Re: Death by Carriage
Death, a moment of slowness
we'll start after a breath
- Mir taqi Mir, 18th c tr fr urdu
-----Original Message-----
From: marc.garrett
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 3:20 AM
Death by Carriage
we'll start after a breath
- Mir taqi Mir, 18th c tr fr urdu
-----Original Message-----
From: marc.garrett
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 3:20 AM
Death by Carriage
Re: Burning Man counterculture seeks social, political influence
Its been there all along (in TW cities), its those fundamentalist
marketers who are prosletyzing since coming out of business schools,
that create junk. Is BM tm any different.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Watson
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:05 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Burning Man counterculture seeks social, political
influence
"This is the influence that needs to go into those Third World cities,
not Coca-Cola and Pepsi," said Angela Layton of Beaver Creek, Ore.
DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Monday, September 1, 2003
(09-01) 14:07 PDT BLACK ROCK DESERT, Nev. (AP) --
marketers who are prosletyzing since coming out of business schools,
that create junk. Is BM tm any different.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Watson
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:05 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Burning Man counterculture seeks social, political
influence
"This is the influence that needs to go into those Third World cities,
not Coca-Cola and Pepsi," said Angela Layton of Beaver Creek, Ore.
DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer Monday, September 1, 2003
(09-01) 14:07 PDT BLACK ROCK DESERT, Nev. (AP) --
FW: RHIZOME_RAW: look at the way TV looks at a monitor
JA:
>Yes, 'they're screaming in Wisconsin' ("Network") and like. Was it
>Wisconsin?
Don't know the background here, but sounds like local v network issue.
>> So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that
>> counts.
>I guess you mean 'enveloping' in the sense of 'containing'.
Yes 'containing' (jargonitis, sneeze!).
>So is the way TV looks at a monitor TV's attempt to contain the
>computer as art medium? Well, no, probably not.
>Interesting to see the
>way that what is shown on the monitor on TV is a plot point, and the
>concentration on narrative. Often what is shown on the monitor is
>presented as a kind of 'objective' verification of the current state of
>the narrative/plot: now we know x. On the rare occassions when we see
>text on the TV in a foregrounded way (not the credits), it is a closeup
>of a sentence or cut-off newspaper or part of a page of a book or
>whatever that verifies and reveals. Some sort of playing with
>ontological status. The computer monitor isn't represented as an art
>medium but as other things, usually, though those representations are
>done in Director or Flash or whatever, ie, done with digital art tools.
>The folks who make the Director stuff that appears on monitors on TV
>seem to be having fun playing with this interesting intermedia zone.
Tv 'containing' the computer. I meant 'contain' descripively rather than
as an verb for the mediums. I also meant this after 'things' have
somewhat settled between the computer/internet and other mediums, which
has not happened yet, as in the case of film and tv. This is exactly why
your initial observation struck a chord, that the people doing stuff on
flash/director are getting to be like a clergy with a superior
ontological-epitemological claim, that is implied in the narratives. I
do hope this role eventually expands, for instance, if tv and its shows
become more interactive. Hence my concern for the potential and 'signs'
for art media.
>> But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
>Not sure what you mean?
I've touched on this in my reference to 'interactivity' in existing or
future media. I was asking about implications for constructed
environments/realities.
I am of course speculating based on thoughts lying somewhere at the back
of my head.
Best wishes
>y
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>Yes, 'they're screaming in Wisconsin' ("Network") and like. Was it
>Wisconsin?
Don't know the background here, but sounds like local v network issue.
>> So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that
>> counts.
>I guess you mean 'enveloping' in the sense of 'containing'.
Yes 'containing' (jargonitis, sneeze!).
>So is the way TV looks at a monitor TV's attempt to contain the
>computer as art medium? Well, no, probably not.
>Interesting to see the
>way that what is shown on the monitor on TV is a plot point, and the
>concentration on narrative. Often what is shown on the monitor is
>presented as a kind of 'objective' verification of the current state of
>the narrative/plot: now we know x. On the rare occassions when we see
>text on the TV in a foregrounded way (not the credits), it is a closeup
>of a sentence or cut-off newspaper or part of a page of a book or
>whatever that verifies and reveals. Some sort of playing with
>ontological status. The computer monitor isn't represented as an art
>medium but as other things, usually, though those representations are
>done in Director or Flash or whatever, ie, done with digital art tools.
>The folks who make the Director stuff that appears on monitors on TV
>seem to be having fun playing with this interesting intermedia zone.
Tv 'containing' the computer. I meant 'contain' descripively rather than
as an verb for the mediums. I also meant this after 'things' have
somewhat settled between the computer/internet and other mediums, which
has not happened yet, as in the case of film and tv. This is exactly why
your initial observation struck a chord, that the people doing stuff on
flash/director are getting to be like a clergy with a superior
ontological-epitemological claim, that is implied in the narratives. I
do hope this role eventually expands, for instance, if tv and its shows
become more interactive. Hence my concern for the potential and 'signs'
for art media.
>> But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
>Not sure what you mean?
I've touched on this in my reference to 'interactivity' in existing or
future media. I was asking about implications for constructed
environments/realities.
I am of course speculating based on thoughts lying somewhere at the back
of my head.
Best wishes
>y
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
FW: Global Spam Remove - Finally
Anyone had any experience with this ? On the face of it I don't buy it
at all. The punctuated string at the end followed by 'ok' ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Oakley [mailto:7r6bspilhy0c@netlane.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: Global Spam Remove - Finally
Tired of Spam? Finally a Spam solution that makes sense!
The "Do Not Spam" List from Global Removal, found at:
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51 can get your email
address removed from HUNDREDS of bulk-email lists.
As seen in national publications - "Global Removal offers
the first truly effective means to stopping SPAM BEFORE
IT IS SENT!!!" (This email was NOT sent by Global Removal)
The reason that you are receiving this email is because
your email address is on one or more email lists that
we send email to on a regular basis. This is a one-time
offer from us for you to remove yourself from our lists
and HUNDREDS of lists of other bulk-emailers.
Our company has recently signed up with Global Removal
to clean our lists. We will be regularly removing email addresses from
our lists that are in the Global Removal database.
If you are you interested in removing yourself from all
of our lists as well as hundreds of other lists, visit:
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51
**********************************
This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301.
Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions
to you by the sender of this email can be stopped at no cost to you.
Screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical
ability. We respect all removal requests including those in the
GlobalRemoval.com database. To be removed our list only
email success_712@yahoo.com
To be removed from our list as well as hundreds of other lists, visit
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51 for more information.
hibecub
noyomhgqlmssk my iv hbppcdltc ok
at all. The punctuated string at the end followed by 'ok' ?
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Oakley [mailto:7r6bspilhy0c@netlane.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: Global Spam Remove - Finally
Tired of Spam? Finally a Spam solution that makes sense!
The "Do Not Spam" List from Global Removal, found at:
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51 can get your email
address removed from HUNDREDS of bulk-email lists.
As seen in national publications - "Global Removal offers
the first truly effective means to stopping SPAM BEFORE
IT IS SENT!!!" (This email was NOT sent by Global Removal)
The reason that you are receiving this email is because
your email address is on one or more email lists that
we send email to on a regular basis. This is a one-time
offer from us for you to remove yourself from our lists
and HUNDREDS of lists of other bulk-emailers.
Our company has recently signed up with Global Removal
to clean our lists. We will be regularly removing email addresses from
our lists that are in the Global Removal database.
If you are you interested in removing yourself from all
of our lists as well as hundreds of other lists, visit:
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51
**********************************
This message is sent in compliance of the new email bill section 301.
Per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S. 1618, further transmissions
to you by the sender of this email can be stopped at no cost to you.
Screening of addresses has been done to the best of our technical
ability. We respect all removal requests including those in the
GlobalRemoval.com database. To be removed our list only
email success_712@yahoo.com
To be removed from our list as well as hundreds of other lists, visit
http://www.GlobalRemoval.com/index.asp?id51 for more information.
hibecub
noyomhgqlmssk my iv hbppcdltc ok
Re: look at the way TV looks at a monitor
Pretty
I had similar thoughts re tv on the big screen, and how it functions in
various situations contexts - often like a live superhiway kind of
supermedium oracle, like a very supportive supermachine connecting
people's living rooms and bedrooms and 'locations on tv' , all over
society. The explanation was that it really is a huge machine, from the
studios to cable and satellite and all.
What you are saying goes a step further in two ways. One you are talking
about computers on tv rather than tv on film, and two, you are talking
about the content of the computer on tv, that it is not so meaningful.
My guess at the latter would be that it ceases to be a computer as a
computer and functions rather as pop perceptions of what the computer
does - hence your 'big visual message indicating, often, the problem to
be dealt with', a criminal database search, missile launch problem...
This while in reality the computer-and-internet, like the tv, has become
something hidden [on tv!], while being a more democratic [than tv]
organism supermedium oracle machine (oops I just remembered matrix),
with much bad advice and cheap astrology re quality.
So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that counts.
But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
>y
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:20 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: look at the way TV looks at a monitor
As with money-related talk, you don't notice until it becomes a point of
interest how often images of computer monitors and what's on them pop up
on TV shows. I guess there's a whole Director biz making work that
appears on TV in this way.
It's interesting to look at the way TV looks at a monitor.
Don't know what sort of generalizations one could make about it. It's
not TV's impression of computer art, usually, but is art pretending to
be data visualization, often. Kind of tantalizing as a subject. One is
often asked to believe that one is not looking at art but at the
interface of some tool/app used by the people in the show. However, the
interfaces are almost always *not* recognizable as tools/apps commonly
used and would never be part of a workable app. Instead, there is
usually some element of big visual message indicating, often, the
problem to be dealt with by the people in the show.
The art is rarely on the monitor; the art is on the screen. Big emphasis
on computer as tool that provides crucial information.
inerestin.
ja
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
I had similar thoughts re tv on the big screen, and how it functions in
various situations contexts - often like a live superhiway kind of
supermedium oracle, like a very supportive supermachine connecting
people's living rooms and bedrooms and 'locations on tv' , all over
society. The explanation was that it really is a huge machine, from the
studios to cable and satellite and all.
What you are saying goes a step further in two ways. One you are talking
about computers on tv rather than tv on film, and two, you are talking
about the content of the computer on tv, that it is not so meaningful.
My guess at the latter would be that it ceases to be a computer as a
computer and functions rather as pop perceptions of what the computer
does - hence your 'big visual message indicating, often, the problem to
be dealt with', a criminal database search, missile launch problem...
This while in reality the computer-and-internet, like the tv, has become
something hidden [on tv!], while being a more democratic [than tv]
organism supermedium oracle machine (oops I just remembered matrix),
with much bad advice and cheap astrology re quality.
So I would argue that it's really the 'enveloping medium' that counts.
But how would you relate to virtuality? as assembled imagination?
>y
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:20 PM
To: list@rhizome.org
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: look at the way TV looks at a monitor
As with money-related talk, you don't notice until it becomes a point of
interest how often images of computer monitors and what's on them pop up
on TV shows. I guess there's a whole Director biz making work that
appears on TV in this way.
It's interesting to look at the way TV looks at a monitor.
Don't know what sort of generalizations one could make about it. It's
not TV's impression of computer art, usually, but is art pretending to
be data visualization, often. Kind of tantalizing as a subject. One is
often asked to believe that one is not looking at art but at the
interface of some tool/app used by the people in the show. However, the
interfaces are almost always *not* recognizable as tools/apps commonly
used and would never be part of a workable app. Instead, there is
usually some element of big visual message indicating, often, the
problem to be dealt with by the people in the show.
The art is rarely on the monitor; the art is on the screen. Big emphasis
on computer as tool that provides crucial information.
inerestin.
ja
+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: list@rhizome.org
-> questions: info@rhizome.org
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php