Artists M. River and T. Whid formed MTAA in 1996 and soon after began to explore the internet, video, software and sculpture as mediums for their conceptually-based art. The duo’s exhibition history includes group shows and screenings at The New Museum of Contemporary Art, Postmasters Gallery and Artists Space, all in New York City, and at The Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles. In "New Media Art" (Taschen, 2006), authors Mark Tribe and Reena Jana describe MTAA’s "One Year Performance Video (aka samHsiehUpdate)" as “a deftly transparent demonstration of new media’s ability to manipulate our perceptions of time.” The collaboration has earned grants and awards from Creative Capital, Rhizome.org, Eyebeam, New Radio & Performing Arts, Inc. and The Whitney Museum of American Art.
TRACEPLACESPACE
New audio by Cary Peppermint, check it out…
+++
TRACEPLACESPACE
seven audio works .mp3 - Cary Peppermint 2007
The audio works of TRACEPLACESPACE were formed loosely in response to ever-accelerating technological developments, passing time, urgent ecological issues, and remarkable events of our globally connected system in process long before but brought to the forefront since the latter part of the year 2001. The works of TRACEPLACESPACE are components of a digital, multi-media, network-infused performance of the same title.
I like to perform this work in small community venues, outdoor gatherings, art-spaces, and galleries where everyone is welcome and can sit on the floor, talk to one another, and drink green tea. However I will perform TRACEPLACESPACE approximately anywhere.
Filming Outside the Cinema
I have to admit that I'd not given much thought to film outside the cinema, web film or live video, or anything like that, but I've spent lots of time here hanging out with Peter Horvath and I'm impressed.
Peter makes very beautiful films for the web, and you can check them all out online. Today he showed us The Presence of Absence, which was comissioned for the Whitney Museum's Artport in 2003, and then Tenderly Yours from 2005, which "resituates the personal, casual and ambiguous approach of French new wave cinema in a net art narrative that explores love, loss and memory. The story is recited by a striking and illustrious persona, who moves through the city with her lover. Her willful independence is intoxicating, though her sense of self is ambiguous..." Gorgeous.
Cut Piece - Yoko Ono
Cut Piece (2006, 36.5MB, 9 min)
“Ono had first done the performance in 1964, in Japan,
and again at Carnegie Hall, in New York, in 1965.
Ono sat motionless on the stage after inviting the audience
to come up and cut away her clothing, covering her breasts
at the moment of unbosoming.”
from Bedazzled .
Conglomco Media Network announces http://meta-cc.net live
Conglomco Media Network is pleased to announce the official beta release of the META[CC] video engine at http://meta-cc.net.
META[CC] seeks to create an open forum for real time discussion, commentary, and cross-refrencing of electronic news and televised media. By combining strategies employed in web-based discussion forums, blogs , tele-text subtitling, on-demand video streaming, and search engines, the open captioning format employed by META[CC] will allow users to gain multiple perspectives and resources engaging current events. The system is adaptable for use with any cable or broadcast television network.
We hope that you will take a moment from your viewing time to add the RSS feed of a blog you find noteworthy. As more information sources are supplied to META[CC], the more intelligent the system becomes. As such, the META[CC] search engine is apolitical and influenced only by the news and information sources supplied by its viewers/users. We apologize, but at this time podcasts and vlogs are not supported.
Many thanks for your interest and participation,
The META[CC] team
http://meta-cc.net
Open Call for Sound Works : WILD INFORMATION NETWORK
Cary Peppermint:
WILD INFORMATION NETWORK
The Department of Ecology, Art, and Technology
Open Call for Sound Works In Mp3 Format - Deadline April 1, 2006
http://www.restlessculture.net/deepwoods
If we encountered a pod-cast, or a streaming radio server in the woods, in the “natural
Re: The end of Premiere for Mac
there's a thread on slashdot too:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/03/07/07/1636214.shtml?tid7&tid7
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: The end of Premiere for Mac
below:
At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>> >I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
>> >about the value of OS
>> >integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
>> >against OS integration if
>> >Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?
>>
>> the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
>> by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
>> Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
>> (which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
>> developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
>> offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
>> like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
>> sophisticated is another argument).
>
>I think your hatred of Microsoft is fogging your brain, t.whid.
>Apple does and did have a
>choice. If it is technically feasible to have multiple OS-integrated
>browsers, they could
>develop specs to support it, to support multiple OS-integrated browsers.
>
>If it is feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, and Apple
>doesn't do this, then they
>too are a monopolist.
++
twhid:
i don't want to go to far with this, but it's obvious to me that
since the Mac OS is under 5% of the market it's impossible for them
to act as a monopolist.
>
>If it isn't feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, then
>we have the question of
>whether it is desirable to have *any* OS-integrated browsers.
>
>If it is desirable, then Apple and Microsoft are doing what one
>would expect of them.
>
++
twhid:
your logic is the broken one. MS had a company that was aggressively
developing a browser for their OS and killed it thru their monopoly
position. Apple had one major contemporary, standards-supporting
browser on it's OS: Mac IE, and MS was slowly letting it rust away.
They looked at the other alternatives and chose KHTML over Gecko
(netscape) for technical reasons only, not because of marketing.
>If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.
>
it's not a flat field and you ignore that fact.
your logic doesn't seem to take in the fact the MS has a monopoly
position with it's proprietary software. that Apple, since it owns
under 5% of the market, isn't accountable to federal anti-trust laws.
if MS had created software as good as FCP, FCX, and iMovie it would
have effectively killed Premiere totally, not just on Windows. MS
could kill Adobe outright if they wanted too simply because of their
market position. Apple can't and that's the difference that you like
to ignore.
>But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per
>operating system, as i argued
>in my last post.
++
twhid:
there is an upside to it, i'm not arguing that. MS won't allow any
competition on their closed software so I guess the majority of
people will be stuck with the sloppy software that ships with the OS.
At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation,
>as it probably will, then
>unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of
>browsers, Safari has an unfair
>advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari,
>as you point out, is
>customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be
>customizable, but that does not bear
>on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be
>embedded in apps like Safari can
>be in the Mac OS.
++
twhid:
probably, schmobably. i'm sure Safari will come with the OS, but so
did Mac IE and NS4.x. I don't know if it's 'integrated' into the OS
as MS claims MSIE is. there is a different program to browse the file
system (the finder) so the only thing Safari will be there for is to
render HTML and Javascript (using the open source code).
what 'unfair' advantage does Safari have? it's rendering engine is
open source (unlike MSIE) and is sticking with standards compliance
(unlike MSIE). Webcore's rendering is decided by the standards
bodies, not by bill gates. It's code can be tweaked by any browser
developer and built on. that is a HUGE difference from MSIE where
you're stuck with the way MS wants to do it whether you like it or
not.
MS won the browser war, Apple is simply trying to keep up and make it
as easy as they can for their other developers. it's obvious that
Apple is cutting the cord btw them and MS.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: The end of Premiere for Mac
>>http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
>> >
>> > The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
>> > into the OS than a third
>> > party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
>> > can do the same. OS
>> > integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
>> > are protocol layers
>> > between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
>> > party software and sometimes
>> > bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
>> > waits in line more.
>>
>> You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
>> claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
>> quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
>> made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.
>
>I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
>about the value of OS
>integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
>against OS integration if
>Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?
the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
(which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
sophisticated is another argument).
Hope you're happy that you'll have to upgrade your entire OS to
klondike to get new browsing tech on Windows and you won't have the
privilege of doing that to '05.
>
>T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not
>pursuing OS integration. They are
>pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and
>for reasons that are similar
>to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward
>a vastly superior OS/browser
>that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all
>competing browsers once and
>for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that,
>contrary to what T.whid argues,
>Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.
It's really easy for you to have me say whatever you want but I don't
think I said what you're saying I said. Since that little
conversation of ours Safari 1.0 has been released and I simply don't
know if it's doing anything that a 3rd-party couldn't do (i would
define unfair OS integration as the app using hidden APIs, or
changing code in the underlying OS so as to help a certain app (and
not considering changing code for 3rd-parties). I would like to know.
In that last conversation, I also outlined how Apple's Safari is
different than MSIE in that's it's rendering engine, Webcore, is
open-source under a LGPL license
(http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/) this actually
leads to more competition, not less: Developers can build on top of
Webcore using Apple's webkit SDK, take the code and change it to
their liking (can't do that with MSIE's rendering engine), or take
the code and use what they like on an app on another platform (even
Windows). I think it's fairly obvious how Apple's actions are not
like those of MS.
MS let Mac IE rot. Apple had no choice, they needed a better browser.
It was a technical decision to go with KHTML and not Gecko (I'm
fairly sure i read this on Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog, but I
can't find it right now.)
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: The end of Premiere for Mac
macslash regarding this:
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid/07/08/0045214)
With Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Express, and iMovie being available
there really wasn't a place for Adobe's Premiere which simply isn't
as good from what I've heard. There will still be competition with
Apple on the high-end from Avid and if Apple starts to gouge the low
to mid-end I'm sure there will be plenty of developers willing to
step into the void.
almost everyone who work's with video on the Mac these days uses FCP.
and people are going to simply have to get used to the idea that
Apple is a now not only a hardware co., but a major software vendor
that is catering to high-end video, audio, and film production now
that they are selling Shake, FCP, DVD studio pro, and now creating
this new high-end quicktime format, Pixlet (hmm, the next pixar film
rendered on Mac G5s? i know, i doubt it too.)
of course, if Apple pissed Adobe off to the point where they killed
mac/photoshop lots of us would be in big trouble. (and no, i'm not
going to use the gimp.)
At 12:54 -0700 7/9/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>"In the latest case of an outside developer abandoning the Macintosh
>platform, Adobe Systems Inc. announced Monday that the
>newest overhaul of its flagship video editing program Premiere would
>no longer work on Macs."
>
>"Intentionally or not, "Apple is pursuing a strategy that locks out
>their third-party software
>vendors," said Avi Greengart, an analyst with Jupiter Research."
>
>http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
>
>ja
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: what bad taste?
>> from an American perspective, the simple fact that you Brits have a
>> war artist at all is simply amazing. is there such a thing in the US?
>> I doubt it, and if there were I'm sure we wouldn't consider anyone as
>> interesting as or as potentially controversial as the chapmans.
>>
>> we'd have some boring nobody who works good in bronze so as to get
>> the full amount of *glory* out of Bush's bullshit war.
>
>And I have to add that the artist actually chosen, Steve McQueen, is no
>bullshit bronzist, but a damn fine artist.
wasn't meaning to imply that McQueen sucks. I think I've only seen
one of his videos at a show last year at PS1 (contemporary art museum
in Queens, NYC) at this exhibition Video Acts
http://www.ps1.org/cut/press/video.html
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
