iTunes Signature Maker

http://digg.com/music/_iTunes_Signature_Maker

right now (12/8/05 @ 15:56 EST) you can find it here:
http://digg.com/

impressive :-) wish I had submitted it to Digg (coz I'm a dork)

good job all around!

--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

http://www.multiverse.net/

Definitely could have net art applications.

From the site:

There are no upfront costs. We only make money when you make money,
and if you never charge a cent, you never have to pay us anything.

Haven't delved in much yet...

--
<twhid>www.mteww.com</twhid>

For Immediate Release: UPCOMING EXHIBITION AT FINE ART IN SPACE Gallery Hours: Monday through Saturday, 9am. to 5pm. Fine Art in Space 10-47 48th Avenue Long Island City, NY 11101 (718) 392-7766
PodART December 9, 2005 - January 17, 2005 at FINE ART IN SPACE Opening Reception: December 9, 2005, 7 to 9pm
Fine Art in Space is pleased to present in collaboration with 31GRAND,the first group exhibition of video art intended to be viewed and soldsolely on the iPod. Apple, the computer of choice by much of the artworld is the inspiration for our new exhibition.
This curatorial exploration was inspired by the introduction of thelatest iPod, which now plays video. In recent years, Video art hasbeen growing rapidly in popularity. Their ongoing introduction of moretechnologically advanced products has resulted in the acceptance andaccessibility of this media. Apple's latest achievements with the iPodhave garnered this art form even more portability.
Artists featured in PodART will include the work of: Gogol Bordello,Jason Clay Lewis, Nelson Loskamp, MTAA, Marisa Olson, EugenioPercossi, Jean Pigozzi, Adam Stennett, Lee Walton, and Jeff Wyckoff.
MTAA is an art duo working on and off-line and are known for theirconceptual and often humorous art projects. Past exhibitions have beenat the New Museum of Contemporary Art, The Getty Research Institute,and Postmasters gallery.
Based in San Francisco, Marisa Olson's work has been commissioned bythe Whitney Museum of American Art and she has most recently performedor exhibited at the New Museum for Contemporary Art, the Berkeley ArtMuseum/Pacific Film Archive, Side Cinema-Newcastle, New Langton Arts,Southern Exposure, Foxy Productions, Debs & Co, Galapagos, FluxFactory, 667 Shotwell, Pond, the international Futuresonic,Electrofringe, Cinemascope-London, Machinista, Scope, and VIPERfestivals, and elsewhere. She has held residencies and fellowships atGoldsmiths, the New School, Northwestern University, the TechnicalUniversity-Dresden, and the Banff Centre for the Arts. Sheparticipated in an exhibition which Artforum highlighted among their"Best of 2004" and while Wired has called her both funny and humorous,the New York Times has called her work "anything but stupid."
Jeff Wyckoff is an artist and scientist whose video work includesintravital imaging, cancer research and often music. Mr. Wyckoff hasan upcoming lecture at MIT in February and exhibitions in Belgrade,Antwerp, and is currently working with the Art and Genome Center inAmsterdam.
Each video object is a limited edition and is sold in iPod formatwith the player.
Press contact: Heather Stephens at gallery31grand@earthlink.net 31GRAND 31 Grand Street Brooklyn, NY 11211 718-388-2858 Gallery hours: F-M, 1pm

Sorry but I tried to post this via the online form to follow the thread
but it doesn't seem to be working... or this is going to dupe.. whatev.

+++

re: need to know programming to be a digital artist?

This has been a discussion around here for a while. Here's a short post
on my blog from.. it's says august of this year, but that can't be
right... oh well the blog is f'd up:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html

In the post I argue that to make the analogy btw 'code' and 'paint' is
faulty. The real analogy is between 'code' and 'form', that is, knowing
programming as a digital artist is akin to knowing 2d formal theory as
a painter (color, shape, line etc).

Obviously a painter doesn't need to understand 2d form to be a painter
(a quick tour of Chelsea will prove that). One doesn't need to know it
to be a *good* painter either (Darger being a somewhat flawed example).
One doesn't need to know programming to be a digital artist. So the
question goes back to what GH said, look at a thing in a larger
discourse (not nm art, not digital art -- but art) and decide if you
think it's good.

But some types of work need programming skills by the artist and even
the audience. I think much net art, if you don't *really* understand
how the Internet works, you won't get. If part of the subject of the
work is computer languages, the Internet or if computation is part of
the work the audience won't understand it if they don't grasp certain
concepts.

I think GH is arguing for a 'big tent' sort of philosophy -- include
everyone working in digital art? But that begs the question if we're
urging folks to remove nm art from the nm ghetto, then why would you
want to be in the tent at all?

On the other hand, there's nothing more annoying than having computer
programmers look at nm or software art and judge it using standards of
programming rather than look at it as art. For example, when Galloway
released Carnivore, it was slashdotted. Many of the geeks there judged
it by it's (to them) rather simple structure ('it's just a wrapper to
some tcp-ip sniffer tool, etc blah, blah, etc'). They obviously missed
the point.

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

This has been a discussion around here for a while. Here's a short post on my blog from.. it's says august of this year, but that can't be right... oh well the blog is f'd up:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html

In the post I argue that to make the analogy btw 'code' and 'paint' is faulty. The real analogy is between 'code' and 'form', that is, knowing programming as a digital artist is akin to knowing 2d formal theory as a painter (color, shape, line etc).

Obviously a painter doesn't need to understand 2d form to be a painter (a quick tour of Chelsea will prove that). One doesn't need to know it to be a good painter either (Darger being a somewhat flawed example). One doesn't need to know programming to be a digital artist. So the question goes back to what GH said, look at a thing in a larger discourse (not nm art, not digital art -- but art) and decide if you think it's good.

But some types of work need programming skills by the artist and even the audience. I think much net art, if you don't *really* understand how the Internet works, you won't get it. If part of the subject of the work is computer languages, the Internet or if computation is part of the work the audience won't understand it if they don't grasp these concepts.

I think GH is arguing for a 'big tent' sort of philosophy -- include everyone working in digital art? But that begs the question if we're urging folks to remove nm art from the nm ghetto, then why would you want to be in the tent at all?

On the other hand, there's nothing more annoying than having computer programmers look at nm or software art and judge it using standards of programming rather than look at it as art. For example, when Galloway released Carnivore, it was slashdotted. Many of the geeks there judged it by it's (to them) rather simple structure ('it's just a wrapper to some tcp-ip sniffer tool, etc blah, blah, etc'). They obviously missed the point.

Rob Myers wrote:

> On 10 Nov 2005, at 18:47, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
>
> > Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
> > and perception.
>
> Unless you are creating a program to make art. Painting and art are
> two different modes of thinking and perception. Otherwise every wall
> is a masterpiece.
>
> > When you write a program you already know what the result will be.
>
> Even for a functional program like Emacs this is not the case. And
> for art hacking it may certainly not be the case. Software may, and
> often will, be unexpected. Only corporate managerialism prevents this.
>
> > Art doesn't function in the same way.
>
> It depends what kind of art.
>
> > Often an artist uses chance and accidents to create new ways of
> > thinking and perception.
>
> This is the same as programming. A complex program will make demands
> and afford possibilities during development that could not be
> predicted.
>
> > Art is an ongoing cultural discussion.
>
> As is computing. If there are domains outside cultural discussion,
> this would be a very interesting phenomenon.
>
> > Computer art, digital art etc. needs to engage in the larger
> > cultural discourse.
>
> The larger "discourse" needs to take notice of computer/digital
> culture *and its content*.
>
> > Your statements about "good or bad" painting/computer art begs the
> > question who is the judge?
>
> Why? If standards are established, any competent individual can
> judge. Unless we are assuming an institutional theory of art, in
> which case computing can simply be nominated as art.
>
> > Usually in a larger cultural discourse there is an ongoing debate
> > about what constitutes "good" art.
>
> Yes, the market demands this. If each season doesn't bring new
> fashions, sales will drop.
>
> > I find the insistence by some in the digital art realm that only
> > people who know programming are truly digital artists to be rather
> > narrow minded.
>
> Why? If someone who did not know about the support structures of art
> made pronouncements on support structures their ignorance would not
> be a badge of honor.
>
> > The "who signs the checks" question is really amusing. Think about
> > what the support structures are for art. You have collectors,
> > museums, and governments. You can add the University and Academic
> > realm as a support structure for art. Right now digital art has the
>
> > most support from the Academic structure. In other words you get a
>
> > teaching job.
>
> This puts digital art on a par with science, literature and
> "critical" "discourse". Hardly a bad thing.
>
> > Once the novelty of using computers in art works wears off (which
> > it has ) the question becomes how does digital art challenge and
> > advance the art discourse.
>
> For people who are interested in "challenge, "discourse" and
> "advance". But there are more serious concerns for an art that
> regards itself as not simply a lackspace for the projection of the
> critical/market ego into.
>
> > That's a much larger dscussion than whether someone knows
> > programming or how a computer repaints a screen.
>
> But it is a different discussion. I can't decide whether trying to
> bring art computing to its heel is parochial or imperialistic.
>
> - Rob.