PORTFOLIO (3)
BIO
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
Hell.com up for sale
WSJ via /.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/10/27/118211
another nail in the coffin of the golden age of net art...
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/10/27/118211
another nail in the coffin of the golden age of net art...
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: On 8-Bit Aesthetics: Hackers or Hacks?
It should also be pointed out that Cory's current show at Team doesn't
have anything to do with 8-bit.
See for yourself here:
<http://www.teamgal.com/arcangel/06show/index.html>
Cory was the poster boy for 8-bit in the art world, but, like any
other decent artist (especially young artist), he's exploring new
ideas.
On 10/25/06, Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
> Just a quick note -- and just on the first two sections underneath.
>
> Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall two or three
> objects I really like, and think are quite important. The quicktime work
> "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario Clouds" is another. The
> link is clear -- from 60s/70s minimalism and straight on from there. The
> works are produced in context with art objects already circulating within
> the art community, as part of an ongoing dialogue. The examples I mentioned
> are not only bringing 60s/70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but also
> letting us (well, me at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new light.
>
> Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he engages
> in the art community. This is his goal:
>
>
> "My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to have the
> computer considered in a gallery context," Arcangel says. "Strip away the
> video game part, strip away the hacking, and essentially what I'm doing is
> minimalist video art."
> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/winter2004/feat_newmedia.html
>
> Of course all this doesn't mean I'm "right". In other words, doesn't mean
> that the art community or the society as a whole will share my opinion in
> the long run. We'll just have to wait and see.
>
> And as for the stress on "craft" - there are a great number of art objects
> produced and immersed into the art community (and I dont think that either
> Duchamp or Warhol are good examples) that are low tech and/or require very
> little effort to produce. Its obvious that this is not a criterium for their
> importance. So why should you ever considering entering this into the
> discussion?
>
>
>
> Geert Dekkers
> http://nznl.com
> http://nznl.net
> http://nznl.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2006, at 8:59 PM, Sean Capone wrote:
>
> Patrick:
> Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of answer I
> was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is this work
> relevant as objects within the system of production of the art world," quite
> a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
>
> However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> ...he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"...
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, it shows.
>
> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of
> production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I do believe
> that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer relies on
> a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I mean, it's
> just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I mean that,
> technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it, these
> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and to some
> extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that the genie
> is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to Warhol to
> Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable. To
> put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty different
> things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely replicate
> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not lazy about
> his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools of art
> practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely
> automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity culture one's
> images are about.
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
>
> **************************************************************
>
> Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing
> 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place to insert
> a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> They want to get something that both
> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
> culture.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own
> exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory
> workers')--& does not simply tweak someone else's manga characters? I hate
> to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity but, well,
> there it is.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
> collectors... Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get the
> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
> that's
> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas, Bitforms et al).
> The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was from the
> Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with the art
> world? I don't know about that--Arcangel's work is heavily invested in its
> own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of consumer
> electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-oreinted model
> within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a less-than-mordant
> cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the lineage of
> past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the sixties at
> least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent artists &
> theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other 'New Image'
> artists)...this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital lineage to me
> than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
>
> HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art' within the
> system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic experiments seem
> wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly open ends
> anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question of 'Art'
> hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as process,
> flow, social experiment, event...art that moves beyond representation, in
> other words, into the experiential.
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
> to
> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
> objects.
>
> ************************************************************
> Would seem to be the opposite to me--a limited discourse seems less
> reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take your word
> for it.
>
>
>
> *****************************************
>
>
> It
> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
> community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
>
> ******************************************
> Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass community,
> but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to do with
> the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem to rely
> on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they actually
> are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's (at least
> definitively).
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
> here,
> but similarities worth watching.
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Yes, with apprehension.
>
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
>
> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
> has
> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
> a
> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
> of
> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
> It's
> all pretty tight.
> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
> sl/h/acker
> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
> being
> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
> Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a cuddly
> feeling of tribal belonging...but without actually doing it, or doing it
> poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and
> recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a reactionary, like
> one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever). It's all
> pretty tight, indeed...to the point where it almost reads as a contrived
> authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty...or maybe I just wouldn't want
> to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes *my* art
> career...
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
> and
> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
>
> **************************************************************
> Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above) or at
> least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place during
> manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during the swing
> of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in
> contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste instead of
> historical European tradition...
> Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical
> given...Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art world? The
> grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a member of the
> art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the discourse
> of reasons of one's culture."--Regina Cornwell.
>
>
> ***************************************************************
>
>
> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
> an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
> which are niche cultures.
>
> ***************************************************************
> While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics, I am less
> invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended Siggraph in
> almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite the
> opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose statements or
> congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for a great
> artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly
> low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI rendered
> Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored with its own
> reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
> I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime visualization
> of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise--that piece
> definitely got to me as a piece which was...well, an Object, conscious of
> but transcendant of it own Objecthood--you know what I mean?
>
> *******************************
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> *******************************
> I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this genre more
> within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts, especially
> within post-80s New Media discourse...it's time to let Warhol & Duchamp off
> the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan Clowes
> satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't artists have
> to work?
>
> :sean capone
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
have anything to do with 8-bit.
See for yourself here:
<http://www.teamgal.com/arcangel/06show/index.html>
Cory was the poster boy for 8-bit in the art world, but, like any
other decent artist (especially young artist), he's exploring new
ideas.
On 10/25/06, Geert Dekkers <geert@nznl.com> wrote:
> Just a quick note -- and just on the first two sections underneath.
>
> Personally, when considering Cory Archangel, I can only recall two or three
> objects I really like, and think are quite important. The quicktime work
> "data diaries" is indeed one of them, "Super Mario Clouds" is another. The
> link is clear -- from 60s/70s minimalism and straight on from there. The
> works are produced in context with art objects already circulating within
> the art community, as part of an ongoing dialogue. The examples I mentioned
> are not only bringing 60s/70s minimalism aesthetic up to date, but also
> letting us (well, me at least) see the 60s/70s minimalism in a new light.
>
> Apart from that, the artist Cory Archangel is important because he engages
> in the art community. This is his goal:
>
>
> "My goal was to be considered an artist, not a computer artist, to have the
> computer considered in a gallery context," Arcangel says. "Strip away the
> video game part, strip away the hacking, and essentially what I'm doing is
> minimalist video art."
> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/winter2004/feat_newmedia.html
>
> Of course all this doesn't mean I'm "right". In other words, doesn't mean
> that the art community or the society as a whole will share my opinion in
> the long run. We'll just have to wait and see.
>
> And as for the stress on "craft" - there are a great number of art objects
> produced and immersed into the art community (and I dont think that either
> Duchamp or Warhol are good examples) that are low tech and/or require very
> little effort to produce. Its obvious that this is not a criterium for their
> importance. So why should you ever considering entering this into the
> discussion?
>
>
>
> Geert Dekkers
> http://nznl.com
> http://nznl.net
> http://nznl.org
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/10/2006, at 8:59 PM, Sean Capone wrote:
>
> Patrick:
> Thanks for your considered & frank response. This is the type of answer I
> was hoping for when I capitalized 'Art'; in other words, "why is this work
> relevant as objects within the system of production of the art world," quite
> a distinction from 'art' as a personal creative act..
>
> However I remain unconvinced on several fronts.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> ...he had an interesting slogan: "Do as little as humanly possible"...
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, it shows.
>
> The question is, is this in itself an ironic statement against
> 'operationality'? Or does it demonstrate that the chosen method of
> production doesn't have that much to offer in the first place? I do believe
> that to be a self-styled new media artist or critical practioneer relies on
> a built-in sense of technological determinism to begin with. I mean, it's
> just naive not to assume some measure of complicity. By this I mean that,
> technology is a craft, culture and society is heavily invested in it, these
> objects are a source of fascination and a means of production and to some
> extent we acknowledge that we all 'understand' technology and that the genie
> is not going back into the bottle. While the line from Duchamp to Warhol to
> Arcangel et. al. is somewhat legitimate, it is not smooth or reliable. To
> put it bluntly, Duchamp and Warhol were actually doing pretty different
> things at key moments in art & cultural history. You can't merely replicate
> their 'automatic' processes at thi!
> s point. And Warhol was many things, but he was certainly not lazy about
> his craft. He did cast an unfortunate spell across future schools of art
> practice, however: by appearing to do nothing (by becoming purely
> automatic), one can become as big a celebrity as the celebrity culture one's
> images are about.
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> Both are really good at what they do, they made the contacts, people
> believe in what they're doing, and there you have high art.
>
> **************************************************************
>
> Yup. Until the collectors realize that they aren't *just* purchasing
> 'affability' or a personality but objects. This seems a good place to insert
> a discussion on the ephemerality of New Media Art collecting..
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> They want to get something that both
> exploits its media and methods deeply and fits lock-step with the
> progression of the Western art historical tradition.. For example,
> Murakami cites classical Japanese culture, colonized by American pop
> culture.
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, Murakami samples it & injects his own
> exhuberance/cynicism and artistic labor (or that of his 'factory
> workers')--& does not simply tweak someone else's manga characters? I hate
> to get into a discussion about Originality vs. Creative Paucity but, well,
> there it is.
>
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
>
> Back to the self-referentiality of the computational process, except
> for bitforms, who cares about that in an art context, and still Steve
> presents very formal pieces from his artists, which gets the
> collectors... Forgive me if I'm not making the connection; but I get the
> feeling that you're looking for recognition for works that deeply
> explore the computational process as method, and I honestly think
> that's
> outside the context of most of the contemporary art world.
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> That's actually not what I was suggesting (a la Casey Reas, Bitforms et al).
> The quote about 'artists involved with computational process' was from the
> Paul Davis quote on Rhizome's front page. But out of context with the art
> world? I don't know about that--Arcangel's work is heavily invested in its
> own process and presence as a (at the time) cutting-edge piece of consumer
> electronic culture. The art world has accepted this process-oreinted model
> within Media Arts, I do believe. But the production is a less-than-mordant
> cut-and-paste approach (slacker postmodernism?)as opposed to the lineage of
> past practicioneers of hack/electronic/computation art, since the sixties at
> least: Nam Jun Paik, the Vasulkas, Dan Sandin, etc (or more recent artists &
> theorists like Alan Rath, George LeGrady, Lynn Hershman & other 'New Image'
> artists)...this seems like a more relevant pre-to-post digital lineage to me
> than that of Warhol, Duchamp etc.
>
> HOWEVER back to the discussion, as far as their currency as 'Art' within the
> system of objects within the art world, these aesthetic experiments seem
> wholly relevant to the degree that much Art operates with fairly open ends
> anyway. Installation, conceptualism, Media Art left the question of 'Art'
> hanging open, dangling, questions asked but unanswered, art as process,
> flow, social experiment, event...art that moves beyond representation, in
> other words, into the experiential.
>
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> It limits your discourse. Reassures people where you're going
> to
> be in ten years, and gives them some reassurance in investing in your
> objects.
>
> ************************************************************
> Would seem to be the opposite to me--a limited discourse seems less
> reassuring lest it reveal itself as a micro-trend. Ehh, I'll take your word
> for it.
>
>
>
> *****************************************
>
>
> It
> has nothing to do with the art community, it has to do with the mass
> community, because that's what more people are going to identify with.
>
> ******************************************
> Sure. Curators & gallery owners fill their shows with the mass community,
> but that's not their target audience, is it? It has everything to do with
> the art community. The art community (purchasers, collectors) seem to rely
> on that sense of youthful zeitgeist, as distanced from it as they actually
> are, because that's the narrative of the art world since the 80's (at least
> definitively).
>
>
> ********************************************************
>
> But, is repurposing a game platform as an art one like
> calling a urinal a fountain? I think there's a different gesture
> here,
> but similarities worth watching.
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Yes, with apprehension.
>
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
>
> Exactly, context and intent go hand in hand and each of the artists
> has
> them. Cory, Paperrad, Paul, and that clade just clothe their work in
> a
> poppy irony and slacker package that fits with the current obsession
> of
> youth and the crossing of nostalgia for the early gen-x'ers youth.
> It's
> all pretty tight.
> It's a pixilated landscape you can put on your wall made by a
> sl/h/acker
> kid who wants to mess around with the stuff he grew up with while
> being
> cognizant of contemporary art politics.
>
>
> ***************************************************
>
> Yup, it's that great "I can do that too" feeling that engenders a cuddly
> feeling of tribal belonging...but without actually doing it, or doing it
> poorly, because the "youth-obsessed" codes are easily recognized and
> recapitulated without inquiry. (Now I feel like a bit of a reactionary, like
> one of those critics who didn't get Action Painting or whatever). It's all
> pretty tight, indeed...to the point where it almost reads as a contrived
> authenticity, and already seems a bit dusty...or maybe I just wouldn't want
> to belong to any club that would have me as a member. There goes *my* art
> career...
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
>
>
> But this isn't what they're doing. They're playing with art history
> and
> cultural effects/affects and weaving it into a contextual praxis. In
> many ways, it goes back to Duchamp, Nauman and high modernism,
>
> **************************************************************
> Yah, although I think the lineage starts a bit later, (see above) or at
> least the line isn't so smooth from Duchamp's act, taking place during
> manifesto-oriented High Art Culture (Dada, Surrealism etc) during the swing
> of Modernism from Europe to the States, to those taking place in
> contemporary culture, adrift on an ocean of techno-consumer waste instead of
> historical European tradition...
> Bla bla bla. In the visual arts, "static art objects are a historical
> given...Does [interactive art] even have a place within the art world? The
> grand historical narratives have come to an end, now, 'to be a member of the
> art world is to have learned what it means to participate in the discourse
> of reasons of one's culture."--Regina Cornwell.
>
>
> ***************************************************************
>
>
> In my opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're looking for
> an art that operates under a different operational framework than what
> you're looking for, and that puzzles you. I think that what you're
> looking for is something that's more likely in an ISEA or SIGGRAPH,
> which are niche cultures.
>
> ***************************************************************
> While I *do* work regularly in the field of 'high-tech' graphics, I am less
> invested in this world than you might think. I haven't attended Siggraph in
> almost ten years. I *am* looking for an electronic art that, quite the
> opposite to your suggestion, does not exist solely to pose statements or
> congratulate itself about its own techn(o)ntology. (How's that for a great
> artword?). To this degree, making a piece of self-conscious, visibly
> low-tech Nintendo art has a closer resemblance to a glamorous HDRI rendered
> Pixar creation than might appear: both are hopelessly enamored with its own
> reflection, and exist as little more than surface affectation.
> I *will* cite one of Cory's pieces that I adore: his Quicktime visualization
> of the contents of his hard-drive as multi-scalar pattern noise--that piece
> definitely got to me as a piece which was...well, an Object, conscious of
> but transcendant of it own Objecthood--you know what I mean?
>
> *******************************
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> *******************************
> I think you are on the effin' money but could try to place this genre more
> within a critical context of digital, video & moving image arts, especially
> within post-80s New Media discourse...it's time to let Warhol & Duchamp off
> the hook as justifications for torpor and naked theft, or as Dan Clowes
> satirized it, the old 'tampon-in-a-teacup' trick. Why shouldn't artists have
> to work?
>
> :sean capone
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Monkeytown going OUT OF BUSINESS!!
Bah!
M.River and I were there just the other night and Montgomery told us
about the financial issues. It would be a real loss to the
Williamsburg scene.
On 10/10/06, Sean Capone <sean@positrongraphic.com> wrote:
> Monkeytown, located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn NY, has served as one of NY's most surprising, fun-spirited and high quality new media performance/video art venues and restaurant lounges for the past year. However, due to a crippling financial situation, it seems likely that the space will close in early November. This was just announced officially by the owner, the fabulous but frazzled Montgomery. So please, if you have a way to support Monkeytown, do so, even if it just means coming out (if you haven't already) to enjoy the final couple weeks of programming.
>
> Here is the text from Montgomery's full post:
>
> GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!!??
>
> Yes. A mere week after celebrating our one-year anniversary and now it looks as if we will be CLOSING sometime around November 6th.
>
> However, since discussing this likelihood, I have received hundreds of horrified emails and phone calls ("That can't happen."; "What the fuck."; "We love Monkey Town, please stay open!") and offers of support. But the reality is that we need a large amount of capital (around $300K); and while, many people are now working to find such capital, we are also preparing to shut down by early Novemeber.
>
> Question: So what can you do to help...?
> Answer: Come eat and drink for the next 30 days! We need to pay our remaining bills and this may be your last chance to taste your favorite dishes
>
> I love Heather's (our new chef) cooking so much that we've agreed to keep adding the new items she had planned to our menu, in the meantime. And while delayed a week, we will have our Chipotle-Gorgonzola-Black Bean Lasagna back on the menu this week.
>
> All of that said, we would love to stay open. And in many ways it WOULD be stupid for us to close. Our two major issues have been:
>
> 1. original cost overruns and debts associated with an incompetent contractor
> 2. a lack of operating capital that has kept us in a constant cycle of poverty
>
> Despite these many challenges, we have done decently for a first year restaurant. We've even showed a "profit" during several months. But our debts have been crippling and they must be addressed. With the new capital, we would make many long overdue physical improvements and take care of our debt issues.
>
> So. If you know of any person who would like to support our enterprise in a very big way, by benefaction or investment, please have them contact us at our main email: monkeytownhq@aol.com
>
> Thanks again for all the words of encouragement and support.
> Cheers,
> Montgomery
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
M.River and I were there just the other night and Montgomery told us
about the financial issues. It would be a real loss to the
Williamsburg scene.
On 10/10/06, Sean Capone <sean@positrongraphic.com> wrote:
> Monkeytown, located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn NY, has served as one of NY's most surprising, fun-spirited and high quality new media performance/video art venues and restaurant lounges for the past year. However, due to a crippling financial situation, it seems likely that the space will close in early November. This was just announced officially by the owner, the fabulous but frazzled Montgomery. So please, if you have a way to support Monkeytown, do so, even if it just means coming out (if you haven't already) to enjoy the final couple weeks of programming.
>
> Here is the text from Montgomery's full post:
>
> GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!!??
>
> Yes. A mere week after celebrating our one-year anniversary and now it looks as if we will be CLOSING sometime around November 6th.
>
> However, since discussing this likelihood, I have received hundreds of horrified emails and phone calls ("That can't happen."; "What the fuck."; "We love Monkey Town, please stay open!") and offers of support. But the reality is that we need a large amount of capital (around $300K); and while, many people are now working to find such capital, we are also preparing to shut down by early Novemeber.
>
> Question: So what can you do to help...?
> Answer: Come eat and drink for the next 30 days! We need to pay our remaining bills and this may be your last chance to taste your favorite dishes
>
> I love Heather's (our new chef) cooking so much that we've agreed to keep adding the new items she had planned to our menu, in the meantime. And while delayed a week, we will have our Chipotle-Gorgonzola-Black Bean Lasagna back on the menu this week.
>
> All of that said, we would love to stay open. And in many ways it WOULD be stupid for us to close. Our two major issues have been:
>
> 1. original cost overruns and debts associated with an incompetent contractor
> 2. a lack of operating capital that has kept us in a constant cycle of poverty
>
> Despite these many challenges, we have done decently for a first year restaurant. We've even showed a "profit" during several months. But our debts have been crippling and they must be addressed. With the new capital, we would make many long overdue physical improvements and take care of our debt issues.
>
> So. If you know of any person who would like to support our enterprise in a very big way, by benefaction or investment, please have them contact us at our main email: monkeytownhq@aol.com
>
> Thanks again for all the words of encouragement and support.
> Cheers,
> Montgomery
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Re: Community
Perhaps it would be an easy fix to just crank out an RSS feed of the
artbase additions and let the super users post as normal from the
reblog section of the site?
On 10/6/06, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
> > On the art base...
> > I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>
> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>
> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for Rhizome.
>
> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> know who to blame.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
artbase additions and let the super users post as normal from the
reblog section of the site?
On 10/6/06, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
> Steve OR Steven Read wrote:
>
> > On the art base...
> > I'm sorry your system to accept art into the art base has been broken for a year. I'm sorry it has not been a rhizome priority to remedy it.
>
> Can anyone from the community help fixing the art base?
>
> Don't ask what Rhizome can do for you, ask what you can do for Rhizome.
>
> We make the community. If the community isn't what it could be then we
> know who to blame.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> 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>www.mteww.com</twhid>
For: Rhiz admin... Rhiz.org/thread print function busted?
Hi,
Whenever I try to access the 'printer version' link on a Rhiz thread I
get this error page:
++
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /print/ on this server.
Apache/2.0.55 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.55 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP/4.4.2
mod_ruby/1.2.5 Ruby/1.8.4(2005-12-24) Server at rhizome.org Port 80
++
Is there a permissions issue that needs to be adjusted?
Thanks,
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Whenever I try to access the 'printer version' link on a Rhiz thread I
get this error page:
++
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /print/ on this server.
Apache/2.0.55 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.55 OpenSSL/0.9.7a PHP/4.4.2
mod_ruby/1.2.5 Ruby/1.8.4(2005-12-24) Server at rhizome.org Port 80
++
Is there a permissions issue that needs to be adjusted?
Thanks,
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
