dale lloyd is one of the most prolific curatorial publishers and experimental artists on the scene. In 2001, he founded and/OAR, a recording label focused on
presenting unique environmental recordings, sound art, avant-garde and electronic music. From 2001 to 2005, Dale produced the highly regarded series of field recording compilations for Phonography.org.

The sound work of Dale Lloyd has been released by labels such as and/OAR, Overheard And Rendered, Alluvial Recordings, Bremsstrahlung Recordings, Conv, Sirr.ecords, Non Visual Objects, Sonic Arts Network, Mu label, Mystery Sea, Petite Sono, S’Agita Recordings, Staalplaat / Open Circuit, Leerraum, Tiramizu, Accretions, Psyclone, Phonography.org, æ, World Domination / CZ Records, Praxis, Space Age Recordings, Shadow Puppet Recording Company, Labile Music, Throat, and Sonicabal. Links to MP3 works can be found on the DISCOGRAPHY page of this site, and have been issued by 12k / Term, EARlabs, Bremsstrahlung Recordings / Trans>parent Radiation, Stasisfield, Tiln Digital Diffusion, and microsound.org among others.

Dale has been kind enough to provide an interview for my personal blog which you can read here. In addition to all the outstanding accomplishments listed in his bio, Dale is a genuine guy who has always taken the time to say hello and offer good advice. Part of my reason for interviewing Dale and other label owners is to provide a link between fresh young artists and masters of the craft. I hope this interview provides some insight about Dale’s labels, the artist that he publishes and the path to success in the evolving music industry.

Ok, the above when I say 300 million cc licenses, erase that from your mind. The actual figure’s bottom end is 90 Million licensed images which relied on a statement of 50 million CC licensed images on Flickr. Well, now that figure is more accurately 70 Million CC licensed images on Flickr, so the low bound of CC licensed images has to be more than 90 Million.

This is a video that Jay Dedman and Ryanne Hodson did a year ago prior to me speaking at my favorite conference last year, Pixelodeon. I’m eagerly looking forward to the fall edition of this conference which I might have to fly back from China just to attend.

Also, I should add that Ryanne and Jay are such great people. I’m so happy to know great friends that are doing amazing creative work.

Originally from Jon Phillips Acting like Fake CC Guru

Last summer, Cati Vaucelle at Architectradure tipped me off about Meta-Markets, a project which created a means to buy and sell units of social media. I penned an enthusiastic review of the project in the fall and continue to be engaged by this ongoing thought-experiment. Meta-Markets was authored by Burak Arikan, a graduate of the MIT Media Lab who is currently based in Brooklyn. This Saturday, Burak will be taking part in a panel discussion entitled Real World Implications of Virtual Economies at the Turbulence Mixed Realities Exhibition and Symposium in Boston (and streaming live in Second Life).

Burak’s work touches on a number of the topics discussed here on Serial Consign, and he and I have spent the last few weeks firing emails back and forth that delve into economies of exchange, data portability, information visualization and how these themes are explored through his work.

–

Ever since your 2006 A Stock Market in Life project you’ve exhibited a fascination with incorporating the (data)aesthetics and interface of commodity exchange in a large portion of your work. You were one of the architects of OPENSTUDIO and also launched Meta-Markets last year. Both of these projects deal with trading and speculating on creative goods in quite distinct contexts. I stumbled across the word artonomics on the OPENSTUDIO site – could you discuss this term in relation to your ongoing project of creating platforms for economic simulation?

We made up the term “artonomics” to define the axes of arts, economics, and the participatory social web. In the PLW (Physical Language Workshop at the MIT Media Lab) we focused on building networked infrastructures for creative people, so that they can get economically more powerful and eventually affect politics. In OPENSTUDIO an artwork is a digital drawing. By the time a drawing is completed, it is in the market for sale. From your studio to the market there is no distance. When you buy a piece, you own a share in that person’s body of work. OPENSTUDIO members experience semi-ownership of creative capital. Well this type of living is the promised future right, what if you experience it now, future not only becomes more visible, but also actionable and debatable.

I am particularly interested in collectivity in creative work, which brings in techno-social protocols and economic models for self-organization of large groups of people. In such economic models money represents information. You buy things not because you need it but you show interest in it. In the end, I don’t necessarily consider this type of work as economic simulation or computer simulation, because participants spend real time and energy (aka micro-labor) within these systems. They draw, they click here and there, they decide on things, write comments, tag, mix, edit, vote, recommend etc. These are real relationships woven through experimental and modifiable protocols that organize network of social relationships and economic transactions.

I think today what we see on the social web is that the definition of creative work is changing. Is it an image, a movie, a sculpture, an installation, a process, a response? In this networked world, it is more clear to me that the substance of one’s creative work is not only a material, a recipe, or a code library, but it is also materialized information flowing in multiple layers of networks which are modulated by market forces, power relationships, past events, and future predictions.

[meta-markets performance & entity info for a bookmark of grand text auto]

Meta-Markets is essentially an exchange for social networking entities. In this simulation, social media like del.icio.us bookmarks or Feedburner syndication subscriber counts take on a life of their own and a community of speculators collectively determine the value of this data. I think one of the most interesting things about this project is that it creates a sort-of double presence for these services where users can determine the worth of individual articles of social media that stands outside of the generic web 2.0 chatter about valuation and venture capital. How do you see Meta-Markets in relation to the actual web economy?

The current web economy is not open enough. With Meta-Markets we aim to raise the bar of openness for existing social web services. I don’t mean the locked in data in Facebook or similar web services. I support efforts like DataPortability, these are very important steps to release our data from centralized databases. For us the problem is that the value of our labor is not open in the current web economy. In other words, what we get for our online work is not clear for us while it is clear for the service providers. This problem has been emerging because of the blurred boundaries between work and play, because information is no less real than physical matter, because information is commodity, because of the changing roles of consumers and producers, the prosumer phenomenon as discussed elsewhere. The solution is to have more transparent services, so that both the users and the service providers equally know the value of the work put in the services. Of course this is a complex task, that’s why we approach it collectively by creating a stock market for socially networked creative work.

[burak arikan / terms & conditions / 2007]

You posted an excellent commentary on the economics of Facebook which broadly outlined the disconnect between the bottom-up “social” investment by users and the top-down scramble by management to an implement efficient contextual advertising engine. You quite concisely identified the paradox as follows:

I work for Facebook everyday but I am not getting paid. In their recent Social Ads announcement Facebook says “It is an ad-supported service. It is a free service.” Pause. Did we sign a contract? How do you measure my labor and serve accordingly? I don’t know how you measure the value of my informational content, the value of my informational content uploaded by my friends to your server, the value of my relationships, the value of my activities…

Google’s OpenSocial begins to address the ownership that users are entitled to over their information and social connectivity. How do you see OpenSocial influencing the direction of Meta-Markets?

OpenSocial is hyper-modern politics, so is any other network protocol. Today defining standards and lobbying for the industry to adopt a standard are common political practices of the networked world we all live in. If standardization can happen by the participation of many voices, it becomes more democratic. Although I support current efforts to unlock the centralized databases, I don’t believe it is enough. The benefits of open communication standards are always publicly discussed from the point of view of the user or the developer, but who really benefits are the service providers. When you move your data anywhere, yes the user has the data anywhere, yes the developer builds write-once-works-with-any-other services, but the service provider is also happy because they have free context and free trust networks, which are generated by users’ labor in other places and carried to this service. We may call this distributed free labor. Data portability without ethics is the multiplication of the exploitation of micro-labor. When we use a service, the value generated by our action should be clear and open for all the involving parties. This is not easy, it involves political and economical struggles, but with the Meta-Markets community I believe we can make progress in this endeavor.

This conversation about transparancy and data portability is very interesting given your recent MYPOCKET project for Turbulence (pictured above). In this work, you’ve developed an algorithm to predict future purchases based off the analysis of an archive of receipts. Credit card companys employ similar algorithms to flag sudden shifts in spending habits so that potential credit card fraud can be prevented. I guess it is safe to assume you’re not doing R&D for Citibank so what exactly are your goals with MYPOCKET?

Spending habits are not only for prevention of frauds, but also for modulation of living. With MYPOCKET I see what my spending behavior is, this is probably what a financial analyst sees. I share it with general public to raise awareness and to make closed-door-analysis of our spending behavior debatable. MYPOCKET is also an exploration of the bidirectional adaptation between human and software. Between my behavior and the prediction process there is a feedback loop. Both negative and positive feedback. Positive feedback happens through confirmation of a prediction, which increases weight of that category / item in the database. Negative feedback happens through certain transactions, which have rules. For example a $40 ATM cash withdrawal means that I will not need cash for 4 days, approximately every $10 cash = 1 day, or a $70 metrocard spending (monthly unlimited ride for the NYC subway) means I will not buy a metrocard for another 30 days. These rules, some obvious some specific to me, are added as negative feedbacks in the loop. Over time the software will make smarter predictions about my spending behavior. Sometimes I verify the predictions, sometimes I don’t mind, sometimes I am not conscious, sometimes the predictions determine my future choices, creating a system in which both myself and the software adapt to one another.

[burak arikan / tense / 2007]

All of my questions have approached you as some kind of artist-economist – that is not entirely fair as it is clear you are interested in addressing other issues with your work. You obviously have an interest in the aesthetics of information, networks and connectivity. This is evident in the projects discussed thus far, but many of your other works (i.e. Meta-Control, Tense, Arb, etc.) Could you discuss your approach to visualization?

My interest in geometry ties my seemingly separate practices. Geometry provides instruments not only for organizing space but also for understanding concepts in political philosophy. I started creating dynamic visual compositions in 2002. Since then I work directly with the code, write processes that modulate the geometry and the kinetics, explore the micro relationships, observe the macro behavior, tune, play, contract, scale, stare, change, iterate. My early dynamic compositions are repurposed as peformative artifacts in Meta-Control. Arb and Tense are the same processes, an exploration of growth in networks. From few to many, from simple to complex, from instant contractions to subtle settlements, while the network is being built, nodes push and pull each other, connections paint the color of the forces.

I create systems, they are not visual, visualizations are the visual manifestations of an instance of a system. My OPENSTUDIO visualizations show relationships built in the OPENSTUDIO economy, Micro Fashion Network visualization shows relationships of colors based on how I generate the data. Rather than creating visualizations based on other systems’ data, I prefer to create the system on my own or through collaborations. Like Meta-Markets and OPENSTUDIO, these systems can be living processes which involve many people’s time, energy, and intellect. Manifestations can also be in physical or in other forms. MYPOCKET is a living digital/physical process, which is manifested in three core forms for information: a list, a graph, and an object.

More recently I understand that the systems I create are vectors, vectors as McKenzie Wark, or Alex Galloway and Eugene Thacker use the term. A vector is a medium in which information moves. I hope and work for more people to create such liberated systems.

Originally from burak arikan interview

This fall, while emailing back and forth with Nicholas Senske, I learned about Kristina Luce, a Ph.D. candidate at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Design at the University of Michigan. Kristina studied environmental design and architecture at Miami University in Ohio and is currently a pre-doctoral fellow at the Getty Research Institute. Her research is dedicated to exploring the role of drawing in architecture and how it has shifted over the last several centuries. There aren’t many architectural scholars with whom you can discuss the origins of perspective AND emerging digital paradigms – I simply couldn’t resist asking Kristina to take part in a conversation about her work.

–

Broadly speaking, your research aspires to forge connections between the birth and development of architectural drawing conventions (i.e. Renaissance thinking on perspective projection) and the evolving computational paradigm. What can we learn about contemporary architecture and drawing by excavating the history of various representation systems?

Well, there are lots of ways to answer this question, but one thing I hope my study does is to show our connectedness to these historic systems even as we move away from them. For nearly a century now, our recognition of the connections between contemporary and historic design has been fraught with contradiction in no small part due to a series of supposed rejections of history throughout the twentieth century (whether that is the Modernists rejecting 19th century eclecticism, or “the Greys” rejecting the International Style, or the more recent expressions rejecting all but the “near now”). And yet, even as we threw the past out, we brought forward our historical methods of design and the frameworks and definitions such methods provide to architecture. Which is to say that recent architects may have condemned historicism, but they rallied around drawing whether it was Le Corbusier proclaiming that the “plan is the generator” or Peter Eisenman developing the design for House VI through axonometric projection.

During the Renaissance when triadic form was adopted (meaning the systematized use of plan, section and elevation as a means to conceive of, represent and transmit architecture), when this new conceptual medium was adopted for architecture, it was no coincidence that the professional role of the architect was also stabilized, that a new form-based aesthetic was accepted, and that the very definition of design as the prefigurement of form was pioneered. When I talk about the core definitions of architecture that are related to drawing, it is these frames I mean, and these have been much more resilient and much less likely to be questioned than those aspects of history that were more ostensibly discarded. That is why I take pains to talk about drawing not only as a representational system, though it is that, but as a conceptual medium because it is through such a system that architecture is abstracted and understood.

[johann heinrich lambert / modified perspectograph / 1752]

While certainly there are links to be made at other historic points, what I see happening in architecture today is a shift in that conceptual medium. On the one hand the shift seems very new since initially architectural software mimicked drawing and only recently has a different computational mode of design become possible. On the other hand, there is a way to see the design theory of the last hundred years as part of the shift, aligning a, perhaps, computational mode of thinking with design before the tools were actually in place. Alan Turing, after all, proposed the computer in concept before it could be built. And so at a minimum what I am trying to do is to look to the Renaissance as the last time a shift in the conceptual medium of architecture took place and to examine it closely in hopes of discerning the structure of the problem posed by such a shift. What did the adoption of drawing involve? Why was it so contentious and slow in occuring? What was at stake for architecture? By looking at this historic moment within the practice of architecture, we can see what is at stake in the current moment a little more clearly.

[digital project - gehry technologies' parametric modeling application, derived from CATIA]

I know you have an active interest in the infrastructure Frank Gehry has built around his architectural practice. How do you see the various projects that operate under his name as signaling the arrival of a “new breed” of architectural practice? Beyond that, what other designers and studios are you looking at?

I think my own pursuits aren’t big enough to encompass many of Gehry’s “projects”, but I am looking at Gehry Technologies as a model of collaboration within architectural practice. I am also looking at Peter Eisenman, Greg Lynn and Evan Douglis. There is a kind of chronological exploration going on with those last three that has to do with my own concentration on abstraction and form which grows out of my analysis of drawing and those architectural qualities it stabilized. I am not sure at the moment how Gehry Technologies fits into my story, although I think it is operating as the avant-garde offering new models for how the discipline of architecture gets practiced.

[lewis tsurumaki lewis architects / fremont hotel - prototype room / 2001]

At a personal level, the design workstation is the epicentre of a designer’s universe. It is the space where they spend the most time and the apparatus through which explore design problems. What do you consider to be some of the strengths and shortcomings of drawing (and thinking) in a CAD environment versus on a drafting board?

I am embarrassed to say that outside a few observations that aren’t even mine (the CAD environment handles replicating objects better where the drafting board allows for “sketchy” approximations that can delay resolution, etc.) I’ve spent less time thinking about this question than you might think. Although I would say my project began with more concrete questions like this one, now I suspect we’re not in a position to answer such questions in a substantive way. The historic analog to your question would be to ask what are the advantages and disadvantages of working as a master mason versus as an architect. During the Gothic period, designers worked off of typological models but resisted fixing many of the formal aspects of building. Drawing allowed forms to be prefigured and brought the building under the control of new regulating principles. Together this “specialization” freed architects from the building site allowing them to multiply their presence, working on several buildings simultaneously. Between these two forms of practice, there are differences but knowing whether such traits are advantageous requires that one come down in favor of a particular outcome. Advantageous to what? It assumes a normative practice, which is exactly the thing that is being destabilized in these moments of shift.

We are only just beginning to see the effects that the computer may have on buildings and architectural practice. As the computer’s ability to organize information transforms how the architectural problem is conceived, a similar discourse as that which synchronized drawing and architecture is developing between computation and architecture. New boundaries around the architectural problem and our discipline will be formed. These new limits may or may not uphold the former definitions of architecture, but if and where they do, then we’ll know better what drawing’s advantages are and what the computer offers that drawing cannot. (In case it isn’t apparent, underlying this answer is my belief that drawing can’t simply be seen as a physical act, the recording of a manual gesture, it is instead a larger concept, the very structure of what defines architecture.)

[zaha hadid / abu dhabi performing arts centre proposal / 2007]

3D renderings have become the de facto method of representation through which architects to communicate the experiential quality of their designs to clients and the general public. There is a lot of debate amongst architects and illustrators as to whether these types of drawings should employ photo-realism or remain more abstract to communicate the “essence” of the design intent. Could you comment on this discussion given your knowledge of the history of perspective?

This is precisely one of those questions where the history of drawing does have something to say about current debates. During the Renaissance there was a similar question-with some proponents like Alberti saying that it was the use of non-illusionary drawings like plans and elevations that distinguished the architect. These debates may seem trivial in the light of history, but when we dive into this period we can see that, just as now, the question of what a representation looks like has less to do with looks and more to do with a mode of thinking that in turn defines what architecture is.

Part of the series of shifts we amass under the rubric of the Renaissance involved the development of perspective, but like the technologies of computation, this discovery was not just about picturing. Working out perspective was also a working out a new definition of what constitutes human knowledge. Until this point in history, sensory information, what we saw, heard and felt, was considered illusory. Our senses could deceive us. One thing that perspective did was offer a geometric explanation of sight. Under the right conditions, the ‘correctness’ of perspective could be experimentally determined. The ‘truth’ it offered affirmed visuality as a potential source of knowledge. But orthographic drawings did not reference this visual truth. Instead, they projected a reality that would never be seen, only per/conceived. Although orthographic projection and perspectival projection are geometrically related, although they reference the same geometry that allows them both to be ‘true’ and knowledge producing, orthographic drawing is abstract. It has no apparent connection to visuality. It allows architecture to be defined without a direct reference to the visual, and therefore establishes that the sensibility of architecture is conceptual. Architecture is concept. This is the basic axiom that is accepted during the Renaissance when triadic form gets adopted as the representational convention for architecture. And, I think we can see why there was serious debate and practical compromises that took place within representation for a long time. A lot of architecture gets marginalized when conceptual forms become the primary ‘stuff’ of architectural thinking.

So that brings us to today’s debate, and it isn’t surprising that the issue is being readdressed since so much of the last 500 years within design can be seen as a series of attempts to recalibrate the alliance between architectural conception and the abstraction of drawing with the procedural, physical and sensual aspects of built architecture. Computers are being used to do many things in architecture and in other fields, but when we go to the heart of what computers do, when we look at the core assumption of Boolean logic and the brute strength of computation as a means to organize and process data, then we get a glimpse of how computation is restructuring our definition of what constitutes knowledge. At the very beginning of computation there is an abstraction, from thing to number. Not the analog substitution of drawing but the digital substitution of on/off circuitry. To that extent, it is not surprising that part of the debate right now is that architecture should be understood and represented as the “essence” of its intent, as a representation of its concept. Such a reliance on abstraction upholds the logic that defines computation. But as was the case with the projective geometry that underlies perspective, other definitions of knowledge are spinning out from computation. The computer’s ability to model aspects of reality and generate feedback, its tendency to particle-ize knowledge, its ability to extend our control over space-time expand what approach an architect might take to generating and defining design. These different nuances factor into what is certainly part of the essential debate within architecture today. It may appear that we are only talking about pictures, but I think the reason the debate gets passionate is because we are really offering opinions about what architecture and design are.

Originally from kristina luce interview

[mckenzie wark does this spartan life]

McKenzie Wark is a author and educator with an active interest in technology and critical theory. Wark’s most well known works are A Hacker’s Manifesto and Gamer Theory, both of which are engaging texts and explorations into the process of writing.

Gamer Theory (2006-2007) is a compelling reading of contemporary culture in light of the ludic and narrative structure of recent gaming titles such as The Sims, Katamari Damacy and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I reviewed the project on Serial Consign last spring and the text continues to confuse, confound and inspire me.

This interview was originally published in Vague Terrain 08: Process.

–

A Hacker’s Manifesto was dedicated to the memory of Kathy Acker. Since appropriation and emulation figured prominently into her writing and your project reconsidered Marx’s Communist Manifesto against a dot-com backdrop, could you discuss the connection between her writing and your text?

It was largely personal. I knew Kathy and wanted to commemorate our encounter. It was also a joke: Acker = hacker. She was also one of the first people I read who had written, albeit in passing, against copyright and the property system in writing. She arrived largely by her own roads at what the Situationists called détournement, which I would describe as an active plagiarism, which treats all of culture as common property.

The Gamer Theory project utilized a lot of online conventions (BBS functionality, threaded comments, etc.) to build a discourse around a text "midstream" through its production. What are your thoughts on this experiment now that it is complete? Do you have plans to work in a similar manner in the future?

Some of my earlier stuff had been developed through listserver discussions, so part of the question was about how that kind of experience could be developed and presented in a more effective way. I took the blog as the negative example, of how not to orchestrate a conversation, and looked for ways to tweak it. The interface was built in Wordpress, so it was a détournement of Wordpress, pressed into the service of a slightly different practice. The The Institute for the Future of the Book went on to build Commentpress, which allows the parallel comments function we created for Gamer Theory to be used more broadly. I’m working with Chris France on an environment for a work called Totality for Kids that will be built using Mephisto. I’m interested in creating reading and writing tools specific to each project’s needs.

In Gamer Theory you introduced the notion of an allegorithm. This paradigm combines the allegory with pattern recognition and you use this to describe how gamers become immersed in and manipulate gamespace. Were there any key moments in your history of gaming that you helped contribute to your development of this idea?

Allegorithm was coined by Alex Galloway, not me. I acknowledge this in the text but somehow people miss it. It was Eric Zimmerman who got me interested in writing about games. He invited me to New York for an event called Re:Play. This was years ago, in the late nineties I think. It was more through Eric’s serious intellectual enthusiasm for games that I pursued it. The games through which I developed the ideas are the ones in the book. Gamers often complain that they are not ‘canonic’ games, but they were games that gave me ideas, but it’s like that with everything. Beckett might be a canonic writer and I understand why, but I never had one single new idea reading Beckett, and hence there’s no Beckett (yet) in my writings. That’s I’m writing about Sims, Civilization III, the second Deus X (rather than the well-regarded first one), and so on.

[rez screenshot]

Within Gamer Theory, you used the narrative or ludic space of several games as scaffolding to construct a larger discourse. Beyond the games referenced in the text, what games have most influenced your thinking and perception?

MUDs and MOOs (even if not strictly games) text-based adventure style games, and arcade games like Frogger, Space Invaders and Pac-Man. Games were replacing pinball at about the time I was old enough to pretend to be old enough to drink in pubs. From 16 on it was about hanging out in bars, drinking and playing pool or pinball or games. I sucked at pool and pinball, so I played games. We played for drinks, so being bad at it got expensive! I was never a big console game player and I still mentally associate games with public places. I approached console (and PC) games with a certain amount of indifference. Duchamp chose his readymades on the basis of ‘visual indifference’, and that’s my policy with writing about cultural artifacts. I don’t approach things as a fan or as an enemy. Eric Zimmerman had persuaded me that games were a vital cultural form for decoding our times, and that motivated me to play a lot of console/PC games to figure out why, but my personal relation to game culture was very much in arcade style games.

In regards to Bradford Paley’s visualization of Gamer Theory, you stated that "I see it more as a creative process than as an instrumental one. The ‘result’ it would give you is more of the order of the new writing you can already find in your existing writing." Can you expand upon this statement and share your thoughts about the burgeoning world of infographics? [see previous post for more information on my interest in the collaboration between Wark and Paley].

Brad was very concerned about whether his visualization was yielding the sort of result that would interest someone doing a close textual study of a text. He has a great visualization of Alice in Wonderland that shows you immediately how Carroll paced the narrative. The visualization of Gamer Theory didn’t yield any such result when we had our workshop on it with Bob Stein and the crew at IFBook. So what I told Brad was really that I didn’t care. I’m a writer, not a professor of literature. I was interested in seeing my book in a different way, so I could see relationships in the text that I might want to pull out and examine, and maybe rewrite, or write some more on. I see visualization more as part of a composition process. That’s what I think is really lacking. Most of the folks designing tools in this area are not really hardcore writers so they’re not getting the subtleties of process and how new tools might enable new kinds of process. I think my encounter with Brad was good for both of us in seeing new possibilities. The hard part is not inventing new tools, but new processes that tools could be used for.

What writing projects are you currently working on?

I was asked to do the Buell lecture in architecture at Columbia University, so I used that to test-drive some new ways of thinking about the Situationist International and its recuperation. That’s coming out as a book next year from the Buell Center and Princeton Architectural Press. Meanwhile I’m designing a website with Chris France that will be quite different from Gamer Theory. At the moment, we’re working on the structural relation between the sections of the text. It’s really designing the architecture of the book in code, in advance. I’m also working with an illustrator, Kevin C. Pyle, making comic strip images using détourned Situationist texts. The Situationists ripped off existing cartoons and put their own texts in them. We’re doing the reverse, ripping off their texts and making new art. The idea in part is to make copyleft artwork that has a really robust status in terms of so-called "intellectual property" law then make it available for free, for everyone. It seems that anything you do with Situationist material is a recuperation, but at least this is one we’ll give away according to their own copyleft principles of détournement. Ironically, that one is funded by the Andy Warhol Foundation. I was thinking of Guy Debord as Warhol’s evil twin, although I now realize that Warhol and Debord are each other’s evil twin. So it kinda makes perfect sense – at least to me!

Originally from mckenzie wark interview

The sixth and final Diego Tuesdays Show with Alfonso Aguirre, Deer Fang, Denise Parsons.

NOTE: This is part of Media Experiment #5 (Diego Tuesdays), which focused on building a specific community that is not promoted very well nor maximized. The original hypothesis was proved, as can be seen in the increase of participants from episode 1 to 6. Please post comments or contact us if you are interested in this experiment and/or building upon it.

Share This

Originally from Diego Tuesdays – Episode 6

The fifth Diego Tuesdays Show with Joy Cornista, Anthony DeSimone, Marie Ely.

NOTE: This is part of Media Experiment #5 (Diego Tuesdays), which focused on building a specific community that is not promoted very well nor maximized. The original hypothesis was proved, as can be seen in the increase of participants from episode 1 to 6. Please post comments or contact us if you are interested in this experiment and/or building upon it.

Share This

Originally from Diego Tuesdays – Episode 5 – Balls Out Banquet