[-empyre-] jo-anne & patrick
David Chirot
david.chirot at gmail.com
Tue Oct 13 07:16:54 EST 2009
Though it's a more limited project than the really interesting ones
discussed here, the poet/anthologist Jerome Rothenberg is using his blog now
as a site towards the production of a (traditional form) book as well as the
electronic "edition" of the blog. The subject of the book, the blog, is
"Outsider Poetry" and is to be part IV of the ongoing series Poems of the
Millennium that is edited by Rothenberg and others.
It's a really interesting idea i think to conduct the making of a book in
this way--as besides Rothenberg's own works in this area he has persons like
myself and others who have had contributions included in the ongoing
discussion. Since "Outsider Poetry" in a sense has as yet no real definition
or circumference, it is thought that perhaps some ideas n this direction
will emerge from the writers and the large numbers of exemplary texts being
chosen and written of through time.
I belive I've written before here re the Internet and what someone told me
is the "digital gap" so i wil be brief.
I live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, one of the ten poorest cities in the
country. School achievements are extremely low, drop outs are rising al the
time, and often Milwaukee is first or second in the country in teen
pregnancy as well as alcohol consumption and large drug trade.
This is what remains of a once very prosperous city during the age of
industry, when the American factories were still in America rather than now
located abroad. The massive change to a service economy has been a disaster
for many many other areas besides Milwaukee, but this city is one of the
most glaring examples.
What i wrote of before in the context of wars and genocides, one may also
write in the context of the closing of schools, the drop out rate, the
inability now of about a third of the families to have electricity in the
winter time Often there is a choice beween heat & electric, and due to the
extreme winters, heat usually wins)--there is an ever tinier group of person
who even have access to the web whether at home, in school or in public
sites like libraries and a few cyber cafes. Basically a large chunk of the
American population is dropping offline, and in a sense, "disappearing,"
"deleted."
The Internet and Wikipedia also are more malleable than one might at first
think. In November 2008 and then again more loudly in January, 2009, then
Isreali Foreign Minister Tipi Livni announced what she called an "assault" o
the web--wikipedia, my space, you tube, facebook, blogs, everything possible
with the idea of eradicating any thing at all critical of the State of
Israel and its actions & policies, and wherever possible, the substitution
for the deleted example being a pro-Israeli article video song, review,
editorial, etc.
I am not aware of there being yet legal protocols, strictures regrading such
activities on line, nor how they might be enforced, other than for the
present if a certain number of complaints are made, I believe, there is a
group who will consider them.
There are also in the US a number of pro-Israeli groups who had already been
active in this matter, what makes the new announcement so different and
"first" is that now it is a State apparatus calling for the deliberate
interference with the exchange iof deas, cultures, arts, personal stories,
etc. Some States just bloc out areas of the web, this is the first time
anyone had decided to put into effect a huge State financial investment and
an investment of trained personnel into a project of this magnitude.
Obviously a weapon or "security measure" to use on "troubled" areas is
simply to pull the plug on them--cut off the electricty grid for that area.
I am as excited as anyone by the possibilities of creation in all manner of
forms online; I try to temper my enthusaism however with being aware of the
very powerful forces which can endanger Internet and control areas of it, as
well as those persons simply "deleted" from virtuality.
In a bizarre way, however, one might view these State and private
interventions as in themselves a form of 'art project"--
If Knowledge is indeed Power, then of course, a great deal of lives are
effect by the "power lines" of electricity,
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Yvonne Martinsson <yvonne at freewheelin.nu>wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm excited about this discussion but I find the precepts for choosing a
> wiki or a blog, to be blunt, false.
>
> The wiki format answered to the need to edit on the frontend. At the time,
> most web pages were static and we couldn't edit in real time on the
> frontend. Today we can. There is nothing inherent in the blog format that
> wouldn't allow for editing on the frontend and to save revisions, just as in
> a wiki. Both formats rely on the same technology.
>
> Unless there is a Wordpress plug-in for editing on the frontend that I
> don't know of, not being able to edit on the frontend is simply a limitation
> of Wordpress, not of the blog format. The blog and wiki genres are social
> constructs, nothing else. Whereas the wiki format has a given rather rigid
> form that has gained acceptance, the blog can be flexible, depending on how
> you set it up, even though consenus seems to be that a blog is a fixed
> format, very much so as most blogging software decide what a blog should
> look like. But, as I said, there is nothing inherent in the blog format.
> It's an industry.
>
>
> Yvonne Martinsson
>
> ====================================================
>
> http://freewheelin.nu
>
> ====================================================
>
>
>
> 7 okt 2009 kl. 03.00 skrev empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au:
>
> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Green Jo-Anne)
> 2. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Anna Munster)
> 3. An "other" view of writing, performance (Lichty, Patrick)
> 4. WIKI Historigraphy (Lichty, Patrick)
> 5. Re: WIKI Historigraphy (G.H. Hovagimyan)
> 6. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Green Jo-Anne)
> 7. Re: WIKI Historigraphy (Marco Deseriis)
> 8. Re: An "other" view of writing, performance (Anna Munster)
> **
> *Från: *Green Jo-Anne <jo at turbulence.org>
> *Datum: *tisdag 6 okt 2009 01.28.57 GMT+02:00
> *Till: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> *Ämne: **Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance*
> *Svara till: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>
>
> Hi Patrick,
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully) those of
> the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to add
> their voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one participates in
> updating and revising it. One of the most striking features of Wikipedia is
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various texts -- a
> Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on
> Wikipedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within
> moments, his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date
> of death is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in time.
> Sections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect insights
> you've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print the texts
> as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue with and
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version 2.0 and,
> later, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our own
> community. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is
> rather dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually
> sophisticated, or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My
> personal preference is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in the last
> year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the last
> week seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra
> personality on this. The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by
> framing discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it. In
> so doing, the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and
> sets up an alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well. In
> regards to other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the
> New Media scene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to
> run with that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in
> the book is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations amongst
> the creators of the project. Johannes rightly states that in the age
> where information is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate
> the necessity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the
> Networked Book and reply to it in the space of a month? This is parallel
> to what I am getting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload,
> artists and writers are forced to read index tags and use trending
> algorithms or that texts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given
> the average literacy in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding
> performance and media. We can go back to the death of the author
> (barthes) and the text as performance, and the performance of completion in
> reading (Foucault), but I might be more interested in a performance of
> situation of discourse or habitus. The Networked Book responds to a
> culture, and tries to reflect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium
> and message. Perhaps the performative elements are the call to response,
> as well as the presentation of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at the Long
> Now Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of 15,000
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc. We live in a time
> where languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is being
> archived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable
> practice), I agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark
> Age", in which digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not
> migrate over decades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that
> the book will be published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was talking
> to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of artists that
> were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over time. The
> traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one writes
> about those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I replied
> that one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight context),
> her problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying to
> write histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to say the
> least. It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control one's
> own historical context before the other historians get to you. But them one
> can look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap",
> or pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we are
> doing here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or
> declamations about its rel
> ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time? Well, while I think there were
> expectations for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more concerned
> with it being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject, a
> tome that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early
> enough in the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that others will
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others. Throw a log on the
> fire, and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means the
> proc=
> ess of changing its text is not a publicly archived one and hence the
> chang=
> es and differences are not available as part of its history to the public
> a=
> ccessing it. The changes, then, are for the authors more than anything....
> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one chooses to
> desi=
> gn with when writing in a networked context
> cheers
> Anna
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [
> empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw=
> .edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [jo at turbulence.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully) those
> of=
> the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to add
> thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one participates in
> u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of Wikipedia is
> =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various texts --
> =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on
> Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within
> moments,=
> his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date of
> death=
> is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in time.
> S=
> ections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect insights
> you=
> 've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print the
> texts=
> as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue with and
> =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version 2.0 and,
> l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our own
> com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is rather
> =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually
> sophisticated,=
> or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My personal
> pref=
> erence is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in the
> last=
> year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the last
> we=
> ek seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra
> persona=
> lity on this. The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by
> framing=
> discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it. In so
> doing,=
> the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and sets up
> a=
> n alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well. In regards to
> =
> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the New Media
> s=
> cene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to run with
> =
> that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in the
> book=
> is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations amongst
> th=
> e creators of the project. Johannes rightly states that in the age where
> i=
> nformation is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate the
> nece=
> ssity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the Networked
> Boo=
> k and reply to it in the space of a month? This is parallel to what I am
> g=
> etting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload, artists and
> =
> writers are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms or that
> t=
> exts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the average
> literacy=
> in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding
> performa=
> nce and media. We can go back to the death of the author (barthes) and
> the=
> text as performance, and the performance of completion in reading
> (Foucaul=
> t), but I might be more interested in a performance of situation of
> discour=
> se or habitus. The Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries to
> refl=
> ect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message. Perhaps the
> =
> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the
> presentation=
> of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at the Long
> N=
> ow Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of 15,000
> =
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc. We live in a time
> w=
> here languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is being
> arch=
> ived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable practice),
> I=
> agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age", in which
> =
> digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not migrate over
> dec=
> ades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that the book will
> be=
> published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was
> talking=
> to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of artists
> th=
> at were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over time.
> The=
> traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one writes
> ab=
> out those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I replied
> th=
> at one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight context),
> h=
> er problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying to
> wri=
> te histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to say the
> le=
> ast. It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control one's
> own=
> historical context before the other historians get to you. But them one
> ca=
> n look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap",
> or=
> pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we are
> doing=
> here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or
> declamation=
> s about its rel
> ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time? Well, while I think there were
> expecta=
> tions for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more concerned with
> i=
> t being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject, a tome
> =
> that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early enough
> i=
> n the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that others will
> =
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others. Throw a log on the
> fire=
> , and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> >
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, this is true, and a good point. One of the great strengths of the
> Net=
> , as I have seen through exploring the communities of Second Life, is how
> s=
> urprising open networks are in creating substantive, and emergent forms of
> =
> creativity. One thing I love about the Foucault/Barthes dialectic is the
> s=
> lipperiness of the reader/author continuum.
>
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to add
> thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over time.
> ************************************
> Certainly (see above), and I think it is interesting to consider the
> config=
> uration of history; 1: in terms of the relation to the subjects that New
> Me=
> dia theorists engage in context with to traditional historical writing, 2:
> =
> in terms that the authors here do, 3: the notion of historiography given
> th=
> e time compression that technology, especially the Net imposes (Virilio),
> =
> and 4: how histories have become such that scholarship has allowed them to
> =
> become closer to the moment (examples being the books written on numerous
> a=
> rtists, like Abramovic, Anderson, Indiana), and the difference between the
> =
> history and the retrospective view.
>
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one participates in
> u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of Wikipedia is
> =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various texts --
> =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on
> Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within
> moments,=
> his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date of
> death=
> is filled in.
> ************************************
> I agree completely. Since there are two new chapters, things seem to be
> he=
> aded well into this direction and it is an exciting one. There are
> already=
> two new examples I have found in terms of hypernarrative - TOC, a DVD
> nove=
> l, and a nonlinear novel reconstructed in space in Second Life.
>
>
>
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print the
> texts=
> as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue with and
> =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version 2.0 and,
> l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
> *************************************
> There is a metaphor that was handed down to me by a mentor in the 1990's -
> =
> that while history/discourse is in motion, it is like throwing
> half-congeal=
> ed gelatine on the wall. One may drive nails in the wall to try to secure
> =
> the gelatine, but to no avail. What you have, however, is an epistemic
> arc=
> (the trail), and the nails (the records/events), all of which give shape
> t=
> o a historiographic discourse. I look forward to where it all goes, and
> h=
> eartily invite that interaction. However, I'll go on record with a desire
> =
> to go to print someday, if only that ink, cellulose and Carbon-14 are
> prett=
> y safe bets.
>
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our own
> com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is rather
> =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually
> sophisticated,=
> or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My personal
> pref=
> erence is for the latter.
> **************************************
> I'd be the last to admonish our own community, as lists like this one are
> s=
> elf-evident in terms of the level of sophistication. Secondly, in my own
> t=
> eaching philosophy that one of the essential cornerstones of a pedagogy is
> =
> that of translation. Trying to teach Foucault to freshmen is a daunting
> ta=
> sk, but as Richard Feynman has stated, just about anything can be
> translate=
> d so that a freshman can get the gist. It isn't that there isn't any lack
> =
> of sophistication at all, it's the matter of culturally specific languages
> =
> amongst certain communities, which opens up a Pandpra's Box of issues -
> int=
> entionality, audience, modes of articulation - and that our interests are
> s=
> hared with a larger community, which I hope.
>
> This is not to say that we do not live in challenging times in regards to
> i=
> ntellectual discourse. I have certain biases derived from deeper insights
> =
> to collaborations that color my opinions towards the Wikipedia culture, so
> =
> I have to recuse myself. Conversely, we stand between the the cornucopia
> o=
> f excess digital production, such as the Long Tail/"free"conomics
> (Anderson=
> ), versus "The Cult of the Amateur" that Keen would argue conflates the
> exp=
> ert with expertise. The nature of the regard for intellectual discourse is
> =
> very much in debate at the moment. Neil Postman believed in "public
> schola=
> rship", in his use of language in great books like Technopoly and How to
> Wa=
> tch the TV News (although he was a collaborator on that book), versus the
> c=
> urrent indictments of Western anti-intellectualism put forth by Susan
> Jacob=
> y in The Age of American Unreason and Chris Hedges' The Empire of Illusion.
>
> I am actually quite a fan of Andrew Keen, and I'll let it stand at that.
>
> My statement of citing US literacy studies is in no means an admonition of
> =
> the readership of Networked whatsoever; it is a statement that statesmen,
> s=
> cholars, and professionals navigate difficult waters in regards to intent,
> =
> language, and audience because of the general population and the
> "flattenin=
> g" of power and intellectual communites in light of networked societies
> and=
> the democratizing functions that they serve. I know that I am often
> still=
> hobbled by having been "raised" under the general rhetorical banner of
> pos=
> tmodernism and an academic writing tradition, even before I became one.
> Ag=
> ain, the tensions between "New Scholarship" and more traditional forms is
> m=
> erely one example of a larger syndrome of articulation of thought in the
> la=
> rger networked society.
>
> How I hope that my commentary might be seen is that of a series of
> question=
> s regarding the way culture is produced in the culture that Networked
> addre=
> sses. How is history constructed, and how has it changed? What is it to
> re=
> ad and write in open communities, and how do they change the social/power
> r=
> elations when compared to the traditional academic/mass publishing
> traditio=
> ns? How is mass culture affecting intellectual discourse, and given that
> t=
> here is a general distrust for "academicism" in mass culture, when does
> one=
> negotiate between a mass cultural market and more specific traditions
> that=
> may be unpopular, or even currently outmoded...
>
> These are very tough questions, and ones that I hope are salient to the
> dis=
> cussion of Networked in a broader context, and they are submitted with the
> =
> highest respect for the readers, the organizers, and our fellow writers,
> ma=
> y they blossom in numbers.
>
> As it was said in The Second Renaissance (The Animatrix), "Bless all forms
> =
> of intelligence."
> May they pave the way.
>
> Best,
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *****************************
> Now, THIS is something really interesting (and new) when considering the
> hi=
> storiography of electronic media. Imagine actually being able to map the
> r=
> evision change of one's historical records! This could be a thesis paper
> i=
> n itself - the historiography of the revision chain.
>
> So then, what does it mean in terms of a WIKI to be able to see the arc of
> =
> one's revision over time spread out before them.
>
> Excellent question!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> Imagine actually being able to map the revision change of one's
> historical records!
>
>
> G.H. Hovagimyan
> http://nujus.net/~gh/ <http://nujus.net/%7Egh/>
> http://artistsmeeting.org
> http://turbulence.org/Works/plazaville
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> *Från: *Green Jo-Anne <jo at turbulence.org>
> *Datum: *tisdag 6 okt 2009 15.56.24 GMT+02:00
> *Till: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> *Ämne: **Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance*
> *Svara till: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>
>
> Hi Anna,
> Actually, this feature is part of Networked. If you get a whole lot of
> comments and want to make substantial changes to your chapter, you would put
> up a new post. Once the new version is up, readers will be able to compare
> it to the older version.
>
> Patrick's chapter is set up as a wiki, not a blog. So one can revise the
> text oneself (as a reader), and the revised version then takes the place of
> the first version. Again, you can compare the various versions side by side,
> just as one can on a wiki.
>
> Jo
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Anna Munster wrote:
>
> Interesting points about print. archiving and revision to text coming up
> here from Patrick and Jo. One point I'd like to raise on this is that the
> wikipedia comparison may not be the best one to Networked and that has to do
> with the technical architecture being deployed. Wikipedia has the advantage
> of being a wiki which means that it also allows for an archiving of its own
> textual history. While its true that events change its most recent text,
> it's also the case that one can return to older histories/archives of the
> entry at hand. In fact this is something I spend a lot of time pointing out
> to my students as one of its most salient features and I get them to spend
> time with which and what version of information they are using.
>
> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means the
> process of changing its text is not a publicly archived one and hence the
> changes and differences are not available as part of its history to the
> public accessing it. The changes, then, are for the authors more than
> anything....
> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one chooses to
> design with when writing in a networked context
> cheers
> Anna
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [
> empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [
> jo at turbulence.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully) those of
> the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to add
> their voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one participates in
> updating and revising it. One of the most striking features of Wikipedia is
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various texts -- a
> Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on
> Wikipedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within
> moments, his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date
> of death is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in time.
> Sections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect insights
> you've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print the texts
> as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue with and
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version 2.0 and,
> later, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our own
> community. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is
> rather dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually
> sophisticated, or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My
> personal preference is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in the last
> year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the last
> week seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra
> personality on this. The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by
> framing discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it. In
> so doing, the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and
> sets up an alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well. In
> regards to other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the
> New Media scene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to
> run with that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in
> the book is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations amongst
> the creators of the project. Johannes rightly states that in the age
> where information is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate
> the necessity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the
> Networked Book and reply to it in the space of a month? This is parallel
> to what I am getting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload,
> artists and writers are forced to read index tags and use trending
> algorithms or that texts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given
> the average literacy in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding
> performance and media. We can go back to the death of the author
> (barthes) and the text as performance, and the performance of completion in
> reading (Foucault), but I might be more interested in a performance of
> situation of discourse or habitus. The Networked Book responds to a
> culture, and tries to reflect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium
> and message. Perhaps the performative elements are the call to response,
> as well as the presentation of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at the Long
> Now Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of 15,000
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc. We live in a time
> where languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is being
> archived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable
> practice), I agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark
> Age", in which digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not
> migrate over decades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that
> the book will be published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was talking
> to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of artists that
> were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over time. The
> traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one writes
> about those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I replied
> that one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight context),
> her problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying to
> write histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to say the
> least. It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control one's
> own historical context before the other historians get to you. But them one
> can look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap",
> or pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we are
> doing here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or
> declamations about its rel
> ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time? Well, while I think there were
> expectations for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more concerned
> with it being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject, a
> tome that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early
> enough in the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that others will
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others. Throw a log on the
> fire, and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> >
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
> here is Marco, one of the authors of Networked. I am supposed to discuss
> my chapter later this month, but I'll take to freedom to jump ahead of
> the line to say something about wiki as used in Wikipedia vs. wiki as
> used in Networked. As we all know, wiki is an Hawaiian word that means
> "fast" and the potentiality of the software is harnessed at its best
> when there is an active community using it constantly and frequently.
>
> In his recent Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky points out that wiki's
> popularity (and Wikipedia's success) lies in its openness, i.e. in its
> ability "to take a staggering amount of input with a minimum of
> overhead." (p. 120) This allows a large number of contributors to
> participate, no matter how amateurish or idiosyncratic their
> contributions may be. Everyone can start an article on Wikipedia (in
> Wikipedia's jargon "write a stub"). No matter how short and rudimentary
> this article may be, argues Shirky, a stub "can be the anchor for the
> good article that will eventually appear. *It is very inadequacy
> motivates people to improve it.*" (pp. 121-122) We may say that
> ultimately the power of Wikipedia lies in a low-fi, DIY punk ethics. (An
> ethics which is perhaps also an "aesthetics," depending on how you
> define the term).
>
> Networked on the other hand is making quite a different use of the wiki.
> We have been invited to use a wiki when the chapters were still
> unpublished, i.e. for the editing process. After Helen, Jo, and Eduardo
> finished commenting on our drafts, and we responded to their comments by
> editing more or less extensively our writings, the chapters were moved
> to the current Wordpress blog, which enables readers to add comments,
> but not to change the main text. So the difference is not only, as Anna
> says, that readers cannot access previous versions of the chapters, but
> mostly that they cannot intervene in our chapters with the same level of
> freedom a wiki user would have. In other words, Networked is based on an
> entirely different model of publishing from Wikipedia, less based on
> collaborative production and more on a diffused social testing of some
> critical and theoretical positions.
>
> Obviously, one may say that a Wikipedia contributor can benefit directly
> from his/her own intervention, in that he/she can see the result of it
> immediately. Networked on the other hand may not advance such a clear
> "bargain" (another keyword in Shirky's book) in that it is unclear what
> kind of pleasure and reward a user may get from posting a comment on the
> Wordpress blog. But here is where, I believe, the fact that the chapters
> are not bound together and do not form a coherent whole (yet) becomes
> crucial. Because each chapter is, in a sense, part of many possible
> books, there is a gap there for readers to pick what interests them,
> develop a dialog with one or multiple authors, use a chapter for a class
> or a performance for instance, thus slowly contributing to the migration
> of the book from its current 1.0 phase to the 2.0 and 3.0 stages Jo was
> mentioning in her previous post. It obviously requires time and
> dedication to do that, but empyre seems to be one likely conversational
> space where people may be attracted to some of the themes developed in
> the book.
>
> Cheers,
> Marco Deseriis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> Wikipedia has the advantage of being a wiki which means that it also allows
> for an archiving of its own textual history. While its true that events
> change its most recent text, it's also the case that one can return to older
> histories/archives of the entry at hand. In fact this is something I spend a
> lot of time pointing out to my students as one of its most salient features
> and I get them to spend time with which and what version of information they
> are using.
>
> *****************************
> Now, THIS is something really interesting (and new) when considering the
> historiography of electronic media. Imagine actually being able to map
> the revision change of one's historical records! This could be a thesis
> paper in itself - the historiography of the revision chain.
>
> So then, what does it mean in terms of a WIKI to be able to see the arc of
> one's revision over time spread out before them.
>
> Excellent question!
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> With respect to Networked, it's true that in addition to the wordpress
> faci=
> lities, Patrick's chapter is also in wiki form but that's not the case
> with=
> the other chapters and I do think that different 'architectures of
> partici=
> ation' make for particular writing forms and genres. Actually I am not so
> i=
> nterested in the wiki aspect for this project/book. I have found wiki's
> gre=
> at architectures for small group projects that take place in relatively
> tru=
> stworthy contexts ie one knows the otehr project members in some way.
> Altho=
> ugh wikipedia is always used as a 'model' of great collaborative knowledge
> =
> sharing etc, one should remember that the organisation (as opposed to the
> a=
> rchitecture) is extremely complex and not 'open'. In fact wikipedia
> deploys=
> a raft of 'editors' and in order to become an editor one must work one's
> w=
> ay up and through the organisational side of its network. There are
> wikiped=
> ia wars and various controversial issues get edited out and in. Depending
> o=
> n what the issue is (religious/cultural for example) one could say that
> ele=
> ments of wikipedia are in fact closed to 'others'. Rather than an 'open'
> n=
> etwork, I think we could look at wikipedia as an expanded encyclopeadic
> pro=
> ject in the tradition of many other great encyclopaedic projects - the
> oxfo=
> rd dictionary for example or the Encyclopaedie....all of which have been
> cr=
> eated via broad participation. teh difference with wikipaedia is that it
> ac=
> knowledges and designs for this rather than pretends to be the final word
> o=
> f truth or knowledge on a subject
>
> For me the appeal of the wordpress/commentpress architecture is that does
> a=
> cknowledge the editorial/commentary function up front and it allows for a
> =
> slower pace of comment. reflection and incorporation. I also think it's an
> =
> ideal tool for something like a seminar and I intend to set various of its
> =
> chapter for a course next year.=20
>
> Also Jo can you clarify how/where readers would have access to older and
> n=
> ewer versions of the chapter? Do you mean that they would have read an
> olde=
> r version and then they will read a newer version?=20
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au [
> empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw=
> .edu.au] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [jo at turbulence.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 12:56 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Anna,
>
> Actually, this feature is part of Networked. If you get a whole lot of
> comm=
> ents and want to make substantial changes to your chapter, you would put
> up=
> a new post. Once the new version is up, readers will be able to compare
> it=
> to the older version.
>
> Patrick's chapter is set up as a wiki, not a blog. So one can revise the
> te=
> xt oneself (as a reader), and the revised version then takes the place of
> t=
> he first version. Again, you can compare the various versions side by
> side,=
> just as one can on a wiki.
>
> Jo
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:01 AM, Anna Munster wrote:
>
> Interesting points about print. archiving and revision to text coming up
> he=
> re from Patrick and Jo. One point I'd like to raise on this is that the
> wik=
> ipedia comparison may not be the best one to Networked and that has to do
> w=
> ith the technical architecture being deployed. Wikipedia has the advantage
> =
> of being a wiki which means that it also allows for an archiving of its
> own=
> textual history. While its true that events change its most recent text,
> i=
> t's also the case that one can return to older histories/archives of the
> en=
> try at hand. In fact this is something I spend a lot of time pointing out
> t=
> o my students as one of its most salient features and I get them to spend
> t=
> ime with which and what version of information they are using.
>
> I can't see this kind of feature on Networked up front. That means the
> proc=
> ess of changing its text is not a publicly archived one and hence the
> chang=
> es and differences are not available as part of its history to the public
> a=
> ccessing it. The changes, then, are for the authors more than anything....
> Just something I thought I'd raise in terms of what/why one chooses to
> desi=
> gn with when writing in a networked context
> cheers
> Anna
>
> A/Prof. Anna Munster
> Director of Postgraduate Research (Acting)
> Deputy Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
> School of Art History and Art Education
> College of Fine Arts
> UNSW
> P.O. Box 259
> Paddington
> NSW 2021
> 612 9385 0741 (tel)
> 612 9385 0615(fax)
> a.munster at unsw.edu.au<mailto:a.munster at unsw.edu.au <a.munster at unsw.edu.au>
> >
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<
> mailto:empyre-bounces at lists.cof <empyre-bounces at lists.cof>=
> a.unsw.edu.au> [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<
> mailto:empyre-bounces <empyre-bounces>=
> @lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>] On Behalf Of Green Jo-Anne [jo at turbulence.org
> <mai=
> lto:jo at turbulence.org>]
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:28 AM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] An "other" view of writing, performance
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> The other voices are not those of the authors; they're (hopefully) those
> of=
> the "readers."
>
> The open history is meant to allow both unknown artists/authors to add
> thei=
> r voices, and for the original authors to revise their texts over time.
>
> The present book is not the future book ... unless no one participates in
> u=
> pdating and revising it. One of the most striking features of Wikipedia is
> =
> how quickly history is revised as real-time events impact various texts --
> =
> a Tsunami wipes out three villages in Indonesia; the Indonesia page on
> Wiki=
> pedia is immediately and forever changed. Ted Kennedy dies; within
> moments,=
> his Wikipedia page reflects his passing; tenses are changed; date of
> death=
> is filled in.
>
> Networked can be this kind of book.
>
> Some parts of your essay will not change, because they are fixed in time.
> S=
> ections that refer to a more recent past may change to reflect insights
> you=
> 've gained from critical distance.
>
> The print version is a big maybe. I don't see any reason to print the
> texts=
> as they are. On the other hand, if people take the time to argue with and
> =
> add to the original texts, the possibility of printing a version 2.0 and,
> l=
> ater, a version 3.0 would be worthwhile.
>
> One last point. Some of these texts are inaccessible to many in our own
> com=
> munity. It's not that they're illiterate, it's that the language is rather
> =
> dense. One can admonish readers for not being intellectually
> sophisticated,=
> or one can learn to communicate with a wider demographic. My personal
> pref=
> erence is for the latter.
>
> Warm Regards,
> Jo
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Lichty, Patrick wrote:
>
> I have been quiet in the conversation (and on many of the lists in the
> last=
> year or two) in order to listen more and talk less.
>
> It's very strange; some of the points that have been offered in the last
> we=
> ek seem to be larger and smaller ones.
>
> In regards to the idea of "other" histories, I am a classical Libra
> persona=
> lity on this. The Networked book does create a salient metaphor by
> framing=
> discourse within a medium and setting its processes upon it. In so
> doing,=
> the project acts as a multi-tiered probe into technoculture, and sets up
> a=
> n alternate methodoilogy that suits the authors quite well. In regards to
> =
> other voices; I might say that most of us are "regulars" to the New Media
> s=
> cene, and therein lies the conundrum, but unless someone wants to run with
> =
> that, I will probably say that the 'otherness' of our discourse in the
> book=
> is with approach and methodology.
>
> I also agree with Johannes that there are differing expectations amongst
> th=
> e creators of the project. Johannes rightly states that in the age where
> i=
> nformation is rising at an exponential rate, how does one validate the
> nece=
> ssity for reflection on any text or another, or to digest the Networked
> Boo=
> k and reply to it in the space of a month? This is parallel to what I am
> g=
> etting at in my essay, that in an age of information overload, artists and
> =
> writers are forced to read index tags and use trending algorithms or that
> t=
> exts must be legible at the seventh-grade level, given the average
> literacy=
> in the US (but I am being polemic).
>
> What I am also interested in regarding some of the ideas regarding
> performa=
> nce and media. We can go back to the death of the author (barthes) and
> the=
> text as performance, and the performance of completion in reading
> (Foucaul=
> t), but I might be more interested in a performance of situation of
> discour=
> se or habitus. The Networked Book responds to a culture, and tries to
> refl=
> ect upon it in a McLuhanesque marriage of medium and message. Perhaps the
> =
> performative elements are the call to response, as well as the
> presentation=
> of the propositional form of the book.
>
> Lastly, regarding history, I had a great talk witht he people at the Long
> N=
> ow Foundation regarding the Rosetta project, which is an archive of 15,000
> =
> texts of different languages etched into a metal disc. We live in a time
> w=
> here languages are being lost by the month, and as more media is being
> arch=
> ived digitally (an inherently media ecologically unsustainable practice),
> I=
> agree with the Long Now that we will enter a "Digital Dark Age", in which
> =
> digital archives will either degrade, crash, or simply not migrate over
> dec=
> ades. Therefore, i am very grateful, and appreciative that the book will
> be=
> published after a year, as atoms trump bits every time.
>
> In regards to this, another family member (a tenured historian) was
> talking=
> to me this weekend about her difficulty in writing a history of artists
> th=
> at were not dead yet, and that their context keeps changing over time.
> The=
> traditional baseline for historians versus theorists is that one writes
> ab=
> out those who are dead/long inactive, and the other not. While I replied
> th=
> at one merely has to localize their discourse (set a very tight context),
> h=
> er problem compared to the discussion here seems as if we are trying to
> wri=
> te histories concurrent with the events, which is problematic to say the
> le=
> ast. It is the greates exercise in control - desiring to control one's
> own=
> historical context before the other historians get to you. But them one
> ca=
> n look to computational culture and Engelbart's idea of the "bootstrap",
> or=
> pulling together a project from the grass roots... I see what we are
> doing=
> here as an important experiment to which any proclamations, or
> declamation=
> s about its rel
> ative worth will only be borne out in time.
>
> To refer to Johannes, who has time? Well, while I think there were
> expecta=
> tions for the book to be a viral sensation, I am much more concerned with
> i=
> t being an importane experiment and good solid book on the subject, a tome
> =
> that will sit on the shelf with proper gravitas, in a period early enough
> i=
> n the history of new media that it will demand attention.
>
> In my opinion, all one can do is to present a proposition that others will
> =
> see, and hopefully that will resonate with others. Throw a log on the
> fire=
> , and hope it burns.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> >
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> >
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> Jo-Anne Green
> Co-Director
> New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
> 917.548.7780 or 617.522.3856
> Turbulence: http://turbulence.org
> Networked_Performance: http://turbulence.org/blog
> Networked_Music_Review: http://turbulence.org/networked_music_review
> Networked: http://networkedbook.org
> New American Radio: http://somewhere.org
> Upgrade! Boston: http://turbulence.org/upgrade_boston
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20091012/0a5ada91/attachment.html
More information about the empyre
mailing list