ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Belgrade artists Marija Vauda and Nikola Pilipovic have been
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.
collaborating as MANIK since 1999.Their work reflects the
march of history, sometimes literally outside their studio, and a
dialogue with the international artistic community through
organisations and events such as Rhizome and Free Manifesta. Tiija is
their first weblog piece, their previous work has been in mediums as
diverse as video, performance, happenings, email, painting and
installation.
Re: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ]
Infantile fascination vs."Fountain",and no-grounded(wrong)explication about
same show how easy "people"accept whatever is written.There's no self
initiative,no research,only school fact .If we want to understand anything
about Duchamp it's good to see circumstances,ambient,and finally process
which could lied us to understand phenomena like "Ready-made".Cubism put
surface on first plan,specially synthetic cubism with collage
elements(newspapers,wood,tappets...).It was meter of day who is going to
understand main consequences of that process.Duchamp was painter in that
time.He made some pictures in*cubo-futurist* manner,but he was first who
understood implications of surface+speed.He just let thing drop from
canvas/surface,in his words:"Without any aesthetic valuation."He was
slightly confused when he made first "reedy-made",because he,actually made
composition/sculpture putting two thing together(chair&wheel)inspired
probably with two potential of those things;chair=sitting,no mowed,and
wheel=mowing."Roue de bicyclette",1913.was proto-ready-made-added!Next
year(1914)Duchamp formalized his intuition clear in "Egouttoir".This is
only,and one reedy-made ever made.Of curse it is monotheistic idea,but all
other *ready-mades*where,actually reedy -mades-added."Fountain"was one of
them(because signature,contextualization in NY.Dada exhibition...etc.),and
it's far from "most important"of his work.People like kind of humor,ironic
sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important
art piece in XXcentury.Four year latter he paint "Tu m' ",and there you can
see that he was concise about many-sided nature of surface.If you want to be
closer to Duchamps ideology,we recommended Phyro(Greek philosopher,360-270
before Jesus,one of Duchamps favorite).Also it's not so bad to see next
essays:
Robert Lebel;"Marcel Duchamp", 1962,
Michel Sanouiillet:"Marcel Duchamp and French Intelectual Tradition",1973
Werner Hofmann:"Grundlagen der modernrn Kunst",1978
Edward Ball&Robert Knafo:"The R.Mutt Dossier",1988
Hans Richter:"Kunst und Antikunst",1964
Willis Domingo"Meaning in the Art of Duchamp"
Jorg Traeger:"Duchamp,Malewitsch und die Tradition des Bildes",1972
Dolf Oehler:"Himsehen,Himlagen:Fur eine Dynamisierung der Theorie der
Avantgarde,Dargestellt Marcel Duchamp Fountain",1976
Etc.
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR
news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ]
>
> On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
> > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/
> > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
> >
> > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
> >
> >
> > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain
> > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but
> > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else
> > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a
> > snub.
> >
> > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly
> > NOT art. never was.
>
> Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
> context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
> modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
> everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show
> where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he
> set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
>
>
> > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
> > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this
> > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly
> > huge farce.
>
> He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
> anything else.
>
> > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
> > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
> > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
> > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce.
> > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
> > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
> > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't
> > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
> > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
> > people couched it in theoretical art speak.
>
> It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
> that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
> manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is -- it's the ideas
> that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
> destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many
> offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not
> Picasso, not Matisse.
>
> Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
> make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
> composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was
> carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
> minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures
> just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them.
> Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed
> it from physical form.
>
> No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
> the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
> last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
> readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
> irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
> work in the 20th century.
>
> >
> > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream
> > world, would just say "are you kidding?
>
> that's what they said at first.
>
> > i don't want your toilet.
>
> absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
>
> > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
>
> The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected.
> Why can't an insult be great art?
>
> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
> it art.'
>
> > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking
> > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy
> > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh,
> > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look
> > guys. looky."
> >
> > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
> > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
> > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted
> > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
> > and smile.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
> they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
> value the Fountain... why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
> art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
>
> Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
> establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be
> denied.
>
> The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90
> years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's
> genius IMO.
>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
same show how easy "people"accept whatever is written.There's no self
initiative,no research,only school fact .If we want to understand anything
about Duchamp it's good to see circumstances,ambient,and finally process
which could lied us to understand phenomena like "Ready-made".Cubism put
surface on first plan,specially synthetic cubism with collage
elements(newspapers,wood,tappets...).It was meter of day who is going to
understand main consequences of that process.Duchamp was painter in that
time.He made some pictures in*cubo-futurist* manner,but he was first who
understood implications of surface+speed.He just let thing drop from
canvas/surface,in his words:"Without any aesthetic valuation."He was
slightly confused when he made first "reedy-made",because he,actually made
composition/sculpture putting two thing together(chair&wheel)inspired
probably with two potential of those things;chair=sitting,no mowed,and
wheel=mowing."Roue de bicyclette",1913.was proto-ready-made-added!Next
year(1914)Duchamp formalized his intuition clear in "Egouttoir".This is
only,and one reedy-made ever made.Of curse it is monotheistic idea,but all
other *ready-mades*where,actually reedy -mades-added."Fountain"was one of
them(because signature,contextualization in NY.Dada exhibition...etc.),and
it's far from "most important"of his work.People like kind of humor,ironic
sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important
art piece in XXcentury.Four year latter he paint "Tu m' ",and there you can
see that he was concise about many-sided nature of surface.If you want to be
closer to Duchamps ideology,we recommended Phyro(Greek philosopher,360-270
before Jesus,one of Duchamps favorite).Also it's not so bad to see next
essays:
Robert Lebel;"Marcel Duchamp", 1962,
Michel Sanouiillet:"Marcel Duchamp and French Intelectual Tradition",1973
Werner Hofmann:"Grundlagen der modernrn Kunst",1978
Edward Ball&Robert Knafo:"The R.Mutt Dossier",1988
Hans Richter:"Kunst und Antikunst",1964
Willis Domingo"Meaning in the Art of Duchamp"
Jorg Traeger:"Duchamp,Malewitsch und die Tradition des Bildes",1972
Dolf Oehler:"Himsehen,Himlagen:Fur eine Dynamisierung der Theorie der
Avantgarde,Dargestellt Marcel Duchamp Fountain",1976
Etc.
MANIK
----- Original Message -----
From: "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com>
To: "rhizome" <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR
news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ]
>
> On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
> > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/
> > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
> >
> > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
> >
> >
> > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain
> > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but
> > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else
> > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a
> > snub.
> >
> > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly
> > NOT art. never was.
>
> Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
> context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
> modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
> everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show
> where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he
> set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
>
>
> > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
> > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this
> > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly
> > huge farce.
>
> He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
> anything else.
>
> > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
> > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
> > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
> > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce.
> > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
> > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
> > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't
> > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
> > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
> > people couched it in theoretical art speak.
>
> It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
> that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
> manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is -- it's the ideas
> that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
> destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many
> offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not
> Picasso, not Matisse.
>
> Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
> make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
> composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was
> carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
> minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures
> just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them.
> Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed
> it from physical form.
>
> No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
> the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
> last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
> readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
> irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
> work in the 20th century.
>
> >
> > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream
> > world, would just say "are you kidding?
>
> that's what they said at first.
>
> > i don't want your toilet.
>
> absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
>
> > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
>
> The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected.
> Why can't an insult be great art?
>
> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
> it art.'
>
> > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking
> > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy
> > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh,
> > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look
> > guys. looky."
> >
> > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
> > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
> > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted
> > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
> > and smile.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
> they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
> value the Fountain... why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
> art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
>
> Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
> establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be
> denied.
>
> The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90
> years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's
> genius IMO.
>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: embedding <img> in email
Steve wrote:
>Although it is hard to use
> the net for art purposes without looking at images, and I know
> some people really like ascii art and people from Middle Europe
> who are sort of the gods of it, but clear to me their should
> be something more.
MANIK is much more than you think.Our engagement on Rhizome_Raw was guerilla
concept,we use Rhizome like our site,kind of ready-made in process(actually
everybody does,but concept existed when you are able to have reflexion about
the same).That was(if it was)subversive.Also sense is in disjunction between
seeing and thinking.MANIK considered seeing as space which contend some
visual volume.For year and half it was images(on Rhizome _Raw),but not from
second hand,like "click here to see..".It was always surprise,and it's
amazing how simple act like that could be different that other form of
re-presentation.We are not sure why they throw our images from Rhizome,but
we are suspects it's more than software issues.
Middle Europe?On Rhizome,or everywhere else we are in cyber world,which mean
World.
MANIK
PS:Will you be kind to show us works of that middle-europe-people.It could
be pleasant surprise.
----- Original Message -----
From: <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: embedding <img> in email
> Question, does anyone here use Linux for image and picture
> work and if so what tools do they reccommend? This question
> came up because even the mention of HTML in messages makes
> many linux types either roar "PLAIN TEXT! NO HTML! YOU'RE SUCH
> A WINDOWS TYPE!" when mentioned. Although it is hard to use
> the net for art purposes without looking at images, and I know
> some people really like ascii art and people from Middle Europe
> who are sort of the gods of it, but clear to me their should
> be something more. It should be easy to use and it shouldn't
> require going to 11 archane sites and collecting 4 arcane pieces
> of freeare to use. Heaven knows that financial necessity has
> caused me to collect a variety of freeware and low cost ware,
> someof which I really like. Real Alternative's "Real Player"
> standin works rather well. But I do get sort of rattled that
> a large amount of things want me to "Go Pro" whereas in the
> case of things like WINAMP I don't know if there is even a
> NULLSOFT to send out the passcodes although I guess if the
> software works automaticly it might be worth a shot, as
> burning from running media does intrigue me.
>
> Have Fun,
> Sends Steve
>
>
> > For HTML to go through an email, the Multipart header has to be sent to
> > tell the recipient that the text is HTML and not plain-text. If you're
> > writing in "rich text" mode or something like that, your email program
> > sets that header for you but isn't likely to give you 100% HTML editing
> > capability; just bold, italic, font coloring, etc. If you try pasting
> > raw HTML into a text email, that won't work 'cause the program isn't
> > setting the header, so whoever gets it will treat it like raw text. And
> > if you paste HTML into an HTML email, then it gets double-escaped:
> >
> > <img src="http://rhizome.org/mypic.gif" />
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > <img src="http://rhizome.org/mypic.gif" />
> >
> > or something like that.
> >
> > I think the lack of HTML editing in email isn't really an anti-spam
> > measure; just that HTML editing is considered sort of a uber-power-user
> > feature that most customers aren't going to want.
> >
> > When websites like Rhizome send out HTML email (like in NetArtNews) we
> > write our custom mailers so we can drop arbitrary HTML into the email.
> > Spammers, too.
> >
> > I suppose the quickest way to embed IMG in an email would be to either
> > hack a webmail client to accept HTML, or hack a desktop client like
> > Mozilla's mail client. Or you could just write your own
> > Perl/Python/Ruby script to read HTML from a file, stitch it into an
> > email, and send the email off.
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2004, at 1:26 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> You can edit the html in a text editor, then copy & paste it into
> >>> a "plain text" email, so not allowing you to edit the html
> >>> doesn't really stop misuse of the feature, it just makes it
> >>> harder to use it legitimately (assuming there was even a design
> >>> decision on this).
> >>>
> >>> - Rob.
> >>
> >> tried that, sent myself such a msg, but you just view the html upon
> >> reception, not the rendering. at least in outlook.
> >>
> >> ja
> >>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >>
> > Francis Hwang
> > Director of Technology
> > Rhizome.org
> > phone: 212-219-1288x202
> > AIM: francisrhizome
> > + + +
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > 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
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>Although it is hard to use
> the net for art purposes without looking at images, and I know
> some people really like ascii art and people from Middle Europe
> who are sort of the gods of it, but clear to me their should
> be something more.
MANIK is much more than you think.Our engagement on Rhizome_Raw was guerilla
concept,we use Rhizome like our site,kind of ready-made in process(actually
everybody does,but concept existed when you are able to have reflexion about
the same).That was(if it was)subversive.Also sense is in disjunction between
seeing and thinking.MANIK considered seeing as space which contend some
visual volume.For year and half it was images(on Rhizome _Raw),but not from
second hand,like "click here to see..".It was always surprise,and it's
amazing how simple act like that could be different that other form of
re-presentation.We are not sure why they throw our images from Rhizome,but
we are suspects it's more than software issues.
Middle Europe?On Rhizome,or everywhere else we are in cyber world,which mean
World.
MANIK
PS:Will you be kind to show us works of that middle-europe-people.It could
be pleasant surprise.
----- Original Message -----
From: <steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org>
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: embedding <img> in email
> Question, does anyone here use Linux for image and picture
> work and if so what tools do they reccommend? This question
> came up because even the mention of HTML in messages makes
> many linux types either roar "PLAIN TEXT! NO HTML! YOU'RE SUCH
> A WINDOWS TYPE!" when mentioned. Although it is hard to use
> the net for art purposes without looking at images, and I know
> some people really like ascii art and people from Middle Europe
> who are sort of the gods of it, but clear to me their should
> be something more. It should be easy to use and it shouldn't
> require going to 11 archane sites and collecting 4 arcane pieces
> of freeare to use. Heaven knows that financial necessity has
> caused me to collect a variety of freeware and low cost ware,
> someof which I really like. Real Alternative's "Real Player"
> standin works rather well. But I do get sort of rattled that
> a large amount of things want me to "Go Pro" whereas in the
> case of things like WINAMP I don't know if there is even a
> NULLSOFT to send out the passcodes although I guess if the
> software works automaticly it might be worth a shot, as
> burning from running media does intrigue me.
>
> Have Fun,
> Sends Steve
>
>
> > For HTML to go through an email, the Multipart header has to be sent to
> > tell the recipient that the text is HTML and not plain-text. If you're
> > writing in "rich text" mode or something like that, your email program
> > sets that header for you but isn't likely to give you 100% HTML editing
> > capability; just bold, italic, font coloring, etc. If you try pasting
> > raw HTML into a text email, that won't work 'cause the program isn't
> > setting the header, so whoever gets it will treat it like raw text. And
> > if you paste HTML into an HTML email, then it gets double-escaped:
> >
> > <img src="http://rhizome.org/mypic.gif" />
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > <img src="http://rhizome.org/mypic.gif" />
> >
> > or something like that.
> >
> > I think the lack of HTML editing in email isn't really an anti-spam
> > measure; just that HTML editing is considered sort of a uber-power-user
> > feature that most customers aren't going to want.
> >
> > When websites like Rhizome send out HTML email (like in NetArtNews) we
> > write our custom mailers so we can drop arbitrary HTML into the email.
> > Spammers, too.
> >
> > I suppose the quickest way to embed IMG in an email would be to either
> > hack a webmail client to accept HTML, or hack a desktop client like
> > Mozilla's mail client. Or you could just write your own
> > Perl/Python/Ruby script to read HTML from a file, stitch it into an
> > email, and send the email off.
> >
> > On Nov 24, 2004, at 1:26 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> You can edit the html in a text editor, then copy & paste it into
> >>> a "plain text" email, so not allowing you to edit the html
> >>> doesn't really stop misuse of the feature, it just makes it
> >>> harder to use it legitimately (assuming there was even a design
> >>> decision on this).
> >>>
> >>> - Rob.
> >>
> >> tried that, sent myself such a msg, but you just view the html upon
> >> reception, not the rendering. at least in outlook.
> >>
> >> ja
> >>
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >>
> > Francis Hwang
> > Director of Technology
> > Rhizome.org
> > phone: 212-219-1288x202
> > AIM: francisrhizome
> > + + +
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > 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
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Fw: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Can company logos be used in artwork?
----- Original Message -----
From: manik@ptt.yu
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Can company logos be used in artwork?
> Hello, Thank you for all answers. One more question: Are these "trademark
crimes" punished by fines or jail time?
> I am broke as hell and live in Colombia, so frankly as an individual I
feel that suing me would be quiet a waste of time, as I own nothing and have
no official salary.(povrety's benefits)
> But I became concerned because we are on the verge of becoming a non
profit organization - in order to get grants etc. - so as an institution we
have more to loose - credibility / can be sued.
> Now, I wonder, is it worth becoming a non profit if it implies that the
spirit of anarchy and rebelion has to be subdued to mold itself to all the
laws? How to work around this? Is it suficient to say - "This "non profit"
is not accountable for content of third parties represented on this
website" - or whatever the legal formula is? If it is so we could host the
work of diferent "artists" (maybe I could say "An indian who lives in a
nomadic tribe in the Amazon made this political animation in flash, but I
dont know where he is now"
>
> As far as being in Colombia - yes I am in Colombia, but my hosting service
is in the USA - I am not shure where my residency is - I dont think that
Colombian individuals will get mad at me - being politically active in
Colombia is not a healthy thing, but thats another problem to deal
with....and it is possibly more real then being sued. I dont know. I live in
a counrty where fear keeps everybody pretty quiet, this perhpas this is also
a reason why I worry, I have been conditioned so.
> MANIK
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
From: manik@ptt.yu
To: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Can company logos be used in artwork?
> Hello, Thank you for all answers. One more question: Are these "trademark
crimes" punished by fines or jail time?
> I am broke as hell and live in Colombia, so frankly as an individual I
feel that suing me would be quiet a waste of time, as I own nothing and have
no official salary.(povrety's benefits)
> But I became concerned because we are on the verge of becoming a non
profit organization - in order to get grants etc. - so as an institution we
have more to loose - credibility / can be sued.
> Now, I wonder, is it worth becoming a non profit if it implies that the
spirit of anarchy and rebelion has to be subdued to mold itself to all the
laws? How to work around this? Is it suficient to say - "This "non profit"
is not accountable for content of third parties represented on this
website" - or whatever the legal formula is? If it is so we could host the
work of diferent "artists" (maybe I could say "An indian who lives in a
nomadic tribe in the Amazon made this political animation in flash, but I
dont know where he is now"
>
> As far as being in Colombia - yes I am in Colombia, but my hosting service
is in the USA - I am not shure where my residency is - I dont think that
Colombian individuals will get mad at me - being politically active in
Colombia is not a healthy thing, but thats another problem to deal
with....and it is possibly more real then being sued. I dont know. I live in
a counrty where fear keeps everybody pretty quiet, this perhpas this is also
a reason why I worry, I have been conditioned so.
> MANIK
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Fw: DIARY for beginners
------=_NextPart_001_013F_01C4D1AF.58C1E2C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: DIARY for beginners
------=_NextPart_001_013F_01C4D1AF.58C1E2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#000000>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:manik@ptt.yu" title=manik@ptt.yu>manik</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:list@rhizome.org"
title=list@rhizome.org>list@rhizome.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:17 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> DIARY for beginners</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=center><IMG align=baseline alt="" border=0 hspace=0
src="cid:013d01c4d1a6$f6d2c140$0100007f@e9o9t1"></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_013F_01C4D1AF.58C1E2C0--
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----- Original Message -----
From: manik
To: list@rhizome.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: DIARY for beginners
------=_NextPart_001_013F_01C4D1AF.58C1E2C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#000000>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:manik@ptt.yu" title=manik@ptt.yu>manik</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:list@rhizome.org"
title=list@rhizome.org>list@rhizome.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:17 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> DIARY for beginners</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=center><IMG align=baseline alt="" border=0 hspace=0
src="cid:013d01c4d1a6$f6d2c140$0100007f@e9o9t1"></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_013F_01C4D1AF.58C1E2C0--