I will write more tomorrow, but just to avoid any misunderstanding. I never
meant to say that identifying once practice as "research" is a bad thing. I
do it myself, very publicly and in writing :). The "problem" is the
association especially non-academics have with the term "research." Most
people do think of "science" when they hear "research." I only have
anecdotal evidence for that of course, but I worked on a project a few years
ago that for better or worse got a lot of mass media attention. My bio at
the time said "artist and researcher" or something along those lines. You
have no idea how many emails I got from people thinking I had expertise in
anything from aeronautic engineering/design, to veterinarian knowledge, to
studies on pulmonary function tests, to behaviorism, ecology, earth
sciences, public health& policy ... you get the picture. Nobody understood
the term "research" to be "creative research" or hybrid art/research or
however you want to call what we are doing. It said "artist" right next to
"researcher" but all that people picked up on was "researcher." So, I think
we have to be aware of that. And yes of course, it has ramifications within
the university as well, but at least in the UC system this is rather
straight forward. Everything is called "research" during merit/review and
tenure time. Simple because there isn't a category for "art" on the form.
But I don't really think that this is the issue here.
anyway, more on funding& tactical media tomorrow.
best
b.
On May 1, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Carl DiSalvo wrote:
I totally agree that the arts (inclusive of design, and architecture) can
be research. Indeed, that is how I characterize much of my own work.
And Brett's point below are very important, particularly the notion that the
arts as research need not try to adopt the same forms of research practice
and product as are produced in other fields. Rather, we need to understand
how the arts constitute a particular form (or forms) of knowledge
production.
How arts research research fits into "research universities" is a complex
question. As Marc points out, in part this forces us to address issues of
funding. It also brings up issues of tenure and promotion. And, as we see in
this current situation, the politics that are often inherent of the arts in
research universities has very real consequences. I am always confused by
the fact that so many professors can do research on missile guidance systems
or develop algorithms for better prediction in hedge funds, but somehow,
this work is not cast as being political. Ok, maybe I'm not really confused
by that, but it seems like an important point of contrast.
One of my nagging concerns is how the arts and design are
Carl DiSalvo
Assistant Professor
School of Literature, Communication, and Culture
Georgia Institute of Technology
On May 1, 2010, at 3:27 AM, Brett Stalbaum wrote:
I have always been at a loss as to why the arts and humanities would have
any suspicion at all in embracing the term "research" as the very core of
our practices. Research simply means the production of new knowledge.
Certainly there are competing ideas regarding what the "research university"
should enable, vexing questions about the term "research university" in
comparison to other models (the implication that other types of higher
education institutions don't themselves produce research), and questions
regarding different methodologies for producing new knowledge. But at the
end of the day, to cede the meaning of "research" to any particular
established methodology (such as the scientific method) further marginalizes
the arts and reinforces notions that the arts and culture must be by now
antiquated and epistemically fixed projects. Art is research, and if there
is anything to be concerned about today it is "research" institutions whose
creative arts and humanities programs have settled into canonic assumptions
and ceased boundary explorations. If the arts and humanities exist only to
"round out" a liberal education for other fields, then we are obviously not
doing our jobs. If we are unable to function as a critical or contestational
response to the very real issues that Carl brings up below, shame on us. We
need to work harder.
Interestingly Ricardo's recent ECD investigations, "5 years of war! Stop
the Nanotech and Biotech War Profiteers!" March 19th-21st 2008, was
something he was promoted for, and the March 4th 2008 protest of exactly the
same nature against the same Office of the President server but protesting
student fee hikes and the racist environment on the UCSD campus are what
bring about the attempt to fire him. (And all indications are, TBT is their
real issue and the only policy violation they could find was in unrelated
research.) It says something very interesting about UCSD's immune system and
the dissent they actually seek to manage, no? Without an artist - perhaps
functioning as a blind probe head in cultural response spaces - we might not
know this. This represents the kind of methods that artists bring to bear in
the production of new knowledge. It is many things, but research is one of
those things.
On Apr 29, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Carl DiSalvo wrote:
Hi, thanks for the invitation to join in this important discussion.
Regarding tactical media and the university, one of the reasons why I
believe its imperative to have such work in universities, and not to try to
subsume it as some other kind of research, or event as "research" at all, it
because it provides an important political check against the work done in
engineering and computer science programs. Moreover, increasingly,
engineering and computer science programs, and more broadly programs in
related fields such as Informatics and Human-Computer Interaction are
attempting to develop research programs with a social agenda. For example,
the institution I am at has an initiative entitled "Computing for Good."
While some might argue that such as shift in engineering and computer
science is encouraging, I maintain it is, usually, simply a reinforcement of
standard neo-liberal agendas, with with a "feel-good" attitude. Usually the
work in such programs simply reinforces existing political mechanisms and
norms, under some guise of "democracy," for example, improving voting
machines. The problem with such work is that it invariably negates the
political, that is, any sense of contestation that characterizes the
contemporary condition.
What tactical media (or whatever we want to call it) in the university can
provide is a) an opportunity for contestational political work, and b) an
opportunity to call-out the inherent fraudulence in most (certainly, there
are exceptions) seemingly "socially-engaged" or "socially-committed"
research being conducted in engineering and computer science programs.
Whether or not we want to call it research is unclear to me.
That it is important, is without question.
Carl
Carl DiSalvo
Assistant Professor
School of Literature, Communication, and Culture
Georgia Institute of Technology
On Apr 28, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Marc B?hlen wrote:
Thanks again all for interesting posts. Back to the ?research at
universities? question....
It is true, once a project is categorized as ?research? within the
university, the boundary conditions of the work changes, the expectations on
the work change; in short, the work can change. When such change is
undesirable, then any change is nothing less than an obstacle to a
potentially powerful artwork that is best expressed outside of institutional
constraints.
But if the work engages territory that is shared across disciplines, the
change in expectation can be an opportunity, and the change to the work can
give it agency it would otherwise not have. The work may receive a new
audience, an audience that otherwise would not care for the work or the
questions it raises (because it would not be perceived in the isolated ?art?
context). This audience shift is potentially powerful.
If one discusses research, funding can?t be relegated to the background. As
mentioned in earlier posts, funding defines the university structure to a
large part, dividing the system into ?haves?, ?have-somes?, and ?have-nots?.
Many public (American) universities fund their graduate art programs and
faculty salaries to a good part with undergraduate tuition. How many
soul-searching undergrads get milked annually such that art departments can
maintain their tenured faculty? From that perspective, it might not be such
a bad idea to soften the dependency of current funding models away from
relying on middle class families (who deliver the tuition) and instead try
to get cash from other sources....
I have no final answers to these challenges. I am subject to these forces
as many of you are as well.
All the best,
marc bohlen
www.realtechsupport.org
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:31:05 -0700
From: Beatriz da Costa<beatrizdaco...@earthlink.net>
To: soft_skinned_space<empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
Message-ID:<56ce84eb-01e5-46ff-b1ff-8b4ee790c...@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed";
DelSp="yes"
Thanks for the thoughtful post Sara. It really brings up a few
interesting points and I think goes back to understanding the roles of
the different type of institutions involved here. Museums, while often
conservative or simply careful when it comes to pushing legal
boundaries, or even just the perception of a legal boundary (I have
been there many times), are still spaces that are in principle
dedicated to supporting and showing artworks. This is not the case for
American universities. Art schools/departments are often the necessary
evil to complete either the "arts and humanities" or the "arts&
science" colleges/schools at US universities. We are at the absolute
bottom of the hierarchy. We don't bring in any money, are quite
useless overall and should count ourselves lucky to be allowed to
exist of the dimes brought in from the more affluent parts of
campus.... or so the common narrative goes. Now with the emergence of
the so called "new media" arts things shifted a little. Suddenly that
hybrid existence was seen as an avenue to bring money into the
system... and it took a decade to realize that a lot these attempts
failed, and that many new media artists, have absolutely no interest
to be in bed with the entertainment and/or ICT industries. So we are
being downgraded again :). But what happened in that time period is
that a loft of artists indeed merged/played/built alliances with the
sci and tech areas around the campuses, often resulting in very
interesting work. The "problem" that arises is that suddenly all the
work has to be presented as "research" and once something is called
"research" the outside expectations as to what that is, what function
it should fulfill and within which boundaries it should operate really
change. I am pretty sure that I am preaching to choir here, so please
forgive, but since this list is not US centric, which is wonderful, I
thought I'd bring it up. Art education and its associated institutions
seem to vary a lot from country to country and in my experience art
education at American universities ranks pretty low in the eyes of the
public and the university itself.
all best,
Beatriz
On Apr 27, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Sarah Cook wrote:
Dear empyre readers
My apologies for my delay in catching up with the great discussion
and posting. I have just landed in Ottawa (where it is hovering
around zero degrees and lightly snowing this morning!) for a writing
residency with SAW Video. As a full time research academic within a
UK university, and freelance curator whose practice takes place
outside of the university physically but within the remit of my job,
I am lucky to be able to leave my desk at CRUMB and come sit at
someone else's desk at SAW Video studying and writing about the work
of other artists for a stretch of time this spring.
This kind of transborder curatorial working, where I find myself a
guest in someone else's organisation but often with the role of
hosting artists of my choosing there, has some link to the
discussion at hand. (Perhaps it is the 'borrowed uniform' model).
The university shares in (or owns in part or at least takes credit
in return for funding) all new research I generate (about curating,
about media art, such as through the books I've authored/edited).
But the host organisation (this spring it is SAW Video, last year
the list included xcult.org, Eyebeam, and others) trusts in me to
generate new ideas and international connections of relevance to
them and supports those outcomes financially and intellectually as
well. In a decade of curating in this freelance manner rarely have I
ever had to sign an agreement with the host organisation about what
I will and will not put on their letterhead and how I will or will
not use their name and brand and support of me beyond the project we
are agreed to work on. I deeply appreciate that this trust exists,
to know my work is valued and seen as adding value, without having
to negotiate at every stage from brief to realisation.
Now I suspect that were I to be working predominantly with artists
whose work borders on the edges of legality or employs deliberately
questioning or questionable strategies to make a point -- from
copyright infringement to importing biological components, let's say
-- perhaps the host organisations (the museums, galleries, artist-
run centres, publishers) would be more wary in trusting in me, but I
actually don't know if that would be the case. As a middle-person /
mediator-curator I can propose (indeed I am expected) to work with
any artists or ideas I see fit (and see fit in relation to that host
organisation). But what would happen if a higher authority called in
to question what we were doing? Would the organisation let the
freelancer take the blame, or would they fight it together? Would
stronger contractual agreements about whose idea it was be put in
place the next time?
In these discussions I think of the work of my former colleague at
CRUMB, Ele Carpenter, who curated an exhibition at the CCA Glasgow
as part of her PhD research with us - Risk: Creative Action in
Political Culture
http://crumb.sunderland.ac.uk/~ele/risk/riskwebsitenov06/risk.htm<http://crumb.sunderland.ac.uk/%7Eele/risk/riskwebsitenov06/risk.htm>
. She might be better placed to discuss this kind of guest-hosting
arrangement than I, where the work on show challenges political
authority and the host organisation covers for it. The exhibition
was a case study her PhD was based upon, but the University didn't
particularly take ownership of the content of the show so much as
the knowledge she gained in the process of curating it. On the other
hand one could ask curator Steve Dietz about the Open Source Art
Hack show at the New Museum in 2002 in which a work was withdrawn
from the show over concerns the museum had about infringing its
agreement with its service provider.
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/05/52546
or ask Scott Burnham about his withdrawl from organising the
Montreal Biennial after his proposed 'open source' audience-as-
artist-collaborator curatorial platform was seen as too public and
too risky and not 'Art' enough by the board and other directors (you
can watch my interview with him here:
http://eyebeam.org/press/media/videos/eyebeam-summer-school-curatorial-masterclass-day-1)<http://eyebeam.org/press/media/videos/eyebeam-summer-school-curatorial-masterclass-day-1%29>
. One could also ask the Tate how they negotiated with Heath Bunting
over his online commission of the BorderXing project, where they got
around the sticky question of actually 'distributing' information
which could be used to break laws (cross borders illegally) by
suggesting what they commissioned was research and documentation,
not the work itself.
These are tangential to the case of the BANG lab at CALIT, but could
present lessons for how to be tactical in placing university-
supported research into other public contexts.
Apologies again if this posting seems out of kilter with the
discussion thus far, as I read threads backwards and try to catch up.
from an unseasonably chilly morning,
Sarah
www.crumbweb.org
www.sarahcook.info
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:48:30 -0400
From: Marc B?hlen<marcboh...@acm.org>
Reply-To: marcboh...@acm.org
To: Timothy Murray<t...@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 8%
-------------------------
Dear -empyre-
Thanks to Tim and Renate for inviting me to participate. Thanks
also to the other participants who have posted thoughtful
commentary on the situation.
While I am also angry with UC administrators for making BANG lab's
life hell, I think it might be worthwhile to consider some of the
broader issues this fiasco makes apparent.
Beatriz da Costa's post from Apr15 2010 really lays out the
problem well. Can one really expect academia to support tactical
media? Not if the university recognizes it as such. Passing the
development of tactical media as bona fide research is probably
over (da Costa). And seen from that vantage point, BANG bit the
hand that feeds it, signing off on email correspondence with CALIT
research credentials.
Are there alternatives?
If one is going to operate in broad daylight, there are two
choices (I see). Wear a wig (so no one knows who you are) or wear
a uniform (so you look like the others).
In the wig model, the artist works a day job at a university and
keeps his/her critical practice separate from the research at the
university.
In the uniform model, the artist works a day job at the university
and selectively melts his/her practice into research recognized by
the university.
I use a variation of the uniform model. I make use of the fact
that my work in alternate information design (in the widest sense)
is of interest to the engineering community. I sit on panels that
I am not interested in, in order to try to move the ensuing
discussion along lines it would otherwise not travel. I review
amazingly boring high end research papers in order to be to make
the authors consider the social ramifications of their elaborate
experiments. Yes, they must revise their work accordingly.
This uniform model is not for everyone. But it seems, on occasion,
to help create diversity where it is really needed.
The point I would like to make is that research in/from the arts
at universities, on most basic levels, needs to be re-evaluated.
Greetings,
marc bohlen
www.realtechsupport.org
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Beatriz da Costa
www.beatrizdacosta.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:<
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100427/c574de00/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:42:40 -0700
From: Brett Stalbaum<stalb...@ucsd.edu>
To: soft_skinned_space<emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: soft_skinned_space<emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
Message-ID:<28c877bb-242a-42f4-a0a3-b262af7c1...@ucsd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
While wrought with its own difficulties, radical transparency is also
a model that I think we should fight for. It has (so far) functioned
well for EDT, usually by the end of the day. To clarify a few things,
CALIT2 has actually been one of Ricardo's biggest supporters, right up
the the line where the police arrive. (Which happened.) They have
funded the software development in the past by hiring Jason Najarro,
who developed the innovative dousing interface for the tool. So I do
want to make sure that the list understands that CALIT2 administration
is not the problem here at UCSD. In fact, CALIT2 will host a panel on
TBT in the near future. (I understand that the situation at Irvine is
quite different, btw.) The issue here, really back to Kroker, is the
atavistic right and its administrative influence within the main core
of UC administration, not so much various research cores. UCOP, Drake,
and others have been carrying water for three right wing
congresspeople by supporting their preferred narratives regarding ECD
and TBT. In the end, I think outspending the project itself on the
investigation of the project is not going to look very good to the
general public.
On Apr 26, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Timothy Murray wrote:
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:48:30 -0400
From: Marc B?hlen<marcboh...@acm.org>
Reply-To: marcboh...@acm.org
To: Timothy Murray<t...@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 8%
-------------------------
Dear -empyre-
Thanks to Tim and Renate for inviting me to
participate. Thanks also to the other
participants who have posted thoughtful
commentary on the situation.
While I am also angry with UC administrators for
making BANG lab's life hell, I think it might be
worthwhile to consider some of the broader
issues this fiasco makes apparent.
Beatriz da Costa's post from Apr15 2010 really
lays out the problem well. Can one really expect
academia to support tactical media? Not if the
university recognizes it as such. Passing the
development of tactical media as bona fide
research is probably over (da Costa). And seen
from that vantage point, BANG bit the hand that
feeds it, signing off on email correspondence
with CALIT research credentials.
Are there alternatives?
If one is going to operate in broad daylight,
there are two choices (I see). Wear a wig (so no
one knows who you are) or wear a uniform (so you
look like the others).
In the wig model, the artist works a day job at
a university and keeps his/her critical practice
separate from the research at the university.
In the uniform model, the artist works a day job
at the university and selectively melts his/her
practice into research recognized by the
university.
I use a variation of the uniform model. I make
use of the fact that my work in alternate
information design (in the widest sense) is of
interest to the engineering community. I sit on
panels that I am not interested in, in order to
try to move the ensuing discussion along lines
it would otherwise not travel. I review
amazingly boring high end research papers in
order to be to make the authors consider the
social ramifications of their elaborate
experiments. Yes, they must revise their work
accordingly.
This uniform model is not for everyone. But it
seems, on occasion, to help create diversity
where it is really needed.
The point I would like to make is that research
in/from the arts at universities, on most basic
levels, needs to be re-evaluated.
Greetings,
marc bohlen
www.realtechsupport.org
Timothy Murray wrote:
Dear Marc,
I am hope you received your introduction, which
I sent out to the list on Monday. We had severe
server problems over the weekend so I'm worried
that this entire list might not have received
this. I'm going to resend just in case.
We're still hoping that you'll be able/willing
to post a comment and join in conversation this
week (today and through the weekend or even all
through next week would be great).
As for us, we were supposed to be Berlin at a
conference right now but got volcanoed and are
in Ithaca. Renate still launched her project
virtually (which was going to be accompanied in
Berlin by an analogue collective performance):
www.privatesecretspubliclies.net
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on
-empyre- and so sorry for any confusion.
tim
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
AmsBAKqZzEuVqxQebmdsb2JhbACTb4gPFT8dtG+IXYUOBINPgnyIJw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,238,1270389600";
d="scan'208";a="65941058"
X-Original-To: emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Delivered-To: emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:02:50 -0400
To: soft_skinned_space<emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
From: Timothy Murray<t...@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
X-BeenThere: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Reply-To: soft_skinned_space<emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
List-Id: soft_skinned_space<empyre.lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
List-Unsubscribe:<https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/options/empyre
,
<mailto:empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=unsubscribe<empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:<https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre>
List-Post:<mailto:empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
List-Help:<mailto:empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=help<empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:<https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
,
<mailto:empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=subscribe<empyre-requ...@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au?subject=subscribe>
Sender: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Hi, all. You might have noticed a quiet period
over the weekend, which appears to have been
the result of problems with our server at COFA
in Sydney. We know that one of our posts never
went through, so Tim posted it again this
morning. If you lost posts, please feel free
to resend. We apologize for the disruption,
but, hey, it seems not to have been the result
of volcanic ash (say two travelers currently
waiting to see whether we'll be flying to
Berlin on Wednesday...).
We want to extend our warmest thanks to our
guests who so provocatively opened our first
week's discussion of Tactical Media, Research,
and the University. We have beenpondering all
the week the insightful posts by Horit Herman
Peled, Arthur Kroker, Geert Lovink, Nick
Knouf, and Rita Raley. We hope to hear more
from you all over the course of the next two
weeks.
This week, we are pleased to be joined by
Patricia Zimmermann, Marc Boehlen, Claudia
Costa Pederson, and Sarah Cook.
Marc B?hlen is Associate Professor and
Director of Graduate Studies in the Department
of Media Study at University of Buffalo.
Co-Founder of the Emergent Practices MFA
concentration and of the
Media-Architecture-Computing Program.
Practicing under the moniker REAL TECH
SUPPORT, he designs and builds information
processing systems that critically reflect on
information as a cultural value. Marc's work
is informed by a long apprenticeship in the
crafts (stone masonry), humanities (art
history) and the engineering sciences
(electrical engineering and robotics).
Upcoming and recent shows and presentations
include events at the National University of
Singapore (Singapore 2010), the Beall Center
for Art and Technology (Irvine, USA 2010), and
Jiao Tong University (Shanghai, China 2009).
Recent publications include Micro Public
Places (Architectural League, New York 2010)
and Ambient Intelligence in the City
(Springer, Berlin 2010).
Sarah Cook is a curator and writer based in
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK and co-author with
Beryl Graham of the book Rethinking Curating:
Art After New Media (MIT Press). She is
currently a research fellow at the University
of Sunderland where she co-founded and
co-edits CRUMB, the online resource for
curators of new media art and teaches on the
MA Curating course. In 2011 she will co-chair
Rewire, the Fourth International Conference on
the histories of media, science and technology
in art with FACT in Liverpool. Having grown up
in Canada, Sarah has a longstanding
association with The Banff Center where she
has worked as a guest curator and researcher
in residence for the Walter Phillips Gallery,
the International Curatorial Institute and the
New Media Institute, developing exhibitions,
summits, residencies and publications. After
completing her PhD in 2004, Sarah worked as
adjunct curator of new media at BALTIC funded
by the AHRC. In 2008 Sarah was the inaugural
curatorial fellow at Eyebeam Art and
Technology Center in New York, where she
worked with the artists in the labs to develop
exhibitions of their work. For over ten years
Sarah has curated and co-curated international
exhibitions including Database Imaginary
(2004), The Art Formerly Known As New Media
(2005), Package Holiday (2005), Broadcast
Yourself (2008) and Untethered (2008).
Claudia Costa Pederson is a HASTAC Fellow and
PhD candidate in the History of Art and Visual
Studies Department at Cornell University. Her
interests center on exploring the
intersections between play, creativity,
critical theory, and social activism, with an
emphasis on digital games as devices for
artistic and critical inquiry. She is now
teaching a lab course with Nick Knouf for the
Finger Lakes Enviornmental Film Festival on
the theme of Open Space. She has presented her
work widely at international new media forums
from ISEA to DAC, most recently on "Towards an
Ecology of Excess," DAC 2010.
Patricia R. Zimmermann is Shaw Foundation
Professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of
Communications at Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore; Co-Director of the
Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival
(FLEFF) and Professor in the Department of
Cinema, Photography and Media Arts at Ithaca
College, Ithaca, New York, USA. She is the
author of REEL FAMILIES: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF
AMATEUR FILM (Indiana, 1995) STATES OF
EMERGENCY: DOCUMENTARIES, WARS, DEMOCRACIES
(Minnesota, 2000), and coeditor of MINING THE
HOME MOVIE: EXCAVATIONS IN HISTORIES AND
MEMORIES (California, 2008). She was coeditor
with Erik Barnouw of THE FLAHERTY: FOUR
DECADES IN THE CAUSE OF INDEPENDENT CINEMA
(Wide Angle, 1996). Her book on digital arts,
PUBLIC DOMAINS: CINEMAS, HISTORIES,
VISUALITIES (Temple University Press,
forthcoming), explores the relationship
between historiography, political engagements
and digital art practices.
We look forward to the contributions of our
new guests and to a lively week of commentary
from the -empyre- community.
Best,
Renate and Tim
--
Renate Ferro and Tim Murray
Managing Moderators, -empyre- soft_skinned_space
Department of Art/ Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell
University
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
--
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
--
Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Department of Visual Arts
9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
La Jolla CA 92093-0084
http://www.walkingtools.net
OFFICE HOURS (Note: these change every quarter)
FALL 2009: Wednesdays, 1-3PM, Mandeville 221 (Near Vis Arts Advising)
WINTER 2009: Tuesdays, 1-3PM, Mandeville 221 !!!*Moving to VAF, TBA,
sometime during Winter Quarter*!!!
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:29:16 +0200
From: geert lovink<ge...@desk.nl>
To: soft_skinned_space<empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Tactical Media; this week's guests
Message-ID:<7ea4f72f-011d-44ab-a65d-029591409...@desk.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Hi all,
interesting debates. Sorry to come back to the activist approaches of
my previous mail.
Here a link to a blog posting by one of our MA students at new media/
mediastudies of the University of Amsterdam. The blog of our one year
masters program is called Masters of Media.
The topic is carthography of migration.
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2010/04/27/cartography-of-migration-flows/
Best, Geert
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
empyre mailing list
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
End of empyre Digest, Vol 65, Issue 21
**************************************
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
<ATT00001..txt>
--
Brett Stalbaum, Lecturer, LSOE
Coordinator, Interdisciplinary Computing and the Arts Major (ICAM)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Department of Visual Arts
9500 GILMAN DR. # 0084
La Jolla CA 92093-0084
http://www.walkingtools.net
OFFICE HOURS (Note: these change every quarter)
FALL 2009: Wednesdays, 1-3PM, Mandeville 221 (Near Vis Arts Advising)
WINTER 2009: Tuesdays, 1-3PM, Mandeville 221 !!!*Moving to VAF, TBA,
sometime during Winter Quarter*!!!
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
*Beatriz da Costa*
*
*
www.beatrizdacosta.net
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
