ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Re: Re: ms REALLY sucks
> if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting
itself from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?
hackers are the unacknowleged legislators of the OS systems.
ja
itself from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?
hackers are the unacknowleged legislators of the OS systems.
ja
Re: Re: ms REALLY sucks
> > Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But
> > what's
> > the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> > which
> > many industrial machines are virtual.
>
> no doubt... and this makes for interesting legal philosophy
> considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the
> "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's
> research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it
> for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
> but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a
> small company and a university than large companies using the
> "legal" system to dominate the Web
Agreed.
It's appropriate that the MS suit revolves around the <object> tag (or is it
the <embed> tag?). A question of the legal status of the <object> process.
If you make <objects> that do not require any decisions by the 'user' appear
out of 'thin air', then yer violatin 'me magic patent buster pony up'.
Read the article you (s)cite on the junk frame patent. it does indeed sound
pretty junky.
i agree also with you that the nub of these matters seems a matter for
philosophical analysis, mainly.
there does need to be some way of patenting ideas so that research can be
carried out with some prospect of recompense. do you agree? even this might
be problematical. but ideas of what kinds? it isn't sufficient to just be
able to patent working code or working machines. the nub of the innovation
seems to be conceptual rather than material. like if one has an idea that
really merits a patent, then the patent description should be general enough
that, oh, changing a few lines of the code superficially or, if it is not a
virtual machine but a 'real' machine, making it out of titanium rather than
iron shouldn't matter. you have somehow to isolate the structure and nub of
the matter in an abstract way. and then, once that has been done, decide
whether the idea is really patentable according to some pretty wise and
experienced checklist with just history behind it.
if there's a loophole in an OS, hackers exploit it. if there's a loophole in
patent law, lawyers exploit it. people bang hard on the systems day and
night. does this give us better systems? lots of little bandaids and then
eventually changes at a higher level.
I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial' license. What
sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you thinking of?
> (based on the wording of the
> complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling
> of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds
> familiar...), than the actual use of the <embed> technology)
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp
I would have thought that UC went after Microsoft because they had a very
good case against Microsoft. They had made MS aware of their work and patent
quite early, if that counts, and also demonstrated that MS is in violation
of the patent. I suspect they went after Microsoft not for any other reason
than they figured they had their best case against Microsoft, as opposed to
other companies. And I suspect that the main reason they decided to sue was
to get some recompense from their research. And because the law permits it.
They wouldn't have chosen MS because it was the biggest challenge, but
because it was the duck. Ducks first in that game, I'll bet.
ja
> > what's
> > the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> > which
> > many industrial machines are virtual.
>
> no doubt... and this makes for interesting legal philosophy
> considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the
> "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's
> research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it
> for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
> but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a
> small company and a university than large companies using the
> "legal" system to dominate the Web
Agreed.
It's appropriate that the MS suit revolves around the <object> tag (or is it
the <embed> tag?). A question of the legal status of the <object> process.
If you make <objects> that do not require any decisions by the 'user' appear
out of 'thin air', then yer violatin 'me magic patent buster pony up'.
Read the article you (s)cite on the junk frame patent. it does indeed sound
pretty junky.
i agree also with you that the nub of these matters seems a matter for
philosophical analysis, mainly.
there does need to be some way of patenting ideas so that research can be
carried out with some prospect of recompense. do you agree? even this might
be problematical. but ideas of what kinds? it isn't sufficient to just be
able to patent working code or working machines. the nub of the innovation
seems to be conceptual rather than material. like if one has an idea that
really merits a patent, then the patent description should be general enough
that, oh, changing a few lines of the code superficially or, if it is not a
virtual machine but a 'real' machine, making it out of titanium rather than
iron shouldn't matter. you have somehow to isolate the structure and nub of
the matter in an abstract way. and then, once that has been done, decide
whether the idea is really patentable according to some pretty wise and
experienced checklist with just history behind it.
if there's a loophole in an OS, hackers exploit it. if there's a loophole in
patent law, lawyers exploit it. people bang hard on the systems day and
night. does this give us better systems? lots of little bandaids and then
eventually changes at a higher level.
I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial' license. What
sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you thinking of?
> (based on the wording of the
> complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling
> of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds
> familiar...), than the actual use of the <embed> technology)
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp
I would have thought that UC went after Microsoft because they had a very
good case against Microsoft. They had made MS aware of their work and patent
quite early, if that counts, and also demonstrated that MS is in violation
of the patent. I suspect they went after Microsoft not for any other reason
than they figured they had their best case against Microsoft, as opposed to
other companies. And I suspect that the main reason they decided to sue was
to get some recompense from their research. And because the law permits it.
They wouldn't have chosen MS because it was the biggest challenge, but
because it was the duck. Ducks first in that game, I'll bet.
ja
Re: software art vs. programmed art
> Hi Jim
> < My point? Just like poetry, unless written by those
> who don't care about the
> art (in which case it's usually dross), is usually
> very keenly about poetry,
> so too will what can appear to be "programmed art"
> have its deep and abiding
> concern with software.>
> Is this not simply another way of saying there is
> always a formal dimension to a work of art and that
> naturally anyone 'in the trade' will have a
> preoccupation with, and maybe undertake a more
> immediate scrutiny of, both form and mechanics.
> So that for those actively involved in making art a
> work appears more to be "about" formal qualities than
> it does even for the informed viewer who is not also a
> practitioner.
> This has been true since the birth of any sort of
> human artistic endeavour and will remain true.
> Does it hold any general lessons for what we should be
> making?
> I remain to be convinced.
Hi Michael,
I posted earlier that I don't think there are 'shoulds'. The 'shoulds'
usually refer to a relatively well-defined subset of approaches or
situations, and in those approaches or situations, 'shoulds' sometimes make
sense, but taken out of context, they don't. Also, people tend to want to
say that their 'shoulds' are more widely relevant than they are.
> The key question over a specific example of
> "programmed art" or any other sort of art is "is it
> any good", and whilst part of the answer to that is
> "is it well constructed" and "is it formally
> satisfying?" actually there are a whole series of
> other dimensions that are as/more important.
yes, i agree.
> I was looking at some late Degas in the UK national
> gallery the other day & I was struck by the withdrawal
> from finish - bits of the canvas left bare, no glaze.
> Similarly reading a biography of the poet John
> Berryman, it describes his struggle to 'disrupt' the
> regular pattern of versification he initially
> established in the 'Dream Songs'.
> I can't help feeling that in both these cases the
> artists were reaching beyond both form and technique
> to something else, or perhaps more accurately, as I'm
> not trying to suggest anything mystical at work,
> subsuming both form and technique *within* the
> affective qualities of their art.
yes, technique is endless.
> I absolutely think that it's not possible to rule out
> in advance that any medium is capable of being used to
> create worthwhile art, but what I reject even more is
> the notion that any medium somehow yields a 'special
> case'- I wonder if it wouldn't be more fruitful to
> examine concrete examples of successful or
> unsuccessful practice in some detail rather than
> discussing generalised taxonomical considerations.
yes it seems that criticism that's primarily taxonomical often has more of
an exclusionary agenda than seeking deep insight into the art.
looking at the elements of art can lead to provisional taxonomies, but the
motivation is to examine the elements/properties. Types/taxonomies are based
on properties. But what are the properties? Usually a taxonomy priveleges
some small group of elements without looking very closely at the larger
range of elements/properties or their crossovers among 'types'.
'software art' has a buzz about it so every arty tom dick and jane wants to
claim their stuff is software art. all i can say is patent your algorithms.
then without any working code, you too can sue for $500 million.
i share antoine's/andreas's preference for software art that has something
to say about the software environment, and is far more than competant
concerning programming, is actually creative in the programming, not drag
and drop copy/paste code that has 'duh' written all over it. but this takes
years of practice, and this is *my preference*, not a critical absolute. and
there are exceptions. the thing with any medium or tool is that it will jump
all over you and assert its own presence more strongly than whatever you
wanted to present unless you deal with it wisely and knowlegeably.
the distinction between 'software art' and 'programmed art' seems alright to
distinguish between work that isn't particularly creative or edgy in its use
of software and work that is. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the
creative, edgy stuff deals explicitly with ideas of software? Well, like I
said in my last post, usually that's true at some level, it seems to me, but
that level isn't always explicit. And it can mean other things too.
You mentioned Berryman, Michael. I remember one line of Berryman, something
like, 'Let's be honest, friends, life is boring.'
But art isn't.
Well, life ain't so bad, but, um, you gotta do the dishes. Yet even the
dishes can be enjoyable given the alternative or enough bubbles.
Back to the virtual dishes.
ja
> < My point? Just like poetry, unless written by those
> who don't care about the
> art (in which case it's usually dross), is usually
> very keenly about poetry,
> so too will what can appear to be "programmed art"
> have its deep and abiding
> concern with software.>
> Is this not simply another way of saying there is
> always a formal dimension to a work of art and that
> naturally anyone 'in the trade' will have a
> preoccupation with, and maybe undertake a more
> immediate scrutiny of, both form and mechanics.
> So that for those actively involved in making art a
> work appears more to be "about" formal qualities than
> it does even for the informed viewer who is not also a
> practitioner.
> This has been true since the birth of any sort of
> human artistic endeavour and will remain true.
> Does it hold any general lessons for what we should be
> making?
> I remain to be convinced.
Hi Michael,
I posted earlier that I don't think there are 'shoulds'. The 'shoulds'
usually refer to a relatively well-defined subset of approaches or
situations, and in those approaches or situations, 'shoulds' sometimes make
sense, but taken out of context, they don't. Also, people tend to want to
say that their 'shoulds' are more widely relevant than they are.
> The key question over a specific example of
> "programmed art" or any other sort of art is "is it
> any good", and whilst part of the answer to that is
> "is it well constructed" and "is it formally
> satisfying?" actually there are a whole series of
> other dimensions that are as/more important.
yes, i agree.
> I was looking at some late Degas in the UK national
> gallery the other day & I was struck by the withdrawal
> from finish - bits of the canvas left bare, no glaze.
> Similarly reading a biography of the poet John
> Berryman, it describes his struggle to 'disrupt' the
> regular pattern of versification he initially
> established in the 'Dream Songs'.
> I can't help feeling that in both these cases the
> artists were reaching beyond both form and technique
> to something else, or perhaps more accurately, as I'm
> not trying to suggest anything mystical at work,
> subsuming both form and technique *within* the
> affective qualities of their art.
yes, technique is endless.
> I absolutely think that it's not possible to rule out
> in advance that any medium is capable of being used to
> create worthwhile art, but what I reject even more is
> the notion that any medium somehow yields a 'special
> case'- I wonder if it wouldn't be more fruitful to
> examine concrete examples of successful or
> unsuccessful practice in some detail rather than
> discussing generalised taxonomical considerations.
yes it seems that criticism that's primarily taxonomical often has more of
an exclusionary agenda than seeking deep insight into the art.
looking at the elements of art can lead to provisional taxonomies, but the
motivation is to examine the elements/properties. Types/taxonomies are based
on properties. But what are the properties? Usually a taxonomy priveleges
some small group of elements without looking very closely at the larger
range of elements/properties or their crossovers among 'types'.
'software art' has a buzz about it so every arty tom dick and jane wants to
claim their stuff is software art. all i can say is patent your algorithms.
then without any working code, you too can sue for $500 million.
i share antoine's/andreas's preference for software art that has something
to say about the software environment, and is far more than competant
concerning programming, is actually creative in the programming, not drag
and drop copy/paste code that has 'duh' written all over it. but this takes
years of practice, and this is *my preference*, not a critical absolute. and
there are exceptions. the thing with any medium or tool is that it will jump
all over you and assert its own presence more strongly than whatever you
wanted to present unless you deal with it wisely and knowlegeably.
the distinction between 'software art' and 'programmed art' seems alright to
distinguish between work that isn't particularly creative or edgy in its use
of software and work that is. But what does that mean? Does it mean that the
creative, edgy stuff deals explicitly with ideas of software? Well, like I
said in my last post, usually that's true at some level, it seems to me, but
that level isn't always explicit. And it can mean other things too.
You mentioned Berryman, Michael. I remember one line of Berryman, something
like, 'Let's be honest, friends, life is boring.'
But art isn't.
Well, life ain't so bad, but, um, you gotta do the dishes. Yet even the
dishes can be enjoyable given the alternative or enough bubbles.
Back to the virtual dishes.
ja
Re: Re: Re: ms REALLY sucks
> Hi Jim,
>
> I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.
>
> Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced
> to recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's
> greed. The web is about to become much more user unfriendly
> because of someone's greed.
>
> Doesn't that piss you off?
>
> It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.
>
> Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much
> discussion at all except Dominey
> (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).
>
> Where's the outrage?!
The Terminator being elected is outrageous and hallucinatory, like someone
laced reality with stricknine. And his being in bed with big electrical
business is outrageous. Why he was chosen by big business to be elected is
outrageous. How he could be elected is outrageous. Bush's actions are
outrageous. No weapons of mass destruction. Throw the bastard out. These
sorts of things are outrageous. The <object> issue, to me, is not outrageous
but, um, annoying.
The people who sued Microsoft had to sue to make any money from their
research. Microsoft was aware of their patent and so must have W3C been
aware of the patent so they should have thought about it in 1998 when the
patent was granted. Either they didn't take it seriously, which doesn't seem
likely, or they felt that the proper place to work it out was in the court
room. I don't know. Of course it affects not just IE but Netscape and Java
applets and most other stuff that implements or uses the <object> tag in a
fully automated way, whatever that means. Put in a dumb little window
requiring a human decision and the patent doesn't apply anymore. There's
patent law for you.
They got $500 million in that suit and about 4/5 of it goes to legal costs.
The gist of the page info I sent
(http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent ) seems to be that macromedia is
developing some tools to automate the conversion process so that you don't
get that stupid window introduced for legal purposes coming up each time you
load a shockwave or flash piece. hopefully the tools will be available well
before the new IE comes out. not sure about the story concerning, say,
applets. i have quite a few of those on my site too. and off site. I trust
that macromedia will make it as painless as possible.
I got this from macromedia today in response to a question I asked:
**************
> Having looked at the http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent
> page, the message seems basically to be
> 'do it now the hard way or wait till we have some tools for
> you which will soon be in beta'. Correct? I realize the IE
> change will not happen for some months.
The "message" is that due to Microsoft's announced changes, we've taken some
steps to (a) educate our customers on what changes will be required to their
content pages, and (b) alert folks to the fact that we're creating some
tools to help automate the content update process. And yes, the new version
of Internet Explorer is going to take a few months before being released.
If you get started on preparing for this ASAP you'll have less of a hiccup
when the new I.E. does hit the streets.
Cheers,
Tom Higgins
Product Specialist - Director Team
Macromedia
**************
I remember when Netscape abandoned the <layer> tag. I never used the <layer>
tag in my DHTML work, but knew lots of folks who did, and they were
definitely outraged. Not only because the tag was abandoned and didn't work
in later Netscapes, but because the conversion process was pretty mysterious
and convoluted; nobody understood how to do the conversion except the pros.
The result was that DHTML was more or less abandoned by most, given also the
superiority of Flash or Director for most (not all) things artists typically
want to do with DHTML.
I suspect macromedia will work hard to make sure a similar thing doesn't
happen with Flash and Shockwave.
It's probably going to cost me a week of (silly) work.
Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But what's
the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in which
many industrial machines are virtual.
ja
>
> I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.
>
> Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced
> to recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's
> greed. The web is about to become much more user unfriendly
> because of someone's greed.
>
> Doesn't that piss you off?
>
> It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.
>
> Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much
> discussion at all except Dominey
> (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).
>
> Where's the outrage?!
The Terminator being elected is outrageous and hallucinatory, like someone
laced reality with stricknine. And his being in bed with big electrical
business is outrageous. Why he was chosen by big business to be elected is
outrageous. How he could be elected is outrageous. Bush's actions are
outrageous. No weapons of mass destruction. Throw the bastard out. These
sorts of things are outrageous. The <object> issue, to me, is not outrageous
but, um, annoying.
The people who sued Microsoft had to sue to make any money from their
research. Microsoft was aware of their patent and so must have W3C been
aware of the patent so they should have thought about it in 1998 when the
patent was granted. Either they didn't take it seriously, which doesn't seem
likely, or they felt that the proper place to work it out was in the court
room. I don't know. Of course it affects not just IE but Netscape and Java
applets and most other stuff that implements or uses the <object> tag in a
fully automated way, whatever that means. Put in a dumb little window
requiring a human decision and the patent doesn't apply anymore. There's
patent law for you.
They got $500 million in that suit and about 4/5 of it goes to legal costs.
The gist of the page info I sent
(http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent ) seems to be that macromedia is
developing some tools to automate the conversion process so that you don't
get that stupid window introduced for legal purposes coming up each time you
load a shockwave or flash piece. hopefully the tools will be available well
before the new IE comes out. not sure about the story concerning, say,
applets. i have quite a few of those on my site too. and off site. I trust
that macromedia will make it as painless as possible.
I got this from macromedia today in response to a question I asked:
**************
> Having looked at the http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent
> page, the message seems basically to be
> 'do it now the hard way or wait till we have some tools for
> you which will soon be in beta'. Correct? I realize the IE
> change will not happen for some months.
The "message" is that due to Microsoft's announced changes, we've taken some
steps to (a) educate our customers on what changes will be required to their
content pages, and (b) alert folks to the fact that we're creating some
tools to help automate the content update process. And yes, the new version
of Internet Explorer is going to take a few months before being released.
If you get started on preparing for this ASAP you'll have less of a hiccup
when the new I.E. does hit the streets.
Cheers,
Tom Higgins
Product Specialist - Director Team
Macromedia
**************
I remember when Netscape abandoned the <layer> tag. I never used the <layer>
tag in my DHTML work, but knew lots of folks who did, and they were
definitely outraged. Not only because the tag was abandoned and didn't work
in later Netscapes, but because the conversion process was pretty mysterious
and convoluted; nobody understood how to do the conversion except the pros.
The result was that DHTML was more or less abandoned by most, given also the
superiority of Flash or Director for most (not all) things artists typically
want to do with DHTML.
I suspect macromedia will work hard to make sure a similar thing doesn't
happen with Flash and Shockwave.
It's probably going to cost me a week of (silly) work.
Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But what's
the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in which
many industrial machines are virtual.
ja
Re: software art vs. programmed art
> Wittgenstein seems to have struck again : isn't it all a matter of
> agreeing on the words.
> There is no doubt that there is a large group of artistic productions
> out there that use "programs" as their main material. A subset of
> these have "software" as their main subject.
> Wouldn't everybody be pleased by naming the first group "programmed
> art" and the second "software art"? This is the position that I have
> taken recently in my talks. I use this terminology because "program"
> is a more generic word, and "software" tends to mean "commercial
> software product", which gives it a "cultural" orientation.
>
> Then, whether the "software art" category of transmediale should
> accept "programmed art" in general is a decision of the transmediale
> people and jury (this is what we had done when I was member of the
> jury in 2002).
It's often the case with other types of works of art that an indirect
subject of the work is the art (of poetry or writing or programming or
whatever). Indirect but often quite strongly, moving in parallel and other
directions with the more prominent subjects.
It can be argued that this makes for more interesting art than when the
subject is overtly focussed on the art and its material. Who cares about
even the juicy topics one can discuss concerning software but, mainly,
programmers and the cognoscenti? I'm one myself, but for art to be rich with
experience, best to bring it home through many dimensions of experience.
Poets live the development of poetics. It's on their mind continually. It's
how they live and make sense of their lives, in relation to the art. Art
life art life art life life.
Even if it's not, an experienced poet can read a poem and imagine how the
poem is about poetry/poetics. Because poetics is always in relation to life.
The poem is always in relation to some poetics. I tend to favor poems that
speak interestingly to poetry. Indirectly, directly, whatever.
My point? Just like poetry, unless written by those who don't care about the
art (in which case it's usually dross), is usually very keenly about poetry,
so too will what can appear to be "programmed art" have its deep and abiding
concern with software.
ja
http://vispo.com
> agreeing on the words.
> There is no doubt that there is a large group of artistic productions
> out there that use "programs" as their main material. A subset of
> these have "software" as their main subject.
> Wouldn't everybody be pleased by naming the first group "programmed
> art" and the second "software art"? This is the position that I have
> taken recently in my talks. I use this terminology because "program"
> is a more generic word, and "software" tends to mean "commercial
> software product", which gives it a "cultural" orientation.
>
> Then, whether the "software art" category of transmediale should
> accept "programmed art" in general is a decision of the transmediale
> people and jury (this is what we had done when I was member of the
> jury in 2002).
It's often the case with other types of works of art that an indirect
subject of the work is the art (of poetry or writing or programming or
whatever). Indirect but often quite strongly, moving in parallel and other
directions with the more prominent subjects.
It can be argued that this makes for more interesting art than when the
subject is overtly focussed on the art and its material. Who cares about
even the juicy topics one can discuss concerning software but, mainly,
programmers and the cognoscenti? I'm one myself, but for art to be rich with
experience, best to bring it home through many dimensions of experience.
Poets live the development of poetics. It's on their mind continually. It's
how they live and make sense of their lives, in relation to the art. Art
life art life art life life.
Even if it's not, an experienced poet can read a poem and imagine how the
poem is about poetry/poetics. Because poetics is always in relation to life.
The poem is always in relation to some poetics. I tend to favor poems that
speak interestingly to poetry. Indirectly, directly, whatever.
My point? Just like poetry, unless written by those who don't care about the
art (in which case it's usually dross), is usually very keenly about poetry,
so too will what can appear to be "programmed art" have its deep and abiding
concern with software.
ja
http://vispo.com