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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Commissions
On 4/27/06, curt cloninger <curt@lab404.com> wrote:
>
> According to my referrer logs, as of today my project proposal has been
> visited from rhizome 14 times (and two of those times were by me).
FWIW
I voted for you but didn't go to the site because yours was the best one
graf description I've read thus far. I really didn't feel like I needed to
read anything more, it was clear.
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
>
> According to my referrer logs, as of today my project proposal has been
> visited from rhizome 14 times (and two of those times were by me).
FWIW
I voted for you but didn't go to the site because yours was the best one
graf description I've read thus far. I really didn't feel like I needed to
read anything more, it was clear.
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Commissions
I don't agree with dv here.
As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the process (I think I
went through about 20), it would be a much more enjoyable process to review
a smaller amount of higher-quality proposals.
Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best 25% of the
proposals and then the community could choose half and the jury could choose
half. It might be nice because Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller
amount of applicants to have them write more informative and concise
descriptions, provide images, etc.
My main problem with the proposals is that the first paragraph in most cases
does a horrendous job of describing the project. If you want to get a grant
(esp. with the Rhiz process) you need to write one graf that describes your
project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.
On 4/26/06, dv@vilt.net <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> -----Original message-----
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> 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
> > >>>
> > >> +
> > >> -> 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pall Thayer
> > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> 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>
As someone who got proposal fatigue fairly early in the process (I think I
went through about 20), it would be a much more enjoyable process to review
a smaller amount of higher-quality proposals.
Why would it be any worse a process if the jury took the best 25% of the
proposals and then the community could choose half and the jury could choose
half. It might be nice because Rhizome could perhaps guide this smaller
amount of applicants to have them write more informative and concise
descriptions, provide images, etc.
My main problem with the proposals is that the first paragraph in most cases
does a horrendous job of describing the project. If you want to get a grant
(esp. with the Rhiz process) you need to write one graf that describes your
project and excites the reader. If you can't do that, forget it.
On 4/26/06, dv@vilt.net <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Perhaps the jury should make an initial run through proposals and
> > weed out the incomplete and the obviously out-of-place.
> >
> > Pall
>
> that would contradict the rest of the set-up
> dv
>
> > On 26.4.2006, at 09:24, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Michael:
> > >
> > > I agree with you in part but some of the proposals that were
> > > submitted had
> > > almost no care put into them at all. To me, it looked more like a
> > > sign of
> > > laziness and not following instructions than anything else. It
> > > didn't seem
> > > like many put much time into flushing out their ideas before
> > > submitting.
> > >
> > > All grant reviews are tedious no matter what the level of the
> > > submissions
> > > are. We are lucky that there are not 500 to have to go through.
> > >
> > > In the long run the bar should be raised not lowered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/26/06 6:15 AM, "dv@" <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> i don't know how to put it but i think i second this i mean i'm
> > >> not in the
> > >> business of making art objects so i couldn't possibly ever find a
> > >> way to use
> > >> the form to send anything (words, promises, projections) that
> > >> wouldn't be
> > >> cheating either to the voters or to myself so that i could compete
> > >> for the
> > >> commissions in a respectable manner & that's kinda sth of a pity
> > >> cause
> > >> asmuchas i wouldn't dream of getting any i still think it would
> > >> have been more
> > >> fair to my family to do so cause heck i'm spending so much time on
> > >> all these
> > >> things so i kinda owe it to them to at least try to get some money
> > >> for what
> > >> i'm doing whatever that may be oh but ofcourse that's me and how i
> > >> see things
> > >> so it's my problem & i hope the best may win untsoweiter but
> > >> anyway i thought
> > >> it 'd be better if i just mailed this if only to show that Michael
> > >> here's no
> > >> way unique although of course his point is not exactly the same as
> > >> mine only
> > >> somewhat similar thank you dv
> > >>
> > >> -----Original message-----
> > >> From: Michael Szpakowski szpako@yahoo.com
> > >> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:52:13 +0200
> > >> To: rhizome list@rhizome.org
> > >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I know metadata is what's hot, but talking
> > >> commissions
> > >> again..
> > >>
> > >>> HI Lauren, all
> > >>> I wanted to make a very simple suggestion about the
> > >>> commissions process for next year.
> > >>> I don't know whether other folk feel this way but I
> > >>> find one of the great irritations in life is
> > >>> constantly having to write proposals which spell out
> > >>> in very specific terms what one intends do for
> > >>> projects, especially as, for me at least (and I don't
> > >>> think I'm unique by any means here), chance & the
> > >>> unconscious play such a large part in determining the
> > >>> *actual* course of the way work develops.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm prompted to write this by peoples' evident
> > >>> fatigue, expressed here on RAW, at working their way
> > >>> through so much (with all due respect, not meant to be
> > >>> a comment on the content) verbiage, & not really
> > >>> feeling *that* much the wiser in a lot of cases. Of
> > >>> course one could be *super* conscientious & follow up
> > >>> *every* proposal back to its site but I think that is
> > >>> totally unrealistic, for those of us with any sort of
> > >>> a life anyway :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Further I'm convinced that out of the 12 or so (that
> > >>> magic number apparently) I voted for, some are the
> > >>> work of the silver tongued only, & would be crap in
> > >>> practice, and that out of the many I said 'no' to,
> > >>> some would make wonderful work, but that their
> > >>> proposers can't write an interesting or readable
> > >>> proposal. What I'm asserting is that well written
> > >>> proposal doesn't necessarily equal good eventual work
> > >>> & that there is probably not even a statistically
> > >>> significant connection between the two things.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to propose that submissions for next year's
> > >>> commissions consist simply of the artist's name &
> > >>> links to two contrasting works (or documentation of
> > >>> such if there is an offline component) made in the
> > >>> previous year.
> > >>> This would level the playing field considerably but
> > >>> also it would cut out bullshitting - the bottom line
> > >>> is that having made *some* work one is proud of,
> > >>> independently of funding, is surely a sine qua non of
> > >>> being serious as an artist.
> > >>> It also means that for young &/or new artists they
> > >>> would compete on the most *concrete* of terms with
> > >>> "names" -is the work any good?
> > >>> For those unable to make a judgement without bios,
> > >>> artists' statements &c. well you'll have the artists
> > >>> name so these can always be Googled up ...
> > >>>
> > >>> The two contrasting works requirement would by its
> > >>> nature give both an indication of an artist's range &
> > >>> ambition & also how we might expect a commissioned
> > >>> piece to develop.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think this idea would alleviate lots of tedium,
> > >>> enhance community participation both in submissions &
> > >>> voting, no longer as a duty but as a pleasure, & be
> > >>> much more artist friendly.
> > >>> Who knows - it might even catch on elsewhere & how
> > >>> much all our lives would be improved thereby!
> > >>> best
> > >>> michael
> > >>>
> > >>> +
> > >>> -> 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
> > >>>
> > >> +
> > >> -> 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
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lee Wells
> > > Brooklyn, NY 11222
> > >
> > > http://www.leewells.org
> > > http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> > > 917 723 2524
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pall Thayer
> > p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
> > http://www.this.is/pallit
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> +
> -> 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: Stand ByYour Guns
(can't believe this is the post I'm responding too after all these weeks)
IMHO, it's clear from the historical context in which the US
constitution was written that the 2nd amendment is designed to allow
citizens' weaponry in case they need to dislodge a tyrannical gov't by
force.
Some argue that it gives only the states the right to bear arms so
that they could fight a federal gov't that grew too strong, but it
still the purpose is the same.
No mention is made of specific technology because the framers knew
that the technology would change.
PS, I'm not a right-wing wacko. I'm actually very liberal, but
generally disagree with the left as far as the 2nd amendment to the US
constitution is concerned.
On 4/15/06, Miklos Legrady <miklos@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hey Jillian,
>
> Your "Stand By Your Guns" rhizome object is a really sensible piece. Up to 150 years ago, hunting was a necessity for providing food for the table; it made sense we'd encourage kids to learn how to use guns. But now?
>
> As a Canadian, I'm constantly surprised by themisinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's amendment on the right to bear arms. From what I understand it gives citizens the right to weapons from the period; flintlock pistols and rifles, swords... that's it. No mention of assault rifles or machine guns.
>
> Love,
>
> Miklos
> +
> -> 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>
IMHO, it's clear from the historical context in which the US
constitution was written that the 2nd amendment is designed to allow
citizens' weaponry in case they need to dislodge a tyrannical gov't by
force.
Some argue that it gives only the states the right to bear arms so
that they could fight a federal gov't that grew too strong, but it
still the purpose is the same.
No mention is made of specific technology because the framers knew
that the technology would change.
PS, I'm not a right-wing wacko. I'm actually very liberal, but
generally disagree with the left as far as the 2nd amendment to the US
constitution is concerned.
On 4/15/06, Miklos Legrady <miklos@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hey Jillian,
>
> Your "Stand By Your Guns" rhizome object is a really sensible piece. Up to 150 years ago, hunting was a necessity for providing food for the table; it made sense we'd encourage kids to learn how to use guns. But now?
>
> As a Canadian, I'm constantly surprised by themisinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's amendment on the right to bear arms. From what I understand it gives citizens the right to weapons from the period; flintlock pistols and rifles, swords... that's it. No mention of assault rifles or machine guns.
>
> Love,
>
> Miklos
> +
> -> 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: software for recording screen movement?
if you're using Mac OS X the best program is Snapz Pro.
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/
Not cheap, but it does a fantastic job. I used it to create a little
'reel' of MTAA's net art.
On 4/11/06, Jason Nelson <newmediapoet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Excuse my Ignorance....but
>
> I've been asked to translate my work to video. And as many of you know that
> cant be done without losing the essence of the work (interaction). But these
> are the demands so...
>
> Does anyone know of a good program to use that will record my playing with
> the work
> on the screen and then translate that to a video format?
>
> I have used some homemade type programs before, but they are always buggy
> and
> messy.
>
> I can of course film the screen via external camera, but a more direct
> approach would
> be nice.
>
> excuse my ignorance again,
>
>
> Jason Nelson
>
>
> ________________________________
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
>
>
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/
Not cheap, but it does a fantastic job. I used it to create a little
'reel' of MTAA's net art.
On 4/11/06, Jason Nelson <newmediapoet@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Excuse my Ignorance....but
>
> I've been asked to translate my work to video. And as many of you know that
> cant be done without losing the essence of the work (interaction). But these
> are the demands so...
>
> Does anyone know of a good program to use that will record my playing with
> the work
> on the screen and then translate that to a video format?
>
> I have used some homemade type programs before, but they are always buggy
> and
> messy.
>
> I can of course film the screen via external camera, but a more direct
> approach would
> be nice.
>
> excuse my ignorance again,
>
>
> Jason Nelson
>
>
> ________________________________
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
>
>
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Saigon Bar by Rodney Dickson- Friday, 487 Driggs, 7 - 11PM
I think they had a temp version of the bar open a few weeks back, but
it was in the loft above J the P. It brought back some fine memories*
for me as I lived in that same loft years ago and we had lots of
parties. Of course we didn't kick everyone out at midnight.
Llightweights.
:-)
*a vision of my roommate frantically licking coke off my lightbox
after we spilled beer all over it comes to mind, ahhh, sweet naive
youth
On 3/24/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:
>
>
> Please come out and support my good friend Rodney at his temporary bar in
> Williamsburg @ Jack the Pelican. Should be fun.
> The PAM team will be there.
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
> Come And See For Yourself
>
> Jack The Pelican Presents
> 2nd Floor
>
> Saigon Bar
> by
> Rodney Dickson
>
> Me and Billy Bob
> By
> Jillian McDonald
>
> 487 Driggs Avenue
> Williamsburg
> Brooklyn
> New York
> NY 11211
>
> T 646-644-6756
>
> Friday, March 24th, 7 - 11PM.
>
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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>
it was in the loft above J the P. It brought back some fine memories*
for me as I lived in that same loft years ago and we had lots of
parties. Of course we didn't kick everyone out at midnight.
Llightweights.
:-)
*a vision of my roommate frantically licking coke off my lightbox
after we spilled beer all over it comes to mind, ahhh, sweet naive
youth
On 3/24/06, Lee Wells <lee@leewells.org> wrote:
>
>
> Please come out and support my good friend Rodney at his temporary bar in
> Williamsburg @ Jack the Pelican. Should be fun.
> The PAM team will be there.
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
> Come And See For Yourself
>
> Jack The Pelican Presents
> 2nd Floor
>
> Saigon Bar
> by
> Rodney Dickson
>
> Me and Billy Bob
> By
> Jillian McDonald
>
> 487 Driggs Avenue
> Williamsburg
> Brooklyn
> New York
> NY 11211
>
> T 646-644-6756
>
> Friday, March 24th, 7 - 11PM.
>
>
> --
> Lee Wells
> Brooklyn, NY 11222
>
> http://www.leewells.org
> http://www.perpetualartmachine.com
> 917 723 2524
>
> +
> -> 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>
