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: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
> net.art.
>
> We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
> interesting net.art via
> this aesthetic also, do we not?
no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.
you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
license.
>
> A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.
i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
natural', than you can have art.
there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
(art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
ever witnessed (including my own).
take care, thank you for your thoughts.
>
> Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
>
> Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
> entertainment, but there
> are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
> entertainment. I find art more
> entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
> to think to continue.
> Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
> even give the code away.
>
> ja
+ the internet is not your life.
-> 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
Re: 1800 Net Art Links
On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 04:20 AM, Reinhold Grether wrote:
>
> 1800 Net Art Links
>
> One of the most respected link lists to Net Art
> --managed by agent.NASDAQ aka Reinhold Grether--
> has been completely revised as of december 2002.
>
> http://www.netzwissenschaft.de/kuenst.htm
>
Google's Live Query Is Not Bad Art
>(though in a more utilitarian, obvious manner), the work exhibits great
>conceptual speed, demonstrating its conceptual foundation rapidly, but
>convincingly, as a digestive interface to a collective behavioral analysis
>of the cultural context of search. The interface to this digested data
>(information) is minimalist, but this supports the goals of the work. It
>proves (reproves: there is not shortage of evidence), that there is much
>more involved in data and information art than interface. A related
>weakness of the work is that its object is ontologically unclear for the
>average viewer: many people think that they are looking at data, when in
>fact they are looking at highly processed information. But it may not be
>appropriate to blame Google for this defect.
>
very funny.
one question.
how is it not data? once the queries are stored and stamped with
time, date, and geographic position (ip#) is it not data at that
point?
i agree that it's information before it's archived.
what i find fascinating about it is the fact that it is information
that has always been there and is only now able to be watched in
realtime. people have always looked for information about what
they're interested in. they would go to libraries, friends,
dictionaries, magazines, encyclopedias and etc. now they go to
Google. all of this collective curiosity captured, it's awesome (no
spicoli intonation to that 'awesome').
as to the question of wether Live Query is art or not; it's
irrelevant in my opinion. my definition of art goes to intent. if
someone says they're making art, who am i to argue? Google doesn't
say they're making art. but then, as alan said, if a contemporary
duchamp comes along and calls it art, who am i to argue? the
question: is it good art? not, is it art?
Google's Live Query is only an interface to the real art. Google
could be called a conceptual work that once you've understood what's
happening the interface (or visual) doesn't matter anymore. once one
has memorized a poem, who needs the paper it's typed on?
--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
Re: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 02:09 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
> Part of the problem is in seeing such a thing as a masterpiece of
> net.art.
>
> We end up with 24/7 broadcasts of linux source code being perceived as
> interesting net.art via
> this aesthetic also, do we not?
no we do not. a 24/7 stream of source code isn't net art by my
definition. it's simply using the internet for distribution.
you could argue that the collaboration on the linux source is made
possible only through internet so it does use the network as a primary
element. but the linux source isn't an inspiring set of data. it's
interesting to most people only after it's compiled. it's about as
interesting as an electrical schematic (which, i suppose can be very
interesting to an electrician). what's interesting about linux is it's
license.
>
> A data stream is not a work of art any more than the Mississipi is.
i agree and disagree. of course raw information isn't art any more the
a river is. it's simply an invisible cloud that surrounds us. but a
'stream' of information implies definition which requires human
manipulation. once human manipulation has been applied to 'the
natural', than you can have art.
there is data all around us. defining and capturing the data is the
art, not the data. just as sculpture and architecture define space and
air (the space isn't the art, the objects defining the space are the
art) Google's architecture defines and captures information (in this
case, human curiosity). someone could divert part of the flow of
Mississippi and that would be art or engineering or both. Google
captures information (the information has always been there, Google is
just diverting it) and it's art or engineering or both. Whatever it is
(art or engineering) it's more interesting than all the net art i've
ever witnessed (including my own).
take care, thank you for your thoughts.
>
> Very interesting writing, though, t.whid.
>
> Arteroids and Nio etc cannot compete with 3D gamer stuff and so on as
> entertainment, but there
> are those (and I'm one of them) who are rarely entertained by
> entertainment. I find art more
> entertaining than entertainment, oddly enough. More 'fun'. We continue
> to think to continue.
> Teams of programmers don't scare me. Art operates on mojo. You can
> even give the code away.
>
> ja
when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the artists to do?
organically. i attempted to polish, but i'm not a great writer. it now
seems to be uncomfortably sitting somewhere btw tossed off email and a
serious attempt at commentary.
Subject: when Google has achieved the net art masterpiece, what are the
artists to do?
++
reading this story in the nytimes recently:
"Postcards From Planet Google"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/technology/circuits/28goog.html
from the article:
"AT Google's squat headquarters off Route 101, visitors sit in the
lobby, transfixed by the words scrolling by on the wall behind the
receptionist's desk: animacion japonese Harry Potter pensees et poemes
associacao brasileira de normas tecnicas.
The projected display, called Live Query, shows updated samples of what
people around the world are typing into Google's search engine. The
terms scroll by in English, Chinese, Spanish, Swedish, Japanese,
Korean, French, Dutch, Italian - any of the 86 languages that Google
tracks.
Stare at Live Query long enough, and you feel that you are watching the
collective consciousness of the world stream by. "
this article, like many tech-related articles i read, got me thinking
about the two worlds in which many of us on this list exist: the worlds
of art and technology. how they're different. how they're the same. how
are their functions evolving?
in a world where a technology company can display 'the collective
consciousness of the world'(1) as a backdrop to their reception desk,
essentially a marketing ploy for their services; when they can collect
this data, sit on it and ruminate on how to 'monetize' it; when it
takes a fully capitalized, profit-driven corporation employing some of
the brightest engineers around to achieve such fascinating data then
what is left for the artist to do?
it used to be that it was the artist's job to capture the 'collective
consciousness' either through intuition, genius, or dumb-luck. the
artists were the ones who told humans what humans were thinking about,
obsessing over, loving, hating. we no longer need intuition, genius or
even dumb-luck. we've got hard data and more is coming in every
millisecond.
thinking about google's Live Query
