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
M$ windows and audio CDs
today at my day gig my colleague was finishing up a little video
animation and needed to add a bit of sound to it. he dug out one of
royalty-free music CDs but couldn't figure out how to get the audio off
of it. my colleague, though talented, uses windows xp. he asked me how
to extract the audio via windows. all the files showed up as 1kb .cda
(or something like that) files.
i stuck it in my mac (10.2) and simply dragged and dropped the .aiff
files to my desktop and passed them to him via our LAN. i was curious
and stuck the disk in the PC on my desk. windoze explorer shows the
files as these stupid little 1kb .cda (or something like that) files.
real player offered to let me copy them to my PC but as compressed real
player files, .wav files or .mp3s. i couldn't figure out to even rip it
with winamp.
so, windows loyalists (or simply users, probably aren't any loyalists
on this list (maybe chris fahey ;-))), what's the deal? one can't get
the original, uncompressed audio track off a CD via windows? you need
to use a 3rd party app? can't do it with the OS? if one is importing
audio into an after affects project, flash project, director project,
FCP project etc one would want to start with the highest quality audio
one can get. if your source is a CD that means an .aiff.
waiting patiently.
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
System permits long-distance manipulation of image files
may find it interesting. it also seems to concentrate on secure
applications (which may be the only reason that one would want to do
this sort of thing as versioning systems would allow an art-oriented
collaboration on different versions of the same file)
http://www.eet.com/at/news/OEG20030106S0053
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: honest question: smart ass reply
> | - -| What's the difference between producing and consuming art?
> | A | /
> ---- !!!
one you do on the toilet the other at the dining table.
but seriously, i have a problem with the idea of 'consuming' art. art
ain't twinkies. viewing, experiencing, using or interacting with (for
software art) etc are more appropriate verbs.
++but on to more important things++
++++subject: loot
MTAA has just been paid! that's right, after long months of
negotiations (sometimes lasting more than 15 minutes at a stretch),
MTAA have just been paid for their efforts on the Whitney's Artport
site which were completed in December of 2001 (yes 2001, not 2002,
that was chris fahey's work.) The only problem is: we lost our
obvious conversation starter when we see Christiane Paul at openings.
(seriously, Christiane has been very helpful with sorting out the
accounting problems that led to our tardy payment.)
Now if mriver will share some of the loot he's been hauling in maybe
i'll be able to get that really big TV i've been lusting for.
++++subject: electroclash
a couple of weeks ago prominent net art star Dr. Alex Galloway IM'd
me asking (transcript from memory): 'So mr. williamsburg, what's up
with electroclash?'
(parsing this for you: i live in williamsburg, brooklyn, the once,
now declining, art capital of the world, dr. galloway seems to think
that electroclash has something to do with williamsburg.)
i didn't have any idea what or who electoclash is or was. i need to
talk to mriver.
mriver (transcript from memory): 'electroclash is so two-years-ago'
and now, the latest Wired mag buzz word section (transcript from memory):
electroclash:
The latest club culture du jour. Combines samples and electronics
with 80s sounds and imagery.
so, is it the latest thing, or is it so two-years-ago? me? i think
mriver is waaaaaaaaaaay hipper than wired, so i'm sticking with him.
later.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: One Day Left
>I don't mind paying for Rhizome, and in fact I did. But there are obvious
>(at least to me) questions that have never been answered.
>
>What's wrong with corporate sponsorship?
>
>Whitney does it, BAM does it, Guggenheim does it. And it works well for
>them. Would I be correct in guessing that Rhizome has a predominantly
>anti-big-business spirit?
>
>What about the distribution of labor?
dyske is right. there could be a much more wider distribution of the
labor. i think rhizome may be afraid that if they go in this
distributed route that it might wipe out the institutional grants and
funding they've been receiving. many sites are run this way (all
slash code sites are, k5, etc) and i think rhizome is moving this way
but it's not happening fast enough imo.
also, rhizome wants to be more than a web hub for new media art. they
have their commissions, they sponsor events, and generally act as the
face of new media to the art world at large.
>
>It seems ironic that the organization that endorses digital technology isn't
>taking advantage of one of the greatest aspects of the Internet technology:
>de-centralization of labor. Why couldn't Rhizome be run like the way
>K10K.net is? Their site is just as ambitious as Rhizime is, and no one is
>getting paid for their contributions there, and the site is free for
>everyone. They got Adobe to pay for software and hardware. They got Media
>Temple to provide them free hosting. Beyond that, all the labor is
>voluntary. Everyone has a job. They have no office space or travel expense.
>This is possible because the labor is distributed wide enough that each
>person does not have to do much. This is one of the greatest things about
>the net. Why do you need to have one person dedicated to reviewing all the
>artwork? Why do you need to have one person dedicated to anything for that
>matter. Why couldn't you distribute?
>
>I'm not exactly sure what part of the site is going to be members-only, but
>depending on it, I have a feeling that the fee could potentially be fatal
>for Rhizome. It's not the amount. It is the friction of the payment
>processing that the majority of people will not go through. I always thought
>Rhizome to be a great resource for anyone who wants to learn about digital
>art, but the membership strategy will limit the audience to the insiders
>only. Rhizome, therefore, will stop functioning as a force to disseminate
>and proliferate the messages of the digital art. This will be very
>unfortunate.
>
>-Dyske
>
>--
>Dyske Suematsu
>http://www.dyske.com
>Where Nothing Is Everything
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: Re: One Day Left
>At 9:32 AM -0500 1/15/03, Mark Tribe wrote:
>
>>
>>this isn't about profit. it is about survival. rhizome is a
>>nonprofit organization. nobody is getting rich.
>
>'survival' & 'rich' are relative terms.
>
>you paid yourself $47,260 in 2000
>
>alex galloway was paid $36,692 - and he is listed as a part-time employee.
>
>http://rhizome.org/info/Rhizome_2000_990.pdf
that doesn't sound like an unreasonable salary to me. rhizome is in
nyc after all, the cost of living is much higher than other parts of
the USA.
>
>
>>that said, you may be right about our policy. maybe we *should*
>>offer free memberships to those whose work is included in the
>>artbase, in digest, etc.
>
>sorry - you *need* to offer much more than that.
>
>everyone who is actively producing the very material whereby you pay
>yourself $47,260 a year needs to be receiving a share of the wealth.
up until 2 days ago Mark raised all the money himself thru donations
and voluntary contributions. there is also a board that oversees the
compensation of full time employees.
i think you are really barking up the wrong tree. if you don't want
to share your work and thoughts on rhizome, then don't. of course you
can attempt to persuade others on this list, but i think your
argument is fairly flaccid myself.
a my proposal to the main problem which is lack of true community.
!!!the members of rhizome should elect the board.!!!
this would really make the members feel like they have a real say in
how the org is run.
of course this may not even be legal by the laws governing
non-profits in the usa i have no idea.
>
>this includes the regional editors, those who write reviews of
>festivals and shows and artworks, those whose writings are included
>in the digest...
>
>and here's a novel concept :
>
>perhaps even the artists - the ones actually producing the stuff
>that the entire rhizome community supposedly revolves around - could
>actually see some of that money.
>
>perhaps the money collected from the community
>could actually be put back into the community itself
>in the form of direct financial support for the artists.
>
>perhaps one modest commission a month,
>or a fee for inclusion in the artbase.
>
>... instead of :
>
>rhizomes office space, - $10,176
>rhizomes travel expenses, - $8,049
>rhizomes office expense, - $8,175
>rhizomes legal fees, - $25,444
>etc.
>
>
>your .org has become bloated.
and what yer proposing leads to more bloat imo, more admin fees, more
paperwork etc. and with 415 entries to the artbase last year, what
sort of fee could rhizome pay? lets say they could cut the office
lease out all together and applied it to the artbase contributions,
that would be a measly $24.50 per contribution. so to make this fee
mean anything we would have to cut down on the number of
contributions by at least 3/4 and get the fee to around 100 bucks.
then instead of accusing exploitation, you'd accuse elitism.
if they could somehow reduce the fees above to 0, then we could have
a $125 fee per artbase submission. i'm sure some of those fees could
be reduced and are being reduced but to think they could be cut to 0
is naive.
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
