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: Burning Down The House
> On 26 May 2004, at 17:45, t.whid wrote:
>
>> HAHA, destruction of art -- really funny!
>
> The Chapmans have defaced Goya prints to make publicity -er- their
> art. How funny was that?
Print = multiple, hence the destruction isn't as much of a loss as
one-of-a-kinds being destroyed.
But, I wouldn't defend that art practice. It does seem fairly stupid.
(and a conceptual rip-off of Rauchenberg's erased deKooning)
On the other hand, a conceptual gesture in the cause of art doesn't
equate to accidental (or purposeful if it was an insurance scam)
wholesale destruction of one-of-a-kind artworks which are now lost
forever.
>
>> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
>> good stuff.
>
> Straw man and premature intrusion of Godwin's law aside, it isn't much
> of a loss. The works are all series or recycled one-liners. That
> adman's latrine has stunk out British art for far too long. I'm just
> worried some Raes, Caulfields or early Hirsts may have been lost as
> well.
of course! destruction of art you don't like doesn't really matter,
such an obviously rational position.
You don't see the danger in that sort of thinking? Seems fairly obvious
to me. To bad there weren't any 'bad' books on the blaze either, aye?
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Re: Burning Down The House
Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the good stuff.
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael Szpakowski
> <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The best thing about it was on last night's ten
> >o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
> >we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
> >on the main nightly news) said something like "when
> >the history of art in our time comes to be written
> >this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
>
> That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris paintings were lost, our
> legacy is safe. :-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and
below:
On May 24, 2004, at 3:11 PM, ryan griffis wrote:
>> I undestand the push for removing the $5 but I dont think it would
>> solve the underlying questions, if the choice is an org which is
>> dependent on unaccountable trust funds or membership based, the
>> latter is so much more what this whole community is about.
>
> certainly, i don't think t.whid's initial question was about "to pay
> or not to pay." i think the idea is that for those of us who consider
> ourselves invested in Rhizome as an activity/forum, it would be great
> if it could be expanded for temporary publics that may not be
> interested in Rhizome as a long term community or as a participant,
> but may have short term interests (research, curiosity, etc.).
Ryan is correct. I don't think the fee is evil or bad, in fact, i think
everyone should all donate by a factor of 5x the current fee (at
least).
What is bad is that it locks down the free-flow of info. By all means
have a fee with features attached that don't interfere with free
linkage.
But, as Curt pointed out, you *can* link to individual articles. I
tested this and it seems to be true (Francis please confirm). If you go
here http://x-arn.org/artnode/ you can see a list of fresh texts (click
Rhizome Fresh Texts) and you can also link to an RSS feed of these
fresh texts.
If you click on the links from the web site you go directly to the Rhiz
article whether you're logged in or not. (For some reason when
following links from my news reader I can't go directly to the article
:( i go to the log-in screen )
I was wrong, it seems anyone can link to any article and anyone can
follow those links to the articles as long as the referrer isn't
Rhizome or if the referrer doesn't exist. Is that how it works?
The problem then, isn't IF you can link to Rhiz articles, it's that
Rhiz doesn't seem to want non-members to link to Rhiz articles because
they make it hard to do so by not providing the tools (RSS feeds with
subjects/descriptions of articles).
For example, if I'm a non-member of Rhizome, how do I decide I would
like to link to an article on the home page? I see the headline, I see
a short description, but I can't read the entire thing to decide..
unless someone (other than Rhiz) provides me with a link.. or I make it
myself..
This is just kinda nutty functionality (i understand it was a
compromise): only people other than Rhiz can provide access to
non-members.
+++
or perhaps this is me just whining because I want a fully functioning
Rhizome Raw in my news reader so I can clear out my email box ;-)
> This is not a matter of whether members would/should pay for
> supporting something they are part of, but is rather about WHAT
> members are paying for. hence t.whid's concern about linking and the
> future posterity of Rhizome as an active resource. Anyway, many
> arguments about logistics and needs/desires could be made, and i'm not
> making any at the moment (though those desiring feeds have my ear),
> but i think it's important to not take the discussion back to the $5
> argument, as i don't think anyone is wanting to financially desert
> Rhizome.
> best,
> ryan
>
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Re: Rhizome needs to drop its membership fee andfree its content
> hey m.
>
> well, only indirectly m.
>
> to maintain equilibrium, servers are supported by the served. thus has
> it
> been, in one form or another, since ancient times.
>
> you'll pay a few quid to visit the cinema or a gallery. why should
> this be any
> different?
I outlined pretty clearly (IMHO) why it's different. Rhizome will rot
behind this fee if it continues to stand. I want Rhizome to flourish.
The content needs to be free for it to be an equal node on the web,
otherwise, it will start to be ignored. I'm afraid it's happening
already. Being a RSS/blog addict, the only presence I see Rhizome
having in that area is net art news. People don't link to Rhizome
articles because they can't. This can't be helpful to Rhizome.
I think the increased audience which would come with opening it up may
be able to cover the obligatory memberships with donations. Maybe there
are 'premium' features for folks who donate (you can post to the list
and events). I'm not unsympathetic to the funding question, but keeping
the content behind this fee needs to stop. Other ways to fund Rhiz need
to be identified.
>
> r.
>
>
>
> marc <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> With respect - the comments before actually were about net art, about
>> part of its potential 'existing' future - how it will be seen by other
>> people other than Rhizome's current members, and contributors. It is a
>> very important issue for many net artists around the world - and yes,
>> it
>> does get tedious...but not because the all the 'many' people who are
>> trying to be heard keep discussing it, but because nothing is ever
>> done
>> about it...by those who can do something about it.
>>
>> T.Whid is right in bringing it up - he's not being a whinger. In fact,
>> he's definately one of the most dedicated Rhizome users here - so let
>> his voice and other voices be heard, it's important.
>>
>> marc
>>
>>
>>
>>> Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Paid membership has two advantages:
>>>>
>>>> 1. It keeps trolls and spammers at bay.
>>>> 2. It provides a revenue stream. Servers don't pay for themselves.
>>>>
>>>> How is it proposed that a costless Rhizome would keep or replace
>>>> these
>>>> advantages?
>>>>
>>>> - Rob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> yep, that's the first reply to this thread i've read that makes any
>>> sense.
>> and
>>> the shortest too [i think].
>>>
>>> y'all could have earned $5 each in the time you've taken to bandy
>>> this ball
>>> back and forth. more probably.
>>>
>>> can we get back to the net.art now people?
>>>
>>> r.
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
re: Rhizome needs to drop its membership fee and free its content
forgot to provide a link:
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/free_rhiz.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
