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
SNAD readme March 2006
16" x 20" framed print of MTAA's Simple Net Art Diagram (SNAD) for 625
USD. The weird part is that you could, at this very moment, download
the SNAD digital graphic file from this site, blow it up into a 16" x
20" graphics file using any number of popular graphics editing
programs, take it to a printer and then to a frame shop and have the
exact same thing that we're selling. This process will cost you less
than 625 USD (it would run you under $250, depending on your choice of
frame of course, we suggest something heavily and deeply carved with
lots of gold leaf).
Actually, that's exactly how we created the print we're selling.
M.River downloaded the Illustrator version from the web, imported it
into a 16" x 20" Photoshop document, scaled it to fit comfortably in
the frame of reference and then sent it off to a digital output joint.
So. What's the deal?
more at:
http://www.mtaa.net/mtaaRR/news/mriver/snad_readme_for_march_2006.html
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Wired on Joshua Davis
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/joshdavis.html
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Naked Code
as opposed to production projects.
They two grants that I know of that require this are both research
grants. They are funding the development of IP and being charitable
non-profit types of orgs, want to share that IP. This seems completely
reasonable to me.
Other granters that fund production don't have these requirements.
They understand that they are funding an artist to create a work and
it would be unreasonable to require this if that would diminish
significantly the value of the final work.
On 2/23/06, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
> Let's reel it in even more - eliminate the word "trend" from the discussion
> as well as any personal feelings an artist may have that might make him
> uninterested in exposing his code.
>
> By initiating this discussion I was hoping to get feedback about the logic
> (and fairness) of requiring an artist who is applying for funding to make
> art (that uses technology) to abide by the terms described here
> http://www.opensource.org/ simply because the material they use (code)
> allows this to happen.
>
> It sounds to me like some of us feel its fair and good - and some do not.
>
>
> Jason Van Anden
> www.smileproject.com
>
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Naked Code
off track with folks implying some communist intent to OSS and
whatnot. Replying to the original question from Jason:
On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
> Does anyone else get a bit creeped out by being required to expose their
> code in order to receive financial support?
Jason is 'creeped out' but in the discussion that followed admitted
that, of course, no one's forcing him to apply for grants that require
source code to be open. (Of course one could argue that in the US
where the funding for arts is extremely paltry, one is almost forced
to try to get any grants that are available and one could also argue
that in the new media art world, where the market for the work is so
small, grant awards are one very important way to polish one's resume,
but I wont)
I still don't get why he's creeped out... the only reason I am
reluctant to os my code sometimes is because I'm a shitty self-taught
programmer and I don't think anyone could really glean anything from
my pathetic meat-cleaver code anyway... but nonetheless I try to do
it. Who knows who it will help? Perhaps it will provide at least some
amusement for someone...
>
> I recently decided against applying for a few new media grants because of
> they required that the code/technology be open sourced. Please don't assume
> that I am suggesting that open source is a bad thing. Its the requirement
> that I find a strange and upsetting trend.
>
I don't think it's fair that Jason says this trend exists but fails to
make the case for a trend. I think I know a bit about funding for new
media and I can think of only one that requires this: Eyebeam's
fellowship program. If this is a *trend* then there must be more than
ONE. What are they? Two of the biggest new media grants, Creative
Capital and the Rockefeller new media grant (can't remember it's new
name) don't require this.
But even if it were a trend, which I'm not sure it is, I'm curious to
know what'st upsetting about it? You really haven't voiced why it
makes you so uncomfortable, except that it's yours and you don't want
to and alluding to the notion that there could be some commercial
applications for it. (There could be ways around it by closing off
some of the source and using it as a component or something: black box
it.. but that would be extra work obviousely.)
But to be fair to Jason, he's worked on some of his code for years. It
does seem somewhat unfair that he be forced to give up all that
intellectual property for what could amount to a relatively measly
amount of money. Perhaps you should look into these (mystery) grants
more closely. Most funding agencies MTAA has worked with have been
extremely open and liberal. They might only want you to os the code
that was created exclusively for the project they're funding...
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
Re: Naked Code
code is deeply flawed.
I can't think of any analogies that would work btw traditional art
making... except perhaps, a mold for a sculpture? original template
for a print?
That may work but most artists working in those mediums wouldn't dream
of allowing those things to be let loose in the wild since forgeries
would be produced.
Forgeries don't seem to be what Jason is weary of.
On 2/22/06, Jason Van Anden <jason@smileproject.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> The tone of your email sounds like you are a little disturbed with my tone -
> hopefully this will clear things up:
>
> > jva> 1.) Overhead: aka documenting the code. As Jim Andrews points out,
> open
> > jva> source is only useful to others if the code is legible and well
> documented -
> > jva> which requires extra effort on its creator's behalf. This is work.
> Perhaps
> > jva> its selfish - but golly, what a drag.
> >
> > rm> If your code is unreadable to others it will be unreadable to you
> soon, and this
> > rm> will be more work for you if you ever want to show the work again for
> another grant.
>
>
> I don't agree with you that if my code is unreadable to the public that it
> will eventually be unreadable to me. I have the benefit of accumulated
> experience and an intimate understanding of my own process.
>
> jva> 2.) What is the benefit to the artist? Is it a good thing to enable
> others
> jva> to easily create derivative works based upon your labors? Am I being
> funded
> jva> to be a teacher or an artist?
>
> rm> You are being paid to contribute to the cultural wealth of the
> community.
>
> Am I not already doing this by creating the work of art?
>
> jva> 3.) My code is my code. I love my code - I mean love it. I like to
> tinker
> jva> with it, play with it, do whatever I please with it. What if I don't
> want to share it?
>
> rm> Don't apply for public funding then.
>
> I didn't - which was partly my reason for bringing up this topic.
>
> jva> Its mine.
>
> rm> Hardly. If scientists or painters took this view we'd be stuck with
> medicinal
> rm> leeches and cave art.
>
> No question I have personally benefited from looking at the sketchbooks of
> Picasso, Leonardo and Van Gogh, or watching film of Pollack painting, or
> listening to numerous interviews with artists. None of these artifacts of
> process require the amount of effort that deliberately documenting source
> code for public consumption requires. It is not as if I do not contribute -
> I regularly exhibit art work publicly that I rarely get financially
> compensated for, I have published articles I do not get paid to write, and I
> invest time in public discussions such as this to encourage thought about an
> art form I am devoted to.
>
> jva> As far as I am concerned - I share the output - the
> jva> process belongs to me. (For the record, I have made some of my code
> publicly
> jva> available - not that anyone was really that interested).
> jva>
> jva> These are mostly personal - but so is making art. Why is new media
> jva> different? I am not sure that because we create using a readable
> language
> jva> it should be a requirement that we share it.
> jva>
> jva> Is the art not enough?
>
> rm> Only part of the art is not enough, and paying for a romantic creative
> rm> genius to deign to share a few leftovers from the feast we provide is
> not a good use of
> rm> funding.
>
> I think my response to leeches and cave art above covers this.
>
> Jason Van Anden
> http://www.smileproject.com
--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>
