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.
The Ghost City by George Friedman
The Ghost City
George Friedman
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18292
Here is an illuminating article on the economic role New Orleans has played
historically (and now) as a major port in the USA. The Mississippi river is,
of course, of tremendous importance as a shipping lane for many things, I
gather (notably agricultural products); consequently, the author feels that
New Orleans will have to be rebuilt to service the port.
While you're at it, you might want to check out a rather disturbing article
on John Roberts at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18291 .
The folks in New York should be very proud of your New York Review of
Books--as with so many other things in New York, it is genuinely important.
ja
George Friedman
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18292
Here is an illuminating article on the economic role New Orleans has played
historically (and now) as a major port in the USA. The Mississippi river is,
of course, of tremendous importance as a shipping lane for many things, I
gather (notably agricultural products); consequently, the author feels that
New Orleans will have to be rebuilt to service the port.
While you're at it, you might want to check out a rather disturbing article
on John Roberts at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18291 .
The folks in New York should be very proud of your New York Review of
Books--as with so many other things in New York, it is genuinely important.
ja
text zine #2
issue 2 of text zine: http://textzi.net
edited by ivan monroy (mexico city)
featuring interviews in spanish with
fernanda g. weiden (free software activist/programmer)
tree wave (electro pop band)
pablo gaytan (writer)
jim andrews (net artist)
ja
http://vispo.com
edited by ivan monroy (mexico city)
featuring interviews in spanish with
fernanda g. weiden (free software activist/programmer)
tree wave (electro pop band)
pablo gaytan (writer)
jim andrews (net artist)
ja
http://vispo.com
Re: im_mobile
> > i think we are moving towards micronarratives and diving into the
> > pixel rhetoric.
> > try this one:
> > www.pucsp.br/~gb/desmemorias
> > (best viewed with IE6. pop ups unblocked + sound on + broadband.)
that hits the screen really well, giselle. lots of sound and video i hadn't
heard/seen for a long time, but i know just about all the references. that's
a wonderfully contemporary time machine of popular mainly american tv. did
you see all that stuff in brazil growing up? i was running around in my
pajamas, sitting on the floor watching that stuff in canada. looks like you
were doing much the same in brazil?
it streams in very quickly, by the way. quite the job to do that, i imagine.
are you pushing it to the max with a contemporary broadband connection? it
seems that way. it's a bit easier to do, i'd think, in flash and director;
streaming in html, images, video, the occasional flash piece, and sound
separately, with no coordinating software, that's pretty cool, if it works,
and it does in desmemorias.
i watched several pieces today: desmorias, jess's piece, and some of jim
punk's work. all of them streaming continuously or continually. all of them
"diving into the pixel rhetoric". all of them much more interesting to me
than watching tv. all of them using the whole screen in interesting ways. i
like to see the full screen used. claiming the whole monitor for the art
piece, not acquiescing to the browser chrome, the typical frame. all of them
fast paced and making the monitor jump. all of them busting out with energy
and different ideas of net art that relate to TV and video but are way not
doing the same thing.
thanks so much! it's great to come across such strong work.
ja
> > pixel rhetoric.
> > try this one:
> > www.pucsp.br/~gb/desmemorias
> > (best viewed with IE6. pop ups unblocked + sound on + broadband.)
that hits the screen really well, giselle. lots of sound and video i hadn't
heard/seen for a long time, but i know just about all the references. that's
a wonderfully contemporary time machine of popular mainly american tv. did
you see all that stuff in brazil growing up? i was running around in my
pajamas, sitting on the floor watching that stuff in canada. looks like you
were doing much the same in brazil?
it streams in very quickly, by the way. quite the job to do that, i imagine.
are you pushing it to the max with a contemporary broadband connection? it
seems that way. it's a bit easier to do, i'd think, in flash and director;
streaming in html, images, video, the occasional flash piece, and sound
separately, with no coordinating software, that's pretty cool, if it works,
and it does in desmemorias.
i watched several pieces today: desmorias, jess's piece, and some of jim
punk's work. all of them streaming continuously or continually. all of them
"diving into the pixel rhetoric". all of them much more interesting to me
than watching tv. all of them using the whole screen in interesting ways. i
like to see the full screen used. claiming the whole monitor for the art
piece, not acquiescing to the browser chrome, the typical frame. all of them
fast paced and making the monitor jump. all of them busting out with energy
and different ideas of net art that relate to TV and video but are way not
doing the same thing.
thanks so much! it's great to come across such strong work.
ja
Re: 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
> '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
Re: postmoooooooodernist romanticism
> eduardo kac employed biotechnicians to breed a transgenic glowing bunny(in
> the dark under uv light), but claims it as his art.
>
> i know many new media artists who use programmers but don't credit them as
> authors.
>
> i suppose it is the difference between collaboration and a model akin to
> director of a movie.
there's generally quite a long roster of people who work on a movie. usually
new media projects have a lot shorter roster. whoever signs the cheques is
the artist; when nobody signs cheques, it's a collaboration.
whoever really does something other than just what they're told to do in the
interest of the work of art, whoever cares enough to put not just their time
but their whole beast into it, they're the artists. and they know who they
are.
ja
> the dark under uv light), but claims it as his art.
>
> i know many new media artists who use programmers but don't credit them as
> authors.
>
> i suppose it is the difference between collaboration and a model akin to
> director of a movie.
there's generally quite a long roster of people who work on a movie. usually
new media projects have a lot shorter roster. whoever signs the cheques is
the artist; when nobody signs cheques, it's a collaboration.
whoever really does something other than just what they're told to do in the
interest of the work of art, whoever cares enough to put not just their time
but their whole beast into it, they're the artists. and they know who they
are.
ja