[NetBehaviour] Pikslaverk2008 - Pixelache in Iceland - Call for proposals

[clemos]

Hi Marc and all

I remember following that Furtherstudio residency as well. It was so
good, to feel like being in front of the artist's computer, and to see
the work evolve, etc.
Now I think about it, I actually miss that particular kind of
residency. It was really something different than later VisitorStudio,
or Salon, or Upstage (must name it, because it also has a lot in
common, and its also very exciting), in the fact that it lasted
through time.

About artist/non artist roles: I feel it's necessary to restore the
importance of "curators", or to be more precise : keep the difference
between artists, curators, institutions, audience, etc. I don't really
like the way all these roles tend to "merge", making the differences
disappear. I'm a bit "old school" about this. Yet, I have no problem
if the same person alternatively takes all these roles.
For example, I said I felt more like a "curator", or "artistic
director" sometimes. This means that my work is to organise things so
that artists can come create something on my platform, so I have to
design my platform like curators design their exhibitions or events,
or like an artistic director designs the room where a residency takes
place. I actually feel more free this way, because it saves me from
asking myself too much questions, from bringing too much of my
"personality", from working on my "sensibility". It's, for me, more
comfortable to not consider myself an "artist" in this context because
then my "field of competence" is more narrow, and I don't loose myself
in such artist things as introspection, expression, and so on... My
responsibility is to make the artists' experience the best possible,
to choose artists that I feel have something interesting to do on my
platform, and so on. But my responsability is not to directly bring
interesting "art material".
People may think it's a less complicated work (I actually think so...
making art is somehow painful to me), but yet I think it's definitely
something equally valuable and equally honorable because by
restricting your role like this, you also free the invited artists
from having to solve problems that they should not take care of. You
are something like a frame, and this role is already enough.
Of course, as an "artistic director" you may be very close to the
artists, advise them, and thus give influence to their work. Anyway,
bringing the frame is, in itself, something that influences the
artist.
As an artist, I also expect the "organisators" or "curators" to stick
to this role: I expect them to organise, to provide the frame, and I
do the thing inside. Whenever I experienced "blurred" roles, like
organisators who want to influence your work, or organisators not
taking care of ... organising, it was bad.

About groups: I also believe in groups, as I'm part of an artist duo
as well. I also love the Beatles, Led Zeppellin, the Blue Oyster Cult,
Jodi, eToys, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, etc. But forming a group is
something very difficult and it very rarely is a success. Despite the
fact that I presented my previous thoughts in terms of "skills",
"ideas", and so on, I feel like being such a group is not related to
"collective intelligence". It's not something "rational", like a
company that works well. It's a very rare and complex alchemy. And
once again, being an "art group" is, in my experience, something very
different than being any other kind of "group". We should also make
the distinction between temporary collaborations and long time
collaborations, which are very different in regard of what's being
produced, and the way it works.
But once again, I think it's mainly about defining roles. You don't
necessarily need to "restrict" the roles, or to organize things in a
concrete way ("you, do this, and you, do that"). When in a group, each
person must have his own "territory", which he is the only responsible
of. Like that, you can focus on your own 'territory', because as long
as you trust the other members of the group, you don't need to worry
about the other people's "territories".
For example with my group "thirtytwobit", I'm in charge of video,
programming, and "logistics" (plugging cables, making sure it works,
etc), while my friend Vincent is in charge of sound, print graphism
(flyers, visual communication). Of course we actually discuss
everything together, share thoughts, etc, but the "responsabilities"
are well defined. For example, if I talk with him about video issues
or programming ideas, he will let me know what he thinks about it,
tell me what he thinks is good or not, but, in the end, I'm totally
free to do what I want. And, in the other hand, if we talk about the
sound, if he makes me listen to something, I'll of course share my
ideas about sound with him, but I'll be very "relax" about that, as
I'm not in charge of it. We're both free this way: free to talk, free
to argue if the idea is good or not, and, in the end, free to do
whatever in our scope of competence, in our role. We're both confident
to each other, and that saves energy to both of us. (And if one of us
really fails in something, we don't care, because we know that next
time, it could be the other). One of us takes the "lead" depending on
the nature of the project, and how close it is to our distinct
competences: if it's about doing audio noise and recording it, it will
be him who will take the initiative, and lead the project (decide how
we record, when, what needs to be removed, etc), whereas if it's about
doing an installation with computers and programming, I'll lead.
It's important, in this context, that everybody is "aware" of its own
"territory", because if another member enters one's territory, the
territory owner will likely feel it as an agression. There can also be
misunderstandings when the sum of all territories doesn't actually
fill all the aspects of the projects, so that there are certain things
that are forgotten, and everybody will accuse the other to be
responsible for the failure...

I don't know if all this is very clear, but I think artist /
programmer relationships are more or less like this as well. It's all
about trust, confidence, defining territories and not entering to much
into the other's territory, unless you want to start a war :)

+++++++
Clément

On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:49 AM, marc garrett
<marc.garrett at furtherfield.org> wrote:
> Hi Clemos,
>
> Much thanks for your kind words of respect. I was not aware that our
> work with Furtherstudio (http://www.furtherstudio.org/online/) and
> Visitorsstudio was an inspiration for your work on the "Salon" for
> panoplie.org. We worked hard on that project, it's amazing to think that
> we built it in 2003. Ironically, even though it was a successful project
> we have not done much with it since around 2004. Although, there are
> ideas on the burner to create a new version. The technology at the time
> was much slower then for real-time. When we linked up on the first
> project with Jess Loseby, and when we broadcasted live from her own
> computer from her home to our server as a live, on-line artist resident.
> As people watched her make her work from her desktop from all over the
> world, it was admittedly thrilling. I remember watching the frames
> slowly flipping by at only a few frames per second. Visitorsstudio
> (www.visitorsstudio.org) itself was a quite a different story. Because
> we could have things really happen in real-time and everyone could
> collaborate, and of course we have had many projects and performances
> happen on there since. Visitorsstudio was born out of the work and
> experience that we had learnt with Furtherstudio.
>
> I also want to mention some other names who worked with us in other
> ways, such as Chris Webb who created some great work within the
> VS-platform in the earlier days, and then there was Sim (soy.de) a
> regular visitor, promoter and bug tester who contributed to our shared
> creative programme. I miss SIm...
>
>  >The case of building such a tool, or space, or platform or whatever
>  >like FurtherStudio or the Salon is in my opinion very different from
>  >the "real" artwork creation process...
>
>  >Anyway, this is, in the end, a platform, and even if it's very
>  >interresting from an artistic POV, I wouldn't really call this an
>  >"artwork". About the Salon, I use to say : "The art is not made by us,
>  >but only by the invited artists". I mean: being a curator, or a
>  >"virtual place" owner, is also a very complex work, and only people
>  >with strong artistic skills can do it, but curating and creating
>  >artworks is very very different.
>
> Now, I would say that it is both...
>
> Yes, I agree. The physical experience of making it, organising it,
> designing it, conceiving it, programming it and all the other connected
> things which bring about its eventual fruition, may not specifically
> fall within what many experience, as making art in the traditional
> sense. Yet, I feel that if we allow ourselves to consider it all in a
> contemporary light. Art does not necessarily have to physically feel
> like painting or sculpting. I think that art can be expansive in a which
> does not always have to only involve an experience of viscosity or a
> 'one to one' relationship with any particular, specific medium. I see
> that art, as a practice is big enough to take on the weight or challenge
> of something which involves the culmination of various factors. Whether
> it be technological, social, political or collaborative. What I mean
> here is that because artists built it, it has an awe, essence or spirit
> that comes from a shared approach of seeing as art project, even a work
> of art.
>
> What could make it feel different, is the fact that it is also a tool
> for art practice as well as a live, networked platform. The tools are
> not traditional art making tools. Although Fluxus did a pretty good job
> in using tools to make their art were closely linked to publishing,
> distribution and administration, even food making.
>
>  >I think there is basically less ego things involved in creating a
>  >platform in which artists would be invited to actually "create art".
>
> In relation to what you say about ego. I have always felt or known that
> genius does not have to be accepted only as a singular process which
> specifically fits the mold of 'one' individual alone. There is room out
> there for groups to share their imaginations, and out of a their
> collaborative experience there can be genius, as a whole. If we think of
> musicians like the Beatles, Stones or Chemical Brothers, they are seen
> as being as significant as Bjork or Beck. Getting back to answering your
> comments regarding the ego - I also feel that there is no way that egos
> can be got rid of. Perhaps if people tapped into their 'ids' rather than
> their 'super-egos', we'd have less wars, perhaps not.
>
> I think that we would be making a big mistake if we consider people's
> 'individual' creativity as less important (which I know you are not),
> one is not necessarily better or more relevant than the other. The main
> thing about shared experiences and collaborations is that they offer
> different visions or perspectives.
>
>  >Each teamate's place and role are more clear: there are the
>  >"directors", there are the "technicians", and there are the "artists".
>  >You may be both an "artist" and a "director" sometimes (Annie, who
>  >(co-?)"directed" the making of the Salon, also performed inside, etc),
>  >or even "directing" a bit, coding a bit, and performing a bit (like I
>  >did), but everything is ok.
>
> How people relate to each other in a shared project is easier and more
> ideal for all concerned, if their roles in a collaboration are defined
> and seen clearly. Representation is important, especially if it is
> linked to a skill or idea which has contributed to the larger vision.
>
> It can get complicated though. For it is not only skills that can make a
> project work for everybody. If the collaboration involves a consensus
> model of working it has to be approached in a way that allows everyone
> to have a say, and then agreed mutually, and in a time-frame that lets
> things get resolved naturally - this can take a long time.
>
> There are other things that I could say in response to the rest of what
> you have written, but I better stop because I could go on for ages...
>
> wishing you well.
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm really happy to have been a little "insightful" for you, even
> through my bad english  :)
> Because I really consider your work with Furthefield, and
> Furtherstudio and all as a model for our modest work at panoplie.
> Furtherstudio was definitely a big inspiration (both for Annie and for
> me) when we created the "Salon" for panoplie.org, and the Breaking
> Solitude events inside it.
> Despite the fact that panoplie.org is in my opinion far behind
> Furtherfield in terms of "what a new media organisation should be"
> (for tons of different reason, and I don't mean to be abusively modest
> here, or to minimize the quality of my work...), I feel like we have a
> lot in common.
>
> The case of building such a tool, or space, or platform or whatever
> like FurtherStudio or the Salon is in my opinion very different from
> the "real" artwork creation process...
> It implies artistical skills, but not necessarily like "being an
> artist". When building such things and organising such events, I feel
> more like a galery owner than like an artist. Of course the difference
> between being an artist and being a gallery owner is sometimes very
> subtle (many persons are both), but the role is very different.
> I think there is basically less ego things involved in creating a
> platform in which artists would be invited to actually "create art".
> Each teamate's place and role are more clear: there are the
> "directors", there are the "technicians", and there are the "artists".
> You may be both an "artist" and a "director" sometimes (Annie, who
> (co-?)"directed" the making of the Salon, also performed inside, etc),
> or even "directing" a bit, coding a bit, and performing a bit (like I
> did), but everything is ok.
> It's very clear because : some people create a platform (no artist
> role), and some perform inside (artist role). Also, creating the
> platform is about artistic direction and technical realisation. There
> can be confusion here, because while designing the programmer can come
> with new tech ideas, or even with all the ideas, but it doesn't
> matter, because in the end, the "artistic director" decides which
> features are interresting from an artistic point of view. For Annie,
> I, and the salon, we use (once again) to have both "roles" (I am more
> the "programmer" and she is less the "programmer", so more the
> "director" (hehehe), but...), and this is only possible because we are
> both interrested in the two fields (art and computers/networks).
> If the programmer was "only" a programmer (not interrested at all in
> art, performances, etc...), or if the "director" was only an artistic
> director (no or few knowledge in computer, programming, etc), I think
> the collaboration would have been far less fruitful.
> I think it *may* be possible to do good projects with only a good art
> director, also interrested in computers, and a real art-newbie
> programmer...
>
> Anyway, this is, in the end, a platform, and even if it's very
> interresting from an artistic POV, I wouldn't really call this an
> "artwork". About the Salon, I use to say : "The art is not made by us,
> but only by the invited artists". I mean: being a curator, or a
> "virtual place" owner, is also a very complex work, and only people
> with strong artistic skills can do it, but curating and creating
> artworks is very very different.
>
> At panoplie.org, I've been working with lots of artists, in a
> artist/webdesigner relationship, and it's very different from creating
> something like the salon.
> I consider most of the work I "made" together with artists like a kind
> of "ad" for the work of the artist (or a "digital format article", an
> interactive article about the artist... don't know if it's clear),
> because it consists in doing a "web" version of some "non-web"
> artwork, and thus it looks more like an "illustration" of the original
> work than like an "actual" work. And even when it's not based on some
> previous work, it's still often about transposing an "off-web" art
> concept, or approach, on the web.
> Yet, this kind of collaboration has very rarely led to works that I
> consider "real" "new media art", or "web art", or whatever. These rare
> works are often the ones where the artist had already quite deeply
> thought about internet, computers, and so on, *or* where (in all
> modesty, once again) I had ideas about how to do something interesting
> on the web based on his work. I mean: I have no problem with animating
> someone else's drawings, or with making someone's video interactive,
> it's somehow "interesting" in itself, but it's a bit like writing
> something *about* the work, it's not like creating something new... I
> don't think it's "better" to end up with a "real" "new media" artwork
> than with a "pseudo" new media artwork, and moreover probably both can
> be considered actual artworks, as both have a certain amount
> "quality". But I think the computer can (for some artists) bring a bit
> more (or rather: something different) than mere interaction, or
> animation, etc, at the condition that the artist's work is
> "compatible" with new media and web art thematics, or questions...
> It's just that not all artists have something interesting to bring to
> the digital world, but in the other hand, artists can bring their work
> in a "satisfying" direction by including computers in it: If someone
> who draws starts doing simple Flash animations, he will not really
> bring anything interesting, or different, or new, to the new media
> community, but he will definitely bring his work to some other "area",
> and this may be interesting and new in the world of "animation", or in
> the field of graphism. Anyway, it shows that his work evolves in a
> certain direction, and those who like drawing may find this very very
> interesting (and sometimes, as a consequence, the new media world may
> start to find something good in his simple flash animations... )
>
> But it's starting to go off topic (once again?).
> It definitely depends on the nature of the work. And as Marc said,
> it's really about respecting everyone's skills and desires. When
> "directing" projects like that, you must ensure that everybody feels
> free to bring his ideas (or to bring nothing else than his particular
> skills...), and that everybody is able to share his knowledge with
> each other.
> All ideas are respectable (not necessarily good, but respectable :p ),
> and all different skills and knowledge can bring ideas. And the more
> different skills you have, the more differrent ideas you'll share, and
> finally, the more chance you have to end with a good artwork. After
> that, it's all about selecting ideas, and I think the artist is the
> one who ultimately chooses...
>
> ++++++++
> Clément
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:12 PM, marc garrett
> <marc.garrett at furtherfield.org> wrote:
>  > > Hi Clemos,
>  > >
>  > > What an interesting question,
>  > >
>  > > I think that it does matter. I feel that it depends to what degree the
>  > > programmer is involved in changing the original concept of the work, as
>  > > well as what is agreed between the artist and programmer. Which can get
>  > > quite ambiguous at times.
>  > >
>  > > In 1991, I used to organise regular artists talks at the Ikon
> gallery in
>  > > Birmingham, in the UK. One of the artists who was asked to do a
>  > > presentation at that time, was a female sculptor called Alison Wilding.
>  > > I posed a question to her asking 'what difference do you feel that it
>  > > makes to your work once you have designed the concept of your artwork,
>  > > then to be put together and made by men at a factory?' It turned out to
>  > > be a very complicated and fascinating discussion for all...
>  > >
>  > > This is a very complicated subject. When we work with Neil Jenkins on
>  > > Visitors Studio, even though Ruth and myself are the main drive behind
>  > > getting it happening, as connecting it an interested public and finding
>  > > money from funding - figuring out the ideas, function, context and
>  > > direction. Neil is the the programmer, and he his highly skilled. He
>  > > also had a lot of input into the design, although we do as well. His
>  > > skills in pearl programming (and much more) are an asset which has
>  > > greatly advanced VS, through the years. We do not view that only us 2
>  > > thought of VS, because Neil came up with the functionality out of
>  > > another project we collaborated on called 'furtherstudio'. So, it was
>  > > more about sharing an adventure in exploring where it can go together,
>  > > with regular meetings. Even though Ruth and myself, between us possess
>  > > skills in Linux, processing, MySql, PHP and Drupal etc. We are aware
>  > > when involved in such a dynamic culture as we are in, when being
>  > > multi-skilled is an advantage that, there comes a point when others
> have
>  > > to asked to be part of the team. This is when collaboration
> happens, and
>  > > the work can sometimes change its original reason of being, to become
>  > > either something completely different or something close to what was
>  > > intended. When working with Neil, we know that he is an artist as well
>  > > as a programmer, and we see this as an advantage for all concerned.
>  > >
>  > > The other things is, when working with various groups of people on a
>  > > project such as VS, others contribute as well in less technical ways.
>  > > For example, offering suggestions that reflect upon their own
> experience
>  > > in using the platform. This creates useful information, that in its
>  > > process incorporates them also as collaborators also, but not in the
>  > > same way. Then you have high-end users who contribute in the culture of
>  > > VS, organising regular events on there who are also collaborating, such
>  > > as Roger Mills with networked live events, who is the editor of
>  > > furthernoise.org and Graziano Milano who also set up events and worked
>  > > on line with various users around the world, as well organising
>  > > workshops in places like Bosnia, with VS. So, I suppose the most
>  > > important thing is that everyone is respected for their input and
> skills
>  > > as much as is possible.
>  > >
>  > > marc
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  > > * Does it matter whether or not artists do their own
> programming or
>  > > hire
>  > >  > > professional programmers to do it?
>  > >
>  > > I've been chatting a *lot* about that with Annie Abrahams, and we even
>  > > gave a kind of "public talk" once which was largely related to this
>  > > topic, here in Montpellier. We spoke about our relationship which,
>  > > though she knows a bit of programming and I am (or have been, once) a
>  > > bit of an artist, was of this kind (she has "hired" me for programming
>  > > some little things for her).
>  > > I've also been working that way with quite a lot of "artists", and met
>  > > many other "artists" whose work was only to "write the concept" and
>  > > let programmers do the job, as well as a few programmers who had been
>  > > working for "artists" (though they sometimes claim to work *with*
>  > > artists, or even to be "co-authors"... ).
>  > > There are lots of differents situations.
>  > > Some artists I've heard use to compare new media with the movie
>  > > industry, where huge teams of specialists work together, and see
>  > > themselves like "directors"... Some don't even credit the other people
>  > > involved in the creation (programmers, or even the tools used, which
>  > > can be very important), and I think this attitude is mainly inherited
>  > > from the "contemporary art" world.
>  > > Some artists, who act like minimalist artists or conceptual artists,
>  > > feel like the IDEA is everything, and its realisation is almost
>  > > nothing (it's programming, so it's technical, so it's "exact", so it
>  > > doesn't make sense... talking computers will be able to do this alone
>  > > soon ).
>  > > (by the way, I know an artist who paints blue squares every year; he
>  > > started to paint a 50% square on a white canvas in 1983, and every
>  > > year, he added 1% so that in 2033, the canvas will be filled with
>  > > blue... He needs to paint 70 times over and over to get the "blue"
>  > > color he's looking for. In a project like his, it's important that the
>  > > artist himself do the work, paint himself - painting 70 layers takes
>  > > him about 3 month. He could have easily hired someone to draw his
>  > > squares, but drawing squares and "running a program" is apparently
>  > > interresting him... The fact of doing this single thing during 50
>  > > years makes sense to him. His idea is nothing compared to the
>  > > realisation iteslf, while the project is still minimalistic and
>  > > somehow conceptual. And what has been surprising me the most is that
>  > > he loves doing this, and is deeply sincere...)
>  > > Now everything depends on the nature of the work.
>  > > exist.pl is IMHO a very good programming art work, luckily by the same
>  > > artist who seems to organize the event   :)  . In the case of a
> work like
>  > > this, it seems difficult to have a "team", because it's something
>  > > deeply related to how computers work, what a software is, etc and
>  > > involves direct relationship to programming. Lots of (nearly all,
>  > > actually) early net.art work in the same way, and that's often why I
>  > > like them (Form art, for example). You just can't expect something
>  > > like that to be produced by a duo artist/programmer, because it has to
>  > > do with "playing" with computers, and getting more or less unexpected
>  > > things, or at least surprising things. (There are duos, like Jodi, and
>  > > it would be interresting to see how they work, but I doubt that one is
>  > > the programmer, and the other the "artist", or the concept-guy)
>  > > Then the "mainstream" new media art is more about using computers to
>  > > do what you expect, like interactive movies, or installations,
>  > > whatever... It often interrest me a little less; or let's say that
>  > > I've seen less interresting works in this field. And there are so much
>  > > crappy interactive things.
>  > > I think the main problem comes when (how can I say it...) when a
>  > > person, who is more a programmer than an artist, tries to "wrap" his
>  > > work into some poor art discourse, or add badly understood art
>  > > concepts around it (or currently "sexy" hype concepts), and, on the
>  > > other side, when an artist who has poor knowledge in computer and
>  > > programming expects his work to be a very interresting "anticipative"
>  > > work about "technologies", by hiring programmers and explaining them
>  > > his pseudo-revolutionnary techno idea, and so on. This will almost
>  > > always produce terrible things...
>  > > There are a few persons who have a good and practical knowledge of
>  > > both art and computers, and only these persons are able to do
>  > > something interresting. Or, to say it in a slightly different way: a
>  > > few people who are *very* interrested in computers and technologies,
>  > > can also, sometimes, be very creative, have a very original point of
>  > > view, and use both. You must definitely understand what the medium you
>  > > use actually is, you must have a practice. In the case of computers,
>  > > some artists do very interresting things with few "technical"
>  > > knowledge, because using computers (for whatever reason, art, reading
>  > > emails, ...) is not necessarily programming, and you can do *lots* of
>  > > cool things with computers without programming, though it sometimes
>  > > looks less "sexy" (some artists try to learn programming anyway,
>  > > because it looks more powerful, almost magic, and end up loosing
>  > > themselves... because they are artists!)
>  > > I think it's all about finding both skills in a single person. You can
>  > > do very good things in a team, but in the end, an artist is definitely
>  > > someone who is alone.
>  > >
>  > > I'm mainly interrested in DIY projects, because computers make them
>  > > possible. But computers also make it possible to do huge things, and
>  > > such projects need teams which can gather artists together with
>  > > programmers, and so on.
>  > > Being interrested in both programming and "culture" (I don't call it
>  > > art anymore cause I often find so-called "art" sucks, whereas
>  > > "culture", which contains "pop culture" - not the "pop" from "pop
>  > > art", the "pop" from "pop culture" - is at least "alive" sometimes), I
>  > > consider some block-buster games are artworks, just like some movies
>  > > are, but also love tiny projects like exist.pl, or even more "nerdy"
>  > > things like http://www.rockonflash.com/blog/?p=42 , which I could call
>  > > "art", despite the fact that even its creator don't call himself an
>  > > artist. Actually I hate the "art-like" discourse in general. I find
>  > > that it's more important to do something interesting than to do
>  > > something not very interesting or even interesting and then talk and
>  > > talk and talk around it to make it seem more interresting.
>  > >
>  > > Anyway, the festival and conference look very promising   :)
>  > > ++++++
>  > > Clément
>  > >
>  > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  > >  > > New node in the Pixelache Network - Reykjavik!
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > - - - -
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Pikslaverk
>  > >  > > November 6 - 9, 2008. Reykjavik, Iceland
>  > >  > > www.pikslaverk.org <http://www.pikslaverk.org>
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > The Pikslaverk 2008 conference is the Icelandic component in the
>  > >  > > international network of Pixelache conferences. It is organized by
>  > > Lorna
>  > >  > > (the Icelandic organization for electronic arts) in
> collaboration with
>  > >  > > The Icelandic Academy of the Arts and The Reykjavik Municipal Art
>  > >  > > Galleries. Through a series of lectures, presentations and
>  > > performances,
>  > >  > > this year's conference will continue Helsinki's theme on
> education and
>  > >  > > act as a precursor to Bergen's them on Free, Libre and Open Source
>  > >  > > Software by focussing on artists' use of computer programming
> code to
>  > >  > > create works of art. Invited and selected guests will present
> a variety
>  > >  > > of views regarding issues relating to artistic applications of
> computer
>  > >  > > programming code. Amongst the questions that will be explored are:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > * Can we view computer programming code as a distinct artistic
> medium
>  > >  > > and if so, what are the conceptual and aesthetic implications?
>  > >  > > * Does it matter whether or not artists do their own
> programming or
>  > > hire
>  > >  > > professional programmers to do it?
>  > >  > > * Can the "open-sourcing" of artistic code aid in the long-term
>  > >  > > preservation of this type of artwork?
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Call for Participants is open, deadline 30 September 2008!
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > (Participants who would like to apply for funding to cover their
>  > >  > > travel costs should send in their applications ASAP)
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > More information: www.pikslaverk.org <http://www.pikslaverk.org>
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > - - - -
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > OFFICIAL CALL FOR PROPOSALS:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Lorna is now accepting submissions to Pikslaverk 2008. Please
> read the
>  > >  > > festival description well to determine whether or not your
> submission
>  > >  > > fits into the scope of the festival. What we are especially
> interested
>  > >  > > in are work or papers that examine the roll of code within
> computer
>  > >  > > programmed art. Whether you feel that code means everything,
> is the
>  > >  > > *essence* of the work or that code adds nothing, is simply a tool,
>  > >  > > nothing more, we would like to hear from you.
>  > >  > > Send your submissions to Pall Thayer at pallith*AT*mbl*DOT*is.
>  > >  > > Submissions should include the following information:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > * In the case of work include a brief description, link and/or
> up to 5
>  > >  > > images (JPEG or PNG). Also explain how you think the work fits
> into the
>  > >  > > scope of the festival.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > * In the case of papers/presentations include a brief abstract.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > * All submissions should include the names of those involved, i.e.
>  > >  > > collaborators, co-authors, etc. and a bio/CV or a link to one
> online.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > * Include contact information, i.e. Name, address, email.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Please send only PDF, ODT or DOC (DOCX files are unacceptable)
> for text
>  > >  > > files and JPG or PNG for images.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Participants who present or show work should be prepared to
> share any
>  > >  > > relevant source-code. That's what it's all about, people.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Pikslaverk will pay accepted artists and speakers a small fee
> but we
>  > >  > > cannot cover travel costs and lodging. We can however assist
> selected
>  > >  > > practitioners in finding funding to cover these costs. We would
>  > >  > > especially encourage people from nordic countries to apply.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > The official deadline for submissions is September 30, 2008.
> But we
>  > > will
>  > >  > > do our best to accomodate those who may need to reach travel-grant
>  > >  > > applications before that time, such as the KKNord Mobility
> grants where
>  > >  > > the deadline is September 3, 2008. SO PLEASE GET YOUR APPLICATIONS
>  > > IN ASAP!
>  > >  > > _______________________________________________
>  > >  > > NetBehaviour mailing list
>  > >  > > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>  > >  > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>  > >  > >
>  > >
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > NetBehaviour mailing list
>  > > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>  > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>  > >
>  > > _______________________________________________
>  > > NetBehaviour mailing list
>  > > NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>  > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>  > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>