Send announcements, press releases and text abstracts to editor@...

Category: Contributed Texts


Wednesday, September 28 at 9:00am – September 30 at 9:00pm
Liverpool John Moore’s University Design Academy

Duckinfield Street, Off Brownlow Hill
Liverpool, United Kingdom
The fourth International Conference on the Histories of Media Art, Science and Technology, Rewire, will be hosted by FACT (Foundation for Art and Creative Technology) and held in Liverpool, UK, from 28-30 September, 2011, In collaboration with academic partners: Liverpool John Moores University, CRUMB at the University of Sunderland, the Universities of the West of Scotland and Lancaster, and the Database of Virtual Art at the Dept. for Image Science, Danube University.

A new widespread condition of sociability invites a questioning of the role of media art practice and new media histories in the context of wider cultural and technological developments, and Rewire aspires to do just that.


New Media Artist Peggy Nelson: Exploring the Parallax of Identity

Interviewed by Molly Hankwitz, Contributing editor, NewmediaFIX

Peggy Nelson is a Boston-based  new media artist, writer, and filmmaker, who has been exploring Twitter as a medium for literary interaction with audiences, and using various high- and low-tech tools to explore urban history and psychogeographic casts upon places. Nelson’s work is part of trends in art and writing to more fully engage public spaces through use of new technologies to probe and intervene in the surface layers of human memory, thought and interaction.

MH: Twitter literature, what is it and how is it collaborative?

PN: Twitter literature is published via Twitter, 140 characters at a time. Some authors are posting their already-written novels, one tweet at a time. Some are re-posting diary entries from real people, often long-dead. I am creating a narrative within Twitter as I go, and leaving it open for responses by other people who might ask the main character questions. In a sense, every Twitter account is a character, a “performance,” even if that performance is “me” or “you.” So when I create an account for a character, the character is actually telling their story, and I am not just pasting in sentences from a prewritten novel. I don’t co-write or crowdsource. I still believe in individual creation, and Twitter as a propagation medium, or platform. However, during my recent project, In Search of Adele H [], people didn’t interact as much as they might have or I thought they would. They realized it was art, and kept a respectful distance. I was not encouraging them to step back. It just happened.

MH: You create the work through a Twitter account and individuals receive the tweets and can weave their own stories with the fiction subconsciously or even start a thread. How do they get to the work, or you to them? Through Twitter?

PN: Yes. The first piece was inspired by The Story of Adele H, by Francois Truffaut (1975). My ‘Adele H’ happened within Twitter. ‘She’ was a public account. Thus Adele H gained followers just like any other Twitter account and she followed people back. I had a supplemental blog for the project, where I explained the piece, and periodic articles in various journals, including OtherZine []. I also invited interested people by asking them to follow and participate. However, what happened was that almost no one intervened with their own replies or tried to change the narrative. Even though all these tools allow interactivity, we don’t always avail ourselves of it. We still like to kick back and “listen.” I think there is great value in being an audience for each other.

I called Adele H a Twitter “film,” following along the lines of Yoko Ono’s Instruction Pieces. The movie occurs in your mind as you read the tweets. Ono’s paintings were supposed to occur in your mind as you read the Instructions. I started with an outline for a “normal” art film that I had written about Adele Hugo, Victor Hugo’s youngest daughter, as my narrative structure. I intended to take a similar approach to Ross McElwee’s in Sherman’s March (1986), where he sets out to do a documentary about Sherman’s March and ends up telling the story of his own relationships and girlfriends. I intended to tell Adele’s real history woven through with my own relationship stories; to tell tragedy as comedy. But once I got on Twitter, it occurred to me that it would be more interesting to bring “Adele” back to life as a cyber-entity, and to have her tweet, in the present, from both her own century and ours. This would give the feminism more depth.

Her own writing was obsessive fantasies created with quill pen and diary; these fantasies became her life. Today many people journal very publically through blogs and Twitter, and while it’s not always clear exactly where reality leaves off and fantasy takes over, when it goes public, numerous differences emerge which can be very intriguing. First of all, audiences can read what is written immediately, or at least this is possible and it’s increasingly more difficult to secrete away thoughts in some attic endlessly embroidering them. Online, writers need to be self-aware. It’s substantially different from a diary. Also, readers and authors are both “in” Twitter, in the same narrative space as the characters, so there can be some wonderful overlaps. Thirdly, we are using this technology to reinvent ourselves and our characters. A parallax is provided, therefore, to what we are doing in the present, by using an older character, one from another time, to mediate.

MH: Are you working on other social media projects?

PN: I have begun a Twitter novel, Shackleton [], about another real person, Ernest Shackleton, and his Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Shackleton’s ship was crushed in the ice, and he spent two years trying to escape; they couldn’t get a message out because they had no radio system, and radios didn’t reach that far back then anyway. There were other mishaps while trying to survive and get the men back alive. Numerous films have been made and books published on this adventure; the 1999 exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York rejuvenated Shackleton’s reputation and publicized the story. However, most of the books and films leave out significant events – there is too much to absorb.

Paradoxically, the micromoments of Twitter allow me to tell stories of substantial length, and to reveal all the close calls and death-defying escapes, without them all hitting at once, since you don’t have to stay with micromoments all the time. You don’t have to make a special interruption in your day, to enjoy them per se. They fit into minutes, bus rides, ordinary  activities. You get the tweets and in your mind you can start aggregating the larger story. But fragmentation is fine. You don’t have to get the whole story. You can miss some and get the rest of it later, you’re never locked into a strict chronological narrative.

Best of all, the medium is truly democratic. Anyone can make one of these Twitter projects. Twitter accounts are free. I’m influenced by graffiti, and public art of this kind; the idea of many messages all over the city; small interventions into urban spaces. Tweeted characters (like Adele H) are interventions into cyber-spaces. I use computers and communications technologies constantly, in my job as a designer. I am always thinking of how I can repurpose them for art.

MH: Do you think personal blogs perceived to be written by males are read differently, as something more like gaming, identity, news?

PN: We still have a gender differentiation in the culture about how we receive written material and male authors still tend to be taken more seriously, more quickly, even if what they’re writing is a series of extemporaneous personal reflections; while women still have to prove themselves, often over and over. Men can also be very critical of and aggressive toward each other’s writing, sure, but the fact is that there is still a gender gap in perception. We have a lot of work to do as feminists in this area.

MH: In this work on Shackleton you play a male character. Do you think audiences may choose to interact more with this narrative character?

PN: Good question. They might. Not only is Shackleton a male character, but the narrative is an action-adventure story, whereas Adele H was about unrequited love that took place in a woman’s head. I don’t know if readers will react more aggressively to such an alpha-male story, and try to post or interact with “him” more because of that, or if they will again keep a respectful distance because they see it as art. I don’t have a preference for a certain reaction, I’m fine with the distance, but if there’s more interaction, I’ll see how it goes. I’m not hiding the fact that I am a woman and I am writing Shackleton’s life, but will they see the character as male, or have an issue with a woman writing it?  I don’t know. I’m sure you have had the experience of having to identify with male characters in a story or film because that’s what was there. That feels familiar to many women. Men don’t tend to have the same problem.

MH: Talk about your outdoor public mobile projects, please.

PN: I am working on some distributed narratives in real space. The first one, The Audio Tour [], premiered at Burning Man in 2006. I recorded various sounds and impressions  from blogging my travels both on and off the playa. These were downloadable to any mp3 player, and I also had mp3 players to take or borrow at my camp. I was inspired by the Situationist concept of the dérive, which encouraged not conforming to main avenues and official urban spaces; finding your own version of a city or place, when coming up with the tour. I tried to do a dérive of the space of Burning Man, if you will, and then let others hear it.

The Audio Tour drew from museum audio guides, the kind where you are told to “play No. 3” and an art historian tells you about the art — but with a twist. My audio was randomized. You play the entries at random with no “listening stations” marked as such. Thus, the listener decides what a listening station might be. You wander around with the downloads and arrive at a listening station — simply by deciding you are at one!  The recorded passages, juxtaposed with the place the listener is, tend to match up. We are pattern-making and pattern-seeking animals. Whenever we walk around, we are flowing along with our stream of consciousness. It might be about the place we are in, it might be about a conversation we need to have, it might be music, some ideas from a book, or concerns about public affairs. Our experience of a place is not only determined by the place but all that we bring to it, vertically, historically, and especially when traveling. I wanted that kind of “mash-up” to comprise the content of the tour. The basic idea is: stream of consciousness out in the world.

The second project was Web021 []. “021” is the beginning of the Boston zip code. Web021 was somewhat similar to The Audio Tour, but not as random. It was about real Boston history plus quotes and passages of fiction set in Boston. It used 2D barcodes (or QR codes) on stickers. You see them more often in magazines now, advertising various things, but you can make your own. I designed my own 2D barcodes on stickers and put them up all over Cambridge, MA, where I live; each one was linked to a unique URL that would give you one of these passages, from Hawthorne, or Santayana, or Samuel Adams, about Boston. It was location-specific in that the stickers were intentionally put at particular places and the text was centered around both real and fictional “Bostons.” Of course, the piece was in Boston. I was very influenced by graffiti and all the stickers we see drawn on with Sharpies. I guess it is locative art. I think of it like Smithson’s Spiral Jetty, as art in the environment, except not all in one spot; Web021 was distributed; deliberately made not to be seen all at once. Twitter is also a distributed medium, more in time than space. The audiences doesn’t need to read it all at once and the distributed fragments can add up to something much larger, deeper and more substantial.

MH: Your pieces differ on the grounds of their interactivity, and what’s interactive changes from contexts of the computer at home to an augmented reality context/QR code application. Do you feel a greater familiarity with Twitter and social media and, perhaps, continued exposure to these mobile literary art forms in your audience, will lead to their participation in your future works?  Will you design for this?

PN: That’s a good question. I have not been as concerned with interactivity being a central component of my work up to this point. I have included it as a possibility in some of my pieces, especially the Twitter work, but it’s optional, and does not “break” the piece if it doesn’t happen. What I’d really love to see is other people becoming inspired to do their own locative art, either in real space or in cyberspace, so we can have many artistic and cultural interventions like these, similar to how we have lots of graffiti by different makers. In many urban environments graffiti is the norm, not the exception. I’d love to see narrative and sonic interventions achieve a graffiti-like saturation.

MH: Thank you.

Peggy Nelson, New Media and Film – artist’s website

LEA backed Exhibition on MAPPING


LEA New Media Exhibition
Re-Drawing Boundaries

Curator: Jeremy Hight
Senior Curators: Lanfranco Aceti and Christiane Paul

This exhibition presents key innovators in Locative Media, New Media and
Mapping in a show that works to display not only fields and works but more
of cross pollinations, progressions, the need to move beyond labels just
like the importance of reconsidering borders on maps, what space is and
what pragmatic tools and previous forms can do.

The selected artists are:

Kate Armstrong, Alan Bigelow, Louisa Bufardeci, Laura Beloff, J.R
Carpenter, Jonah Brucker Cohen, Vuk Cosic, Fallen Fruit, Luka Frelih,
Buckminster Fuller, Rolf Van Gelder, Natalie Jeremijenko, Carmin Kurasic,
Paula Levine, Mez, Lize Mogel, Jason Nelson, Christian Nold, Esther Polak,
Proboscis, Kate Pullinger, Carlo Ratti, Douglas Repetto, Teri Rueb,
Stanza, Jen Southern, Kai Syng Tan, Jeffrey Valance, Sarah Willams, Jeremy
Wood, Tim Wright.

We are in an age of cartographic awareness that is arguably unprecedented,
but is of a malleable map, of layered spaces, of maps in new contexts.
Boundaries are not the only things that are being reconsidered on maps:
mapping systems and our base sense of space. It is how we see and share
information, communicate, react and remember. The sea change is occurring
right now and it is being led by the ideas of works of these radical
thinkers and others who are making the static map and our sense of space
open up.

The range of works in this exhibit have not only shown in Biennials in
some cases or started whole fields of work in others, but more
importantly, show in them a connectivity of exploration and practice
between many people and works in differently named fields. Data is not
just cold measure; place is not static; function can be many fold and
startlingly so by intention. Space and location are not simply to be
marked or named. There are histories, tensions, conflicts, stories, many
types of data and ways of measure.

This show will exhibit 2 new important artists/practitioners each week
from several different fields.

We begin with locative pioneer, Teri Rueb, and cross platform provocateur,
Jonah Brucker Cohen. Both look at space, data and why we should be more
aware and inquisitive but in very different styles and aesthetics.

Exhibition Schedule

Week 1: Jonah Brucker Cohen, Teri Rueb
Week 2: Carlo Ratti, Sarah Willams
Week 3: Stanza, Lize Mogel
Week 4: Jeremy Wood, Mez
Week 5: Rolf Van Gelder, Carmin Kurasic, Kai Syng Tan
Week 6: Jason Nelson, Vuk Cosic
Week 7: Kate Pullinger, Tim Wright
Week 8: Douglas Repetto, Alan Bigelow
Week 9: Christian Nold, Esther Polak
Week 10: Laura Beloff, J.R Carpenter
Week 11: Proboscis, Kate Armstrong
Week 12: Jen Southern, Buckminster Fuller
Week 13: Jeffrey Valance, Natalie Jeremijenko
Week 14: Fallen Fruit, Louisa Bufardeci
Week 15: Luka Frelih, Paula Levine


by Raquel Herrera

A look at Brian Mackern’s vintage computer, “toothless”, which he sold in a performatic move.

Continue reading »

Online resources: Cities and architecture

First cover of first issue of Places


Places, originally a joint venture between MIT and UC Berkeley, published its last print issue in Spring 2009. ‘It is now publishing as a fully web-based, open-access publication’ with the Design Observer Group. ‘Places online will publish peer-reviewed scholarship as well as topical commentary, observations, reviews, and visual portfolios.’  Edited by Nancy Levinson, Places is guided by numerous noteworthy representatives of the design field and includes features, galleries of architecture related art projects, archives, book reviews, and other samplings from global design culture today. The many photographs and well-designed site make this online publication particularly nice to look at, while the breadth of theory, politics, public space articles, and environmental sensitivity are of consistent high quality.

Polis is a new blog published in collaboration between a group of progressive young architects, urban planners, and  theorists. It is an energetic array of topics emerging from transformations in the urban environment and  multiple international geographies. Excellent read.

Book Review: White Heat Cold Logic

White Heat Cold Logic: British Computer Art 1960-1980 –

Ongoing Modernism and the Rise of the Heroic

Edited by Paul Brown, Charlie Gere, Nicholas Lambert, and Catherine Mason

Published by The Leonardo Book Series /MIT Press


Between 1960 to c. 1980, is a set of decades most often portrayed as a period of endless creativity and technological optimism. Back then, artists designed and built their own machines, were invited to collaborate with computer scientists in a multitude of higher, social processes (including the development of interactivity) and were wholly influenced by cybernetics and techno mathematics. (1)

Continue reading »

FEATURE: City Centered

A Festival of Locative Media and Urban Community
June 11– 13 & 19, 2010
Sponsored by the Center for Locative Media, Gray Area Foundation for the Arts, KQED, Conceptual Information Arts/Art Dept/San Francisco State University, the City of San Francisco, and the Berkeley Center for New Media

Invitation to submit proposals
Submission deadline: March 1, 2010

About the festival
Recent exhibitions, festivals and conferences across the US and in Europe have taken wireless networks, public space, locative media and urban environments as sites of intervention, creativity, and critique. Formulated within the emerging context of networked urbanism and mobile media, City Centered: A Festival of Locative Media and Urban Community will focus upon dynamics of the shifting, locative, cartographic and social space of the city. It is organized by educational, arts, community-based and civic organizations and asks how locative media can act as a platform and venue for community-led expression. From within San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, this festival will celebrate the rich possibilities that art and technology offer for urban communication of place and place-based media. City Centered focuses on the use of locative media and wireless technologies for site-specific and neighborhood-based interventions. Artists, designers, architects, community and cultural workers —people, places, and devices — will meet for four days of street-side celebration, public exhibitions, a symposium, and workshops. The festival seeks new work aligned with the themes of creative mapping, urban storytelling, sentient space, body awareness, local history, contested spaces and gaming.
The festival’s main goals are:
o to promote creative public use of free wi fi and open networks in the city of San Francisco
o to encourage meaningful collaboration between artists and local organizations in connection with wireless networks
o to introduce site-specific locative media art to urban places Logistics and creative goals Proposals are invited around projects involving creative mapping, urban storytelling, body awareness, local history, contested spaces and gaming. We seek projects of the greatest interest and highest quality. That said, proposals should be created for or be highly relevant to urban communities such as those found in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district. Neighborhood, mapping or community-based projects adaptable to the district are desirable. All proposed projects should address the theme of ‘urban community’ and utilize wireless technologies in some relation to ‘location’ and ‘place.’ Imaginative responses to the district and critical interpretations of place are strongly desired. Proposals which include or seek to include collaboration with Tenderloin/Civic Center organizations will receive greater consideration than projects which do not. Projects using locative media to explore unique histories in the Tenderloin and/or address the festival’s aims of fostering creative civic engagement are also sought. Members of local community-based organizations will review all submissions and identify proposals that they wish to support.
In addition, creative work is encouraged to engage with the following questions:
What does neighborhood mean? How might urban communities speak effectively about their cities through use of wireless networks? Where do wireless creative practices intersect with and/or enhance citizen roles in civic engagement?

Creative mapping
Location based media has so far involved much discussion of the role of maps, both their local and geopolitical importance, their history within political structures and the potentials of self-made or self-informed maps in terms of the production of and shaping of urban space. GPS and other applications enable the making of highly personal and information laden online spaces. What is cartography? What is mapped identity? How can groups and populations better see themselves, their history and their futures in the realm of maps?
Urban storytelling
Stories of the distant past or recent memory help hold groups together. Community groups and cultural critiques often address whose stories are told, and how. In San Francisco, the mural is a traditional form of commemorative media, making communities’ histories and concerns visible on the walls of their buildings. What remains invisible? Can wireless technologies enable understandings of the past — both accepted and controversial?
Sentient space Surveillance cameras, motion sensors, and electronic forms of payment have moved substantially into public space. Computational means of tracking and responding to human actions increasingly pervade the urban infrastructure. San Francisco has recently deployed a test run of networked, sensor-based parking meters. Other cities have introduced wireless, networked monitoring of water systems, electrical grids and so forth. Is this the emergence of new ‘sentient cities’ or an extension of automated modernity started a century ago? How might we imagine and make debatable the ways in which networked information processing animates, invades, enables or undermines urban places?
Body awareness Often seen as places of strangers and strangeness, modern cities are places where, unlike villages, one can find both welcome anonymity and undesirable alienation. Ambivalence about relations between self and others experience has been a feature of urban life since the 19th century: we want to fade into the crowd, but also feel connected. What kinds of awareness of other humans—or non-humans such as animals, plants and trees—remind us of liminal and subliminal arenas of urban growth and transformation? How do embodied experiences — of crowds and solitude, of comfort and anxiety — relate to awareness of self and others?

Local history
Locative media can be used to express specific attributes of place through local history, connecting us to and with histories of architecture, urban space, the changing city and the combinations of news, folklore, and data flows which allow us to interpret and understand where we live. How can local history be mapped? Is it collaborative or authorial? What kinds of stories constitute the history of a place? What kinds of data are place-based?

Contested spaces
Art projects are never neutral. Even in evading explicit discussion of politics or controversies they take a stand with respect to a community of makers and audience of participants, listeners, or seers. In particular, projects of civic engagement rely upon (often unstated) aspirations about urban life. This is so especially when situated within specific communities and drawing upon their hopes, desires and dreams. We invite projects framed as interventions in contested spaces; that work with intervention as an art practice and that introduce new forms or contestation or expand upon the already established path of community-based art in San Francisco.

Gaming takes on many unusual forms in today’s media-saturated culture. Moreover, young people constitute one of the most prolific and literate groups of wireless users—and many enjoy gaming. Implementing simple urban games can sometimes tell participants much about themselves and their awareness of and connection to fictional and emotional aspects of place. What kinds of narratives are appropriate in challenging neighborhoods? How can games be used to deal with social ills or help inhabitants navigate through periods of urban change?

Technical forms
Locative media involves an emerging cluster of technologies that include mobile phones, Global positioning satellite systems (GPS), geospatial databases and wireless networks. These technologies enable inter-connectivity between locations, determine locations and mapping and enable participation in storytelling and games. They have become increasingly ubiquitous in our daily lives and public spaces, and are radically changing how people work and live. In addition, these technologies raise complex questions about public/private rights, laws and responsibilities. The festival encourages submissions in four areas of creative technical practice:
Data visualizations of information What data is relevant to Tenderloin inhabitants? How can visualization expose previously unrecognized patterns of exchange and which change the experience of familiar locations? Mapping and cartography Maps produce and represent information about the meaning of place. Locative practices often engage the location-aware/context aware aspects of tools/networks, pinpointing and demarcating places according to creative interpretation. Participatory media How can projects weave diverse groups and foster conditions for increased civic engagement, learning, and questioning? What barriers to civic engagement and participation are there and how might they be overcome?
Location tracking Tracking the movement of people and objects can also record and augment experiences often unrecognized or culturally invisible. What kinds of movements of people and goods combine to form the economies and exchanges of a neighborhood? What kinds of human movement alters the way we might think or conceive of a place and its changing milieus? Games and playful interventions Introducing ideas of competition, speed, and fantasy into city streets may help engage local inhabitants, young people, kids and onlookers in experiences they see as new, surprising or special.

Project criteria
Proposed art must have some place-based and/or locative aspect such as utilizing GPS or GPS and the web; utilizing cellphones or other mobile media and address site specifics or place-making. Projects which address sites or cultures of the Tenderloin and/or collaborate with Tenderloin based constituents, populations or organizations are encouraged. The festival seeks project proposals which specifically contend with and/or engage with the multiple languages, communities, and interests of the Tenderloin, and which utilize the variety of public urban sites available in some meaningful and site specific form. Playgrounds, schools, public lobbies, gallery space, community centers, sidewalk areas, the street, parking lots, rooftops, and open plazas all provide excellent inspiration for wireless public projects and locative media works.
Other criteria and creative/artistic priorities:
Projects must be designed for or adapted to locations in or in close proximity to the Tenderloin. Existing projects that can be adapted to the Tenderloin are welcomed. Priority will be given to submissions by those who have community art experience or have worked with populations in urban neighborhoods.
About the Tenderloin and Civic Center San Francisco’s Tenderloin district is a densely populated, rapidly changing, loosely defined district with apartment buildings, singleroom occupancy hotels, nightclubs, bars, galleries and restaurants. Located near San Francisco’s cable car tourist attractions, downtown convention center hotel district and Union Square, it is a flourishing, multilingual and multiethnic neighborhood home to many artists and galleries. Yet the Tenderloin is also notorious as a concentrated site of misery, known for violent crime, prostitution, drug addiction, and homelessness. Recently, the city has devoted considerable attention and resources to redevelopment in the Tenderloin, making engagement with locally led organizations a priority. There are numerous multilingual, multicultural organizations with substantial art programs –Glide Memorial Church, Hospitality House, the YMCA and The Boys and Girls Club. It is also site of the Main Library, the center of San Francisco’s public library system. The festival’s close proximity to San Francisco’s administrative buildings and historic Market Street make it an especially intriguing arena for urban artmaking and location based creative practice. Free wi fi exists in the library system and wireless is found throughout the Tenderloin. More specific technical questions can be addressed once proposals are selected. The Gray Area Foundation for the Arts at 55 Taylor Street in the Tenderloin and will operate as base for the festival and will assist artists to work with the neighborhood in the installation of their projects. In addition Gray Area has a window installation venue Tendorama to which proposals can be specifically made, and will offer information about organizations with which to partner. The Gray Area Foundation for the Arts ( is a San Francisco-based nonprofit dedicated to building social consciousness through digital culture. Guided by the principles of openness, collaboration, and resource sharing, our programs promote creativity at the intersection of art, design, sound, and technology. Its goal is to make digital culture accessible, substantive and inspiring from the physical neighborhood of the Tenderloin to extended digital communities. GAFFTA is committed to outreach both online and in the city.

Selection process
Proposals will be reviewed and selected by a panel of artists, curators, arts and community organizations.

Proposals due: March 1, 2010
Participants notified: on or before April 1, 2010
June 11–12: Opening and art exhibition
June 13: Symposium
Community Workshops: June 19
Friday, June 11: Art opening and introduction to the symposium at GAFFTA
Saturday, June 12: All-day art festival of interactive, locative works in the Tenderloin sponsored by Gray Area.
Sunday, June 13: City-Centered Symposium at KQED, hosted by KQED and SFSU.
Saturday, June 20: Community education workshops at KQED in the Mission District
Further information and questions
Please direct questions and other correspondence to Or see our website at
City Centered
A Festival of Locative Media and Urban Community

Project proposal guidelines
Submission deadline: March 1, 2010
Project proposals can be submitted for any or all of three events:
o Exhibition of wireless art and locative media (opening June 11, organized street activities and tours June 12 around locations in the Tenderloin, continuing exhibition by agreement between artists and sites) Art proposals should explicitly reference the themes and criteria suggested above. While the organized festival activities take place on June 12–19, projects may remain indefinitely installed for as long as their makers and the installation sites wish. The festival encourages and will promote longer-term installations, but recognizes that project duration may vary based on the type of work and the site of installation.
o Practitioner and educator symposium on locative art practice (June 13)
The Symposium is an all day event, with six 20-minute presentations and targeted break-out sessions
o Community education workshops (June 19)
Community workshop proposals should be specified for six, three, or one hour time slots.
If you are submitting proposals for two or more of the events, your proposal should include the summary section and as many of the
following sections as relevant.
Please submit the proposal as a single pdf file in 8/12” by 11” format. Proposals should be submitted as emailed attachments to Please read instructions carefully before submitting supporting files.

I. Summary
Summary section should include
o Project/presentation/workshop title
o Contact information for project liason: email, phone, mailing address for one person whom we can contact

II. Exhibition proposal
a) Project description (2pg at most)
o Description of the project and how it responds to festival themes and technical narratives
o Where will this project be located, both physically and digitally? For the purposes of submission, it is acceptable to list a generic
site (street, plaza, etc). However, if you have a specific idea of where the project might be sited in the Tenderloin, please list it. Will you need digital hosting?
o Planned duration of project installation. Also, is the project accessible only once, periodically, or throughout the two weekends?
o What kind of audience do you imagine for this project?
o How will people interact with the project? Please describe how they will first encounter the project, how long you imagine the interaction might take, and whether there is a specific time at which the project is best seen.
o If this project involves active participation by community members or the general public in envisioning and creating objects or events, how do you imagine inviting participation and then structuring the project’s relationship with them?
b) Implementation (2pg at most)
o What are the technical requirements for this project? What kind of equipment, wireless access, power connections, etc will you be
bringing and will you require us to supply?
o What are the maintenance demands over the course of exhibition? Will it need supervision?
o What is the status of the project? Is it completed or still in development? Please note that we welcome proposals that are still in progress, but would like to have full information about the project’s needs so that we can better support it.
o Is there any additional support that would be helpful in terms of supplying technology, logistics aid, site permissions and recruitment, local contacts, etc? Again, we welcome proposals that are still in development, but would like to make sure that we offer all assistance that we can.
c) Team information
Please provide a short (100-200 words) biography for each team member, clearly indicating each member’s role in the project. Please include relevant education, awards, exhibitions, other professional activities. Artists statements also welcome.
d) Supporting material Please include any files — photographs, drawings, diagrams, videos, or other media — that you feel necessary to support your proposal. We prefer digital submission of files, but hard copy submission is also acceptable. We will accept both hard copy and digital formats including 35mm slides, video (VHS NTSC format), cassette audiotapes, CD-ROMs, URLs (please specify browser version and plug-ins), color copies and/or other printed materials. Videos should be under 10 minutes in length. If under 2MB, files can be attached to an email and sent with the proposal. Please include links to online files within your proposal PDF if the files are over 2MB. If you send hard copy documentation, please include a self-addressed stamped envelope with adequate postage for return. Otherwise, we will not be responsible for returning your submitted materials. Please make sure that any mail will be received
by March 1, 2010. Mail can be sent to:
City Centered
Gray Area Foundation for the Arts
55 Taylor St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Please include include a list of any supporting files to with your proposal.

III. Presentation proposal
a) Project description (1pg at most)
o Short description of the presentation and how it responds to festival themes and technical narratives
o What kind of audience do you imagine for this presentation?
b) Team information (if not provided elsewhere)
o Please provide a short (100-200 words) biography for each team member, clearly indicating each member’s role in the project.
Please include relevant education, awards, exhibitions, other professional activities. Artists’ statements also welcome.

IV. Workshop proposal
a) Project description (1pg at most)
o Description of the project and how it responds to festival themes and technical narratives
o What kind of audience do you imagine for this project?
b) Workshop requirements
o Duration of the workshop and planned schedule for the time. How many people can attend it?
o What are the technical requirements for this workshop? What kind of equipment, wireless access, power connections, etc. will you bring and will you require us to supply?
c) Team information (if not provided elsewhere)
o Please provide a short (100-200 words) biography for each team member, clearly indicating each member’s role in the project. Please include relevant education, awards, exhibitions, other professional activities. Artists statements also welcome.

Proposals due: March 1, 2010
Participants notified: on or before April 1, 2010
Friday, June 11: Art opening and introduction to the symposium
Saturday, June 12: All-day art festival of interactive, locative works in the Tenderloin sponsored by Gray Area.
Sunday, June 13: City-Centered Symposium hosted by KQED and SFSU.
Saturday, June 19: Community education workshops at KQED in the Mission District

Gray Area Foundation for the Arts:
Center for Locative Media:
Conceptual Information Arts/Art Department/SFSU:
The Berkeley Center for New Media:

BOOK: A Computer in the Art Room by Catherine Mason, Reviewed by Molly Hankwitz

A Computer in the Art Room: The Origins of British Computer Arts: 1950-80
by Catherine Mason, Norfolk: JJG Publishing, 2008.

Reviewed by Molly Hankwitz

This book is a work of art history analyzing the many contributions made by British artists and scientists to the development of computer art in England and its simultaneous impact and origins internationally. Special attention is paid to the development of new arts curriculum and education for artists during the post-war period. Art is a political battlefield when it comes to how and what is taught. Remarkably the arrival of the personal computer and networked computing as well as associated equipment: plotters, printers, and the monitor – began having an impact on artists in the 1950s when it was perceived to be an instrument through which one could express oneself. With many color plates and a fine art approach to the research, Catherine Mason has drawn together a unique collection of some of the most well known British art groups and institutions to have influence upon cultural acceptance and arts education.

The relationship between The Independent Group and the Institute of Contemporary Art’s (ICA) forms the basis of much of the analysis, as the ICA was a meeting ground and support for the minds of the Independent Group. Lesser known, but keenly important artists such as Edward Ihnatowicz are written about in great detail, as well as their original works, the Senster, for example, and reactions to it, are described in great detail. Thus the text is a compelling portrayal of how important artists worked against the grain of longstanding, traditional arts education in the United Kingdom’s college degree system in order to push for new approaches and ideas. Cybernetics, computer science, robotics, telemetry, as well as ‘interactivity’, ‘participatory’ and ‘process-driven’ art forms are shown to be the intellectural mainstays of avant-garde ideas at the time and are discussed in depth. Great attention is placed upon the overlaps between college arts education, vocational education in polytechnics, ‘think tanks’, fine art departments and the forces shaping government support and reports upon them.

Edward Ihnatowicz working on his computer-controlled sculpture, The Senster, at University College, London c. 1970

Curiously, because fine arts schools such as the prestigious and elitist Royal College of Art were generally the last to accept any cross over between art and technology, while the polytechnics, largely focused upon vocational training and design, more readily hired artists to work in them. Hence, newer ideas were sometimes tested outside of London. Experimental exhibitions, however, generally pushed computer arts into the realm of the visible for the general public.Richard Hamiltons ‘Growth and Form’ and ‘Man, Motion and Machine’ as well as the Independent Groups ‘This is Tomorrow’, ‘Cybernetic Serendipity’ (1968) and numersos others, are discussed by Mason as having huge influence upon the critical art audience and in helping to publicize and lend authority to ideas. Mason cross references her research between the inventions of one artist and the influence had on others. Stephen Willats, Roy Ascot, IIhnatowicz, Lawrence Alloway, Lynda Brockbank, Noel Forster, Brian Eno (a student at Ipswich College), and especially Gustav Metzger, Victor Pasmore, Richard Hamilton, Storm Cornock and others are discussed. Thus, the rise of less restrictive and more experimental and process-oriented sensibilities — in contrast to the traditional methods brought about by allegiance to John Ruskin and William Morris– began to appear in fine arts programs throughout England from the early sixties onwards. Roy Ascott’s revolutionary ‘Groundwork’ foundation course introducted to Ealing and Ipswich colleges was had controversial influence.

The legendary Slade School of Fine Art Experimental Department (University College London) was among the first inter-disciplinary programs to prosper around the teaching of computer art. Because the introduction of computer technology to creative work usually centered around design applications, it was less common and understood in fine art programs of the time. The Slade deparment was experimental, but also highly successful. Hamilton, Eduardo Paolozzi, and William Turnbull as well as other members of the Independent Group had attended Slade in the 1940s and their reputations helped its experimental growth as an institution. From William Coldstream’s influence onward and including the appointment of Rudolf Wittkower and others into the faculty presents a curious case of collaboration between fine artists, arts councils, funders, and faculty. Moreover, the department developed when “it was clear that art was evolving alongside the social and political changes of the 1960s” (2008, 174) In 1969, Bernard Cohen, in particular, pushed for study in art and electronics and in 1970 the influential Computer Arts Society held ‘An Evening of Computer Art and Composition.’ (ibid, 175) which consisted mostly of performance based works of computer poetry, light/sound performance by John Lifton, choreographed ‘dance’ routines by computers by John Landsdown, and so forth. (ibid, 175). In 1970, Systems Group founder, Malcom Hughes created the first computer curriculum for Slade. His own work was influenced by the process-driven epistemology of Pasmore and used mathematical and generative concepts. Works cited from Slade’s department are drawings and machines of Stephen Scrivener, CAD drawings of Chris Briscoe created on the CRT at the Slade studio and many others. In 1977 Slade owned a ‘technology lab’consisting of a customized computer stacked with a teletype used for alpha-numeric input and output, a storage oscilloscope used for graphic output and the plotter built by Briscoe. (ibid, 181)

The apparent, driving force of Mason’s book is her interest in bringing to light the contributions of major players and thinkers, who along with like minded British scientists, engineers, funders and officials – at times influenced by work in the United States or Germany – were attempting to forge especially creative links between art, science and technology. Mason directs the reader to a wealth of information and background as to the role computers played in artmaking during the post-war period, including attitudes towards culture and machines, publications on similar ideas, as well as disparate strands of thought considered in regards to their use. The author manages an articulate history of art and education as well as offering substantial insight into how the role of the artist was in the midst of changing as a result of increasingly global, computerized culture. She shows how this extraordinarly early experimental work was often funded through collaboration with IBMs European offices, via appeals to international exhibitions, and was presented to the public at large. The book is a set of rarely published facts and ideas collected into one text; a vision, especially, of how British arts education was underpinned by various tensions and forces in the arts, and how these tensions had historic foundations. That a post-modern sensibility towards networks and machines was emerging is an understatement, yet the relationship of art, science and technology went back at least to Prince Albert’s designs for Albertopolis which combined arts and science museums along one ring road. The British Science museum as well as the V&A are residuals of his utopia.

Many of the ideas conceived during the decades of the sixties and seventies as a response to reactionary concepts – ideas of interactivity and connectivity, for example – are peculiarly visionary when laid aside theory and use of networked art today. Information and art, art and machines, have become increasingly indistinguishable and, indeed, perhaps overly alike. The book is very informative for those interested in the emergence of electronic media art in Great Britain and relationships between British art and its influence.

Mason, C. A Computer in the Art Room. Norfolk, 2008.
for more information:

*Archimedia* Experimental workshops/SOUNDTRACKS

Upcoming workshop with David Cox and Molly Hankwitz @ ATA
When: Saturday, 5/16 1 – 5pm.
Where: ATA 992 Valencia Street, SF CA
Contact: 415 283 7757 or 401 5227

Consider making mini movies using what you have – use old camcorder, old webcams, new phone cams, and other types of portable cameras and devices to make films. Work around the limits of the small screen, limited frame rates, limits of storage and battery time. Improvise tripods and other stabilization devices. Bring your own tools or works in progress. Participants make media, show their media, learn production tips and are given useful production information.

$40.00 per student. Informal “lab” environment in artists’ gallery.

Learn the basic principles of as well as hands-on animation techniques. Practice drawn animation with the zoetrope, ip books and other methods. Learn how to set up a basic animation facility at home. Discover what freeware solutions are available for 2D drawn animation on a computer,
as well as stop motion programs which let you turn a digital camcorder and a computer into a puppet/object stop motion animation system.

By the end of the class you will have learned the basics of traditional animation, and how to apply the methods yourself at home using what tools you have. Taught by award winning animator and lm maker David Cox. $40 per student. Limited to 8 students.

Saturday 4/11 and 5/30 — GEOTAGGING: MAPPING AND MEDIA
An overview of the available useful, free mapping resources and the benets and drawbacks
to each, including Google maps, Yahoo maps, MapQuest, and others. Examine the role these play in the development of geography-based art. Experiment with GPS and geotagging; using portable screens for locative media. Learn the basics and the culture. $40 per student. Limited to 10 participants.
Saturday 4/18 and 6/6 — SOUNDTRACKS Develop the art of listening and expressing with sound. Sound sources, recording techniques,
how to produce primitive sound efx, aesthetics of audio will be studied in this brief immersion into sound design.
Non-lmmakers welcome. Make your own short soundtrack before picking up a camera, and identify audio sources on the Internet.
Good fun for lmmakers and non lmmakers alike. $40.00 student. Limited to 10 participants.
Saturday 4/25 and 6/13 — WEB STUDIES SEMINAR
This discussion-based workshop oers an in depth overview of the World Wide Web as an historic
medium for the delivery of ideas. Presented as a three Part lecture/discussion, topics will include: Mark up language, Hypertext, the emergence of the Browser and the URL, Cyberspace, public commons, multimedia/rich media, transformations in the concepts of networks, spimes, blogs and databases.

Great overview of the Web. A must for new media writers and aspiring culturalists.
$20.00 fee. No limit on enrollment.
Saturday 5/2 and 6/20 — USE WHAT YOU HAVE!!!– TOOLS SKILL-UP
Many people have new portable computing and digital gadgets.
Most gadgets are never used up to their full potential and so called “old” tools see the dumpster too soon. This workshop promotes sharing
of ideas about what to do with old and used tools, unusual or obsolete technology, and oers tips, skills, and information on what kind of
power lurks in your personal communications technologies. Find out how much media power you actually have and let your inner geek out!!!!
$50 per student, limited to enrollment of 10.
Registration is non refundable and is confirmed by advance payment in full by check or money order with a note or email stating your
preferred classes and dates. Please include a list of what you intend to work with, and what you are interested in working on.
Checks should be made out to: Molly Hankwitz/Archimedia and mailed to:
3288 21st Street, #28, SF CA, 94110. Please no returned items.
Questions? Drop an email with your information to All classes are held at Artists Television Access,
992 Valencia Street, SF CA 94110. Confirm registration by email or check in mail to the above address. Note: ATA is not set up to
take calls re: Archimedia workshops.
Please contact us:
or call at 415 401 5227, or 415 283 7757 (cells) Course dates may be subject to change.
Learn to make mini movies using what you have – use old camcorders, old webcams, new phone cams, and other types of cameras to make lms.
Work around the limits of small screens, limited frame rates, limits of storage and battery time. Improvise tripods and other stabilization devices made
from ordinary objects and learn production techniques for the small screen. Put your cell phone video into a form you can edit digitally.
Bring your own tools or works in progress. $40 per student.
Limited to 8 participants.

TEXT: ARCO 2009, Meditaciones en una (supuesta) catástrofe, by Raquel Herrera

Vacas flacas

Coincidiendo con la celebración de la feria de arte contemporáneo ARCO 2009, la ciudad de Madrid se llenó de vacas multicolor a modo de esculturas urbanas que algunos incívicos se dedicaron a estropear. Quizás su actitud destructiva no se viera exclusivamente motivada por la eterna pulsión humana que incita a destruir el mobiliario urbano, sino también con el sentir general expresado en una frase: estamos en crisis.

Pero igual que los metrosexuales o la dieta mediterránea, la palabra crisis (más allá de los despidos laborales masivos o el descubrimiento de timadores a gran escala tipo Brad Madoff), tiene también algo de cliché cuando, antes de que llegue el desastre, las ferias de arte contemporáneo echan el telón de la austeridad y se llevan las manos a la cabeza antes de ver el resultado de ventas.

Según comentó su directora Lourdes Fernández en la rueda de prensa celebrada en Barcelona, la feria empezó a prepararse hace más de medio año, con lo que los cambios (como la ubicación de los pabellones o la ausencia de notables galerías internacionales) no responden exclusivamente a una política de contención sino al propio devenir y gestión de estos eventos.

En cualquier caso, el arte digital no se vio favorecido por la coyuntura: aunque no culpo a la crisis de la situación, pues en su trayectoria el espacio Expanded Box ha demostrado que oscila entre el videoarte más propio de la galería y ciertos intentos de introducir “otro tipo de arte tecnológico” cuyo único vinculo con el videoarte es el de generar imágenes sintéticas, sí que es cierto que si el mercado del arte contemporáneo tienden a apostar por un arte digital “espectacular” (en forma de instalaciones o performances de grandes dimensiones) para asegurarse notoriedad y ventas, éste brillaba por su ausencia en la edición actual.

En la caja expandida, los proyectos oscilaban entre las propuestas de videoarte de la mano de la comisaria Carolina Grau y las instalaciones más vinculadas a los presupuestos del arte digital escogidas por Domenico Quaranta. En este último caso, había “caras conocidas” como At My Limit: In the Name of Kernel de Joan Leandre (galería Project Gentili, Italia), centrado una vez más en “reconstruir” entornos de software, The EKMRZ trilogy de Ubermorgen (galería Fabio Paris Art Gallery, Italia), donde diversos medios se mezclaban para alterar las interfaces de tres macrocorporaciones (un planteamiento también conocido, y pese a ello galardonado con el premio BEEP) o el Unprepared piano de Thomson & Craighead (galería ARCProjects, Bulgaria), que se encargaba de reproducir aleatoriamente pistas musicales de una base de datos de música MIDI en línea (lo que no suscitaba demasiado entusiasmo entre los transeúntes que se encontraban el piano… inerte). En términos de novedades, me hizo gracia el hula-hop-brújula de Lawrence Malstaf (Galerie Fortlaan, Bélgica) que quizás no tenga mucho más que aportar, pero podría dar pie a ideas interesantes si se empleara no solamente como “herramienta”.

Mención aparte merecerían las proyecciones de videoarte-que-no-quiere-serlo-pero-es-cine-o-igual-videoarte-ay-no-lo-sé-pero-quiero-que-sea-arte-a-fin-de-de-cuentas en la sección estudio: Pierre Bismuto, Elija-Liisa Ahtila y Jaime Rosales eran los invitados, pero no coincidí con los horarios de programación de estas actividades.

En el resto de la feria, la sensación general que obtuve fue que o bien sólo miro hacia donde me interesa o los artistas siguen apostando por fórmulas que funcionan para algunos. Todos tenemos debilidades: me gustan los morenos, me gustan las rubias, quiero chocolate, otra copita más, y en arte ocurre exactamente lo mismo. Lo digo porque, una vez más, me reí viendo como unos robotitos (MI y MII, de Jorinde Voigt) con pinta de aspiradoras peinaban el espacio de la GALERIE KLÜSER 2).

Idéntico interés suscitó en mí la motocicleta modelo Purple Rain del artista Liu Hui (Tang Contemporary Art, China), presentada como proyecto individual en un rincón oscuro de uno de los pabellones: la motocicleta estaba rodeada de cables y la iluminaba una potente luz roja tan chillona como subyugante. Asimismo, Rafael Lozano-Hemmer presentó una cuadrícula de pequeñas imágenes pseudo pornográficas cuyo movimiento continuo sugería más un juego de luces que un mandala espiritual. Sé que Lozano-Hemmer se considera muy mainstream (y lo entiendo), así que supongo que es mi equivalente tecnológico a un George Clooney que te convence incluso anunciando café expreso.

Y ante la pregunta, ¿pero esta edición no estaba dedicada a la India?, la respuesta es que sí, pero, en el conjunto no se percibía especialmente. O mejor dicho, ¿cómo trascendemos, una vez más, la tensión poscolonial entre una expectativa de arte folclórico y la presencia de arte contemporáneo global que no podemos vincular a ninguna idiosincrasia nacional? La sala de exposiciones municipal Alcalá 31 trató de encargarse de esta cuestión con la exposición Cultura popular india y más allá: los cismas jamás contados, pero la brecha siguió allí: muy ilustrativa respecto a la historia del collage de estilo pop, pero muy poco respecto a lo que ha ocurrido entre la descolonización y los documentales actuales que, en el mejor de los casos, tratan temas globales representativos del habitual videoarte no ficcional.

Fragmentos de VIDA

Por fin tuve ocasión de visitar el MATADERO de Madrid, ese espacio enorme brutalista que jamás tendremos en Barcelona (básicamente porque no tenemos sitio, a no ser que lo instalemos a 60 km de la ciudad y pongan autocares para ir venir). Las salas eran tan grandes, frías, y estaban tan rotas, que me temo que cualquier cosa habría quedado genial en ellas. Pude ver la exposición Fuegos fatuos de Daniel Canogar, un nuevo conjunto de cinco instalaciones de luces donde utiliza residuos electrónicos. El folleto reza que con estas instalaciones se alude al pasado del Matadero y a la memoria de los residuos. Pero yo, que desde que leí a Kurt Vonnegut me puse una especie de escudo para tomar distancia entre los mataderos y la memoria histórica, lo que vi fue un conjunto de instalaciones altamente sugerentes que por fortuna no me recordaban a los árboles de Navidad, sino a la naturaleza o perversión del mundo natural (y ahí reconozco que Canogar siempre me gana).

En relación a los premios VIDA 11.0, dejé que se me cayera la baba con la instalación ganadora Hylozoic Soil, de Philip Besley y Rob Gorbet, un bosque artificial que reacciona ante la presencia humana (es decir, las extremidades de las hojas se curvan al pasar). Mi descripción siempre resultará burda porque el movimiento de las hojas es sutil y delicado (y atractivo para cualquier edad, a juzgar por la variedad de personas que visitaban la instalación). Menos impactante, pero muy meritoria era también la instalación Birds de Chico MacMurtie (tercer premio): lo digo porque la idea de fila de patas de madera que empiezan a moverse cuando la primera de ellas empieza a moverse al detectar una presencia es fantástica, pero el resultado no acaba siendo tan llamativo.

El resto de premiados, a mitad de camino entre la proyección de imágenes abstractas de sujetos (segundo premio para Performative Ecologies, de Ruairi Glynn) y los globos con vida propia (mención honorífica de la edición anterior para Alavs 2.0., de Jed Berk) no me llamaron tanto la atención. Lo que sí pude constatar es que el arte reactivo (que no interactivo, porque reacciona a estímulos pero no se ve sustancialmente modificado por ellos) goza de buena salud, y que, dado que es casi una convención en las instalaciones, quizás el arte vinculado a preocupaciones está consolidando fuera del museo tradicional lo que el museo tradicional ya ha abrazado en instalaciones de artistas conceptuales (estoy pensando en la exposición de Cildo Meireles en el MACBA al escribir esto último).

Fuera de ARCO

Fuera de ARCO, la vida seguía como siempre: hacía sol, y los museos habían preparado cierta artillería para la ocasión (Francis Bacon en el Prado, retrospectiva de Eulàlia Valldosera en el MNCARS). Sobre esta última, me gustaría comentar que me pareció curioso su acercamiento al mundo doméstico a través de carritos de supermercado que empujados daban a pie a determinadas imágenes, o sus botellas de productos de limpieza que ofrecían confesiones sonoras (aunque a mi gusto demasiadas), pero lo que más me gustó sin duda alguna fue el vídeo de la sala del final donde diversas mujeres (emigrantes en España) hablaban sobre los objetos que les importaban. Un vídeo “tradicional” sobre tres historias tanto o más interesante que el uso de sensores. Me estaré haciendo muy mayor, digo yo.

¿Qué será, será?

El futuro es vago: no sabemos si ARCO caerá víctima de la crisis económica o si se mantendrá al flote cuando el pánico deje paso al realismo. En cualquier caso, la coyuntura económica ha despertado en España (y asumo que también globalmente) el interés de políticos y particulares en un término, al parecer, no lo bastante explotado: la innovación. Esa innovación se traduce a grandes rasgos en explotar las virtudes de ambos sistemas (el público, basado en ayudas a la creación, y el privado, basado en la continuidad entre producción artística y generación de productos) y en fomentar el desarrollo de los “emprendedores” tradicionalmente adscritos al ámbito empresarial.

Con un ARCO patrocinado hasta las cejas por la firma de moda MANGO, ahora conviene preguntarse si estas actitudes “innovadoras” van a trasladarse también al resto de centros de arte, si Madrid va a fomentar aún más el comportamiento emprendedor que etiqueta a profesionales del arte como proveedores de servicios, y si en definitiva el arte tecnológico (que en la mayoría de unos casos, y tras la resaca del net art, requiere una fuerte inversión para llevarse a cabo) va a poder aprovecharse de esta actitud sin complejos respecto a las relaciones entre arte y economía.


Sección de videoarte Cinema (comisariada por Carolina Grau para Expanded Box)

Project Gentili (Joan Leandre)

Fabio Paris Art Gallery (Ubermorgen)

Premio BEEP

ARCProjects (Thomson & Craighead)

Galerie Fortlaan (Lawrence Malstaf )
Galerie Klüser (Jorinde Voigt)

(Tang Contemporary Art) Liu Hui

Matadero Madrid

Daniel Canogar, Fuegos Fatuos

Premio VIDA 11.0

Cildo Meireles en el MACBA

Retrospectiva de Eulàlia Valldosera