Monday, September 25, 2006
workshop at wos 4
first of all sorry for the delay of my report from berlin. i've been offline for a week or so. so to save time i post a report on the event written by nicloas malevé who co-organized the event. enjoy the reading.
"Yesterday, an international group of artists, programmers and
theoreticians met for a concentrated exchange of experiences within a
workshop situation. The program of the day included a general discussion
about terminology (esp. in regard to openness and freedom as derived
from open source and free software and applied to arts and culture); it
addressed questions of authorship (collaboration and distibutive
practices as challenges for the art world); it discussed the role of
free tools as better instruments for artistic creations and as mediators
between the public and an esthetic experience; it tried to understand
how the practices and the licenses mutually influenced one another, and
finally demonstrated a new model of open publishing (print on demand) as
well as an exploration of free tools in design and publishing during a
final “printing party”.
Making a summary of a day so full of ideas is a difficult task. It will
be therefore partial and subjective. I must thank Saul Albert to have
taken the time to help me doing it.
Cornelia introduced the workshop insisting on the fact that all the
terminology we were using to speak about open and free culture was
unstable and needed permanent redefinition. Perhaps the term author was
the one to be re-contextualised the most yesterday.
As we know free and open licenses are based upon copyright/author right.
It therefore means that even in a free culture, the notion of author
plays a key-role. As Laurence Rassel put it, it is a location from where
we can strategically operate. Eberhard Ortland listed four reasons why
he thought the author would not die, in his opinion. The first reason is
economic. As long as artists make money with copyright. The second is
political. Attributing a creation to an individual makes him/her
responsible for this creation. The third is erotic. Authorship may give
to anyone its fifteen minutes of sexyness. The fourth is a semantic
reason. By attributing a same author to different creations we can trace
an evolution, a genealogy. Wether these reasons are still valid in the
present context was one of the main issue discussed.
Gregers Petersens emphasized the difference between object-based and
flow-based value systems. The latter tending to valuable relationships
in a network. If the concept of authorship applies easily to the
ownership of an object, it tends to be more difficult to apply to a set
of relationships. Saul Albert gave an overview of how it might be
possible to make a living without making property and achieving some
form of independence from that network by doing away with
copyright/copyleft and diversifying service-based markets for cultural
practices.
Starting from her personal experience, Inke Arms proposed a
reality-check. What happens when reapropriation comes from above? When
institutions hack artists or curators? Can you afford to use the law
against the institution with which you will have to work later? Can you
sue the gallery on which you depend? Byte the hand that feed you? How
useful is the system of author's right if you depend so strictly to one
source of revenue?
Artists need free tools said Gisle FrOysland and Malte Steiner: to shape
the tools they need, to avoid the homogeneisation of the artistic
production, artists need to take part in their conception, testing,
development. If Jacob Lillemose tried to emphasize that tools were also
more than device to assist the production of an artwork, it looked
yesterday that it was the primary need to be fulfilled. Harrisson and
Pierre Huyghebaert, later in the day, reinforced this line of thought
showing how the relationship between tools and the political context(the
monopoly of Adobe over the graphic designer's toolbox) created the
necessity for the creators to reharness their means of production.
Licenses are not enough to provide the conditions for a free culture.
They rely on contexts and practices. Olivier Schulbaum and Ignacio
Garcia explained how they used free licenses in their projects as a
moment of self-reflection that helps the participants understand the
collective organisation of a project. Most participants in the workshop
yesterday considered licenses as ethic statements, an invitation, « this
what I would like you to do with my work », rather than legal documents
they didn't want to use in court. It was, indeed, reassuring to see that
cultural and artistic projects wouldn't behave like little nation states
using the threat of litigation to enforce their social agreements. But
on the other hand, then, why to use a license to express such ethical
values?
The discussion took a very depressive turn while coming to the subject
of the collecting societies and the thousands ways artists can be sued
for borrowing, using, sampling materials. Once again the question
wasn't: is the law fair enough? But,well, who can afford a lawyer?
Olivier Schulbaum stated that the free licenses were busy solving only
the last bit of the problem: the consumption part. From her experience
with the selection of movies released under Creative Commons, Meike
Richter explained ways film-makers found money to support the creation
of their movies. Via advertising, fund-raising, pre-orders. If these
attempts were still exceptions, they suggest that new models for funding
may arise. Simon Worthington's presentation of Mute's print-based
publication service reinforced this idea. Mute's Print On Demand goes
towards a network of collaborating re-mixers and spinners, augmented by
smart open source software tools. In case of success, their business
model would be some kind of proof of concept on a
larger-than-subsistence scale.
Regularily during the discussions, the model of free and open source
software and collaboration-based art production have been compared.
Felix Stalder stressed the point that in free software projects, we
could see hierarchies arise. They are accepted by developers since the
quality of code and of coders is not too difficult to asssert. In the
case of artists, it is nearly impossible to agree on what is the quality
of a good artist or a good art project. This makes it difficult for art
project to function similarily to collaborative projects in software. It
favours nevertheless free transformative projects where each
transformation leads to a new piece. The fear of artists of being lost
in a collaborative project has been often evoked, Simon Yuill remarked,
on the contrary, that in the free software world, participating to a
project was a way to be visible, to put one's code in circulation under
his/her own name rather than under the name of one's agency or
corporation.
From these discussions, it is difficult to extract a list of
recommendations, a blueprint or a clear conclusion. One must
nevertheless recognise the extraordinary activity of people active in
the field controversially called free culture and accept that for some
time we will still have to live in the company of questions rather than
certainties. This is why as the next step of the workshop, a Manifesto
of open questions is proposed to all people interested in joigning the
debate. To share your favourite questions about free and open licenses,
join us on the mailing-list wos-workshop@soundwarez.org.
Yesterday, an international group of artists, programmers and
theoreticians met for a concentrated exchange of experiences within a
workshop situation. The program of the day included a general
discussion about terminology (esp. in regard to openness and freedom as
derived from open source and free software and applied to arts and
culture); it addressed questions of authorship (collaboration and
distibutive practices as challenges for the art world); it discussed
the role of free tools as better instruments for artistic creations and
as mediators between the public and an esthetic experience; it tried to
understand how the practices and the licenses mutually influenced one
another, and finally demonstrated a new model of open publishing (print
on demand) as well as an exploration of free tools in design and
publishing during a final âprinting partyâ.
Making a summary of a day so full of ideas is a difficult task. It will
be therefore partial and subjective. I must thank Saul Albert to have
taken the time to help me doing it.
Cornelia introduced the workshop insisting on the fact that all the
terminology we were using to speak about open and free culture was
unstable and needed permanent redefinition. Perhaps the term author was
the one to be re-contextualised the most yesterday.
As we know free and open licenses are based upon copyright/author
right. It therefore means that even in a free culture, the notion of
author plays a key-role. As Laurence Rassel put it, it is a location
from where we can strategically operate. Eberhard Ortland listed four
reasons why he thought the author would not die, in his opinion. The
first reason is economic. As long as artists make money with
copyright. The second is political. Attributing a creation to an
individual makes him/her responsible for this creation. The third is
erotic. Authorship may give to anyone its fifteen minutes of sexyness.
The fourth is a semantic reason. By attributing a same author to
different creations we can trace an evolution, a genealogy. Wether
these reasons are still valid in the present context was one of the
main issue discussed.
Gregers Petersens emphasized the difference between object-based and
flow-based value systems. The latter tending to valuable relationships
in a network. If the concept of authorship applies easily to the
ownership of an object, it tends to be more difficult to apply to a set
of relationships. Saul Albert gave an overview of how it might be
possible to make a living without making property and achieving some
form of independence from that network by doing away with
copyright/copyleft and diversifying service-based markets for cultural
practices.
Starting from her personal experience, Inke Arms proposed a
reality-check. What happens when reapropriation comes from above? When
institutions hack artists or curators? Can you afford to use the law
against the institution with which you will have to work later? Can you
sue the gallery on which you depend? Byte the hand that feed you? How
useful is the system of author's right if you depend so strictly to one
source of revenue?
Artists need free tools said Gisle FrOysland and Malte Steiner: to
shape the tools they need, to avoid the homogeneisation of the artistic
production, artists need to take part in their conception, testing,
development. If Jacob Lillemose tried to emphasize that tools were also
more than device to assist the production of an artwork, it looked
yesterday that it was the primary need to be fulfilled. Harrisson and
Pierre Huyghebaert, later in the day, reinforced this line of thought
showing how the relationship between tools and the political
context(the monopoly of Adobe over the graphic designer's toolbox)
created the necessity for the creators to reharness their means of
production.
Licenses are not enough to provide the conditions for a free culture.
They rely on contexts and practices. Olivier Schulbaum and Ignacio
Garcia explained how they used free licenses in their projects as a
moment of self-reflection that helps the participants understand the
collective organisation of a project. Most participants in the workshop
yesterday considered licenses as ethic statements, an invitation,
« this what I would like you to do with my work », rather than
legal documents they didn't want to use in court. It was, indeed,
reassuring to see that cultural and artistic projects wouldn't behave
like little nation states using the threat of litigation to enforce
their social agreements. But on the other hand, then, why to use a
license to express such ethical values?
The discussion took a very depressive turn while coming to the subject
of the collecting societies and the thousands ways artists can be sued
for borrowing, using, sampling materials. Once again the question
wasn't: is the law fair enough? But,well, who can afford a lawyer?
Olivier Schulbaum stated that the free licenses were busy solving only
the last bit of the problem: the consumption part. From her experience
with the selection of movies released under Creative Commons, Meike
Richter explained ways film-makers found money to support the creation
of their movies. Via advertising, fund-raising, pre-orders. If these
attempts were still exceptions, they suggest that new models for
funding may arise. Simon Worthington's presentation of Mute's
print-based publication service reinforced this idea. Mute's Print On
Demand goes towards a network of collaborating re-mixers and spinners,
augmented by smart open source software tools. In case of success,
their business model would be some kind of proof of concept on a
larger-than-subsistence scale.
Regularily during the discussions, the model of free and open source
software and collaboration-based art production have been compared.
Felix Stalder stressed the point that in free software projects, we
could see hierarchies arise. They are accepted by developers since the
quality of code and of coders is not too difficult to asssert. In the
case of artists, it is nearly impossible to agree on what is the
quality of a good artist or a good art project. This makes it difficult
for art project to function similarily to collaborative projects in
software. It favours nevertheless free transformative projects where
each transformation leads to a new piece. The fear of artists of being
lost in a collaborative project has been often evoked, Simon Yuill
remarked, on the contrary, that in the free software world,
participating to a project was a way to be visible, to put one's code
in circulation under his/her own name rather than under the name of
one's agency or corporation.
From these discussions, it is difficult to extract a list of
recommendations, a blueprint or a clear conclusion. One must
nevertheless recognise the extraordinary activity of people active in
the field controversially called free culture and accept that for some
time we will still have to live in the company of questions rather than
certainties. This is why as the next step of the workshop, a Manifesto
of open questions is proposed to all people interested in joigning the
debate. To share your favourite questions about free and open licenses,
join us on the mailing-list wos-workshop@soundwarez.org."
"Yesterday, an international group of artists, programmers and
theoreticians met for a concentrated exchange of experiences within a
workshop situation. The program of the day included a general discussion
about terminology (esp. in regard to openness and freedom as derived
from open source and free software and applied to arts and culture); it
addressed questions of authorship (collaboration and distibutive
practices as challenges for the art world); it discussed the role of
free tools as better instruments for artistic creations and as mediators
between the public and an esthetic experience; it tried to understand
how the practices and the licenses mutually influenced one another, and
finally demonstrated a new model of open publishing (print on demand) as
well as an exploration of free tools in design and publishing during a
final “printing party”.
Making a summary of a day so full of ideas is a difficult task. It will
be therefore partial and subjective. I must thank Saul Albert to have
taken the time to help me doing it.
Cornelia introduced the workshop insisting on the fact that all the
terminology we were using to speak about open and free culture was
unstable and needed permanent redefinition. Perhaps the term author was
the one to be re-contextualised the most yesterday.
As we know free and open licenses are based upon copyright/author right.
It therefore means that even in a free culture, the notion of author
plays a key-role. As Laurence Rassel put it, it is a location from where
we can strategically operate. Eberhard Ortland listed four reasons why
he thought the author would not die, in his opinion. The first reason is
economic. As long as artists make money with copyright. The second is
political. Attributing a creation to an individual makes him/her
responsible for this creation. The third is erotic. Authorship may give
to anyone its fifteen minutes of sexyness. The fourth is a semantic
reason. By attributing a same author to different creations we can trace
an evolution, a genealogy. Wether these reasons are still valid in the
present context was one of the main issue discussed.
Gregers Petersens emphasized the difference between object-based and
flow-based value systems. The latter tending to valuable relationships
in a network. If the concept of authorship applies easily to the
ownership of an object, it tends to be more difficult to apply to a set
of relationships. Saul Albert gave an overview of how it might be
possible to make a living without making property and achieving some
form of independence from that network by doing away with
copyright/copyleft and diversifying service-based markets for cultural
practices.
Starting from her personal experience, Inke Arms proposed a
reality-check. What happens when reapropriation comes from above? When
institutions hack artists or curators? Can you afford to use the law
against the institution with which you will have to work later? Can you
sue the gallery on which you depend? Byte the hand that feed you? How
useful is the system of author's right if you depend so strictly to one
source of revenue?
Artists need free tools said Gisle FrOysland and Malte Steiner: to shape
the tools they need, to avoid the homogeneisation of the artistic
production, artists need to take part in their conception, testing,
development. If Jacob Lillemose tried to emphasize that tools were also
more than device to assist the production of an artwork, it looked
yesterday that it was the primary need to be fulfilled. Harrisson and
Pierre Huyghebaert, later in the day, reinforced this line of thought
showing how the relationship between tools and the political context(the
monopoly of Adobe over the graphic designer's toolbox) created the
necessity for the creators to reharness their means of production.
Licenses are not enough to provide the conditions for a free culture.
They rely on contexts and practices. Olivier Schulbaum and Ignacio
Garcia explained how they used free licenses in their projects as a
moment of self-reflection that helps the participants understand the
collective organisation of a project. Most participants in the workshop
yesterday considered licenses as ethic statements, an invitation, « this
what I would like you to do with my work », rather than legal documents
they didn't want to use in court. It was, indeed, reassuring to see that
cultural and artistic projects wouldn't behave like little nation states
using the threat of litigation to enforce their social agreements. But
on the other hand, then, why to use a license to express such ethical
values?
The discussion took a very depressive turn while coming to the subject
of the collecting societies and the thousands ways artists can be sued
for borrowing, using, sampling materials. Once again the question
wasn't: is the law fair enough? But,well, who can afford a lawyer?
Olivier Schulbaum stated that the free licenses were busy solving only
the last bit of the problem: the consumption part. From her experience
with the selection of movies released under Creative Commons, Meike
Richter explained ways film-makers found money to support the creation
of their movies. Via advertising, fund-raising, pre-orders. If these
attempts were still exceptions, they suggest that new models for funding
may arise. Simon Worthington's presentation of Mute's print-based
publication service reinforced this idea. Mute's Print On Demand goes
towards a network of collaborating re-mixers and spinners, augmented by
smart open source software tools. In case of success, their business
model would be some kind of proof of concept on a
larger-than-subsistence scale.
Regularily during the discussions, the model of free and open source
software and collaboration-based art production have been compared.
Felix Stalder stressed the point that in free software projects, we
could see hierarchies arise. They are accepted by developers since the
quality of code and of coders is not too difficult to asssert. In the
case of artists, it is nearly impossible to agree on what is the quality
of a good artist or a good art project. This makes it difficult for art
project to function similarily to collaborative projects in software. It
favours nevertheless free transformative projects where each
transformation leads to a new piece. The fear of artists of being lost
in a collaborative project has been often evoked, Simon Yuill remarked,
on the contrary, that in the free software world, participating to a
project was a way to be visible, to put one's code in circulation under
his/her own name rather than under the name of one's agency or
corporation.
From these discussions, it is difficult to extract a list of
recommendations, a blueprint or a clear conclusion. One must
nevertheless recognise the extraordinary activity of people active in
the field controversially called free culture and accept that for some
time we will still have to live in the company of questions rather than
certainties. This is why as the next step of the workshop, a Manifesto
of open questions is proposed to all people interested in joigning the
debate. To share your favourite questions about free and open licenses,
join us on the mailing-list wos-workshop@soundwarez.org.
Yesterday, an international group of artists, programmers and
theoreticians met for a concentrated exchange of experiences within a
workshop situation. The program of the day included a general
discussion about terminology (esp. in regard to openness and freedom as
derived from open source and free software and applied to arts and
culture); it addressed questions of authorship (collaboration and
distibutive practices as challenges for the art world); it discussed
the role of free tools as better instruments for artistic creations and
as mediators between the public and an esthetic experience; it tried to
understand how the practices and the licenses mutually influenced one
another, and finally demonstrated a new model of open publishing (print
on demand) as well as an exploration of free tools in design and
publishing during a final âprinting partyâ.
Making a summary of a day so full of ideas is a difficult task. It will
be therefore partial and subjective. I must thank Saul Albert to have
taken the time to help me doing it.
Cornelia introduced the workshop insisting on the fact that all the
terminology we were using to speak about open and free culture was
unstable and needed permanent redefinition. Perhaps the term author was
the one to be re-contextualised the most yesterday.
As we know free and open licenses are based upon copyright/author
right. It therefore means that even in a free culture, the notion of
author plays a key-role. As Laurence Rassel put it, it is a location
from where we can strategically operate. Eberhard Ortland listed four
reasons why he thought the author would not die, in his opinion. The
first reason is economic. As long as artists make money with
copyright. The second is political. Attributing a creation to an
individual makes him/her responsible for this creation. The third is
erotic. Authorship may give to anyone its fifteen minutes of sexyness.
The fourth is a semantic reason. By attributing a same author to
different creations we can trace an evolution, a genealogy. Wether
these reasons are still valid in the present context was one of the
main issue discussed.
Gregers Petersens emphasized the difference between object-based and
flow-based value systems. The latter tending to valuable relationships
in a network. If the concept of authorship applies easily to the
ownership of an object, it tends to be more difficult to apply to a set
of relationships. Saul Albert gave an overview of how it might be
possible to make a living without making property and achieving some
form of independence from that network by doing away with
copyright/copyleft and diversifying service-based markets for cultural
practices.
Starting from her personal experience, Inke Arms proposed a
reality-check. What happens when reapropriation comes from above? When
institutions hack artists or curators? Can you afford to use the law
against the institution with which you will have to work later? Can you
sue the gallery on which you depend? Byte the hand that feed you? How
useful is the system of author's right if you depend so strictly to one
source of revenue?
Artists need free tools said Gisle FrOysland and Malte Steiner: to
shape the tools they need, to avoid the homogeneisation of the artistic
production, artists need to take part in their conception, testing,
development. If Jacob Lillemose tried to emphasize that tools were also
more than device to assist the production of an artwork, it looked
yesterday that it was the primary need to be fulfilled. Harrisson and
Pierre Huyghebaert, later in the day, reinforced this line of thought
showing how the relationship between tools and the political
context(the monopoly of Adobe over the graphic designer's toolbox)
created the necessity for the creators to reharness their means of
production.
Licenses are not enough to provide the conditions for a free culture.
They rely on contexts and practices. Olivier Schulbaum and Ignacio
Garcia explained how they used free licenses in their projects as a
moment of self-reflection that helps the participants understand the
collective organisation of a project. Most participants in the workshop
yesterday considered licenses as ethic statements, an invitation,
« this what I would like you to do with my work », rather than
legal documents they didn't want to use in court. It was, indeed,
reassuring to see that cultural and artistic projects wouldn't behave
like little nation states using the threat of litigation to enforce
their social agreements. But on the other hand, then, why to use a
license to express such ethical values?
The discussion took a very depressive turn while coming to the subject
of the collecting societies and the thousands ways artists can be sued
for borrowing, using, sampling materials. Once again the question
wasn't: is the law fair enough? But,well, who can afford a lawyer?
Olivier Schulbaum stated that the free licenses were busy solving only
the last bit of the problem: the consumption part. From her experience
with the selection of movies released under Creative Commons, Meike
Richter explained ways film-makers found money to support the creation
of their movies. Via advertising, fund-raising, pre-orders. If these
attempts were still exceptions, they suggest that new models for
funding may arise. Simon Worthington's presentation of Mute's
print-based publication service reinforced this idea. Mute's Print On
Demand goes towards a network of collaborating re-mixers and spinners,
augmented by smart open source software tools. In case of success,
their business model would be some kind of proof of concept on a
larger-than-subsistence scale.
Regularily during the discussions, the model of free and open source
software and collaboration-based art production have been compared.
Felix Stalder stressed the point that in free software projects, we
could see hierarchies arise. They are accepted by developers since the
quality of code and of coders is not too difficult to asssert. In the
case of artists, it is nearly impossible to agree on what is the
quality of a good artist or a good art project. This makes it difficult
for art project to function similarily to collaborative projects in
software. It favours nevertheless free transformative projects where
each transformation leads to a new piece. The fear of artists of being
lost in a collaborative project has been often evoked, Simon Yuill
remarked, on the contrary, that in the free software world,
participating to a project was a way to be visible, to put one's code
in circulation under his/her own name rather than under the name of
one's agency or corporation.
From these discussions, it is difficult to extract a list of
recommendations, a blueprint or a clear conclusion. One must
nevertheless recognise the extraordinary activity of people active in
the field controversially called free culture and accept that for some
time we will still have to live in the company of questions rather than
certainties. This is why as the next step of the workshop, a Manifesto
of open questions is proposed to all people interested in joigning the
debate. To share your favourite questions about free and open licenses,
join us on the mailing-list wos-workshop@soundwarez.org."
# posted by Jacob Lillemose @ 11:30 AM
Monday, September 11, 2006
workshop at wos 4
on wednesday i will participate in a workshop pre-wos 4 in berlin. the subject of the workshop is FREEDOM and OPENNESS – anything but marketing and ideology? it is arranged by cornelia sollfrank and Nicolas Malevé. i will moderate a panel on "open tools". a lot of good people will come and i look forward to the discussions. i'll blog about the event and on wos on thursday.
# posted by Jacob Lillemose @ 1:58 PM
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
day 04 at ars
again, i'm a day or so late but i had sugery on my knee yesterday and was offline in more than one sense. i'm fine now and i'll try to catch up on my days at ars. i came there to socialize with friends and i did. it's great that people from the net, media and computer art scene still decide to go to linz despite the non-relevance for aesthetic discourse. for the future however, i'm not sure. it's events like this that earn art using technology a bad reputation. it's too hooked on specular entertainment and positivistic praise of technology. i don't believe this is very productive for a critical discussion of art. clearly this wasn't the ambition of the festival either. from what i gather, stoker, medea et al. want to create a prestigious event as cultural branding of the city of linz, which is fine to some extent as long as they don't forget to get engaged in lived culture and address issues aesthetic and political and that is exactly what they forgot to do on a general scale. they was no feeling of cultural urgency at the festival. rather, i felt like i was told to forget my criticism and just be happy about the newest innovations from mit. i don't think i can. especially since i don't believe that the use of technology should be determined by engineers. critical discourse has left the building and all we are left with is a fair for technology. sad. and another issue: the was a alarmingly unbalanced relation between the number of male and female speakers. embarrassing. i will sign out for now but will return soon from the wos festival in berlin, where i hope more relevant discussions will be generated.
# posted by Jacob Lillemose @ 1:25 PM
Saturday, September 02, 2006
day 01-03 at ars
well, i guess it's time to start blogging about this event (i'm going back to copenhagen tomorrow). i came two days ago from vienna where is saw a really comprehensive show about psychedelica. amazing visual energy. i especially liked the architecture section and the archigram collages. then i met up with hans bernhard from ubermorgen.com and we talked about our recent collaboration at overgaden in copenhagen where he exhibited his seal paintings. i suggested that next time we do it we include computers in the presentation so the vistiors can surf the project web pages and look at the paintings simultaneously. hans liked the idea. on the train to linz i discussed art and technology with andreas leo findeisen in the restaurant. andreas is a high energy knowledge man from vienna involved in a number of super projects, like transforming freedom, serious pop and netznetz. both of us were quite sceptical about the whole festival concept and the fact that john medea was doing the symposium. basically we decided to take over the whole thing and de-americanize. get rid of the catchy headlines and have a reading of adorno round the clock. lets see what happens. we came too late for the opening of the show at ok, so we decided to have dinner instead. friday, i had promised myself and some people that i'd not go to the first part of the symposium but i did. well, for five minutes, then i lost interest in the presentation about design, so i went outside to check my email. cornelia sollfrank was eager to get a hold of me because i'm moderating a panel on her workshop pre-wizard of os. the panel is about artists' tools. i'm looking forward to it. and to the conference. it's in berlin in two weeks. then i hung around the city for a while and met up with dirk de witt from brussels who's doing a fantastic job in connecting people working with media and art. he also came to the opening of my and inke arns' show in dortmund, the wonderful world of irational, on sunday. i appreciate that. he also liked the show and will bring a group on curators over in october. i met andreas again and we talked about physical intelligence and modern painting. then i met up with inke arns and anne wagener and we went to dinner with dirk. or actually before that we went to see olga gourinova at the symposium. it was good to see her again. unfortunately she was the only speaking about art and there was no time to ask questions afterwards because of the time clock. i talked with her today and she is about to finish her dissertation soon. i look forward to read that. at dinner we tried to generate positivity. then we went on to drink vodka and talk about arts and craft (something will come out of that, just wait and see). i also got a call from nikolaj recke who's opening a show in cologne today called calendar of tomorrows. he said that people really liked it. i'm super glad for him. it's a great show. his best in years. watch out for him. mogens jacobsen, another artist and co-blogger, also called, from amsterdam where he is having a show. he blog from linz after i go back to copenhagen. today, i've been at a monestary with inke and anne. we had a nice drive there in anne's bmw. the sun was shinning and it was a good occassion to think about the relationship between a historical institution like the church and an institution like ars. more tomorrow.
# posted by Jacob Lillemose @ 6:00 PM
Friday, August 04, 2006
The Wonderful World of Irational
Artnode recommends you to keep an eye on the following exhibition at Hartware MedienKunstVerein
For more information on the show see the PROGRAM.
For more information on the show see the PROGRAM.
# posted by Jacob Lillemose @ 11:41 AM
Going to Ars Electronica in Austria
