www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Doubledigest: Are we all just ...One year After... [2x2]
nettime's bifurcated tuber on Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:42:52 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Doubledigest: Are we all just ...One year After... [2x2]



Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> Are we all just net.art?                                          
     "porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>                                                

   Re: <nettime> Are we all just net.art?                                          
     Jorn Ebner <j.ebner {AT} britishlibrary.net>                                         

   Re: <nettime> One year After Rhizome                                            
     Sawad <sawad {AT} utensil.net>                                                       

   Re: <nettime> One year After Rhizome                                            
     Vladimir Kovacevic <afterrhizome {AT} ilse.nl>                                       



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 17:34:04 +0100
From: "porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Are we all just net.art?

> Are we all some extreme form of existential net.art?

at the old good time of the time of virtual space ? when an ugly virilio
was staring the 3th of reanimator moviez in forgetting 3 geneticaly modified
green dollarz in a flashy dotcom server & find millions ones just in opened
it the day after as magical magots & mushroom in a fridge of a forensic
surgeon back from 2 month of holyday? is it what you think in our extreme
form ? i remember reading mark tribe telling then he understood this virtual
tiny green pound where live those tadpole was under an inflexible sun it was
time to become carnivore, i mean canibal, you know hombre when you cant
change the world & cant paint it to your color you said it's just waiting
for you for billion years & you are its messa or it's genetically assomption
if you play darwin & you could say golf war dont take place but you only you
as madame de pompadour..er beg me i wonder if i am quite clear, for being
less elyptique i could be flattered you call me asshole, a tiny or even an
extreme one, after all it's a destiny along which i bet even aristotle could
imagine it's possible to share a tasty philosophie with your neigbor but
dont treat me of netart virtual thing, it's a spray that never could
dematerialize even a flea or a mosquito, that even cant prevent to stink
under the arm, so imagine the very very low proctologic existential
performance


------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 01:30:50 +0000
From: Jorn Ebner <j.ebner {AT} britishlibrary.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Are we all just net.art?


- --Apple-Mail-2--196397060
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

it is also similar to the theories of de Selby, a philosopher / 
scientist who is extensively quoted in Flann O'Brien's "The Third 
Policeman". According to de Selby, night is an accumulation of dark 
particles.  Quote from a discoursive footnote:

"This is hardly to be wondered at since he held (a) that darkness was 
simply an accretion of  'black air', i.e., a staining of the atmosphere 
due to volcanic eruptions too fine to be seen  with the naked eye and 
also to certain 'regrettable' industrial activities involving coal-tar 
by-products and vegetable dyes; and (b) that sleep was simply a 
succession of fainting-fits  brought on by semi-asphyxiation due to 
(a).  Hatchjaw brings forward his rather facile and  ever-ready theory 
of forgery, pointing to certain unfamiliar syntactical constructions in 
the  first part of the third so called 'prosecanto' in Golden Hours. He 
does not, however, suggest that there is anything spurious in de 
Selby's equally damaging rhodomontade in the Layman's  Atlas where he 
inveighs savagely against 'the insanitary conditions prevailing 
everywhere  after six o'clock' and makes the famous gaffe that death is 
merely 'the collapse of the  heart from the strain of a lifetime of 
fits and fainting'."



jorn



Am Freitag, 13.02.04 um 06:32 Uhr schrieb Karim Brohi:

>
>
> Are we all some extreme form of existential net.art?  or merely 
> characters
> in some wickedly complex Toy Story movie?
>
> The latest darling theory of quantum physicists and cosmologists is 
> 'Loop
> Quantum Gravity', which attempts/claims to be THE ANSWER - the 
> unification
> of quantum physics and general relativity (ie, space, time & gravity). 
>  Loop
> quantum gravity basically states that space is not continuous but is 
> made up
> of discrete units.  These units (loops) are about 10^(-35) metres on 
> each
> side.  (There are more loops in one cubic centimetre of space than 
> there are
> cubic centimetres in the universe). Similarly, time is not analog but 
> made
> of discrete time quanta, each about 10^(-43) seconds long.
>
> Now to me, little units of space sound like 'pixels', and little units 
> of
> time sound like 'frames' in an animation.  Are we all digital art??  
> If so,
> what happens at the end of the movie?  Do the hyperdimensional beings
> watching it throw their popcorn on the floor and go and eat a
> hyperdimensional pizza (a slice for everyone!)
>
> ??
>
> Karim
>
> #  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> #  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> #  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> #  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg 
> body
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net
>


- --Apple-Mail-2--196397060
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param>it is also similar to the theories of
de Selby, a philosopher / scientist who is extensively quoted in Flann
O'Brien's "The Third Policeman". According to de Selby, night is an
accumulation of dark particles.  Quote from a discoursive footnote:


<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>"This is hardly to be wondered at
since he held (a) that darkness was simply an accretion of  'black
air', i.e., a staining of the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions too
fine to be seen  with the naked eye and also to certain 'regrettable'
industrial activities involving coal-tar by-products and vegetable
dyes; and (b) that sleep was simply a succession of fainting-fits 
brought on by semi-asphyxiation due to (a).  Hatchjaw brings forward
his rather facile and  ever-ready theory of forgery, pointing to
certain unfamiliar syntactical constructions in the  first part of the
third so called 'prosecanto' in Golden Hours. He does not, however,
suggest that there is anything spurious in de Selby's equally damaging
rhodomontade in the Layman's  Atlas where he inveighs savagely against
'the insanitary conditions prevailing everywhere  after six o'clock'
and makes the famous gaffe that death is merely 'the collapse of the 
heart from the strain of a lifetime of fits and fainting'."</color>




jorn</fontfamily>




Am Freitag, 13.02.04 um 06:32 Uhr schrieb Karim Brohi:


<excerpt>


Are we all some extreme form of existential net.art?  or merely
characters

in some wickedly complex Toy Story movie?


The latest darling theory of quantum physicists and cosmologists is
'Loop

Quantum Gravity', which attempts/claims to be THE ANSWER - the
unification

of quantum physics and general relativity (ie, space, time & gravity). 
Loop

quantum gravity basically states that space is not continuous but is
made up

of discrete units.  These units (loops) are about 10^(-35) metres on
each

side.  (There are more loops in one cubic centimetre of space than
there are

cubic centimetres in the universe). Similarly, time is not analog but
made

of discrete time quanta, each about 10^(-43) seconds long.


Now to me, little units of space sound like 'pixels', and little units
of

time sound like 'frames' in an animation.  Are we all digital art?? 
If so,

what happens at the end of the movie?  Do the hyperdimensional beings

watching it throw their popcorn on the floor and go and eat a

hyperdimensional pizza (a slice for everyone!)


??


Karim


#  distributed via <<nettime>: no commercial use without permission

#  <<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,

#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets

#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg
body

#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net


</excerpt>


- --Apple-Mail-2--196397060--


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:37:10 -0500
From: Sawad <sawad {AT} utensil.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> One year After Rhizome


Free the artbase.



------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:00:04 +0100 (CET)
From: Vladimir Kovacevic <afterrhizome {AT} ilse.nl>
Subject: Re: <nettime> One year After Rhizome

Tobias,

> > Yes, as long as the work is linked the legal status of the artwork
> > remains with the artist. I agree fully with you. It becomes
> > different as soon as Rhizome starts to host the artwork. The
> > status of the artwork becomes the same as texts submitted to
> > Rhizome. What means: You grant Rhizome.org a non-exclusive,
> > worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual license to: (i) store Your
> > Content on Rhizome.org's servers; (ii) distribute Your Content on
> > the Rhizome.org web site and through email lists; and (iii)
> > reproduce, publish, perform, display, adapt, distribute or
> > otherwise make available Your Content in web sites, books, CD-ROMs
> > or any other form or medium whatsoever, whether now known or as
> > may hereafter be developed." What means that Rhizome can do what
> it wants with your work.
> 
> As far as I understand it (and if I am wrong, please correct me),
> this license simply means that the artist grants Rhizome the
> permission to store the work, and in the future, reproduce it in
> various fashions (I see this as inscribing legally the technical
> difficulty we face in archiving digital art for the future). Which
> would be the point if Rhizome is aiming for some kind of an online
> museum; it guarantees the work after the artist's death (given that
> Rhizome is still around). The license doesn't stop the artist, for
> example, from licensing or storing the work elsewhere, selling it
> elsewhere, modifying it, etc. Other contracts, in fact, are much
> more stringent. This is a very open contract--hence the
> 'non-exclusive' bit. In exchange for Rhizome hosting your work, in
> perpetuity, they get the right to show it around, and you get the
> right to do whatever you want with it. This seems fair to me.
> Moreover, I am very much in favour of the 'perform, display, adapt'
> bit, as it seems to me that it intuitively treats digital art as 
> sampledelic, as bits and bytes that can be used in new art, and, it
> also addresses the tricky issue of (re)presenting the work, insofar
> as a work may be 'excerpted', just as a text is used in citation.

What you say above is correct. But the problem is that Rhizome also
can do what they want with the material that is on their server. In
earlier nettime threads about the membership contract this became
clear. In my analysis last year I came up with this example: You
posted several mails in which you explained your ideas to the Rhizome
mailinglist as part of a discussion. Six years later Rhizome is asked
to publish a book and they decide to include your material. According
to the Rhizome Membership Agreement, they don't have to ask you for
permission to put your old ideas in the book, also they don't have to
pay you anything for your text although they might get a lot of money
for it, even worse they even don't have to inform you that you are in
the book. The problem with the whole Membership agreement comes down
to the fact that you loose (in theory) all rights of your work,
writing, etc as soon as it is on their server. On the other hand you
still can do what you want with it, but they also can do what they
want with it. In the sense that they can make money with ideas you did
post but you don't like anymore. In practice the situation can of 
course be different.


> 
> What would please me would be attaching to this contract a Creative
> Commons License or GPL. For the artist, this could be done by simply
> incorporating it into the art itself. This would ensure that no
> (re)productions, alterations, etc., could be performed or
> distributed that levy profit. Open source art.

I fully agree with this idea.

> 
> The question then would be interesting -- would a GPL-style license
> forbid Rhizome from charging access to view the piece? Could Rhizome
> accept GPL-style art? Or does it simply mean that no one can make
> profit _from_the art, in its sampling, etc?
>

The questions you raise are very interesting. I think the problem
with Rhizome is that on one hand they want to include as much as
possible (so also open source) and on the other hand that they want
you to pay for their services. This ideas are conflicting and in
the end will always work out negative. What annoys me most is that
that the paid service was built on the work of many people that
contributed for free. So on the start of the paid service they already
had an enormous database of material. I think the only fair solution
would have been that they kept free access to everything that was
accomplished before they became a paid service. The step to make the
site only accessible for paid members was and is in my eyes just abuse
of work a lot of people put into Rhizome. But to get back to your
proposed model, I think Rhizome should offer your open source
possibilty as it would at least satisfy a group of artists that want
to determine their own rules of their work because it is part of the
work itself.
Interesting to know is that conceptual artists like Laurence Weiner
from the start of their careers always presented contracts themselves
instead of signing contracts made by others. I come up with this
example because conceptual art had to deal with different legal
aspects than object (material) based art.

 
>  
> > So links of works that weren't submitted at all.
> 
> This would constitute a different case. If the artist has not signed
> nor agreed to a contract, then it seems to me that none exists, and
> a fair share of the Rhizome Artbase is simply a giant hyperlink bank
> culled from its email list/s--like the rest of the web. Rhizome
> can't do anything with the work -- it only links to it -- and the
> artist can still do whatever she desires. Thus there seems to be
> little issue here. 


No, it is an issue. Because Rhizome mailed to everybody it's changing
membership terms. I believe that they sent it and that you had 2 weeks to
respond when you disagreed. About this subject was also a lot of
discussion on nettime because what if you were on holiday or the mail
got stuck in a spamfilter, etc

Vladimir

http://www.geocities.com/afterrhizome
http://www34.brinkster.com/afterrhizome
http://www.joinme.net/afterrhizome





------------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net