Image and text source: ZDnet

Originally posted on May 14, 2007

Note: When looking for some information on software mashups, I discovered this article from 2007. Even though it has been two years since its publication, it’s worth reading and evaluating because much of what is discuss is still relevant today. Other texts recommended at the end of the article are also quite good. They are: Enterprise Mashup Summit, Thoughts on Open Sources, Databases and Information, JackBe and the IBM Mashup Ecosystem

———-

At last week’s Mashup Ecosystem Summit held in San Francisco and sponsored by IBM with an invited assemblage of leading players in this space, I gave an opening talk about the current challenges and opportunities of mashups. And there I posed the title of this post as a statement instead of a question. The reason that it’s a question here is entirely driven by the context of who is currently creating the majority of mashups these days. Because even a cursory examination of what people are doing every day on the Web right now tells us that mashups — also known as ad hoc Web sites created on the fly out of other Web sites — are indeed happening in a large way, albeit in simple forms, by the tens of thousands online every day.

Read the entire article at ZDnet

Image source: Eightronica

The following text was published in December 2008 in Inter/activos II by Espacio Fundacion Telefonica, Buenos Aires. The publication was produced in support of a new media workshop and theory seminar by the same name which took place in 2006, organized by curator and writer Rodrigo Alonzo. The text revisits my definition of Remix that has already been introduced in prior writings, such as Turbulence: Remixes and Bonus Beats. This definition can also be found in the section Remix Defined. “The Bond of Repetition and Representation” links the theory of Noise by Jacques Attali to my overall argument that Remix has its roots in DJ Culture starting in the seventies. In the conclusion it revisits and extends my analysis of Yann Le Guenec’s project Le Catalogue.

Some things have changed since I first wrote this essay in 2006. I did not expect the print publication to take as long as it did, but now that it has finally been published, as opposed to updating the text, I have chosen to release it online as it was originally written. While some cultural trends may be quite different from 2006, the argument proposed is still relevant. This analysis is part of a much larger and extensive project and will be eventually released in its remixed form in the future.

The term remix, today, is used to describe various cultural elements, from mash-up software applications[1] to projective architecture.[2] No matter what form it takes, the remix is always allegorical, meaning that the object of contemplation depends on recognition of a pre-existing cultural code.[3] The audience is always expected to see within the object a trace of history.

To entertain the importance of Remix in culture at large, we must come to terms with it according to its historical development. This will enable us to understand the dialectics at play within Remix, which at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the ideological foundation for remix culture. As it will become clear in this essay, in order for remix culture to come about, certain dynamics had to be in place, and these were first explored in music, around the contention of representation and repetition. This essay will focus on defining remix in relation to these two terms, and then move on to examine its role in media and art.

(more…)

Image and text source: gallery@calit2

The following interview with Sheldon Brown was commissioned by gallery@calit2 for the exhibition “Scalable City”. Exhibition dates: Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008 – Monday, Dec. 15, 2008

Sheldon Brown is an artist who works in new forms of culture that arise out of developments in computing technology. He is Director of the Center for Research in Computing and the Arts (CRCA) at UC San Diego, where he is a Professor of Visual Arts and an academic participant in the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2). During his early career, Brown experimented with emerging technologies to develop works that explore the possible meaning of “virtual reality.” His installations were often designed for immersive audience participation. Many of these works have been developed for the gallery, such as “MetaStasis” (1990), an art installation consisting of a room that visitors enter to experience what appears to be, as Brown himself has called it, a “zoetrope of TV images.” Brown took his interest in mediated reality to the public sphere in installations such as “Video Wind Chimes” (1994), which projects broadcast TV images on the street sidewalk – images selected according to how the wind blows. In both of these projects, as well as many others, Brown emphasizes how metaphysical experience is contingent upon our increasing dependency in immersive media of all forms. Brown’s longstanding interest in mediation is further explored in “Scalable City.” In the following interview, the artist reflects on how Scalable City connects his interests in emerging technologies as well as longstanding traditions of art practice.

[Eduardo Navas] Unlike many artists who claim to be interested primarily in expressing their ideas and not being bound to a specific medium, you have chosen to focus on the development of art that is involved with computing technology. Having said this, the computer makes possible metamedia – meaning it simulates other media, and in this sense it allows artists to focus on idea development. It appears, then, that you share the interest of exploring ideas in the tradition of modern art practice with artists who might play down their preference for a particular medium. With this in mind, could you reflect on the shifts that art practice may be taking based on the increasing role of computers in all aspects of our lives? How do you see your art practice in relation to previous practices which may have downplayed their preference for a particular medium?

[Sheldon Brown] It seems you attribute conflicting claims for my relationship to “medium”, but I don’t see computing as a medium in the 20th century sense. Probably even the idea of it as a meta-medium does not capture its character. It may be more useful to think about computing as creating certain cultural conditions, and I’m doing work which utilizes and responds to those conditions. It might then be more like the interest in speed as a condition for the futurists, but I wouldn’t want to make too much of any analogies to previous art movements and their concerns. The impact of computing on culture comes after the modernist, conceptualist and post-modernist engagements, and just as I have called it a meta-medium, I could also call it a meta-ism – it is able to simulate any and all of these previous attitudes. Not that my interests in this begin and end at simulation of previous forms; this is but one of the gestures possible in this condition, but when it performs any of these simulations, they become rapidly engaged in a new dynamic which doesn’t stop at borders of previous operations.
(more…)

Image source NYTimes: Batman, Dark Night, Warner Bros. “Supporters say Blu-ray had a breakout year, crowned by “The Dark Knight,” which sold 600,000 Blu-ray copies in one day.”

Normally, I’m not so concerned with reflections on the old year at the beginning of the new. However, the NY Times article “Blu-ray’s Fuzzy Future” exposed some of the tendencies that developed in 2008, which will become more pronounced in 2009.

The article entertains how Blu-ray, even after displacing HD DVD in the digital video market is currently struggling. Blu-ray’s competitor this time is not another DVD based technology, but rather a networked technology. The Internet is Blu-ray’s next competitor, as the article notes. The preoccupation of Blu-ray developers is that it is very likely that people will be moving towards machines that allow for movie downloads much in the format of On Demand services in cable networks across the United States. So, Blu-ray is introducing in the near future a feature that will allow people to download material from the Internet:

(more…)

Image source: Flckr

(Click image to enlarge, or here)

The past, present and future of the web are presented in the above diagram. The image is peculiar for proposing a linear development towards AI. It appears that we are about to enter Web 3.0,or perhaps we may already be there. The mashup, social media sharing, and social networking, are presented as transitional elements from Web 2.0 to 3.0. However, It is not clear to me what lightweight collaboration might be.

Below are some interesting articles on the future of the web:

Dean Giustini, Web 3.0 and Medicine. British Medical Journal. December 2007

Nova Spivack, The Third-Generation Web is Coming

Resource, World Wide Mind Project

Tristan Zand, Web 3.0 back to the real world / back to our sense, June 2006

Various articles by John Markoff at the NY Times:

Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense
By JOHN MARKOFF. Published: November 12, 2006 … Referred to as Web 3.0, the effort is in its infancy, and the very idea has given rise to skeptics who …November 12, 2006 – By JOHN MARKOFF – Business

What I Meant to Say Was Semantic Web – Bits Blog
Until web 3.0 comes around or the monitors allow our comments I would like to hear more. …. John Markoff. Reporter, San Francisco …October 19, 2007

John Markoff – Bits Blog By John Markoff. Radar Networks is introducing Twine.com, a service that uses semantic Web technology, sometimes called Web 3.0, to improve sharing …

Image and announcement source: Software Studies

Note: In the Spirt of the commons Lev Manovich makes available online his latest book. Release notes from the book’s website follow below.

———-

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK:
format: PDF.

VERSION:
November 20, 2008.
Please note that this version has not been proofread yet, and it is also missing illustrations.
Length: 82,071 Words (including footnotes).

Software Takes Command by Lev Manovich is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Please notify me if you want to reprint any parts of the book.

ABOUT THE VERSIONS:
One of the advantages of online distribution which I can control is that I don’t have to permanently fix the book’s contents. Like contemporary software and web services, the book can change as often as I like, with new “features” and “big fixes” added periodically. I plan to take advantage of these possibilities. From time to time, I will be adding new material and making changes and corrections to the text.

LATEST VERSION:
Check softwarestudies.com/softbook.html for the latest version of the book.

SUGGESTIONS, CORRECTIONS AND COMMENTS:
send to manovich@ucsd.edu with the word “softbook” in the email header.

Images and text source: gallery@calit2

Note: The following is an interview published for the exhibition SPECFLIC 2.6 and Particles of Interest: Installations by Adriene Jenik and *particle group* on view from August 6 to October 3, 2008 at gallery@calit2. In this Interview *particle group* shares its critical approach on the ever growing nanoparticles market.

*particle group* is a collective consisting of Principal Investigators Ricardo Dominguez and Diane Ludin, as well as Principal Researchers Nina Waisman (Interactive Sound Installation design)and Amy Sara Carroll, with a number of others flowing in and out.  The collective draws from the hard and social sciences to develop installations that are critically engaged with the politics of science and its market.  Their aim with the installation “Particles of Interest” is to shed light on the lack of regulation of nanoparticles in consumer goods.  In the following interview the *particle group* shares its views on the current state of nanotechnology production, as well as a possible future that we may all be facing, in which nanomachines just might make difficult decisions for us.

[Eduardo Navas]: How does collaboration take place within the *particle group*? You describe members’ roles as Investigators and Researchers. Could you explain how these terms are relevant to each collaborator’s contribution to the project?

[*particle group*]: We mimic the structure of a research and development model for a university laboratory. By laboratory we mean a group of individuals who pursue conceptual investigations determined by a chronology of work that the Investigators have determined. Here, though, it should be noted that already we morph the template as Principal Investigators become Principle Investigators, homonymically signalling our investments in science’s narrative “engines of creation,” the aesthetic/ized practices and/or “naturalized” conceptualisms inherent in research, investigation, discovery and data transfer within scientific communities’ “normalized” articulations of self.

Generally the researchers participate from the beginning stages of materializing/performing/manifesting the work that the collective *particle group* eventually presents in counter/public spheres as varied as the art museum, the mall, and/or the scientific meeting. Researchers work in tandem with Investigators to develop their interpretations of the subject matter under investigation, augmentation, and/or erasure. So each time we are invited (or invite ourselves) to stage an iteration of our research, we meet and discuss via Skype or email what our intentions should be for the “performance.” To date we have had a different crew of researchers for each presentation so inherent in particle group’s particularization and particle-ization is a revolving/open door policy toward creative maelstroming. This project was produced in large part by Calit2, and so it made aesthetic sense to us to approach the project as would-be art(is)cientists and to stage a series of p(our)-us epistemologies (on the testbeds of these strange viroids of art and science) and not to see the gesture of art and science as two bunkers at war — but as possible thought-scapes of concern under the sign of “nano-ethics and nano-constructions.” Each one as blind as the other, each one helping the other over the rocking shoals of Particle Capitalism(s).

(more…)

Still of Lutz Dammbeck, THE NET: THE UNABOMBER, LSD AND THE INTERNET, 2003

Text: El Pais, Image: Observatori

Originally published: 6/12/08

(Spanish Only)

Regreso al futuro. El Festival Observatori, que se celebra en Valencia hasta el 29 de junio, vuelve a sus orígenes, centrándose en la vertiente más experimental de arte digital.

La novena edición, titulada After the Net, toma como punto de partida el documental La Red: Unabomber, LSD e Internet, de Lutz Dammbec, para explorar el lado oculto de los avances tecnológicos, la arquitectura de los trabajos en red y las raíces históricas de los sistemas abiertos, que emplea para reactivar los principios fundadores de la ética hacker

Entre las obras que se enfrentan a las dinámicas comunitarias en red destaca Antisocial networking, un almacén de proyectos, coordinado por Geoff Cox, que investiga la naturaleza de las plataformas sociales en Internet. Entre esas propuestas se encuentra Logo_wiki, de Wayne Clemens, donde intenta demostrar cómo militares, empresarios e instituciones gubernamentales son autores de miles de alteraciones de páginas en la enciclopedia libre Wikipedia.
Contradicciones

Las contradicciones del software libre se plasman en Hello process, de Aymeric Mansoux y Marloes de Valk, que revela la paradoja de los sistemas de código abierto, a través de una máquina que ejecuta un software libre con un proceso tan complejo, que le convierte otra vez en un sistema impenetrable.

Entre las instalaciones destaca Chatroom, de Jeff Gompertz y Caen Botto, que se apropia de los videochat del público y los retransmiten manipulando la imagen de los rostros, creando un efecto parecido al de los salones de espejos de las ferias.

La producción española está representada por una retrospectiva de José Antonio Orts, pionero de un trabajo que integra tecnología, objetos, luz y sonido.

La selección de sus obras, que incluye algunas inéditas, arranca con el primer circuito sonoro fotosensible interactivo, que realizó en 1970 con tan sólo 15 años, punto de partida de todo su trabajo posterior, entre ellos instalaciones interactivas y unas esculturas sonoras fotosensibles.

La exposición se completa con la sección openKURATOR. Destacan el minimalista Netart for poor people, de Carlos Katastrofsky, y Con el tiempo contado, una obra digital efímera del español Javier González que lleva la cuenta regresiva de su existencia.

OBSERVATORI: www.observatori.com

Image: Anaisa Franco, Testing software for “Expanded Eye”

See Part 1: https://remixtheory.net/?p=315
See Part 2: https://remixtheory.net/?p=319

Interactivos?’08-Madrid promoted Vision-play as a point of entry to reflect on how interactivity is redefining aesthetics in art particularly invested in emerging technologies. The Medialab-Prado website presented the two week work intensive series of events as a “workshop [that] aims to use open hardware and open code tools to create prototypes for exploring image technologies and mechanisms of perception.”[1]

To provide a rigorous contextual ground following this premise as a frame of reference for artists and collaborators, the Medialab organized a two day long conference in which artists presented their projects and scholars and writers presented papers focused on the ongoing changes of the image (vision-play) in contemporary art production. On the first day Marta Morales presented “Caída del juego: lo inaparente en la imagen” (Fall of the Game: The Inapparent in the Image), a text in which she explored the void of experience leaning towards the sublime in the work of Giacommeti; she examined his work from drawings to sculptures. I followed with “The Bond of Repetition and Representation,” in which I outlined previously introduced definitions of Remix and their links to the ongoing play between repetition and representation in digital media. Nadine Wanono then discussed her research on Visual Anthropology in “The Camera and The Perspective, as Tool and Metaphor.” In her talk she questioned the supposed objectivity of perspective, both formally and conceptually, when anthropologists study non-western cultures. Wanono’s presentation consisted of selected research she performed in Mali, West Africa, where she spent many years with the Dogon people. And the evening ended with Domingo Sarrey who presented “Cuadrats 40 años después” (Quadrats, 40 Years Later). Sarrey took the evening when he made many Spaniards in the audience aware about art and computer science explorations that took place in Madrid during the sixties. Sarrey was one of the first artists in Madrid to use the computer to develop drawings during that time period. (more…)

Image: Medialab Prado. Image of Julian Oliver’s “Levelhead,” 2008, projecting part of the Medialab workspace. First version “Unprepared Architecture” of Oliver’s project was developed in Interactivos?07 in collaboration with Simone Jones.

Medialab Prado when described to anyone unfamiliar with the art space appears to be a utopia for collaborative media production that would only function in theory. However, as those who have participated in past events can attest, the lab in practice is quite successful, and has produced some strong projects which have been exhibited in various venues soon after their completion in the two week workshops.

The premise behind the lab is to accept project proposals around a thematic, relevant to contemporary cultural production. Once projects are selected, collaborators are invited to work with the artists. The projects are complemented with a series of talks, which usually take place during the first days. The whole process ends with an exhibition of the finished proposals in the Medialab itself, which changes from a working studio space into an exhibition space. In just two weeks artists and collaborators can produce intricate works ready to be exhibited professionally.

There are five lines of work scheduled year-round: Interactivos?, Visualizar, Inclusiva, Commons Lab and AVLAB. All five with a specialized focus that allows participants to work fast and with precision. The result is an impressive number of projects that explore some of the most pronounced interests in emerging fields currently at play across the global new media community, from experimental sound to interactive video installation.

Interactivos?08 is the current line of work, taking place from May 30 to June 15, 2008. The thematic for this round is Vision-play. Interactivos?08 started with a series of historical and theoretical presentations by writers and artists invested in the concept of play in visual culture. The presentations of the accepted projects were successfully mixed with the theoretical presentations making obvious the necessity to have both theory and practice closely bound as part of the creative process. Interactivos?08 also offers two more important theoretical lectures on Thursdays of both weeks.

The art projects this year explore the ever-evolving definition of interaction in the aesthetics of the work of art in terms of play (hence the theme “vision-play”). The selected projects include simulation of the human face on a hacked mirror in “M.A.S.K. (My Alter Self Konciousness)” – Jordi Puig; an unconventional record of lapse of time with the use of solar energy and sand, reminiscent of sand clocks in “Spiral Drawing Sunrise” – Esther Polak; a series of open source videos designed to evolve online in “Bloop” – Martín Nadal; the exploration of performance for oneself as well as others when a person manipulates random imagery by using a swing in “Stage Fright” – Nova Jiang; the conundrum of music and art known as synesthesia in “360º score” – Philippe Chatelain; culture’s ongoing obsession with accessing a single experience from multiple points of camera views in “Immodesty” – Karolina Sobecka; augmented reality as a space that reconsiders elements of gaming and real life as repetition, following the Droste effect in “Daedalus_ex_Machina [DexM]” – Walter Langelaar; the repetitive reflection of the human condition with the recognition of one’s eye (reminiscent of Tony Ousler) in “Expanded Eye” – Anaísa Franco, reconsideration of the act of seeing with geographical tools used for a critical yet personal global vision in “augment(0)scope” – Eloi Maduell; and the remixing of the Zoetrope as a domesticated mechanical ‘live’ and ‘smart’ pet in “Biophionitos” – Paola Guimerans, Horacio González, Igor González.

At the moment, the projects are in full production. Artists and collaborators are currently testing software and hardware before committing to more elaborate physical construction. The projects’ sophistication is further informed by the expertise of practicing artists Alvaro Casinelli, Daniel Canogar, Simone Jones, Julian Oliver and Pablo Valbuena. In only a week the projects will be finished and a lively audience during an art opening will be able to experience works of art that were developed with great sophistication and unprecedented efficiency. Two qualities of cultural production which in the not so distant past were often considered incompatible in the production of works of art.

Medialab Prado’s Main site: http://medialab-prado.es/
Interactivos? main website: http://www.interactivos.org/
List of projects with proper descriptions: http://medialab-prado.es/article/interactivos08_-_juegos_de_la_vision
_lista_de_comunicaciones_y_proyectos_seleccionados
Medialab Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/medialab-prado/
Medialab Wiki: http://wiki.medialab-prado.es/index.php/Main_Page

Other lines of work, year round:
Visualizar: http://medialab-prado.es/visualizar
Inclusiva: http://medialab-prado.es/inclusiva-net
Commons Lab: http://medialab-prado.es/laboratorio_del_procomun
AVLAB: http://medialab-prado.es/avlab2