Artist Cassie Thornton, of the Feminist Economics Department (the FED), will discuss The Hologram, a mythoreal collective peer-to-peer health project currently incubating at Furtherfield Gallery in London.
The Hologram, based on the understanding that all our crises are connected and everyone is a little sick, is a viral four-person health monitoring and diagnostic system practiced from couches all over the world.
Three non-expert participants create a three-dimensional “hologram” of a fourth participant’s physical, psychological and social health, and each becomes, in turn, the focus of three other people’s care in an expanding network.
This health distribution system is based on the experimental care models developed in the Social Solidarity Clinics in Greece during the height of the financial and migration crisis. The result is the construction of a robust network of multi-dimensional health, collectively oriented social practices, and trust that can outlive racial capitalism.
The presentation will be followed by a discussion of themes and topics. We welcome artists, healers, activists and system builders with an interest in alternative infrastructures and care as an act of resistance.
Please note The Hologram talk and workshops are now taking place online due to pandemic restrictions. Contact info@furtherfield.org if you need any further information or assistance.
About the artist
Cassie Thornton is an artist and activist who makes a “safe space” for the unknown, for disobedience and for unanticipated collectivity. She uses social practices including institutional critique, insurgent architecture, and “healing modalities” like hypnosis and yoga to find soft spots in the hard surfaces of capitalist life. Cassie has invented a grassroots alternative credit reporting service for the survivors of gentrification, has hypnotized hedge fund managers, has finger-painted with the grime found inside banks, has donated cursed paintings to profiteering bankers, and has taught feminist economics to yogis (and vice versa). She has worked in close collaboration with freelance curators and producers including Taraneh Fazeli, Magdalena Jadwiga Härtelova, Dani Admiss, Amanda Nudelman, Misha Rabinovich, Caitlin Foley and Laurel Ptak. Her projects, invited and uninvited, have appeared at (or in collaboration with) Transmediale Festival for Media Arts, San Francisco MoMA, West Den Haag, Moneylab, Swissnex San Francisco, Pro Arts Gallery & Commons, Dream Farm Commons, Furtherfield, Gallery 400, Strike Debt Bay Area, Red Bull Detroit, Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts, Flux Factory, Bemis Center for the Arts, Berliner Gazette and more.
The Hologram is part of Furtherfield’s three-year Citizen Sci-Fi programme crowdsourcing creative and technological visions of our communities and public spaces, together.
2020 is the year of Love Machines, nurturing living and machine systems for mutual care and respect on earth and beyond.
A cultural discussion podcast grounded in news from where we are
We may be confined to our homes by the Coronavirus emergency but we still have access to thriving networked cultures from around the world. ‘News From Where We Are’ is hosted by Furtherfield’s Marc Garrett, a conversation with many voices from the ground. The podcast explores how the collaborative-imaginative fieldwork of artists, techies and activists is informing how we organise, imagine and build solidarity, good health and post-capitalist realities. Working together and supporting others to do the same.
In 2021 we celebrate 25 years of radical friendship at Furtherfield with conversations with some of the fascinating people with whom we have worked and collaborated. We talk about how they are changing culture, their lives, and the lives of their communities.
Quarterly on Soundcloud.
https://soundcloud.com/furtherfield
Featured Image:
Illustration by Lina Theodorou, for ‘Bad Shibe‘ by Rhea Myers
Published by Furtherfield and Torque editions, 2017
This article reflects on the hopes of Cyberfeminism in response to ‘Revisiting the Future: Technofeminism in the 21st Century‘, a panel discussion between Mindy Seu, Cornelia Sollfrank, Judy Wajcman, and chair Marie Thompson. This conversation took place on the 5th of October 2019 at the Barbican Centre in London, UK, as part of New Suns: A Feminist Literary Festival.
BIG DADDY MAINFRAME
“What’s so special about Lisa? Oh, I’ve had a lot of computers, but my Lisa is different: she works the way I do”
Apple Lisa, video infomercial, 1983
Men, like gods, have always had a thing for creating entities in their own image. Gods create men, men will gods into existence. Men create tools, tools make men in turn. But what if the creator of technology is often a man, and a very specific kind of man? What are, then, the ways in which gender and technology construct one another?
Since the dawn of computation, men found it appealing to automate away the predictable and repetitive labour, often embodied and performed by women. In other words, technology has contributed (among a lot of other things) to the automation of traditional “women’s work”, and it did so on men’s terms [1]. From the Girl-less, Cuss-less Phone, the first automated dial system (1892), to Lisa, the first personal Apple Computer (1983), to Siri and Alexa, digital assistants, (2011 and 2014), the designs of and designs for the pater ex machina have set the bar for the height of technological progress.
Cyberfeminism is a feminist genre that addresses questions of gender and technology while bringing their implications to the fore. Automation is not the only nor the central theme of Cyberfeminism: academics, activists, hackers, artists, women, and non-women tied to this genre, engage with broad questions of gender and technology based on the assumptions that:
Largely, grounded in Donna Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto, Cyberfeminism as a movement was formally articulated in 1991 by the Adelaide based artist collective VNS Matrix. VNS designed a billboard titled “A Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century” depicting horned bodies, psychedelic vulvas and reciting: “[…]we are the virus of the new world disorder rupturing the symbolic from within; saboteurs of big daddy mainframe; the clitoris is a direct line to the matrix.” That said, the origins of the genre can be traced more accurately as a decentralised global emergence. Cyberfeminism has come to life more like a granular collection of scattered raw data, and less like a single revelation happened at a defined point in time.
In the panel Revisiting the Future: Technofeminisms in the 21st Century, Mindy Seu, Cornelia Sollfrank, Judy Wajcman and Marie Thompson discussed the state of Cyberfeminism today.
ATTESTING TO THE REVIVAL
Chair Marie Thompson points out how, in the past decade, there seems to be a reinvigorated tendency for questions of Cyberfemnism. The increased mainstreaming of concerns around gender and technology in institutional contexts such as Girls Who Code, Women in Tech Festival, and countless diversity initiatives in tech companies are clear examples. To Thomson, the main question is “why should we struggle for Cyberfeminism now?”
“Silicon Valley can do [diversity inclusion campaigns]” says Judy Wajcman, “that’s fine, but what is the kind of big-scale change that must occur at institutional level?”. Wajcman emphasised how important it is to embed inclusion into the fabric of tech companies’ culture rather than it remaining a CSR exercise, or better, rather than supporting and reinforcing existing liberal frameworks.
According to Mindy Seu, Cyberfeminism revival is largely due to the need of big institutions to accumulate cultural capital which is often articulated in superficial measures such as cosmetic diversity initiatives. For Seu, similarly to Wajcman, the main question is ”how can we see feminist values embedded in the ethos of companies?”. Seu also points out how the ascension of women in big cultural (and tech) institutions are often not only hindered by the notorious “glass ceiling”, but also deliberately sabotaged through the so-called “glass cliff”. A glass cliff is a term used to describe a situation where a woman is nominated head of an organisation which is already crumbling. The intention is to signal externally that this organisation is making efforts to get back on track, or make amends for its corrupted past by hiring someone with a perceived higher ethical value. By doing so, the board actively sets up this woman (or anyone, really) to fail, because the organisation has larger structural problems that no person alone can solve (see recent board allegations concerning MIT Media Lab).
“It is as if nothing has happened in between the 90s and now,” Cornelia Sollfrank says. “This means that things [gender inequality within the tech industry] are staying the same, and maybe getting worse… These, mostly young, very young, women do not understand the historical precedents of Cyberfeminism.” While she seems to partially dismiss this revival as a fashion statement, her book ‘The Beautiful Warriors. Technofeminist Praxis in the Twenty-First Century’ sets out to counter this trend by connecting up the insights and practices of 90’s cyberfeminism with new techno-eco-feminists as part of an ongoing social and aesthetic activism.
RE-MAKING THE INTERNET
“This is not a book about women and technology. Nor was this book created for women. Throughout these pages, scholars, hackers, artists, and activists of all regions, races, sexual orientations, and genetic make-ups consider how humans might reconstruct themselves by way of technology. What is a woman anyway?”
Intro from Cyberfeminism Catalog 1990-2020, Mindy Seu, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 2019
One strategy to challenge the dominant narrative of men as sole creators and geniuses, argues Seu, is to incorporate women’s voices in the history of computation. As she puts it: “We are taught to focus on engineering, the military-industrial complex, and the grandfathers who created the architecture and protocol. But the internet is not only a network of cables, servers, and computers. It is an environment that shapes and is shaped by its inhabitants.” In her Cyberfeminist index, Seu traces a detailed and precise overview of the diverse body of today’s practices.
Across the panel, there seemed to be a shared awareness of differences in terms of references, strategies, culture, and visual cultures among current activists and academic groups and across generations. One example that stands out is the South Korean Cyberfeminist group Megalia whose main strategy for activism has been online trolling. Looking at their logo, a hand making the gesture to indicate a man’s penis size, it is not hard to understand their style of communication. Megalia could be dismissed as a funny and naive case, but there are deep reasons why South Korean women have implemented such a strategy. For instance, feminism has only entered the public sphere less than a decade ago.
As Judy Wajcman points out, the dominant narratives in feminist discourse are set up by Western standards. For instance, in South America, she notes, Donna Haraway is not as strong an academic reference as in the West. Wajcman also argues that Haraway’s texts, despite advocating for socialist feminism and having strong political agendas, often lack the clarity and simplicity to be accessed by anyone who does not belong to the hyper educated Western academia elite. Seu points the attention towards the fact that Haraway supposedly decided to use contrived language intentionally (as a hack), in order to be deemed interesting and relevant in academic context.
THE OTHER
Cyberfeminism is relevant today more than ever when addressing topics of responsibility, agency, materiality, care, and anthropocentrism. In this sense, Cyberfeminism today transcends identity politics: it becomes an essential cultural tool with respect to survival, equality, and sustainability.
Cyberfeminism can be defined as “a genre of contemporary feminism which foregrounds the relationship between cyberspace, the Internet and technology.” [3]
To foreground is the action of pushing objects that are necessary in the background to the fore. That is bringing the hidden, compounded, interchangeable, opaque to a position that is close enough to the viewer to be observed. In other words, turning the distant and neglected “other” into voices and materials that can be seen, heard, interrogated.
To bring the back to the fore is, on the one hand, to question men’s protagonism, self- importance, and arrogance, thus attempting to dismantle not only the centrality of men as male humans, but that of humanity as a whole. Anthropocentrism has been at the core of technological developments. Humans have predominantly designed for human comfort (with the standard for “human” being effectively set up by men) narrowing down the possibilities of what technologies could be or do.
Complimentarily, foregrounding is also the practice of exposing the material and toxic aspects of technological progress and production both in terms of human labour and ecological implications, from e-waste to amounts of energy voraciously consumed by computational tools and infrastructures, to labour-heavy mining of rare earth minerals.
In stark contrast with the early days of eco-feminism which was expressively anti-technology, the panel maps out emerging strands of (techno) eco-feminism that critically engage with questions of gender, cyberspace, and ecology from a holistic perspective. This approach is not in opposition of technological tools, but rather in conversation with them. In this sense, techno-eco-feminism is close to the Haraway’s idea of questioning scientific methods not with the goal to invalidate them, but rather to ask “what are ways in which science can be used for emancipatory purposes?”
Featured Image:
Artwork by Cecilia Serafini
from New Suns Festival 2019
Header Image:
Screenshot of Siri by Chiara Di Leone
The English tranlsation of The Beautiful Warriors. Technofeminist Praxis in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Cornelia Sollfrank. Can be found here – http://www.minorcompositions.info/?p=976 and all decent book retailers.
A discussion event with presentation and film screening. (free lunch)
Interruptions is a new research project by The Bad Vibes Club commissioned by Field Broadcast. Interruptions will present a new history of interruption as an artistic practice, focusing on British artists’ film, video, moving image and digital art.
Join The Bad Vibes Club (Sam Mercer and Matthew de Kersaint Giraudeau) for an afternoon of presentations, discussions and films about interruption and its relationship to art practice and contemporary culture.
Sam and Matt will begin by presenting the I nterruptions project. This will be followed by an open discussion of interruptions in response to the project, with a vegetarian lunch provided by The Bad Vibes Club. The afternoon will end with a film screening of some interruptive works.
12 midday Introduction to Interruptions by The Bad Vibes Club
1pm Discussion (with free lunch)
3pm Film screening
The Bad Vibes Club will produce public moments of research throughout the Interruptions project in the form of a continually updated tumblr , videos and multimedia research published at fieldbroadcast.org , and discussions and screening events at Peter Scott Gallery, Lancaster Arts, MK Gallery, Furtherfield and Open School East.
Interruptions will culminate in a new series of broadcasts by The Bad Vibes Club in May 2016 using the Field Broadcast app.
The Bad Vibes Club is a research project into morbid ethics and the productive possibilities of negative states. For Interruptions, the artists Matthew de Kersaint Giraudeau and Sam Mercer, will be working as The Bad Vibes Club.
Field Broadcast is a live broadcast project connecting artists, audiences and obscure locations through the portal of the computer desktop. Field Broadcast has developed through the practice of, and is run by, artists Rebecca Birch and Rob Smith.
Interruptions is supported by Arts Council England, with thanks to Peter Scott Gallery, Lancaster Arts, MK Gallery, Furtherfield, Open School East, Nottingham Trent University, LUX and the British Artists’ Film and Video Study Collection.
Since the establishment of the World Wide Web, questions have proliferated around the possibilities, value and collectability of its associated contemporary art forms.
The web provides a single site for the creation (and sometimes co-creation), distribution, review and remix of an art form that takes as its medium: code, images, text, video, music and social relations. Historically, the value of an artwork resided in its uniqueness. Now artists, audiences, curators and collectors grapple with an infinitely replicable and distributable art form. This panel discusses an electrifying cluster of controversies: the subversive intentions and emancipatory motivations of many media artists; the needs and concerns of public art collectors and conservators; the opportunities for private collectors and the interests of high art market speculation.
This panel is chaired by Ruth Catlow, artist, co-founder and co-director Furtherfield, established in 1997 for art, technology and social change.
Steve Fletcher – Co-founder of Carroll / Fletcher, a recently established commercial gallery specialising in contemporary socio-political, cultural, scientific and technological themes
Lindsay Taylor – Salford University Art Curator who established the first UK public digital arts collection at the Harris Museum and Art Gallery
Please visit this page to register for this talk.
1) purified social process. Screenshot from VisitorsStudio, by Furtherfield 2011
2) The Lover by James Coupe. Surveillance video installation commissioned by Harris Museum, 2011
So ArtForum have launched a special September issue investigating the, lets say broader, relationship between new media, technology and visual art.*
Of worthy mention is the essay Digital Divide by the art world’s antagonistic critic of choice Claire Bishop, a writer whom a little under 8 years ago, deservedly poured critical scorn over the happy-go-lucky, merry-go-round creative malaise that was Bourriaud’s Relational Aesthetics and all of the proponents involved. Since then Bishop’s critical eye has focused on the acute political antagonistic relationships, within the dominant paradigms of participatory art and the concomitant authenticity of the social.
In Digital Divide, Bishop asks a different question, and its delivered even more bluntly than usual. Why has the mainstream art world, for the most part, refrained from directly responding to the ‘endlessly disposable, rapidly mutable ephemera of the virtual age and its impact on our consumption of relationships, images and communication.‘ This is not to say the practices of mainstream artists do not rely on digital media (in almost all cases, it now cannot function without it), but why hasn’t the shifting sands of digital culture been made explicit? In Bishop’s words;
“[H]ow many really confront the question of what it means to think, see, and filter affect through the digital? How many thematize this, or reflect deeply on how we experience, and are altered by, the digitization of our existence?”
Clearly, there are exceptions and she mentions three examples by art stars Frances Stark, Thomas Hirschhorn and Ryan Trecartin which flirt here and there with digital thematisation. Conversely artists who once specialised in digital art, Cory Arcangel, Miltos Manetas – to name two very famous examples – have previously broken out into the mainstream.
But for Bishop, there is of course, “an entire sphere of “new media” art, but this is a specialised field of its own: It rarely overlaps with the mainstream art world (commercial galleries, the Turner Prize, national pavilions at Venice)” – (one could add art fairs here). But nonetheless “these exceptions just point up the rule“. Bishop’s focus is on the mainstream and, moreover, she contends that “the digital is, on a deep level, the shaping condition—even the structuring paradox—that determines artistic decisions to work with certain formats and media. Its subterranean presence is comparable to the rise of television as the backdrop to art of the 1960s.” True enough, this structuring paradox is an implicit problem with the mainstream art world, but thats not the problem tout court.
From the responses I’ve read both in the article comments and in subsequent blog posts, a particular issue has been marked with Bishop’s statement that “new media” art is a specialised field. Whilst it doesn’t qualify as a dismissal, one could certainly suggest that Bishop is partly guilty of the same disavowal she throws at the mainstream art world when she relegates this sphere as an ‘exception’. In a blog-post response, Kyle Chayka makes a similar point; “Bishop understands that digital technology forms a seedbed for art as well as life, but fails to uncover the artists who are already critiquing that context.” I’m not a Lacanian, but maybe this is a symptom of something.
If mainstream art is ‘the rule’, (and I’m insinuating ‘the rule’ as anti-metaphor here) perhaps ‘the rule’ isn’t worth paying attention to, considering that the new media art exception is too much of a ‘specialisation’. In as much as one can only agree with Bishop’s call for mainstream art’s negotiation with digital thematisation, has she not missed the same aesthetic questions already posed and re-composed in this exceptional sphere? Why should the qualifier of the mainstream be such a factor of importance here? Why not cut off the need to reconcile digital thematisation with a set of historical, and commercially ideological principles which may not take kindly to the more ambitious and darker questions that the social and political arena of global digitalisation have thrown up. This is not to say that Bishop isn’t seeking those questions nor does she wish to reconcile those principles, but the specialised sphere of ‘new media art’ may quench the questions she herself raises.
Case in point: all Bishop would have needed to reference is something like the Dark Drives exhibition for the transmediale festival earlier this year; the tag line “uneasy energies in Technological Times” sums up her main descriptions of a digital epoch quite nicely. For instance, the artist group Art 404’s 5 Million Dollars 1 Terabyte, renders explicit one subset of the absurd, copyright, exploitative logic of proprietary software, by saving one terabyte’s worth of unlicensed software onto a single hard drive. Next to it was JK Keller’s idiosyncratic piece Realigning My Thoughts on Jasper Johns, which showed off a glitchy, abstract bastardisation of a Simpson’s episode Mom and Pop Art – regurgitating haggard mainstream perspectives. Crucially the success of the show was down to the implicitness of the exhibition’s technical triumphs – where technical jargon is often touted as a reason for the mainstream’s averted gaze. Whilst the viewer didn’t need to know the technics, but a richer understanding emerged should they have wanted to know.
There isn’t any need to clog up this article with a bottomless plethora of pieces from other equally important exhibtions and shows (I’m sure many others are better qualified in doing so); my point here, is that Bishop cannot relegate new media art as an exception to the rule, when the digitalisation of media is becoming the rule, which she herself explicitly admits. Choosing to focus on the failure of the mainstream in this arena gives the essay a healthy line of questioning, but in relegating an entire sphere which has – for some time – repeatedly dealt with these questions and more, it raises what is effectively a pointless query. To be fair to Bishop, she isn’t trying to force a fecund translation of new media with mainstream values, but looking for methods where digitalisation can instigate the change of those values.
Granted, Dark Drives is one major show in a major Berlin new media festival – the top of a very extensive collection of disparate voices and influences – but it inadvertently highlights a salient thought. What if Bishop’s call to bridge the ‘Digital Divide’ was actually met by a new generation of artists thrust into the mainstream, where digital themes were translated into its own methods of commercial production? We’ve gotten over the myth that ‘virtual’ commodities are unmarketable, so it’s not as if I’m being negative for the sake of it. Where would this leave festivals like transmediale, or not-for-profit collectives like Furtherfield – how would they respond? It’s an uneasy question, one which for speculative purposes cannot be answered quickly at present, if at all.
In the throws of conjecture, there is perhaps another division at play here. Towards the end of her essay, Bishop makes a reference to the difference between the non-existent embrace of the digital medium today, and the rapid embrace of photography, film and video in the 60s and 70s.
“These formats, however, were image-based, and their relevance and challenge to visual art were self-evident. The digital, by contrast, is code, inherently alien to human perception. It is, at base, a linguistic model. Convert any .jpg file to .txt and you will find its ingredients: a garbled recipe of numbers and letters, meaningless to the average viewer. Is there a sense of fear underlying visual art’s disavowal of new media?”
This is a division which is even more striking; more aesthetically and philosophically significant in comparison to marketable rules and unmarketable exceptions. I think Bishop is really on to something when she chastises the hybrid solutions of old media nostalgia, evidently favoured by the market and contrasts it to the alien nature of code, but it’s not without problems.
Some may consider there to be nothing inherently alien about digital media; many artists, who also work as programmers and write, design and engineer artworks together with code without any recourse to an alien nature (however I vehemently disagree with the notion that code be solely reduced to human production, but it must be pointed out) Likewise, any 90s utopian reading of the ‘digital revolution’ is mired from the start, once you take into consideration, closed proprietary devices and services which falsify other meaningful alternatives (one only needs to trace the important work of the Telekommunisten art collective to realise how advanced these questions are, in what is supposed to be a specialised field).
If there is a fear underlying visual art’s disavowal of digitalisation, it’s not just a critical bemusement of code, but of the material which composes computational media; wires, LCD screens, motherboards, caches, firmware, sorting algorithms. Bishop’s call for mainstream contemporary art to be aware of its own conditions and circumstance is admirable, but unless art can actually get its hands dirty with the material processes of new media and more importantly the underlying computational conditions concerning the digital (because thats what it is), the project of explaining these circumstances will be quagmired from the start. It’s not enough to explain ‘our changing experience’ with computation, but to explain the experience of computation in itself.
But for now, lets keep the divide going, not least because antagonisms are fun (Bishop should know), but because the contemporary digital arts are not hindered with the burden of seeking the mainstream’s attention. They can get away with a lot more as a result. Digital or Computational art needs to be cheaper and nastier, as the artist’s tools of use are getting increasingly dirty with critical engagement and proflierfation of code (one cannot avoid mentioning Julian Oliver et al’s important project of critical engineering in this sense). Only then, can Bishop speak of a moment, where the “treasured assumptions” of mainstream art are brought to bear through the criticality of the digital.
——————
* Just to make it clear, I am aware that key terms in this article such as ‘new media’ ‘digitisation’, etc carry little to no relevance anymore, (I prefer computational to be more relevant myself), and they’re only used as a replying dialogue with Claire Bishop’s essay which relies on them throughout.
The Whispers Project was started to create an opportunity for those who did not wish to participate in debate and discussion (because of language barriers, time issues etc) to be seen equally and become involved by submitting their own and others’ creative projects. The Whispers Project shines light on the hidden talent of frequenters of the Netbehaviour list.
How this is created:
Subscribers to the NetBehaviour list add to the project by placing two links to their own work and one link to someone else’s work.
This project was first posted to the list on 19th May 2004. In a vote on 4th June 2004 NetBehaviourists decided that this networked project should be made available here for public viewing. The most recent addition was made on August 6th 2004. The public face of this networked project is updated on the request of list users. If you feel that it’s time for an update please just copy and paste the list below into the body of the email, add your own info and send to the list.
What type of work? Net artists, new media academics, soft groups, net writers, code geeks, new nedia producers, net/new media curators, net/new media activists, networkers, new media performers, net sufi’s, psychogeographical, net artist blogs, net communities etc…
Name: Jan Robert Leegte
Home: http://www.leegte.org
featured: http://www.leegte.org/works/spatial/xpodium/index.htm
chosen: http://splash.ctrlaltdel.org/zdwe.html
Name: Rich White
work: falling off a chair
work : butterfly effect
choice cut – wires : http://www.ertdfgcvb.ch/p1/wires.html
Name: Ivan Monroy-López
work: G=1=U=2=G=1=U=2 http://www195.pair.com/imonroyl/tiniestblog.html
chosen work: the photostatic retrogade archive http://psrf.detritus.net/index.html
chosen work: the island chronicles http://boingboing.net/island/
Name: Bituur Esztreym & Rico da Halvarez on behalf Elles, Otto von Strassenbach
Work: http://vnatrc.net/ –http://bigfruit.vnatrc.net/ —
http://elsa.vnatrc.net/ –http://bienvenidonumero6.biz/
Chosen work: http://www.periferico.org/
Name: Sofia Oliveira sofiaoliveira@atmosferas.net
Work http://www.atmosferas.net/en
Chosen work(s)- The Secret Lifes of Numbers http://www.turbulence.org/Works/nums/
Name : Clément Charmet
http://cl3mos.free.fr
fleur: http://cl3mos.free.fr/fleur/eng/
untitled : http://clemos.free.fr ( better with IE )
chosen work : http://www.quasar.org
Name: T Wells
Contratv – http://www.contratv.net
Midiatatica.org – http://www.midiatatica.org
Chosen work – http://delete.tv
Name: Annie Abrahams
http://www.bram.org/info
‘painsong’ http://www.bram.org/pain
Chosen work : http://vnatrc.net/YAST/index_html
Name: Patrick Simons
Home: http://www.gloriousninth.com (Collaboration with Kate’ Southworth)
http://www.gloriousninth.com/flaming.html
http://www.gloriousninth.com/who_owns_them_controls.html
Chosen work: http://www.theyrule.net/theyrule.html (the Dick Cheney’ map)
Name: Ryan Griffis
temporary travel office – http://www.yougenics.net/traveloffice
subRational eRuptions (curator + interface)-http://www.turbulence.org/curators/griffis/index.html
Chosen work – Bureau of Inverse Technology’s Kits http://www.bureauit.org/kit/
Name: Ruth Catlow
rethinking wargames – http://www.low-fi.org.uk/rethinkingwargames/
domestic idols – http://www.furtherfield.org/rcatlow/domestic_idols/
Chosen work- Views from the ground floor by Jess Loseby: http://www.viewsfromthegroundfloor.com/
*Name: Phil
*Home – *http://www.medialounge.org
*project -* http://www.love-machine.org
*commercial -*http://www.spill.net
Name: Andi Stamp
Directed and produced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/shootinglive
Member of: http://www.theculturecompany.co.uk
A bit of fun: http://www.artrumour.com/
Name: Ana Carvalho
a long time ago – http://virose.pt/alingua/
and work in progress http://www.iana34.com/tale_about_urban_piracy
Chosen work: http://www.subtle.net/tunnel/
Name: lo_y
current Home – http://lo-y.de.vu
my universe – http://google.com/search?q=lo_y
Chosen work:’ Social Fiction – http://socialfiction.org
*Name: Patrick Lichty
*General – * http://www.voyd.com/voyd
*Subversive -* http://www.theyesmen.org
Chosen Work: US Dept of Art and Technology http://www.usdept-arttech.net/
Maf’j Alvarez Homepage: http://www.mafj.co.uk
Stroke: http://www.sciart.org/partners/1998/98_29.html
Chosen Work- Milkkitten by Tanya Meditzky http://www.milkkitten.com
Mark Cooley
Workhttp://www.war-product-war.com
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley
Chosen work(s) Stop Shopping Tour my dads strip club http://www.mydadsstripclub.com/tour.htm
*Name: Joseph and Donna
*Mediated – *http://www.electrichands.com
*Conceptual -* http://www.corporatepa.com
*Chosen work:-‘ The POINT CDC – by various’ *http://www.thepoint.org
Name: Tamar Schori
Oodlala – http://www.oodlala.net
Memolog – http://www.memolog.net
Beadgee – http://www.tamar-schori.net/beadgee/beadgee.html
Chosen work:-‘ Memecodes – by Philipp Lenssen’ http://memecodes.outer-court.com/
Name : Chris Webb
Frequency Love – http://www.furtherfield.org/cwebb/frequency_love/
Screen Moments – http://www.furtherfield.org/cwebb/screenmoments/vsmixes
Chosen Work’ Dennis Cucumber – Remixing the web
http://www.denniscucumber.com/default1.htm
Name: Sim Winter
Home – http://www.soy.de
Colored Thoughts – http://www.soy.de/coloredThoughts/index.php3
Chosen work:-WebTV by Jimpunk – http://544×378.free.fr/(WebTV)/FFFFFF.htm
Name: Marc Garrett
Turmoil – http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/turmoil/
Hardware – http://www.furtherfield.org/mgarrett/hardware/index.htm
(View only in Internet Explorer)
Chosen work:- Box Explorer – by Andy Deck
http://www.artcontext.org/list/art/2002/boxplorer.html
Furtherfield content is published
