On Jul 7, 2004, at 2:49 PM, Jason Van Anden wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> Are you actually suggesting a Re-Re-Blog? It seems to me that Re-Blog
> does a really great job at what it does, so why would we need another?
> I don't see how a Rhizome Re-Blog would taste any different than the
> Eyebeam flavored one - the topics of interest are pretty much the
> same. The only obvious difference to me is the effect of many super
> users moderating instead of one rotating one.
>
> What if they endlessly Re-Blogged into one another?
>

Haha! M.River had that same idea for an RSS sculpture. It would work
like this:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/mriver/rsssculpture.html

it's a brilliant idea :-)

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

Dyske's comments are right on the money IMO.

On Jul 6, 2004, at 10:05 AM, Dyske Suematsu wrote:

> Let me avoid a confusion, and use the word "list" or "email list"
> instead of
> "board", because the latter is a medium of its own (generally
> web-based).
>
> I don't see the "ego" argument in this context. Ego is certainly the
> motive
> for both an email list and a blog (and a board). I do not believe that
> a
> blog is fueled more by ego than a list is. In many ways, a list is more
> ego-fueled since it is a "push" medium. You are pushing your message to
> people who may not be interested in what you have to say. I find a
> blog to
> be less egotistical because only those who are actually interested in
> what
> you have to say would come visit. It is less intrusive and less
> presumptuous.

we're talking about artists here, right? Isn't ego the basis of all
their actions ;-)

My thoughts regarding 'art blogging' are here:

http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/art\_blogs.html

I'll pull one quote:

Since it's very easy to update the site I just post things there all
the time that I might email to either my collaborator M.River or post
to a discussion list like Rhizome. I was very active on the Rhizome
list for many years but I like the blog better. Discussions started on
the blog are less likely to devolve into flame wars and it's less
aggressive. If people want to read my opinions and thoughts the site is
passively waiting for them to visit, my ideas don't wind up in people's
in-boxes. Plus, after Rhizome switched to a fee-based membership I
decided that any extended writings of mine needed to be freely
accessible via the Internet.

>
> On my last post, I provided a link for those who actually read my
> post. So
> far 13 people have read it.

I'm still superuser (for now) maybe I should post it to RARE?

> <snip>
>
> Best,
> Dyske

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

I agree, 'Snap to Grid' sounds more like 'Pay the Rent'

But, it's not like this in every creative field however.

Few filmmakers think twice before submitting their work to film
festivals which almost always require a fee.

Also, most professional designers and illustrators enter competitions
hosted either by for-profit magazines and other industry groups which
always require fees.

What's the diff?

Well, if you enter a competition like Sundance FF or Toronto FF and you
get in, you're guaranteed a good amount of media exposure in the film
industry and likewise with design and illo contests hosted by industry
mags and groups like Print, How, Art Directors Guild etc.

Most art exhibitions don't deliver this sort of exposure and the one's
with the highest exposure either don't require fees or don't don't even
have a call for entries. I personally haven't paid a fee for an art
competition since I was in college. It's money flushed down the toilet.

On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Christina McPhee wrote:

> Dear Vasily and rhizomers,
>
> I agree. You put it very bluntly. Thanks for making the point so
> strongly.
>
> Christina
>
>
>
> On 7/6/04 12:14 PM, "vasily" <staff11@c-e-n-t-e-r.com> wrote:
>
>> It's time to make things clear regarding "art events" with a $$$
>> submission
>> fee. We can see
>> invitations form film & video festivals, galleries, fairs, etc. Most
>> of them
>> demanding $$$ for so called "entry", "registration", or "processing"
>> fee. It's
>> not an art event. It's reminds me a car dealership with their
>> "processing"
>> fees and "destination" charges. Musicians call this type of gigs "Pay
>> to Play"
>> situation. It's when a promoter asking a band to buy at least 50
>> tickets to
>> their own concert. I suggests that artists never pay any money for
>> showing
>> their work. Are you so desperate for exposure or just stupid to be
>> sold on
>> this "entry" fee scams? Better spend your hard earned money on
>> tools, web
>> site, or new pair of shoes.
>>
>> vasily
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Christina McPhee wrote:
>>
>>> This call for entries has a pretty large fee attached just to enter,
>>> no
>>> jurors are mentioned, the turn around time is very short, the
>>> curatorial
>>> position is not stated, the print work is done for profit. Fair
>>> enough, and
>>> this is much like the hundreds and hundreds of calls of this type for
>>> artists in painting, drawing, traditional printmaking etc. But it
>>> surprised
>>> me to see rhizome putting this on rare. In the conventional art world
>>> these
>>> kinds of competitions indicate a competition that is funded by the
>>> artists
>>> entry fees, so that the bottom line is that the artists are funding
>>> the
>>> event without contributing to shaping or producing the event. One of
>>> the
>>> things that most attracted me to new media and the rhizome iist was
>>> the near
>>> total absence of this kind of call.
>>> Any comment? Maybe someone in the Rhizome community has worked with
>>> these
>>> folks and can recommend them? I hope its legit.
>>>
>>> c
>>>
>>>
>>> and yetOn 7/5/04 10:33 PM, "Rex Bruce" <rexbruce@lacda.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To view this entire thread, click here:
>>>> http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread786&text&265#26265
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/safari.html

HEY!

wooo-hoooo :-) Too bad it's not available sooner...

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

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

Darkrooms going the way of egg tempera?

Before oil painting was invented the state-of-the-art of painting was
egg tempera. Egg tempera uses egg yolk as a binder and vehicle for the
pigment and is a very unforgiving medium to paint with. You don't find
many artists working with this medium because you can get (more or
less) the same effect using oil paint which is cheaper, easier and
faster. Once oil painting was invented most painters started using the
superior medium (it was a gradual process of course, things moved very
slowly in 15th century europe).

Strange thing is, you can still find people using egg tempera (there is
even a Society of Tempera Painters) though it's an archaic,
technically-dead medium practiced by the sort of people you'd find
playing dress-up at a renaissance fair.

With the help of digital photography darkroom photo printing seems to
be heading the way of egg tempera (according to the NYTimes.com).

<quote>
[...] Mr. Megargee hopes that the darkroom will endure. "Platinum
printing is still around, despite the convenience of silver printing,"
he said. "What we do in the lab here, in 15 years, may be a very
specialized area, like platinum printing. But it will still be viable.
I don't see the craft not being here."
</quote>

Is darkroom printing fast becoming a dead technique practiced by a few
die-hard revivalists?

--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>