marc garrett
Since the beginning
Works in London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
Marc Garrett is co-director and co-founder, with artist Ruth Catlow of the Internet arts collectives and communities – Furtherfield.org, Furthernoise.org, Netbehaviour.org, also co-founder and co-curator/director of the gallery space formerly known as 'HTTP Gallery' now called the Furtherfield Gallery in London (Finsbury Park), UK. Co-curating various contemporary Media Arts exhibitions, projects nationally and internationally. Co-editor of 'Artists Re:Thinking Games' with Ruth Catlow and Corrado Morgana 2010. Hosted Furtherfield's critically acclaimed weekly broadcast on UK's Resonance FM Radio, a series of hour long live interviews with people working at the edge of contemporary practices in art, technology & social change. Currently doing an Art history Phd at the University of London, Birkbeck College.

Net artist, media artist, curator, writer, street artist, activist, educationalist and musician. Emerging in the late 80′s from the streets exploring creativity via agit-art tactics. Using unofficial, experimental platforms such as the streets, pirate radio such as the locally popular ‘Savage Yet Tender’ alternative broadcasting 1980′s group, net broadcasts, BBS systems, performance, intervention, events, pamphlets, warehouses and gallery spaces. In the early nineties, was co-sysop (systems operator) with Heath Bunting on Cybercafe BBS with Irational.org.

Our mission is to co-create extraordinary art that connects with contemporary audiences providing innovative, engaging and inclusive digital and physical spaces for appreciating and participating in practices in art, technology and social change. As well as finding alternative ways around already dominating hegemonies, thus claiming for ourselves and our peer networks a culturally aware and critical dialogue beyond traditional hierarchical behaviours. Influenced by situationist theory, fluxus, free and open source culture, and processes of self-education and peer learning, in an art, activist and community context.
Discussions (1712) Opportunities (15) Events (175) Jobs (2)
DISCUSSION

Re: even better than the [ethe]real thing


Very enjoyable read - best stuff i've read on here for a long time,
loads to chew on :-)

thanx

marc

> even better than the [ethe]real thing:
> a response to Alex Galloway's "Protocol"
>
> "All of us were slowly losing that intellectual light that allows you
> always to tell the similar from the identical, the metaphorical from
> the real. We were losing that mysterious and bright and most
> beautiful ability to say that Signor A has grown bestial -- without
> thinking for a moment that he now has fur and fangs."
>
> - Casaubon from Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum"
>
>
>
> ALEX GALLOWAY IS A GEEK. IT'S A GOOD THING.
>
> When reading a text on media theory, my underlying skeptical question
> is always, "How much do the nuances which are foregrounded and
> analyzed here practically relate to human experience and human
> society?" If they barely do, the book winds up being one more
> exercise in scatological academia and/or cyber-utopian fluff-urism.
> Refreshingly, Alex Galloway's "Protocol" succeeds in avoiding what
> Geert Lovink calls "vapor theory." This is due in no small part to
> the fact that Alex Galloway is a geek (or at least a wanna-be geek).
> Not "geek" in the pejorative sense, but "geek" in the "down with the
> root workings of technology" sense. For example, Galloway's research
> led him to read hundreds of RFC (Requests for Comments) documents, the
> technical documents that establish Internet protocol (among other
> things). Galloway writes, ""Far more than mere technical
> documentation, however, the RFCs are a discursive treasure trove for
> the critical theorist." I wonder how many other critical theorists
> would think so.
>
> Observation, interpretation, and application are the three steps of
> inductive textual criticism. Not a few technological pundits breeze
> through the initial observation step, acquiring only a superficial
> understanding of the tech, and then rush off to boldly interpret and
> apply. This leads to elaborate, inventive conclusions that are
> frequently misguided if not altogether wrong. But Galloway has looked
> long and hard at the network and its protocol, and his interpretations
> (even though I disagree with some of them) are more intricate and less
> cliche as a result of his having looked. As such, "Protocol" lays the
> groundwork for anyone to riff off of Galloway's insightful
> observations, even if her preconceived biases differ from his.
>
> Furthermore, Galloway's range of sources is so diverse, it feels like
> an academic compilation tape. His research is intimidatingly broad --
> from usability expert Jeff Veen to generative software artist Adrian
> Ward, from open source evangelist Richard Stallman to cult lawyer
> Lawrence Lessig. Marx, Baudrillard, Barthes, Foucault, and Deleuze
> make expected appearances. But also appearing are Marxist media
> theorist Hans Magnus Enzensberger, cyberfeminist Doll Yoko, and phone
> phreaker Knight Lightning. The list goes on (and on and on).
> Furthermore, "Protocol"'s tangential anecdotes about the formation of
> the internet and the history of hacking and virii read like a
> scattershot compendium of geek folklore.
>
>
>
> HEAVY INSIGHTS, WELL CODIFIED
>
> Galloway's prose, although not exactly McLuhan-esque, is inordinately
> sound-bytable. Below are just a few "spoilers," nuggets of
> particularly acute and concise insight:
>
> On the nature of protocol:
> "From a formal perspective, protocol is a type of object. It is a
> very special kind of object. Protocol is a universal description
> language for objects... Protocol does not produce or causally effect
> objects, but rather is a structuring agent that appears as the result
> of a set of object dispositions. Protocol is the reason that the
> internet works and performs work... It is etiquette for autonomous
> agents. It is the chivalry of the object."
>
> [Note the rare combination of precise description and poetic flair.
> "The chivalry of the object" is a definite keeper.]
>
> On protocol's inherent imperviousness to Modern criticism:
> "Only the participants [of protocol] can connect, and therefore, by
> definition, there can be no resistance to protocol... Opposing
> protocol is like opposing gravity -- there is nothing that says it
> can't be done, but such a pursuit is surely misguided and in the end
> hasn't hurt gravity very much."
>
> Along the same lines:
> "The internet can survive [nuclear] attacks not because it is stronger
> than the opposition, but precisely because it is weaker. The Internet
> has a different diagram than a nuclear attack does; it is in a
> different shape. And that new shape happens to be immune to the older."
>
> Galloway rightly insists that just as code is more than a mere
> semantic language (it causes machines to actually do something), the
> network is more than just a metaphor for connectivity (it actually
> behaves according to protocol).
>
> He instructively traces of the cultural perception of computer viruses
> -- from a form of intellectual exploration to a form of machinic
> contagion (akin to AIDS) to a form of terrorist weapon.
>
> He makes the important distinction between protocol and proprietary
> market dominance (Windows XP is not a form of protocol because its
> source code is opaque).
>
> And he offers these inspirationally punk rock samples regarding
> tactical media:
>
> "Everyone interested in an emancipated media should be a manipulator."
>
> "Fear of being swallowed up by the system is a sign of weakness."
>
> "The best tactical response to protocol is not resistance but
> hypertrophy."
>
> All culminating in this rousing definition:
> "The goal is not to destroy technology in some neo-Luddite delusion,
> but to push it into a state of hypertrophy, further than it is meant
> to go. Then, in its injured, sore, and unguarded condition,
> technology may be sculpted anew into something better, something in
> closer agreement with the real wants and desires of its users. This
> is the goal of tactical media."
>
> Right on! Where do I sign?
>
>
>
> EPISTEMOLOGY IS AS EPISTEMOLOGY DOES
>
> Having sufficiently praised "Protocol," I'd like to enter into
> critical dialogue with it. My first problem with the text is that it
> oversteps its stated scope. Galloway makes epistemological assertions
> without offering epistemological defenses.
>
> He says in the introduction, "I draw a critical distinction between
> [the] body of work [that deals with artificial intelligence], which is
> concerned largely with epistemology and cognitive science, and the
> critical media theory that inspires this book. Where the former are
> concerned with minds and questions epistemological, I am largely
> concerned with bodies and the material stratum of computer technology."
>
> Unfortunately, "bodies" and "matter" to Galloway take on markedly
> metaphysical meanings, meanings that delineate a fairly explicit view
> of reality which he feels no obligation to defend. He asserts a kind
> of "aesthetic materialism" (his term). In short, he seeks to recast
> the spiritual and soulish in terms of the "virtual," the "second
> nature," the cultural/sociopolitical, the "artificial," a "patina,"
> the essence or sheen that derives from matter but is not "other than"
> matter. (More on this later.)
>
> "Protocol" eschews epistemological questions as not pertinent to its
> scope, but by deeming such questions irrelevant, Galloway has already
> entered into implicit dialogue on "the matter" (pun intended). If I
> wish to discuss human origins without talking about evolution, I'm a
> creationist. If I wish to discuss life without talking about soul or
> spirit, I'm a materialist.
>
> In the book's foreword, Eugene Thacker calls "Protocol" a type of
> "materialist media studies." He goes on to observe, quite accurately:
> "'Protocol' consistently makes a case for a material understanding of
> technology. 'Material' can be taken in all sense of the term, as an
> ontological category as well as a political and economic one."
> Galloway gladly owns up to politics and economics, but his ventures
> into ontology, although apparent, are less disclosed.
>
>
>
> MARX SAID IT, I DECONSTRUCT IT, THAT SETTLES IT
>
> My next critique of "Protocol" is that it awkwardly uses Marx's
> "Capital" to justify a contemporary materialist understanding of
> artificial life.
>
> After 14 pages of foregrounding Marx's vitalistic language, Galloway
> concludes, "'Capital' is an aesthetic object. The confluence of
> different discourses in 'Capital,' both vitalistic and economic,
> proves this. The use of vitalistic imagery, no matter how marginalized
> within the text, quite literally aestheticizes capitalism." That
> poetic language can transform a theoretical text into an aesthetic
> object seems perfectly plausible. That poetic language can "literally
> aestheticize" capitalism itself is a more vague and suspect assertion.
>
> Even if Marx does attribute a kind of "will" to objects within
> capitalism, he's not exactly celebrating reification or commodity
> fetishism. Galloway asserts, "[The] vitalism in Marx heralds the
> dawning age of protocol, I argue, by transforming life itself into an
> aesthetic object." Aside from the fact that "life itself" was
> understood as an aesthetic object in the soulish realm long before
> Marx, likening commodity fetishism to machinic artificial life seems
> an awkward stretch. Galloway himself points out that Foucault's
> theories of control date Marx's, and Deleuze's date Foucault's. Is
> Marx so canonical that he's worth 14 pages of deconstruction in order
> to claim him as the historical genesis of one's contemporary assertion?
>
>
>
> DUMBING DOWN LIFE
>
> Continuing on the "artificial life" critique (and invariably stepping
> on dozens of cyber-toes), there are two ways to make "computers" seem
> more than what they are. You can discern life where there is none, or
> you can redefine "life" until it matches what you discern in
> computers. Galloway subtly snubs futurist Ray Kurzweil and the Wired
> "gee whiz" crowd for doing the former, and then proceeds to do the
> latter.
>
> Building on Foucault and Deleuze, Galloway asserts that "life,
> hitherto considered an effuse, immaterial essence, has become matter,
> due to its increased imbrication with protocol forces."
>
> He assents to Crary and Winter's definition of "protocological" life
> as "the forces -- aesthetic, technical, political, sexual -- with
> which things combine in order to form novel aggregates of pattern and
> behavior."
>
> After an explication of Norbert Weiner's ideas on cybernetics,
> Galloway concludes, "If one views the world in terms of
> information..., then there is little instrumental difference between
> man and machine since both are able to affect dynamic systems via
> feedback loops." Would Weiner himself have agreed to such a sweeping
> generalization?
>
> So matter is life and life is matter. Not metaphorically, but
> actually. This is achieved by defining "life" very loosely.
>
> I'm reminded of a passage in "The Language of New Media" where Lev
> Manovich comes very close to defining "narrative" as any action that
> constitutes a change of state. Walking from room to room thus becomes
> a narrative. At which point I would simply choose a different word.
>
>
>
> AESTHETIC MATERIALISM AND THE CYBORGS FROM MARS
>
> Why is Galloway so keen to show that a "second nature" of aesthetic
> materialism exists in both social and machinic systems? Because such
> a "second nature" affords the exploration of an aesthetic realm
> without the abandonment of a materialist world view. Such a "second
> nature" also admits the possibility of man/machine hybridization. If
> reality is all just matter, and matter may be abstracted into
> organized information, artificial life and biological life are
> "virtually" kissing cousins. Galloway actually defines the
> information age as "that moment in history when matter itself is
> understood in terms of information or code. At this historical
> moment, protocol becomes a controlling force in social life."
>
> At the end of his chapter on "control," Galloway goes on to predict a
> historical period "after distribution" -- a future where computers are
> replaced by bioinformatics, information is replaced by life, protocol
> is replaced by physics, and containment is replaced by peace.
>
> A similar "gee whiz" passage occurs earlier in the "control" chapter:
> "When Watson and Crick discovered DNA..., they prove not simply that
> life is an informatic object..., but rather that life is an aesthetic
> object; it is a double helix, an elegant, hyper-Platonic form that
> rises like a ladder into the heights of aesthetic purity. Life was no
> longer a 'pair of ragged claws / Scuttling across the floors of silent
> seas' (Eliot), it was a code borne from pure mathematics, an object of
> aesthetic beauty, a double helix! This historical moment -- when life
> is defined no longer as essence, but as code -- is the moment when
> life becomes a medium." I agree that DNA is fascinating stuff, but to
> attribute the mystery and wonder of existence to the aesthetic beauty
> of a DNA strand seems more like cyber-utopian poetry and less like
> scholarship aloof from ontological concerns.
>
> Elsewhere, Galloway waxes eloquent about biometrics: "Biometrics [the
> science of measuring the human body and deriving digital signatures
> from it] considers living human bodies not in their immaterial
> essences, or souls, or what have you, but in terms of quantifiable,
> recordable, enumerable, and encodable characteristics. It considers
> life as an aesthetic object. It is the natural evolution of Marx's
> theory of second nature." The progression from souls to quantifiable
> biometric information is presented as an aesthetic advancement? If
> anything, biometrics seems a neo-techno form of alienation.
>
> Another curious assertion: "Computer use could possibly constitute a
> real immigration of bodies (from the online to the offline)," which
> seems akin to this cryptic statement by feminist Sadie Plant: "You
> can't get out of matter, that's the crucial thing. But you can get
> out of the confining organization of matter which is shaped into
> things and of course, organisms." I find it difficult to accept such
> conceptions of the self at face value.
>
>
>
>
> IT'S THE PEOPLE, PEOPLE.
>
> "Protocol" radically posits that the Internet is successful not just
> because it is anarchic, but because this "anarchy" coexists with a
> rigid form of control. I agree, but I think the rigid form of control
> is not the DNS (Domain Name System) hierarchy (as Galloway proposes),
> but the core, old-boy geek community of RFC-writing protocol-shapers
> (which Galloway critiques as an institutional weakness of protocol).
> Domain names are a mnemonic convenience, but their use is not a
> prerequisite for entry to the network. One can still access a server
> using its IP number, it's just inconvenient. Yet protocols, according
> to Galloway's definition, are not merely meant to make access more
> convenient, they are meant to either enable it or forbid it
> altogether. Thus the real control of the Internet derives not
> primarily from the DNS but from the fact that protocol itself is
> shaped by an altruistic, but nonetheless human and
> extra-protocological community.
>
> Galloway argues that, "Life forms, both artificial and organic, exist
> in any space where material forces are actively aestheticized." I
> agree. But who is doing the aestheticizing? He continues, "The same
> protocological forces that regulate data flows within contingent
> environments such as distributed networks are the same forces that
> regulate matter itself." I'm not so sure. The forces that regulate
> "non-organic" "life" in network environments are protocols created by
> humans. The forces that regulate organic life in "natural"
> environments are material needs like food and shelter that are not
> created by humans (unless we're talking about a capitalistic
> environment, where many forces are man-made. But capitalism is not
> "matter itself.")
>
> A reasonable string of questions thus arises: can vitality exist in
> economic and social systems apart from human life? Is Foucault's
> desire to "define a method of historical analysis freed from the
> anthropological theme" really viable? Does vitality exist in machinic
> systems without initial human input? There may be some minimal form
> of "vitality" on the network even without any humans actively using it
> (Eugene Thacker muses, "Is a network a network if it's not being
> used?"), but would that vitality exist without humans first
> constructing the network's protocol to begin with? Is individual
> human soulishness (mind, will, emotions) at the root of such vitality?
>
> Even Tom Ray's "Tierra" (software that creates a virtual evolutionary
> environment in which "artificial lives" autonomously "live") still
> begins with human input. The "life" initially comes from Tom, and
> only indirectly from the protocol of the environment.
>
>
>
> STRANGE IS GOOD
>
> "Protocol" concludes on a less speculative, more balanced note.
> Galloway summarizes the problems inherent in protocol, and recognizes
> that its ethical use will ultimately depend on what we humans make of it.
>
> The fact that I'm able even able to dialogue with "Protocol" from a
> non-materialist, soulish perspective is testament to the solid,
> methodical, observational foundation Galloway has laid.
>
> Personally, the chapters in "Protocol" on hacking, tactical media, and
> internet art make me excited to be making internet art in 2004. Not
> because "Protocol" extols the virtues of some futuristic AI utopia
> that's just around the bend (and has been just around the bend for the
> last 30 years without ever quite materializing), but because it
> exposes and delineates the very actual, sexy, dangerous shifts in
> media and culture currently underway. The truth is always stranger
> than fiction, and strange is good.
> +
> -> 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
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: activity


Hi Lee,

I'm sure that there are a few scumbags out there who are 'soulless'
enough to hurt creative minds (like FBI or whatever Kindergarten, they
rely on to fullfil their anti-cicil fixations) - but they can drop dead
in their own urine and drink the deep-emptiness...for they will be
judged as being weak and cowardly. And those who have been brave enough
to speak out against injustice and fight for what they believe, can
stand proud - for the future will judge them kindly.

I've saved a hell of a lot of emails going back years now, plenty of
stuff to use and refer to, great stuff ;-)

marc

>Well I have saved almost every RAW post for years now.
>Does that make me a suspect?
>
>Everyone's a suspect right.
>
>Who knows, a paid member of Rhizome may be from the Fed, KGB, or some secret
>agent from a third world nation striving to be in the 2nd.
>
>Most likely through we are all artists and culture workers that spend way
>too much time in front of the computer and not enough timeout in nature.
>
>Cheers,
>Lee
>
>On 7/3/04 7:03 AM, "marc" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Eric,
>>
>>This is a strange statement Eric - why would you think that such an ugly
>>thing would happen on here?
>>
>>And from Curt, he's not like that surely? I have not noticed that sort
>>of behaviour from him...
>>
>>I am a bit confused where the context of this is coming from tho...
>>
>>marc
>>
>>
>>
>>>i certainly hope that none of the rhizome subscribers (curt) are
>>>monitoring,filtering and reporting the activity of members
>>>+
>>>-> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: activity


Hi Eric,

This is a strange statement Eric - why would you think that such an ugly
thing would happen on here?

And from Curt, he's not like that surely? I have not noticed that sort
of behaviour from him...

I am a bit confused where the context of this is coming from tho...

marc

>i certainly hope that none of the rhizome subscribers (curt) are monitoring,filtering and reporting the activity of members
>+
>-> 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
>
>
>
>

DISCUSSION

Trend prediction company interviews Replic**t Ltd


*Trend prediction company interviews Replic**t Ltd

About you...
*
Name: Replic**t Ltd
Gender: Female
Age: 27
City: London

What 3 things can't you live without?
1. the inland revenue
2. state of the art vibrators
3. cold beer

What are the 3 things that make you an interesting person?
(For example: your family, your job,
where you are from, your passions, your beliefs, and your dreams)
1. my hormonally induced entrepreneurial fervour
2. my wealth of cultural knowledge
3. my status as a private company limited by shares

What 3 things are you passionate about and why?
1. commerce, it's the opiate of the masses
2. art , its just like commerce
3. beer, its fizzy and makes me feel intelligent

What 3 issues inspire you right now? (For example: the arts, music, your
family, money, your partner)
1. replication
2. syndication
3. duplication

*You and others...
*
What things do you like to do when you are on your own and why?
- masturbate, why not.
What is the role that your family plays in your life?
- dysfunctional
What is the role that your friends play in your life?
- functional
What's the main activity you and your friends do together and why?
- attend art openings, free wine
What's the main activity you and your family do together and why?
- eat, so we don't have to talk
What was the most enjoyable activity you and your friends did recently
and why was it so enjoyable?
- played monopoly, I won
Do you use any words, jargon, or slang that help you express yourself
with your friends?
- yes, a form verbal academic posturing
What is your current relationship status and what is your attitude
towards it? (For example: Are you single and happy? Attached and looking
to get out?)
- a private company limited by shares. Looking for casual mergers
What is your attitude to love, marriage, children and long-term
partnership?
- marriage is a contractual agreement, babies the result, long term
relationships are successful negotiations

*Your time...
*
What 3 things do you enjoy doing the most? (For example: go to parties,
clubs, play sports, read, spend time alone)
1. working
2. drinking
3. dancing

What 3 things do you spend most of your time doing?
1. working
2. drinking
3. dancing

What role does religion/spirituality play in your life and why?
- commerce is religion
Do you think of yourself as a busy person and why?
- incredibly busy, I have time management issues
What does chilling out mean to you?
- glass of wine and a quick fiddle
If you could take a year off from your life, what would you do?
- research outsouring potential in the third world and south america.

*You and media...
*
What type of media (books, internet, TV, music etc) do you consume most
often and why?
- internet, it's the most effective distribution system.
What type of media do you want to consume more of and why?
- internet, it's the most effective distribution system.
What role does music play in your life?
- a big one.
What artists and music are you really into at the moment and why?
- Miss kitten and the hacker, specifically the song stock exchange, its
all about women and business. Easy Sanchez, specifically the song,
Replicunt, its all about me.
What were the last 3 CDs you bought and why?
1. Edit, melodic vocal electronica, to, soothing after a days trading
2. BBC Radiophonic laboratory; its got doctor who and the bbc news
soundtracks on it.
3. Sketch Show, no collection is complete or global enough without a
healthy dose of Japanese pop.

What do you listen to your music on the most and why? (For example:
Discman, stereo, PC)
- my computer, because im on my computer all day.
Have you ever downloaded music or film from the internet?
- yes
Was it from a legal or an illegal site?
- limewire
What is your opinion on illegal downloading and why?
- plagiarism is integral to corporate aesthetics.
What role does TV play in your life?
- it violently relaxes me
What was your favourite movie in the past year and why?
- the company, robert altman, I like the name.
Where and how do you watch films and why? (ie in the cinema, at home on
DVD, at work on the internet?)
- cinema, and home DVD

*You and money...
*
What 3 things do you spend most of your money on?
1. Replic**t ltd
2. beer
3. kiddie porn

Has your attitude towards money changed over the last few years? If so,
why?
- yes, its what im all about
Why do you think your attitude has changed? Is it because of changing
lifestage, career or social life?
- because I have incorporated myself
What are the pluses and minuses of having money?
- you can expand, become public, franchise, buy a mock tudor cottage in
Miami and retire young
What are the pluses and minuses of NOT having money?
- you cant expand, become public , franchise, or buy a mock tudor
cottage in Miami.

*You and brands...
*
'Global Brands' - What 2 come immediately to mind?
1. Replic**t Ltd
2. George Bush

What 2 brands have recently grabbed your attention and why
1. Replic**t Ltd, she's unavoidable
2. Marc Garrett, anarchist branding at its finest.

What are the 2 most noticeable brands in your city
1. ken livingstone
2. Tracy emin

What do you feel about different mobile phone brands?
- the company phone needs an upgrade

*You and work...
*
What is the most important thing you get from your work/study?
- Maximum returns, global representation
What do you do for a living and how does that affect your life?
- im an private company limited by shares, its made me a pretentious
intellectual snob
Would you be upset if you had to leave your job/school/college, and why?
- yes, it's the ultimate formula
What would be your dream job and why?
- this is my dream job.

*You and the world...
*
What are the 3 most important issues generally in the world today?
1. the marriage of culture and commerce
2. US foreign policy
3. hakney post office queuing times

What are the 3 most important developments in the city you live today
and why?
1. the marriage of culture and commerce
2. US foreign policy
3. hakney post office queuing times

What are the 3 most important issues affecting you today?
1. the marriage of culture and commerce
2. US foreign policy
3. hakney post office queuing times

What are the 3 biggest issues facing your generation and why? (For
example: politics, love life, family, religion, time, college, jobs)
1. the marriage of culture and commerce
2. US foreign policy
3. hakney post office queuing times

What would you say is the best part about being your age and why?
- my breasts are still firm
What would you say is the worst part about being your age and why?
- nothing
What is on everyone's mind where you live at the moment?
- hackney post office

(all information above is the total respnsibility of the artist
Replic**t currently a resident on furtherstudio)

http://www.furtherfield.org/furtherstudio/

FurtherStudio is an exploratory, set up to create online, real-time, net
art residencies with net-based artists. Each residency lasts for 3
months, during which time the artists need not leave their studio or
home environments, as the FurtherStudio web facility offers a public
window on the artist's PC desktop as they work.

The curatorial theme of 'appropriation and ownership of ideas, services,
products and images' is explored with the artist through a programme of
open studio events and discussions between artists, net art critics and
anyone interested in exploring creativity on the Internet..Visitors can
further experiment with the curatorial theme in the Visitors' Studio,
uploading, mixing and exhibiting their own works.

DISCUSSION

Re: unsubscribe


Hi there eilis,

I have just read this email...

You are on the Rhizome mailing list and will have ask Rhizome team to
unsubscribe you...I am a member of the list myself not an administrator
working for rhizome.org

marc

> *PLEASE!UNSUBSCRIBE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS!*
>
> >From: marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> >Reply-To: marc
> <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> >CC: list@rhizome.org >Subject: Re:
> RHIZOME_RAW: Update: FBI loses terrorism case will try to safe face
> with "mail fraud" >Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:28:17 +0100 > >Hi
> Steve, > >Yes - I need such, for at our end in the UK there is much
> happening >to support Steve Kurtz. & Critical art ensemble... > >marc
> > >http://www.furtherfield.org > >>This just in from Paul Cambria Jr.
> Steve Kurtz's Attorney. >>The FBI did not prevail upon any of the
> bioterrorism charges, >>or endangerment of public health. It looks
> like the FBI is >>grasping at straws to avoid having to say they
> actually made >>a mistake. Longer message under seperate cover. I can
> forward or >>point you at a press release if you need such. >> >>MY
> email is thus, my alternated is: chromazine@sbcglobal,net >>My phone
> is: (831)786-8643. >> >>Have Fun, >>Sends Steve Kudlak >> >> >> >> >>+
> >>-> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Protect your PC - Click here <http://g.msn.com/8HMAEN/2755??PSG575>
> for McAfee.com VirusScan Online