thoughtless or socially
motivated.</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Its interesting that find neutrality is not applicable
here...</span></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></p>
<p><br/></p>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq.. well that is where we started...


<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hi Dyske</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; Hi Jess,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; I've read your
post carefully, but most of it seems to be based on your</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; misunderstanding
caused by my lack of clarity in my original post. So, I</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; agree with most
of them. There were some interesting historical facts and</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; arguments based
on those facts. I agree with them too.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Hmm,&#160; I though you might. Never
try and argue with some someone on
a zen i'm-ok-your-ok vibe - you will never get them to disagree only
confirm your right to disagree with them. Most infuriating. Like talking to
the elves in tolkien - they will say both yes and no.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">however:-)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; &quot;The belief
that neutrality is proactive is an illution.&quot;</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; The actress Halle
Berry who won an Oscar last year is half black and half</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; white. The story
that I heard (not being an expert on Hollywood facts) is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; that she used
to resist being categorized as black or white. This is rightly</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; so. The circumstances
of the situation calls for a neutrality which is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; reasonable. But
there is just too much force in our society, driven by the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; effect of our
language, to label her either or. Last year, she gave in and</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; identified herself
as African American. This was disappointing to me.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I would guess this comes from your
views on the importance of
language. My deal on this is that words are important but you are
getting hung up on the wrong ones. You've used the minefield of
language in race as an example, let me call another heavily loaded
language such as disability. The language is studied with explosives.
Disabled. Handicapped. Physically Challenged etc</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> Which one is the loaded word. Should
the 'disabled' person strive to be
none of the above? Should the 'other' strive to remain 'neutral' and
refuse to name the difference? If they are handicapped are they cap in
hand? If they are physically challenged are they not trying hard enough
(for challenge implies something to be aimed for)? If they are disabled
are they good for the nothing? By using the words do you make them
so?</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; When reality
presents a situation where it is only reasonable to be neutral</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; (i.e., for me
personally, not to imply that it is for all), that is, all the</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; factors to be
considered (within my knowledge and capacity) happen to be</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; equal in significance,
then, just as in the case with Halle Berry, it is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; hard to stay
neutral. It takes a great amount of effort to stand there,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; because the society
wants you to decide.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">The key thing here is these words
are constructs to express difference
and this is where I guess you and I would part. How does one stay
neutral in describing difference? </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">You can ignore the difference or claim
the difference is not really there
or a construct of society. You could remain 'neutral' - refuse to use the
language.&#160; My take on this is at&#160; its deepest roots difference and the
admission of difference is one of the joys and significance of who we
are . Being able to accept and embrace that difference is what leads to
acceptance and understanding. Take the disability analogy: You can
refuse to use all the language associated with it but if you refuse to use
the word would you still build a ramp for the wheelchair-user? A neutral
person could not because&#160; that would point to different needs, a level of
mutual dependability, a difference. By claiming neutrality you deny the
reality of the differnce and in doing so do not address the 'needs' of that
difference. Difference itself becomes problematic.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> No ignoring of a difference or neutrality
to it's significance will make
that difference go away. Difference should be embraced as who we are
as part of human condition - not denied or ignored because to admit
them would be to 'take sides'. Remaining neutral in these events is not
'hard' or 'taking great effort' but problematic, destructive.and negative.
Because utimately, denial or ignorance (to ignore) leads to fear,
inequality and inaction.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(I admit I'm baiting the trap. couldn't
resist.)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">As for Halle Berry, I was pleased
when she came 'off the fence'. By
'resisting being categoriesed' she was colluding to the system that
maintained that colour was not important and the 'needs' of this
difference (in this case the under representation of black people with
the film industry) did not need to be addressed. It is and they do.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">In other mails you have talked about
derrida (derrida always pissed me
off I'm afraid) No matter how the binary is constructed white/black
black/white - disruption does not come from white=black or black=white.
A denial of what we see and feel does equate to either harmony or
acceptance just a weak/strong infinite.&#160; Disruption by a third: white AND
black, black AND whiteAND......might just get along. There is no binary
because of the AND. The AND is what is vital in the end not the
supposed signifer or signified. It is difference that should be rejoiced
and embraced in as part of our uneasy alliance of being human. </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; Another instance
of where this happens is when a sexually ambiguous child is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; born. These hermaphrodites
are subjected to various surgeries to normalize</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; their sexual
status. In this process, their otherwise perfectly healthy</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; bodies are forever
ruined. They go through these processes simply because</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; the society is
not capable of accepting them as they are. Our society is</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; structured in
such a way that you must be either or. These are forces of our</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; language, a categorical
thinking.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I'm not going to get into this one
as it just shows a ignorance of the
medical condition. Hermaphrodites are not generally&#160; 'otherwise
perfecty healthy' but often have significant medical problems including
internal bleeding&#160; resulting in endrometriosis (which lead to potential
fertile women becoming infertile and great pain), misformed bladders
and urinary tracts (caused by retention of internal genitals), sexual
disfunction, hormonal and glandular imbalance to name just a few of the
'nicer' ones that often need major reconstructive surgery to avoid long
term damage and pain. Often, the resulting gender that is 'chosen'&#160; is
dictated by these parameters and has nothing to do with society at all.
Its a lot more complicated than your 'neutral' judgements on those
making the decisions....</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>

DISCUSSION

Re: Your role in stopping the war against Iraq


sorry for interrupting but I'm tired, machines been tied up for 5 hours rendering video
and this "I'm ok - your ok stuff" just pissed me off.

>
> I watched on TV the anti-war protest in Washington DC. Various speakers came
> up on the podium and delivered their own agendas. They all had very
> different perspectives and reasons for protesting the war, many of which
> contradicted each other. >
which is why rallies such as this are so important, people come out from in front of their
tvs, lift their head out of their newspapers (or computer) and talk to other individuals of
different background, views and opinions. They come together under one 'unifying'
umbrella in this case to 'stop the war'.. Yes, difference exists and the 'unity' maybe be
temporary or uneasy but any umbrella that provokes unity in public (even if that unity is
confrimed by no more than the act of leaving their home and standing next to each
other) should be looked at as an 'opinion' and its worth investigated...

> Your analysis of the media seems to assume that there are facts independent
> of interpretations. Even if you were the weapons inspector in Iraq, at the
> moment you interpret your own experience it ceases to be reality.

urg. this sounds like an academic bollocks to me. that is my interpretation but of course
it may not be the reality.

> interpretation that cannot claim any more accuracy than any other
> interpretations in the world. If your argument about the passivity and
> mediation were true, we should simply trust our government officials who are
> so much closer to the reality of Iraq than any of us are. Tony Blair has
> access to information that you do not have. You might be making a rash
> decision based on your limited knowledge of the situation. And, your rash
> decision does have an influence in the outcome of this event. What if your
> decision ended up contributing to something disastrous and inhumane?
and what if your prime minister holding the facts has more teeth than brain cells? Do you
still trust him?

We must be past the time when we (the masses) abdicate responsibility to the hand of
the ''power-that-be' in some idealistic belief that they will 'do the right thing and if they
don't it not my fault 'guv.... '
The 'officials' have agenda of there own which may have nothing to do with the case
they are presenting to the public. Yes, and this opionion may not even be their own
personal one- just the party line. Isn't it then more irresponsible to abdicate
responsibility to the man who is willing to start a war on a policy document or a political
whip to which he himself disagrees?

Leaving the tough choices to the officials can also work both ways. What if your
government is the same as in the British and US officials in the 1930 who knew years
before that Hitler was committing mass killings on the jews The people 'on the street'
who were questioning (and who had relatives and friends in Europe) were told they'
didn't have all the fact's and it took a further 3 years for the war to start. We (the
masses) left responsibility to the officials who waited until Hitler was at the height of his
popularity and millions of people had been disposessed and killed before we acted.
Leaving it to the guys with the facts worked well eh? It works both ways leaving it to the
officials in going to war or not. If we were too late then might we not be too early now?

What about WW1 when insane british officials played knock down to gain a few of dirt
between trenches? Were the US officials right to decide that the vietnamese were the
'bad guys' ? What about the british who killed their soldiers over the falklands? The
officials said that war was really about the island people and british history and not the
billions of pounds of oil just off its shore. Were they being entirely accurate? When does
responsibility become personal?

Is it so beyond belief to think the officials may have other agendas than the 'right' thing
to do? That the officials may not be as objective and truthful as we would hope. My point
here is that government and citizens need to work in partnership not one holding the
facts and the other reacting. This means that a government has a duty to listen to the
people demonstrating and then be brave enough to respond. This also means that the
public need to listen to the officials and then be brave enough to question them. Many of
the people against the war are not doubting the fact that terrible and orchestrated
human right violations are going on under the regime but the arguments over what to do
are 'unified' under the 'stop the war' banners - that war is not their answer.
>
> Your words, my words, the words of newspapers, the words of TV news: they
> are all interpretations. It is not possible to report reality as reality.
> All are interpretations. Depending on what you are looking for, any
> interpretation can be useful. In this sense, no interpretation can
> absolutely be better, more significant, or more accurate. Everyone has the
> right to broadcast their own interpretations. For me, it is all the more
> disturbing when any media or any individual claim their accuracy,
> objectivity, or higher awareness.

Yes my truths may not be the same as yours and so on. Everybody has the right to
broadcast their truths.... So when is it time to stop swinging your apathetic legs and get
off the fence. Never? The belief that neutrality is proactive is an illution. One man hits
another man, a third asks them to stop. Meanwhile you sit at the side and say men are
just men and what is man anyway?. Could most people really sit and watch or do try to
listen to the argument and take some action? It might be the the violent man needs to be
restrained. Or it might be that talking resolves the original argument without the need to
the men to beat hell out of each other. Yes, we might get hurt ourselves by taking action
but the neutral opinion has no effect one way on the other. So why is the neutral guy
shouting?

j.
o
/^ rssgallery.com
][

DISCUSSION

RHIZOME_RAW: M$ windows and audio CDs


<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">hi,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">I passed this one to my in-house composer
(husband!)</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">j.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">you wrote </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt;what's the deal?
one can't get</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; the original,
uncompressed audio track off a CD via windows? you need</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; to use a 3rd
party app? can't do it with the OS? if one is importing</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; audio into an
after affects project, flash project, director project,</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; FCP project etc
one would want to start with the highest quality audio</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial" color="#7f0000"><span style="font-size:10pt">&gt; one can get.
if your source is a CD that means an .aiff.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">No it doesn't. An aiff file, or a
raw pcm file or a wav file all contain the same data </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">(44.1khz, 16-bit stereo if it's from
a CD orginally), just the header info is different.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Xp allows you to rip directly from
an audio CD using Media Player but only in wma </span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">format. I always use Audiograbber
to rip them as wav files.</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/>
</div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">Clive</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><br/></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> o</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt">/^ rssgallery.com</span></font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"> ][</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>

DISCUSSION

[stop]the war (new work/response)


I haven't said anything on the thread about the approaching war but
with the uk marches coming up I made a piece which strangely (for me)
turned into a straight flash animation but it kind of does the job.
If you are involved in any protest sites etc please feel free to use it as
you like...

http://www.rssgallery.com/stop.htm
[flash 6, speakers required. music by Clive Loseby)

jess.

o
/^ rssgallery.com
][