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: Re: Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence
>Hi t.,
>
>We disagree about McCloud. He defines comics (not just american
>underground comics, but all comics) as sequential art, so how is his
>discussing sequential pictorial Egyptian narrative totally absurd
>and irrelevant given his definition? As I continue to explore web
>art from a narrative angle (as something between film and
>literature) McCloud's several insights on comics are particularly
>relevant.
++++
yo curt,
it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from
Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both
America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro was
a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he
changed his name to Jacques Villon ).
to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators weren't
directly influenced by any art historical form of sequential art. the
only connection is a general art historical connection but then you
can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to
Egyptian art.
it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they don't
need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't an
absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.
>
>Anyway, to prima facie dismiss an argument as unincisive is not
>really dialogue. your critique is unincisive.
>
+++
that's true, it's not very incisive. people can look at the list and
make their own opinion. perhaps later i'll back up my comment, no
time now.
take care,
>i remain,
>curt
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>t. wrote:
>
>you're talking about Scott McCloud the comix guy?
>
>he's an idiot. well, let me back up. he's not an idiot, but i
>wouldn't take any art lessons from him. in 'understanding comix' he
>attempts to make a connection from american underground comix to
>egyptian art (they are both sequential static images creating a
>narrative is his reasoning) which is totally absurd and irrelevant.
>
>his artistic process above doesn't seem any more incisive. he
>reminds me of pop psychology (the dr. phil brand) but he's making
>poor arguments in art criticism and art history.
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: list@rhizome.org
>-> questions: info@rhizome.org
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence
>Michael S. wrote:
>good?...
>steve reich, howe gelb, will oldham,wim vanderkeybus, david foster
>wallace, primo levi, w.g sebald, richard ford. & loads more...
>
>What makes all the above notable for me?- engagement with the human
>and with the human being in society; high degree of technical
>ability ( and a willingness to undertake drudgery) sometimes
>bordering on virtuosity but not to an obsessional extent & rarely
>entirely for it's own sake; universality - relatively
>independent of context -even though often very much of
>it's time nevertheless it resonates for us now..
>..and I think I'd want to argue that somewhere in
>there lies a framework for what justifies art as a
>human activity.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>curt responds:
>Scott McCloud describes the artistic process in 6 stages:
>1. idea/purpose
>2. form [what might be called "genre"]
>3. idiom [what I would call "style"]
>4. structure
>5. craft
>6. surface
>
hi curt,
you're talking about Scott McCloud the comix guy?
i read his first book 'understanding comix' back in the day (seeing
as i did comix for a while
(http://www.sonic.net/~comix/ptext/94.htm), got very bored of it, all
black ink on bristol board).
he's an idiot. well, let me back up. he's not an idiot, but i
wouldn't take any art lessons from him. in 'understanding comix' he
attempts to make a connection from american underground comix to
egyptian art (they are both sequential static images creating a
narrative is his reasoning) which is totally absurd and irrelevant.
his artistic process above doesn't seem any more incisive. he reminds
me of pop psychology (the dr. phil brand) but he's making poor
arguments in art criticism and art history.
take care,
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence
><At least we are arguing about art for a change!>
>absolutely
>< I would say one thing that is just not worth
> claiming is that something is
> 'artistically and intellectually bankrupt'.>
>< This obviously works for a lot of people and is
> withing a long and honorable
> tradition (as was the lights on/lights off piece for
> the Turner prize).>
>why?- do we just have to be endlessly relativist? -
>the longer tradition is one of polemic in art- I'm
>glad for them if people like the piece -I can't see it
>at all myself.
>Duchamp and Cage in their time were quite interesting
>sideshows on the fringes of art - to try to quarry the
>same terrain today seems to me to be indicative of a
>deep poverty of ideas and a deep disconnection from
>the world.
say what?
duchamp and cage on the fringes of art?
what art history are you talking about?
both these artists are huge figures of 20th century art. Duchamp is
the most influential artist of the 20th century. Like it or hate it
his work has shaped the art of the later 20th century more than any
other single artist. 70s Conceptualism and later neo-conceptualism;
Fluxus; Installation Art; Video Art (which in part came out of Fluxus
via nam jun paik, also nauman, acconci etc); performance art; lots of
later day artists who are hard to pigeon-hole including charles ray,
matt barney, tom friedman, lots of ybas; most of the 'relational
aesthetic' stuff of the 90s like Rikrit Tiravanij are just some of
the artists and movements that have been influenced by Duchamp.
All art builds on what has come before, sometimes it leaps forward,
sometimes it steps forward. to deny that is to deny how human
creativity functions.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence
> wrong with having to
> know a few things to appreciate an artwork. you've
> been trained from
> birth to look at media in different ways and there
> is no reason why you
> shouldn't learn something that takes 15 seconds to
> read to appreciate
> another level of this work.>
>I absolutly agree -if there's any substance there.
>Here there is none.
>It's about as interesting as the lights on/off piece
>which won the Turner prize here last year.
><what's interesting is it's organic yet
> machine-like
> animation. it's full of surprises if you watch it
> for a little while.>
>so's the visual that comes with my defrag utility.
>michael
>
so why haven't you turned your defrag utility into an artwork?
(in my experience defrag images aren't as interesting as cory's work.)
[also, i wouldn't call cory's piece net art, it's simply video
delivered via the web imo]
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
DATA DIARIES by CORY ARCANGEL on Turbulence
>
>> DATA DIARIES is 11 hours of video footage which was
>> generated by
>> tricking Quicktime into thinking the RAM of a home
>> computer is video.
>> This was done once for each day in January 2003.
>> Watch as Cory's emails,
>> letters, webpages, DSL data, songs, and anything
>> else he worked on that
>> day float by >
> ..but of course that's not what we see at all. There's
> no way the viewer can know that what is on the screen
> has some connection to Cory's this and that except by
> way of the artist statement.
> Take the 'concept' away and the poverty of the thing
> immediately becomes apparent - if the artist simply
> constructed the images we see we might say, OK that's
> vaguely interesting and attractive in a kind of
> wallpaper way for about 2 seconds but 11 hours
> ...please!
first that argument never wins. there's nothing wrong with having to
know a few things to appreciate an artwork. you've been trained from
birth to look at media in different ways and there is no reason why you
shouldn't learn something that takes 15 seconds to read to appreciate
another level of this work.
the work itself is very interesting to look at without knowing anything
about it. what's interesting is it's organic yet machine-like
animation. it's full of surprises if you watch it for a little while.
> --
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
