Dear Jon and Alison
Just to say thank you very much for taking time to explain all of this to us
- it is great to get the detail behind the surface.
Bronac
On 20 March 2010 11:04, Jon Thomson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I'll try and answer your questions reasonably succinctly:
>
> As you correctly suppose, we limited the work following the rather old
> world model that photography and video tends to also follow in the market,
> and while that wasn't explicitly a condition of the sale, it was what
> naturally emerged as unquestioned terms during the conversation
> -unquestioned I should add by both us and BCC in this case.
>
> We agree that the conversation should be opened up in general, and one way
> we are trying to work now is to make works available on our website in
> streaming, embedded forms etc that may also have a gallery/installation
> iteration so that a version of the work is freely available online but
> another version of the work as installation can be taken up by the art
> market at large or not as the case may be.
>
> This also allows our website to be a simple visible archive, something that
> we value a lot ourselves when we come across it elsewhere (ubuweb etc...)
> and speaking for a second as a visiting lecturer at art school I can report
> that the availability and visibility of work in repositories like ubuweb is
> really changing the way art students are able to access stuff that until
> then could only be little more than hearsay or historical trace...
>
> The modesty of the price (four not five figures) is for a number of reasons
> but ostensibly thinking about the extra cost of maintaining the work in the
> short to medium term (it will have to be remade as technology changes). I
> guess we were quite eager as well for BCC to make this acquisition (their
> first that intrinsically involves the internet) and so we were not focussed
> on pushing for a maximum sale price in any case. In general our interest in
> getting works into collections is not primarily financially motivated
> (although we obviously need money to live), it's much more about getting
> work looked after by people/institutions other than ourselves, because we
> have enough trouble maintaining work while making new work as it is.
>
> I would expect this is a common enough problem for artists who make works
> that need ongoing care, and for us it is one of our biggest because we can't
> really afford to employ assistants to maintain our archive and are not very
> willing to take on unpaid interns.
>
> best wishes,
>
> Jon
>
> PS the benjamin anecdote is yet another great example of how history
> misinterprets so much!!
>
>
> --> web
> http://www.thomson-craighead.net
>
> --> now:
> MyWar, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool
> 12 March - 30 May, 2010 (& Touring)
>
> --> now:
> http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2010/short_film_about_war
>
> --> coming up:
> Several Interruptions, Urban Video Project, Syracuse, New York
> April 1st 2010 - April 30th 2010
>
>
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2010, at 22:03, Richard Rinehart wrote:
>
> > Jon Thomson,
> >
> > Thanks for offering up your sale of a variable media artwork to the
> British Council as a case study; I think it's fascinating. If we can indeed
> use this as a case study for our conversation here, then I have a question
> about your sale, but also about commissioning and collecting variable work
> in general...
> >
> >> what we also did, given that the work itself could be reduced to a
> series of instructions is make a unique edition (plus artists copy) of
> archive prints that contain all the information required to remake the work
> in perpetuity.
> >
> >
> > Q. I'm interested in why you chose to make a variable (theoretically
> infinitely duplicable) work into a fixed unique work? Was it due to pressure
> from the buyer to hand over something tangible? This is a common strategy
> for museums currently collecting variable work. They will ask the artist to
> take a variable/duplicable work and somehow make it fit into the older
> economic/social model of art (contracts limiting reproduction and
> guaranteeing exclusivity, or creation of singular objects - even an
> artist-signed DVD) whereby it becomes a singular object/commodity and then
> it's easier to deal with. I'll come clean that I have an opinion here; I
> certainly don't blame the artist who of course must make a living, but I
> wish that the institutions and the larger art world in general would use
> this as more of an occasion to open up the conversation (again) and to
> experiment with new models that didn't subvert the artist's intent of
> working in open media (as Simon has articulated) and that in fact might open
> up new cultural practices.
> >
> > Recently, I saw this text from an upcoming talk at UC Berkeley:
> > "Perhaps nothing has damaged digital art's legitimacy so much as Walter
> Benjamin's accusation that reproducibility destroys the art work's "aura".
> If the artwork is multiple or can be multiplied it supposedly is
> existentially inferior."....
> >
> > ....to which I thought that, for Benjamin, that lack of "aura" was not
> entirely a negative thing! In fact, it opened up new social practices and a
> new social(ist) role for art (in his case film, but even moreso newer media
> art).
> >
> >> we agreed a (relatively) modest price for it with the understanding that
> it would require updating and maintenance,
> >
> > Q. Do you think you were asked to accept a lower price than you might
> have gotten because the collector felt it would cost them more to maintain
> this work? If so, do you felt like that cost should have been passed on to
> you, the artists, in the form of a lower purchase/commission fee? Or did you
> feel like the price was modest in part because the work was ephemeral? I
> don't mean to put words into your mouth, and certainly don't mean to pick on
> you :) but I'm curious about these implications.
> >
> > What do others think? We do have some examples of experimental practices.
> Are they working out? How many are there in relation to the older models
> being put into practice?
> >
> >
> > Richard Rinehart
> > ---------------
> > Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
> > Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
> > bampfa.berkeley.edu
> > ---------------
> > University of California, Berkeley
> > ---------------
> > 2625 Durant Ave.
> > Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
> > ph.510.642.5240
> > fx.510.642.5269
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Jon Thomson wrote:
> >
> >> When we sold a work to the British Council a few years ago -- it was an
> instruction based work using live data as its material -- we agreed a
> (relatively) modest price for it with the understanding that it would
> require updating and maintenance, but what we also did, given that the work
> itself could be reduced to a series of instructions is make a unique edition
> (plus artists copy) of archive prints that contain all the information
> required to remake the work in perpetuity. The print edition then functions
> as a work itself to some extent but also accommodates the longer term. In
> essence the British Council Collection have entered into ownership of the
> work but also accept curatorial responsibility institutionally, which itself
> includes some measure of patronage.
> >>
> >> In our opinion, this has been our most successful transaction to date as
> we believe it contains a trace of the original intention of the work less
> bound by the contemporary technology used to deliver it just now and with
> less need for a long term maintenance strategy. The endowment idea that Jon
> Ippolito mentions is also a really interesting one, but does require trust
> and luck to maintain it on an ongoing basis, but at least a bunch of archive
> prints in an archive box can be lost in a store room and then unearthed at a
> future date within two or three generations or so.
> >>
> >> best wishes,
> >>
> >> Jon & Alison
> >>
> >> -> web
> >> http://www.thomson-craighead.net
> >>
> >> --> now:
> >> MyWar, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology (FACT), Liverpool
> >> 12 March - 30 May, 2010 (& Touring)
> >>
> >> --> now:
> >> http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by_date/2010/short_film_about_war
> >>
> >> --> coming up:
> >> Several Interruptions, Urban Video Project, Syracuse, New York
> >> April 1st 2010 - April 30th 2010
> >>
> >> On 17 Mar 2010, at 19:08, Marcia Tanner wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Simon,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree that if your artistic practice is to make work deliberately
> intended" "in part to subvert how value is traditionally ascribed to
> artefacts by ensuring
> >>> it was infinitely reproducible and universally accessible," that the
> notion of selling it IS silly. I'm aware that this ideological
> >>> impetus informs the practice of many artists making work for the
> Internet and applaud you and them for it. In your case, I can only imagine
> that you've
> >>> sold your work precisely in order to demonstrate the absurdity of that
> exchange. Otherwise, since you could easily foresee that
> >>> the "issues" you mention would arise and that engaging in a sale would
> be a self-fulfilling prophecy with predictable consequences, why bother?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The artists I engage with do not necessarily have university positions
> to support themselves, do not work exclusively on the Internet,
> >>> and need to make a living from their work. So do I.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Marcia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Marcia Tanner
> >>> Independent Curator / Writer
> >>> 176 Alvarado Road
> >>> Berkeley, CA 94705
> >>> 510.848.0769 [h]
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Sent: Wed, Mar 17, 2010 4:56 am
> >>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] one way to own a work of art on the
> Web
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ken, Richard. Hope all is well in SF.
> >>>
> >>> The description you have given of how Ken’s piece was collected is
> pretty
> >>> clear. It is a model that has also been applied to my work and
> similarly it
> >>> only worked, in the first insatnce, because the collectors in question
> were
> >>> driven more by an altruistic desire to support the work than to own it.
> >>> Nevertheless, even in this instance, I still have issues. One is that
> the
> >>> work was made in part to subvert how value is traditionally ascribed to
> >>> artefacts by ensuring it was infinitely reproducible and universally
> >>> accessible. Buying and selling such work is therefore not only rather
> silly
> >>> but also at odds with the intent of the work. Secondly, and the more
> >>> significant, is the issue of the secondary market. There are works of
> mine
> >>> that have entered that market and which are exchanged at highly
> inflated
> >>> values. This is an even sillier situation as the same works remain
> freely
> >>> reproducible or cheaply available in large editions in the public
> domain and
> >>> it adds injury to insult as others profit from work that I did and put
> into
> >>> the public realm either for free or at or even below the cost of
> production.
> >>> I’d argue that is a form of theft from me and from all those who have
> >>> exchanged such work freely. If I ate cornflakes I would choke on
> them...
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Simon Biggs
> >>>
> >>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: simonbiggsuk
> >>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> >>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> >>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> >>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> >>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in
> Practice
> >>> http://www.elmcip.net/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:00:32 -0400
> >>> To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>,
> >>> <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Subject: one way to own a work of art on the Web
> >>>
> >>> Hello Simon:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your email touching on your dissatisfaction, as a digital
> artist,
> >>> with the various models of ownership you've experienced with your work.
> I'm
> >>> not really equipped to "detail" the ownership model that the gallerist
> >>> Catharine (Katie) Clark developed for a specific piece -- "memento
> mori" --
> >>> in consultation with the artist, Ken Goldberg and the collector, Theo
> >>> Armour. You should ask Katie herself; she has lectured on the
> arrangement
> >>> often, including at the art and law class offered by Prof. John
> Merryman in
> >>> the Law School at Stanford University.
> >>>
> >>> Here's a link to the press release for a panel discussion on this topic
> at
> >>> the gallery. Rick Rinehart was on the panel.
> >>>
> >>> www.cclarkgallery.com/Press_Release_Sanchez-Goldberg_2009.pdf
> >>>
> >>> As the work is time-based and continually evolving yet self-contained
> (i.e.,
> >>> it can't be modified online by human intervention; it responds in real
> time
> >>> to seismic activity around the SF Bay Area and translates that activity
> >>> algorithmically into an ever-changing sound composition) what the
> collector
> >>> gets is a CD that records the sounds produced on a specific day for a
> >>> specific duration, and a certificate of ownership. I believe Theo is
> listed
> >>> as the owner of the piece on its website but it's a conceptual kind of
> >>> ownership that to me is more like patronage. Not every collector would
> be
> >>> satisfied by this but Theo is a generous, imaginative man and he is
> happy
> >>> with it. Ken seems pretty happy with it too. You should ask Ken if he
> feels
> >>> the piece has been compromised aesthetically as a result.
> >>>
> >>> The account above may be inaccurate so I urge you to go to the sources.
> >>> I've copied them on this email so you'll have their contact
> information. I
> >>> hope this is helpful but it may not be generalizable to the kind of
> work you
> >>> make, or to the collectors who seek to "own" it.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Marcia
> >>>
> >>> Marcia Tanner
> >>> Independent Curator / Writer
> >>> 176 Alvarado Road
> >>> Berkeley, CA 94705
> >>> 510.848.0769 [h]
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Sent: Tue, Mar 16, 2010 4:35 am
> >>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
> >>>
> >>> Hi Marcia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do you want to detail this a bit more? I am an artist who works with
> digital
> >>>
> >>> media and my work has been collected in various forms and under various
> >>>
> >>> models of ownership. To date, whilst these solutions have apparently
> >>>
> >>> sufficed for the collector they have never been satisfying from an
> artistic
> >>>
> >>> point of view. In fact, they have left a bad taste in the mouth as such
> >>>
> >>> models fail to comprehend the ontology of the work/process; once the
> work is
> >>>
> >>> out there it comes to be exploited in quite an unethical manner which
> >>>
> >>> distorts its intended value (I know, why should the artist¹s opinion
> count
> >>>
> >>> for anything but we are very critical when an indigenous artist¹s work
> is
> >>>
> >>> appropriated inappropriately).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Simon Biggs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: simonbiggsuk
> >>>
> >>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> >>>
> >>> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> >>>
> >>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> >>>
> >>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> >>>
> >>> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in
> Practice
> >>>
> >>> http://www.elmcip.net/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Marcia Tanner <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>> Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:22:17 -0400
> >>>
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rick, Roger, Bronac, Oliver et. al.,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> As someone transitioning from curating new media art to art consulting,
> >>>
> >>> specializing in helping private collectors acquire new media work, I
> find
> >>>
> >>> this discussion germane. But I wonder how strategies designed for
> museum
> >>>
> >>> collections might also apply to individual collectors?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The San Francisco gallerist Catharine Clark (of Catharine Clark
> Gallery) has
> >>>
> >>> for instance worked out a legal and viable strategy for a collector >>
> to
> >>>
> >>> acquire an artist's work that exists only on the Internet, so that he
> (the
> >>>
> >>> collector) does actually own the work but it is is still available to
> anyone
> >>>
> >>> to access online. It's complicated and the collector is exceptionally
> >>>
> >>> altruistic so this may not be a universal solution. Also, I'm not sure
> how
> >>>
> >>> this particular strategy will function if/when the Internet becomes
> obsolete
> >>>
> >>> and the piece either disappears or must be translated into a different
> >>>
> >>> form/medium. There are also questions of appraisal -- how is value
> assessed
> >>>
> >>> for works like this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The point is: the challenges of collecting new media art are not just
> for
> >>>
> >>> museums any more. Any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Marcia Tanner
> >>>
> >>> Independent Curator / Writer
> >>>
> >>> 176 Alvarado Road
> >>>
> >>> Berkeley, CA 94705
> >>>
> >>> 415.314.5087 [m]
> >>>
> >>> 510.848.0769 [h]
> >>>
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>
> >>> From: Richard Rinehart <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Mon, Mar 15, 2010 1:40 pm
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] OPEN MUSEUMS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Roger, Oliver, Bronac, et al,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes indeed, interesting discussion and hopefully seed of
> >>>
> >>> action/collaboration! Roger, that a truly "open museum" may take 30
> years is
> >>>
> >>> either a disheartening prospect or a supreme challenge (guess which I
> >>>
> >>> choose?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Oliver, you could not be more right of course in that so many of the
> early
> >>>
> >>> efforts to document/preserve/provide access to new media art forms have
> >>>
> >>> fallen by the wayside and the entire genre is in danger of being lost
> to
> >>>
> >>> history. I also agree that the big funders that could help turn this
> around
> >>>
> >>> so far seem disinterested or unaware (despite my repeated advances;
> ahem!
> >>>
> >>> :). Many government funders are still focussing on preservation/access
> >>>
> >>> projects around *representations* of traditional art collections (image
> >>>
> >>> banks of paintings, etc.) and most museums with mixed collections are
> >>>
> >>> similarly focussed. To be fair, this is in part because the
> overwhelming
> >>>
> >>> majority of cultural collections (and research) is still comprised of
> these
> >>>
> >>> collections.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> However, as Oliver points out, new media art is in danger of being
> utterly
> >>>
> >>> eclipsed and this period of history and ongoing artistic practice made
> >>>
> >>> unavailable to research (which will only compound the problem). There
> are
> >>>
> >>> more museums dealing with new media art in their regular operations,
> but
> >>>
> >>> usually without any special collaborative effort and thus it gets
> subsumed
> >>>
> >>> into traditional practices or treated as any other multimedia objects.
> There
> >>>
> >>> are valiant efforts, and Roger, you described many of them from
> libraries
> >>>
> >>> and elsewhere focussed on access to new born-digital culture, and many
> of
> >>>
> >>> them are focussed on the broader realm of "digital culture and
> knowledge"
> >>>
> >>> where often new media art in particular gets lost in the shuffle. New
> media
> >>>
> >>> art is certainly part of the bigger puzzle, but it also has its special
> >>>
> >>> needs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To that end, and toward performing my duties as one of our invited
> >>>
> >>> discussants this month on commissions - let me ask you all; how might
> >>>
> >>> commissions help this situation? Beryl has brought up the Lab model;
> how is
> >>>
> >>> this model different? Back in the day at the Guggenheim, Jon Ippolito
> was
> >>>
> >>> thinking of how to build in preservation and access as part of the
> >>>
> >>> commission/purchase/exhibition of new media art (Jon smartly knew where
> >>>
> >>> museums place their efforts). Jon, do you want to describe that model
> for
> >>>
> >>> us? At BAM, we were similarly able to slip in even the tiniest notion
> of an
> >>>
> >>> open museum inside a curatorial/exhibition program.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do others know of innovative commissioning models that also have the
> >>>
> >>> long-term in mind?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Rinehart
> >>>
> >>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>> Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
> >>>
> >>> Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
> >>>
> >>> bampfa.berkeley.edu
> >>>
> >>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>> University of California, Berkeley
> >>>
> >>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>> 2625 Durant Ave.
> >>>
> >>> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
> >>>
> >>> ph.510.642.5240
> >>>
> >>> fx.510.642.5269
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Bronac Ferran wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hallo everyone- thanks, this is an interesting discussion.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Roger said: many of these issues were discussed at the CODE >
> conference some
> >>>
> >>>> years
> >>>
> >>>> back. Good news: there is still a webcast of the conference available
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/CODE/
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> In terms of some of the other points I recently wrote an essay >
> commissioned
> >>>
> >>>> by Arts Council England called Rethinking Ownership and in this I >
> suggest
> >>>
> >>>> that if a national collection of digital art was to be created it >
> should not
> >>>
> >>>> be a selected one (such as the ACE Film and Video, Poetry and Visual >
> Arts
> >>>
> >>>> collections which were spawned some decades ago) but it could be >
> created in
> >>>
> >>>> another way which for eg could see funded works (and initiatives >
> such as
> >>>
> >>>> CODE which took place in 2001) and many earlier seminal works from >
> the mid
> >>>
> >>>> 90s onwards elected by the generators of the projects to be included >
> in a
> >>>
> >>>> distributed collection where the key thing is that the learning and
> >>>
> >>>> documentation of process (which is often housed within summary >
> reports only
> >>>
> >>>> seen by the funder then filed) is shared openly and available and >
> accessible
> >>>
> >>>> through an easy mapping process and one might of course add to this >
> open
> >>>
> >>>> sourced code or other redistributable aspects. So what is preserved >
> is not
> >>>
> >>>> only the work but the context, which is vital for so called new media
> >>>
> >>>> projects (and interdisciplinary projects in general)....
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> It was suggested as a provocation in an independent essay but there >
> may be
> >>>
> >>>> the germ of something here worth exploring
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> cheers
> >>>
> >>>> Bronc
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 14 March 2010 10:20, roger malina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Oliver
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I agree with your point:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> "What is needed in the (Digital) Humanities isan institutional >>
> support
> >>>
> >>>>> equivalent to that in Astronomy, Biology or ClimateResearch, in >>
> order to
> >>>
> >>>>> create enough momentum and adhesion the main fundingorganizations >>
> like
> >>>
> >>>>> NSF, NEH, the European Research Council, DFG, VolkswagenFoundation >>
> etc.
> >>>
> >>>>> have to support on an international level the necessaryresearch
> >>>
> >>>>> structure for research in Media Art and the Digital Humanities >>
> ingeneral
> >>>
> >>>>> needed in the 21st century."
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> What broke things open in astronomy was the fact that inter >>
> governmental
> >>>
> >>>>> and institutional agencies created a funding climate that enabled >>
> virtual
> >>>
> >>>>> observatories with public access. Data by itself is usually useless
> >> unless
> >>>
> >>>>> you have the accompanying metadata, analysis software, international
> >>>
> >>>>> protocols and standards, middleware etc ( and that means time and >>
> money).
> >>>
> >>>>> Plus the realisation by
> >>>
> >>>>> astronomers about the new kinds of science that could be done by
> >>>> >> combining
> >>>
> >>>>> databases from different
> >>>
> >>>>> observatories ( and different time periods)- which is what you are >>
> arguing
> >>>
> >>>>> in the humanities is also the case.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Some of the new kinds of art scholarship and art that can come out >>
> of open
> >>>
> >>>>> networked
> >>>
> >>>>> systems are being discussed at several conferences this spring and >>
> summer
> >>>
> >>>>> including
> >>>
> >>>>> the Leonardo Day at the NETSCI 2010 conference in Boston :
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> http://artshumanities.netsci2010.net/
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> and also the the High Throughput Humanities conference in
> >>>
> >>>>> Portugal:(deadline
> >>>
> >>>>> April 30)
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> http://hth.eccs2010.eu/
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> goal: The High Throughput Humanities satellite event at ECCS'10 >>
> >>>
> >>> establishes
> >>>
> >>>>> a forum for high throughput approaches in the humanities and social
> >>>
> >>>>> sciences, within the framework of complex systems science. The >>
> symposium
> >>>
> >>>>> aims to go beyond massive data aquisition and to present results >>
> beyond
> >>>
> >>>>> what
> >>>
> >>>>> can be manually achieved by a single person or a small group. >>
> Bringing
> >>>
> >>>>> together scientists, researchers, and practitioners from relevant >>
> fields,
> >>>
> >>>>> the event will stimulate and facilitate discussion, spark >>
> collaboration,
> >>>
> >>> as
> >>>
> >>>>> well as connect approaches, methods, and ideas.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> This makes the strong argument that cross coupling humanities and >>
> art data
> >>>
> >>>>> bases new kinds of research
> >>>
> >>>>> and art are enabled.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> There are a number of initiatives that are relevant to >>
> methodologies
> >>>
> >>> coming
> >>>
> >>>>> out of the
> >>>
> >>>>> cybernetics community- such as for example:
> >>>
> >>>>> *Cybernetics: Art, Design, Mathematics < A Meta-Disciplinary >>
> Conversation
> >>>
> >>>>> (C:ADM2010)*
> >>>
> >>>>> *http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/2010/*
> >>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>
> >>>>> *
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Finally of course HASTAC in the usa has been working hard on many >>
> of these
> >>>
> >>>>> issues:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> http://www.hastac.org/
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> <http://www.hastac.org/>HASTAC <http://www.hastac.org/%3EHASTAC>
> >>> ("haystack") is a network of >> individuals
> >>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>>> institutions inspired by the possibilities that new technologies >>
> offer us
> >>>
> >>>>> for shaping how we learn, teach, communicate, create, and organize >>
> our
> >>>
> >>>>> local
> >>>
> >>>>> and global communities. We are motivated by the conviction that the
> >>>
> >>>>> digital
> >>>
> >>>>> era provides rich opportunities for informal and formal learning >>
> and for
> >>>
> >>>>> collaborative, networked research that extends across traditional
> >>>
> >>>>> disciplines, across the boundaries of academe and community, across
> >> the
> >>>
> >>>>> "two
> >>>
> >>>>> cultures" of humanism and technology, across the divide of thinking
> >> versus
> >>>
> >>>>> making, and across social strata and national borders.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Leonardo and Siggraph are cosponsoring at SIGGRAPH in LA a full day
> >> on
> >>>
> >>>>> 20XX.EDU the future
> >>>
> >>>>> of learning in the digital age that builds on the macarthur funded >>
> report
> >>>
> >>>>> on
> >>>
> >>>>> the future of learning
> >>>
> >>>>> institutions in the digital age=this report make a number of relevant
> >>>
> >>>>> points
> >>>
> >>>>> to an OPEN MUSEUM movement.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/Future_of_Learning.pdf
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> (yes its available under a creative commons license)
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I dont think we have any equivalent international efforts of the kind
> >>>
> >>>>> oliver
> >>>
> >>>>> is suggesting yet.( maybe crumb
> >>>
> >>>>> readers know of some) ,and the
> >>>
> >>>>> kinds of actions in the museum world that Rick is arguing for have >>
> been
> >>>
> >>>>> generally driven by intellectual property
> >>>
> >>>>> control and monetarising issues ( the Louvre in Dubai..) rather than
> >>>
> >>>>> enabling new kinds of scholarship and art.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Rick Rinehart's call for an OPEN MUSEUM movement that provides:
> >>>
> >>>>> "In the Open Museum, the source code and other files
> >>>
> >>>>> for digital artworks from the collection are free for users to >>
> download,
> >>>
> >>>>> study, use, and re-mix into new works " i suspect is at least a >>
> thirty
> >>>
> >>> year
> >>>
> >>>>> project
> >>>
> >>>>> (thats how long it took in astronomy)
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> roger
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Oliver Grau <
> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Thank youRoger for this. You made a very important point for all >>>
> of us
> >>>
> >>>>>> here and Istrongly like to support your thought by adding my five
> >>> cents.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Comparablewith natural sciences, digital media and new >>>
> opportunities of
> >>>
> >>>>>> networkedresearch catapult the cultural sciences within reach of >>>
> new and
> >>>
> >>>>>> essentialresearch, like appropriate documentation and preservation
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>>>> media art, or evenbetter, an entire history of visual media and >>>
> their
> >>>
> >>>>>> human cognition by means ofthousands of sources. These themes >>>
> express in
> >>>
> >>>>>> regard to image revolutioncurrent key questions. In order to push
> >>>
> >>>>>> humanities and cultural sciences intheir development, it is >>>
> necessary to
> >>>
> >>>>>> use the new technologies globally and create a research >>>
> infrastructure
> >>>
> >>>>>> which is organisided much more intercontinental than now.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Since the foundation of the pioneering Databaseof Virtual Art >>>
> anumber of
> >>>
> >>>>>> online archives for digitization and documentation arose:
> >>>
> >>>>>> LangloisFoundation inMontreal, Netzspannung at the Frauenhofer >>>
> Institut
> >>>
> >>>>>> or MedienKunstNetz at ZKM * most of these projectsterminated, their
> >>>
> >>>>>> funding expired, or they lost key researchers like V2 inRotterdam.
> >>> Even
> >>>
> >>>>>> the Boltzmann Institut for Media Art Research in Linz, faced >>>
> recently
> >>>
> >>>>>> itsclose-down after an evaluation. In this way the originated >>>
> scientific
> >>>
> >>>>>> archiveswhich more and more often represent the only remaining image
> >>>
> >>>>>> source of the art works,do not only lose step by step their >>>
> significance
> >>>
> >>>>>> for research and preservationbut in the meantime partly disappear
> >>> from
> >>>
> >>>>>> the web. Not only the media artitself, but also its documentation
> >>> fads
> >>>
> >>>>>> that future generations of researchersand public will not be able
> >>> to get
> >>>
> >>>>>> an idea of the past and the art of our time.To put it another way,
> >>> till
> >>>
> >>>>>> now no sustainable strategy exits. What we need isa concentrated and
> >>>
> >>>>>> compact expansion of ability. There is/was increasingcollaboration
> >>> with
> >>>
> >>>>>> these projects in a variety of areas and in changingcoalitions. >>>
> But in
> >>>
> >>>>>> the field of documentation projects - real preservationprojects do
> >>> not
> >>>
> >>>>>> exist yet (beside fantastic case studies) - the focus is >>>
> stilldirected
> >>>
> >>>>>> too much towards particularisation, instead of concentrating >>>
> forces,what
> >>>
> >>>>>> is essential strategy in most other fields (as Roger pointed out).
> >>>
> >>>>>> Manyindividual projects are definitely innovative but too small and
> >>>
> >>>>>> without clearlarger scientific strategy and safe financing, which
> >>> is not
> >>>
> >>>>>> their fault. Someprojects are already expired and not carried >>>
> further.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Lots of competence and culturalwealth, but too much separationism.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Especially the university based researchprojects and partly also
> >>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>> ones which are linked to museums have developedexpertise that >>>
> needs to
> >>>
> >>>>>> be included in cultural circulation, not only in orderto pass it >>>
> on to
> >>>
> >>>>>> future generations of scientists and archivists but also togive it a
> >>>
> >>>>>> chance to flow into future university education in the fields of
> >>>
> >>>>>> art,engineering, and media history. Clearly, the goal must be to >>>
> develop
> >>>
> >>>>>> a policyand strategy for collecting the art of our latest history
> >>> under
> >>>
> >>>>>> the umbrella ofa strong, let¹s say ³Library of Congress like²
> >>>
> >>>>>> institution. Ultimately, however, this can onlybe organized by a >>>
> network
> >>>
> >>>>>> of artists, computer and science centers, galleries,technology >>>
> producers
> >>>
> >>>>>> and museums. Those projects which collected culturallyimportant
> >>>
> >>>>>> documents in the past and which often expired, were not further
> >>>
> >>>>>> supportedor even lost their base must be supported and reanimated.
> >>> They
> >>>
> >>>>>> should beorganized like a corona around an institution which >>>
> receives
> >>>
> >>>>>> the duty ofdocumentation and may be even the collection of >>>
> contemporary
> >>>
> >>>>>> media art, such aninstitution could be in the USA, the Library of
> >>>
> >>>>>> Congress; in Europe, besidesthe new European digital libraries >>>
> database
> >>>
> >>>>>> Europeana, it could be the BibliothequeNational, the >>>
> BritishLibrary, the
> >>>
> >>>>>> V&A or in Germany beside the ZKM for example the >>>
> DeutscheBibliothek or
> >>>
> >>>>>> even better a Max Planck Institute.Interestingly the libraries show
> >>>
> >>>>>> increasingly interest to archive multimediaworks and their
> >>>
> >>>>>> documentation; however, the usually complex cultural andtechnical
> >>> know
> >>>
> >>>>>> how is lacking in order to preserve principal works of the >>>
> mostimportant
> >>>
> >>>>>> media art genres of the last decades. Not only can the
> >>>
> >>>>>> internationalstate of Media Art be a hinderance in creating common
> >>>
> >>>>>> projects, also the FUNDINGINFRASTRUCTURE of media art >>>
> documentation so
> >>>
> >>>>>> far, has normally promotedprojects for 2, 3, or more years, >>>
> neglecting
> >>>
> >>>>>> sustainability. A structure whichupdates, extends and contextualizes
> >>>
> >>>>>> research * whether in historical orcontemporary contexts is >>>
> required.
> >>>
> >>>>>> The funding and support infrastructureswhich have been built in >>>
> the end
> >>>
> >>>>>> of the last century are not suitable forscientific and cultural >>>
> tasks in
> >>>
> >>>>>> the Humanities of the 21st Century.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> What is needed in the (Digital) Humanities isan institutional >>>
> support
> >>>
> >>>>>> equivalent to that in Astronomy, Biology or ClimateResearch, in >>>
> order to
> >>>
> >>>>>> create enough momentum and adhesion the main fundingorganizations
> >>> like
> >>>
> >>>>>> NSF, NEH, the European Research Council, DFG, VolkswagenFoundation
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>>>>> have to support on an international level the necessaryresearch
> >>>
> >>>>>> structure for research in Media Art and the Digital Humanities >>>
> ingeneral
> >>>
> >>>>>> needed in the 21st century.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> oliver
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> roger malina 13.03.10 13.45 Uhr >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Rick
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Look forward to seeing the book. Re the Open Museum discussion,
> >>>
> >>>>>> i recently posted my Open Observatory manifesto
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> http://www.leoalmanac.org/index.php/lea/entry/an_open_observatory_manifesto/
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> I am heavily influenced here by my work as an astronomer over the
> >>> last
> >>>
> >>>>>> thirty
> >>>
> >>>>>> years. Thirty years ago astronomers viewed the data they took ( in
> >>> those
> >>>
> >>>>>> days
> >>>
> >>>>>> photographic plates) as their personal property and their careers
> >>> hinged
> >>>
> >>>>>> on
> >>>
> >>>>>> their
> >>>
> >>>>>> controlling this data ( and their students careers depended on their
> >>>
> >>>>>> access
> >>>
> >>>>>> to their
> >>>
> >>>>>> professors data). Today NASA and NSF now have a contractual >>>
> stipulation
> >>>
> >>>>>> that
> >>>
> >>>>>> all data
> >>>
> >>>>>> funded by NASA must be made publically available= its funded by >>>
> public
> >>>
> >>>>>> money
> >>>
> >>>>>> so the public has a right to access it. This has led to a scientific
> >>>
> >>>>>> revolution in
> >>>
> >>>>>> astronomy= more science is now done on the hubble data archive, than
> >>>
> >>>>>> with
> >>>
> >>>>>> new observations= and more science is done by other people than by
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>> astronomers who took the data. The international virtual observatory
> >>>
> >>>>>> movement
> >>>
> >>>>>> has generalised this and there are now shared data analysis tools
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>>>>> are
> >>>
> >>>>>> open sourced.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> This open data is still not the case in many fields of science even
> >>>
> >>>>>> though
> >>>
> >>>>>> the data was funded by public monies, but its a growing trend >>>
> (even in
> >>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>> genome project). And indeed
> >>>
> >>>>>> the model is that the scientist is funded up front to take the >>>
> data, and
> >>>
> >>>>>> then
> >>>
> >>>>>> its open sourced. In the humanities its still not the case often=
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>> access
> >>>
> >>>>>> to collections is tightly controlled ( cf the ongoing debate about
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>> dead
> >>>
> >>>>>> sea
> >>>
> >>>>>> scrolls..)
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> So a first piece of your open museum proposal could simply be that
> >>>
> >>>>>> any work commissioned using public monies must be open sourced
> >>>
> >>>>>> on the ideological basis that the public paid for it so they have a
> >>>
> >>>>>> right
> >>>
> >>>>>> to it. And indeed the artist is paid up front ( just as the >>>
> scientist is
> >>>
> >>>>>> paid
> >>>
> >>>>>> up front)
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> This approach obviously ignores the fact that in art ( as opposed to
> >>>
> >>>>>> science)
> >>>
> >>>>>> a lot of the art economy depends on speculation and that a small >>>
> tiny
> >>>
> >>>>>> fraction
> >>>
> >>>>>> of artists get very rich because the intellectual property can be
> >>>
> >>>>>> controlled
> >>>
> >>>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>> monetarised in speculation. I guess in science the equivalent is >>>
> that a
> >>>
> >>>>>> few
> >>>
> >>>>>> scientists have benefited from very lucrative patents that they have
> >>>
> >>>>>> filed-
> >>>
> >>>>>> which are not so much speculative but are market driven. Patents >>>
> that
> >>>
> >>>>>> result
> >>>
> >>>>>> from government funding are tightly regulated, with the inventor >>>
> and the
> >>>
> >>>>>> institutions
> >>>
> >>>>>> getting their share.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> nd in the book edited by Ghosh in the leonardo book series
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> http://leonardo.info/isast/leobooks/books/ghosh.html
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Open source software is considered by many to be a novelty and the
> >>> open
> >>>
> >>>>>> source movement a revolution. Yet the collaborative creation of
> >>>
> >>>>>> knowledge
> >>>
> >>>>>> has gone on for as long as humans have been able to communicate. >>>
> CODE
> >>>
> >>>>>> looks
> >>>
> >>>>>> at the collaborative model of creativity -- with examples ranging
> >>> from
> >>>
> >>>>>> collective ownership in indigenous societies to free software, >>>
> academic
> >>>
> >>>>>> science, and the human genome project -- and finds it an >>>
> alternative to
> >>>
> >>>>>> proprietary frameworks for creativity based on strong intellectual
> >>>
> >>>>>> property
> >>>
> >>>>>> rights.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> the museum issue is tangentially addressed
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> roger
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Richard Rinehart wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Hello again New-Media-Curating,
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> In addition to the other mischief we like to cause individually,
> >>>> Jon
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Ippolito and I are co-authoring a book for MIT Press, due out >>>>
> Spring
> >>>
> >>>>>> '11 on
> >>>
> >>>>>>> collecting and preserving new media art .
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> I include below a brief excerpt from the book relevant to our
> >>>
> >>>>>> discussion
> >>>
> >>>>>>> this month on commissioning variable media art. In it, I'm >>>>
> proposing a
> >>>
> >>>>>> new
> >>>
> >>>>>>> model for an archive of new media art I call "the Open Museum" and
> >>>
> >>>>>>> describing perhaps a new way that commissioning could be seen to
> >>>
> >>>>>> function in
> >>>
> >>>>>>> that.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> I was originally inspired along these lines by the V2 arts
> >>>
> >>>>>> organization in
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Rotterdam that had a stipulation in which new media works >>>>
> commissioned
> >>>
> >>>>>> for
> >>>
> >>>>>>> their lab space must remain open-source within the lab space for
> >>>
> >>>>>> future
> >>>
> >>>>>>> commissioned artists. It got me thinking, why not take that great
> >>>> idea
> >>>
> >>>>>> a
> >>>
> >>>>>>> couple steps further.....
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> "Students, scholars, and the public can currently access images and
> >>>
> >>>>>> records
> >>>
> >>>>>>> *representations - of artworks held in museum collections, but they
> >>>
> >>>>>> cannot
> >>>
> >>>>>>> access the collections themselves. The Open Museum takes >>>>
> advantage of
> >>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> unique property of new media that allows one to share the original
> >>>
> >>>>>> without
> >>>
> >>>>>>> diminishing it. In the Open Museum, the source code and other files
> >>>
> >>>>>> for
> >>>
> >>>>>>> digital artworks from the collection are free for users to >>>>
> download,
> >>>
> >>>>>> study,
> >>>
> >>>>>>> use, and re-mix into new works. In this way, even the casual >>>>
> student
> >>>
> >>>>>> can
> >>>
> >>>>>>> peer under the hood and examine the inner workings of these >>>>
> artworks
> >>>
> >>>>>> in the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> way that previously only privileged scholars could with traditional
> >>>
> >>>>>> material
> >>>
> >>>>>>> collections. .......
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Intellectual property law was created to balance the private need
> >>>> with
> >>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> public good. It grants authors and artists exclusive rights over
> >>>> their
> >>>
> >>>>>> work
> >>>
> >>>>>>> for a limited period (not a short period, sometimes 90 years >>>>
> after the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> artists lifetime) after which the rights in the work move into the
> >>>
> >>>>>> public
> >>>
> >>>>>>> domain. The artist has time to find ways to earn a livelihood from
> >>>
> >>>>>> their
> >>>
> >>>>>>> work and this is seen as an incentive to create in the first place.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Why
> >>>
> >>>>>>> then, could not public museums act as stewards of the public good
> >>>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>>> compensate the artist earlier rather than later by commissioning
> >>>> works
> >>>
> >>>>>> for
> >>>
> >>>>>>> the Open Museum, after which they apply Creative Commons licenses
> >>>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>>> release the work to the public. The museum would earn their >>>>
> renown not
> >>>
> >>>>>> for
> >>>
> >>>>>>> the quality of art they obtain in exclusivity, but for the art they
> >>>
> >>>>>> obtain
> >>>
> >>>>>>> and then give away. The artist gets money up front and still owns
> >>>
> >>>>>> their
> >>>
> >>>>>>> work. And the public is served by waiting months rather than >>>>
> decades
> >>>
> >>>>>> to gain
> >>>
> >>>>>>> access and rights to use the work in question."
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Two more items.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Within the Berkeley Art Museum's net art portal, we were able to
> >>>
> >>>>>> include
> >>>
> >>>>>>> *some* of the function of the Open Museum - an open-source net art
> >>>
> >>>>>> archive.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Call it a baby step.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> (see http://netart.bampfa.berkeley.edu and scroll down to >>>>
> NetArtchive)
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> An earlier post to this list (from Leigh I believe; I lost the >>>>
> email),
> >>>
> >>>>>>> outlined how public institutions in Scotland are now using their
> >>>
> >>>>>> muscle to
> >>>
> >>>>>>> gain IP rights in works they commission. While public art funding
> >>>> and
> >>>
> >>>>>> IP are
> >>>
> >>>>>>> quite different between the UK, US, Canada and elsewhere, I >>>>
> wonder if
> >>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Open Museum provides a more positive spin on how public >>>>
> institutions
> >>>
> >>>>>> could
> >>>
> >>>>>>> partner with artists with regard to the disposition of IP in
> >>>
> >>>>>> commissioned
> >>>
> >>>>>>> works - or - is the Open Museum just another step toward big >>>>
> brother
> >>>
> >>>>>> taking
> >>>
> >>>>>>> everything?
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> What do you all think? What are the ways in which commissioning new
> >>>
> >>>>>> media
> >>>
> >>>>>>> *could* work in addition to how it already works? What are your
> >>>
> >>>>>> dreams?
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Richard Rinehart
> >>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Digital Media Director & Adjunct Curator
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive
> >>>
> >>>>>>> bampfa.berkeley.edu
> >>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>>>>>> University of California, Berkeley
> >>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------
> >>>
> >>>>>>> 2625 Durant Ave.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Berkeley, CA, 94720-2250
> >>>
> >>>>>>> ph.510.642.5240
> >>>
> >>>>>>> fx.510.642.5269
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>
> >>>>>> Roger Malina is in France at this time
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> I
> >>>
> >>>>>> 011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26
> >>>
> >>>>>> or (0) 6 80 45 94 47
> >>>
> >>>>>> Roger Malina is acting Director of the Observatoire Astronomique de
> >>>
> >>>>>> Marseille Provence and Executive Editor of the Leonardo >>>
> Publications at
> >>>
> >>>>>> MIT
> >>>
> >>>>>> Press and member of the steering committee of IMERA the >>>
> Mediterranean
> >>>
> >>>>>> Institute for Advanced Studies.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>
> >>>>> Roger Malina is in France at this time
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> I
> >>>
> >>>>> 011 33 (0) 6 15 79 59 26
> >>>
> >>>>> or (0) 6 80 45 94 47
> >>>
> >>>>> Roger Malina is acting Director of the Observatoire Astronomique de
> >>>
> >>>>> Marseille Provence and Executive Editor of the Leonardo >>
> Publications at
> >>>
> >>> MIT
> >>>
> >>>>> Press and member of the steering committee of IMERA the Mediterranean
> >>>
> >>>>> Institute for Advanced Studies.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
> number
> >>>
> >>> SC009201
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
> number
> >>> SC009201
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
|