ARTBASE (3)
PORTFOLIO (2)
BIO
Rob Myers is an artist and hacker based in the UK.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
I have been creating images of the contemporary social and cultural environment through programming, design software and visual remixing since the early 1990s. My work is influenced by popular culture and high art in equal measures. My interest in remixing and sampling has led to my involvement in the Free Culture movement. I have been involved in the public consultation regarding the Creative Commons 2.0 and CC-UK licenses. All my visual art is available under a Creative Commons license.
My interest in programming has led to my involvement with the Free Software movement. I developed the Macintosh version of the Gwydion Dylan programming language compiler. All my software is available under the GNU GPL.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AJAX for artists
On 5 Feb 2006, at 18:45, Plasma Studii wrote:
> which is pretty much my point. client-side technology is generally
> viewed as being more accessible, but really it's mostly hype.
> quite often no significant improvement or simplification over
> server-side.
AJAX is hype, but refreshing or adding content without a page refresh
and without plugin is a genuine advance.
- Rob
> which is pretty much my point. client-side technology is generally
> viewed as being more accessible, but really it's mostly hype.
> quite often no significant improvement or simplification over
> server-side.
AJAX is hype, but refreshing or adding content without a page refresh
and without plugin is a genuine advance.
- Rob
Re: copyright question
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
Quoting Mo Johnston <mo@nyuff.com>:
> i understand copyright but am not clear on how that applies to rhizome.
For countries in the Berne Convention (which includes the USA, Canada
and Europe
amongst many other places) you get copyright automatically on anything you
write, code, draw or film as soon as you make it.
So Rhizome has copyright on the design of their website and the content they
themselves have made, and individual posters and artists have copyright on
their postings and work on the site.
- Rob.
Quoting Mo Johnston <mo@nyuff.com>:
> i understand copyright but am not clear on how that applies to rhizome.
For countries in the Berne Convention (which includes the USA, Canada
and Europe
amongst many other places) you get copyright automatically on anything you
write, code, draw or film as soon as you make it.
So Rhizome has copyright on the design of their website and the content they
themselves have made, and individual posters and artists have copyright on
their postings and work on the site.
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevichpainting using only basic HTML code
On 29 Jan 2006, at 04:15, Eric Dymond wrote:
> Rob Myers wrote:
> Eric Dymond added:
>> Art's target market is humanity.
> That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus
> groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic
> practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
You have to wait a lot of tables to get to your first audition. At no
point in history has art been free of patronage and its distortions.
If capitalism imploded tomorrow, in a thousand years time art of some
kind would still exist and some contemporary art would still be of
interest.
Capitalism would prefer an art free of (any sign of) patronage as it
prefers isolated, self-contained products that can be freely
exchanged. Capitalism's patronage of the arts (or the fact that art
is a tool of capitalist recreation, which amounts to the same thing)
makes art unclean and problematic *for capitalism*. This irony of its
production gives art critical potential.
> Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred
> sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the
> accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily
> commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to
> us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable
> illness.
I personally am on the other side of a fracture from the fracture. It
is an uncertain place, but I have Vermeer, Michaelangelo, the artists
of Lascaux and Art & Language for company.
>> It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
>> run code
>> written for the 2600.
> The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup
> according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that
> there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers
> and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They
> didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.
That is a good point.
>>> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
>>
>> I do. I like humans.
> I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will
> not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.
We cannot predict how, or whether, future humans will be. One of my
fondest hopes is for a feminist SF future of changed social
individuals rather than a mausculinist SF future of kewl gadgets
provided by the wonders of capital.
> We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including
> Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has
> little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like
> Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on
> medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.
I believe that we are. Duchamp described art as "a game played
between all people of all times". Reconnecting with the historical
traditions (and disruptions!) that capitalism wishes us to forget so
that we can forever be resold (and reselling) a "new" that isn't
would be a form of resistance (or whatever).
> It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the
> end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
> And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone
> replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs
> carbon argument?
> And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple
> announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)
Capitalism provides us with many distractions and false promises. All
of which it profits from.
- Rob.
> Rob Myers wrote:
> Eric Dymond added:
>> Art's target market is humanity.
> That is simply not true . Art is currently an industry with focus
> groups and specific demographics. It stopped being a humanistic
> practice a long time ago. It is a tool of capitalist recreation.
You have to wait a lot of tables to get to your first audition. At no
point in history has art been free of patronage and its distortions.
If capitalism imploded tomorrow, in a thousand years time art of some
kind would still exist and some contemporary art would still be of
interest.
Capitalism would prefer an art free of (any sign of) patronage as it
prefers isolated, self-contained products that can be freely
exchanged. Capitalism's patronage of the arts (or the fact that art
is a tool of capitalist recreation, which amounts to the same thing)
makes art unclean and problematic *for capitalism*. This irony of its
production gives art critical potential.
> Mostly I think, like many others , that a fracture occurred
> sometime on the last century. In Virillio he talks about the
> accident ( and how it brings hope for renewal). This is a heavily
> commented area. Due to that fracture, the past isn't available to
> us anymore. Even the nostalgia for the modern any be an incurable
> illness.
I personally am on the other side of a fracture from the fracture. It
is an uncertain place, but I have Vermeer, Michaelangelo, the artists
of Lascaux and Art & Language for company.
>> It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to
>> run code
>> written for the 2600.
> The entire knowledge of the current day will fit in a coffee cup
> according to the CEO of Intel. Memory is meaning. I am sure that
> there will be accommodation. We once kept all the employee numbers
> and info on punch cards, now they are on removable media. They
> didn't retype everything, it was slowly migrated.
That is a good point.
>>> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
>>
>> I do. I like humans.
> I like them too Rob. But I am not naive enough to believe they will
> not be mostly silicone based ( or maybe pure energy) in 500 years.
We cannot predict how, or whether, future humans will be. One of my
fondest hopes is for a feminist SF future of changed social
individuals rather than a mausculinist SF future of kewl gadgets
provided by the wonders of capital.
> We do have to accept the idea that the old art history (including
> Malevich) is a stream that ended, and current digital art has
> little in common with that stream. We can enjoy the old works like
> Malevich, like we enjoy the history channel, or monographs on
> medieval documents. But we are not a part of that process.
I believe that we are. Duchamp described art as "a game played
between all people of all times". Reconnecting with the historical
traditions (and disruptions!) that capitalism wishes us to forget so
that we can forever be resold (and reselling) a "new" that isn't
would be a form of resistance (or whatever).
> It stopped flowing awhile ago. I like the date Dec 31 1969, the
> end of the old era, the beginning of thinking machines.
> And if I get some cloned parts to tide me over until I get silicone
> replacements, then I will be very happy. Is this a silicone vs
> carbon argument?
> And don't you love how net exchanges evolve from simple
> announcements to new entities (the drift of this thread)
Capitalism provides us with many distractions and false promises. All
of which it profits from.
- Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to make a perfect Malevich painting using only basic HTML code
Quoting Eric Dymond <dymond@idirect.ca>:
> I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
> They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to
> targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.
Art's target market is humanity.
> What I am saying here is that here and now..., everything is good, in
> fact it's very good.
Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.
> I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly
> nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD,
> the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and
> will be available in 2600
It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to run code
written for the 2600.
> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
I do. I like humans.
- Rob.
> I don't care about Malevich, I don't care about Rembrandt and Warhol.
> They made artifacts like the dead sea scrolls. Interesting to
> targeted markets, but insignificant to the rest of humanity.
Art's target market is humanity.
> What I am saying here is that here and now..., everything is good, in
> fact it's very good.
Then so is the attitude of caring about Malevich.
> I should add that digital works will last forever, if properly
> nurtured. Like the old movies of the avant-garde re-issued on DVD,
> the current wealth of new media will be accumulated in databases, and
> will be available in 2600
It is incredibly unlikely that systems in 2600 will still be able to run code
written for the 2600.
> ( if humans are still around, and if they aren't .. who cares?).
I do. I like humans.
- Rob.
Re: schizoanalizys
On 19 Jan 2006, at 18:06, miklos@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue
> such as a real or imagined fear of discourse?
The psychoanalysis and social deconstruction of "Theory" would be
kryptonite.
- Rob.
> Don't you think Foucault was projecting unconscious personal issue
> such as a real or imagined fear of discourse?
The psychoanalysis and social deconstruction of "Theory" would be
kryptonite.
- Rob.