Selected Courses on Digital Art-UOWM

30 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 17:01
Ιδου και το αντικειμενο!

27 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 14:31

Ο χωρος και το αντικειμενο! Ο κυκλος στην αρχη της Φλωρινας. Στο κεντρο σε ενα μεταλλικο κυκλο(το συντριβανι), τοποθετημενο το αντικειμενο μου, ενα σπαθι 3D model. (Δεν εχω αποφασισει ακομη αμα θα περιστρεφεται η αμα θα ειναι αναποδα)

26 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: Animation works,ΕΡΓΑΣΙΕΣ-PROJECTS — admin @ 11:56

 

My first sculp on mudbox after very experimentation

25 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: ΚΑΛΛΙΤΕΧΝΕΣ-ARTISTS — admin @ 18:06
Marina Abramovic Philippe Gautier Tony Oursler
Absalon Ghazel Owada
Vito Acconci Gary Glassman Keiko Owada
Boris Achour Jean-Luc Godard Erkan Ozgen
Eija-Liisa Ahtila Kiko Goifman Nam June Paik
Peggy Ahwesh Laurent Goldring Slobodan Pajic
Clovis Aidar Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster Charlemagne Palestine
Doug Aitken Douglas Gordon Gina Pane
Jananne Al-Ani Dan Graham Philippe Parreno
Rebecca Allen Laurent Grasso Oliver Payne
Allora & Calzadilla Johan Grimonprez Friederike Pezold
Halil Altindere Bettina Gruber Pita
Sandy Amerio Marie-Ange Guilleminot Arnulf Rainer
Sonia Andrade Clarisse Hahn Martial Raysse
Ant Farm Alex Hahn Delphine Reist
Eleanor Antin Mona Hatoum Nick Relph
Jean-Christophe Averty Lothar Hempel Rachel Reupke
John Baldessari Gary Hill Nadja Ringart
Renato Barbieri Thomas Hirschhorn Klaus Rinke
Joel Bartolomeo Nan Hoover Pipilotti Rist
Rene Bauermeister Pierre Huyghe Peter Roehr
Samuel Beckett Mako Idemitsu Till Roeskens
Zoe Beloff Berat Isik Ugo Rondinone
Louidgi Beltrame Sanja Ivekovic Ulrike Rosenbach
Laetitia Benat Kirsten Johannsen Martha Rosler
Sadie Benning Joan Jonas Carole Roussopoulos
Jean-Pierre Bertrand Pierre Joseph Lucas Samaras
Joseph Beuys Isaac Julien Scanner
Ursula Biemann Mike Kelley Julia Scher
Dara Birnbaum William Kentridge Markus Scherer
Michael Blum Majida Khattari Carolee Schneemann
Gabor Body Sonia Khurana Volker Schreiner
Jonathan Borofsky Jurgen Klauke Gerry Schum
Veronique Boudier Imi Knoebel Zineb Sedira
Halida Boughriet Shigeko Kubota Semiconductor
Celeste Boursier-Mougenot Thierry Kuntzel Richard Serra
Marie Bouts Emmanuel Lagarrigue Delphine Seyrig
Joan Braderman Simon Lamuniere David Shea
Tania Bruguera Peter Land Roman Signer
Angela Bulloch Sigalit Landau Keith Sonnier
Chris Burden Eric Lanz Alberto Sorbelli
Marie Jose Burki Matthieu Laurette Pierrick Sorin
Genevieve Cadieux Florence Lazar Jana Sterbak
Sophie Calle Martin Le Chevallier Beat Streuli
Peter Campus Iara Lee Fiona Tan
Ellen Cantor Hartmut Lerch Shuntaro Tanikawa
Theresa Hak Kyung Cha Les Levine Shuji Terayama
David Claerbout Christelle Lheureux The Atlas Group
Claude Closky LIU Wei Leslie Thornton
James Coleman Joan Logue Justine Triet
Mat Collishaw Cristina Lucas Minh-Ha Trinh
Jordi Colomer Manu Luksch Rosemarie Trockel
Serge Comte Urs Luthi Janaina Tschape
Patrick Corillon Calin Man Florin Tudor
Martin Creed Chris Marker Tunga
Josef Dabernig Nora Martirosyan Salla Tykka
Douglas Davis Toshio Matsumoto Andrei Ujica
Anouk De Clercq Gordon Matta-Clark Ulay
Cherif Defraoui Paul McCarthy Mika Vainio
Silvie Defraoui Adam McEwen VALIE EXPORT
Philippe Dorain Steve McQueen Cybele Varela
Stan Douglas Nathalie Melikian Woody Vasulka
Michael Druks Ana Mendieta Steina Vasulka
Jean Dupuy Anne-Marie Mieville Mona Vatamanu
Ed Emshwiller Aernout Mik Maria Vedder
Ivan Engler Tracey Moffatt Bill Viola
Koken Ergun Jean-Baptiste Mondino Klaus Vom Bruch
Ayse Erkmen Melvin Moti Wolf Vostell
Harun Farocki Nicolas Moulin Laura Waddington
Luc Ferrari Valerie Mrejen WANG Jian Wei
Esther Ferrer Antoni Muntadas Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Robert Filliou Ko Nakajima William Wegman
Peter Fischli Bruce Nauman David Weiss
Sylvie Fleury Chris Newman Ioana Wieder
Enrique Fontanilles Jun Nguyen-Hatsushiba Bob Wilson
Maider Fortune Carsten Nicolai Erwin Wurm
Michel Francois Marcel Odenbach Jud Yalkut
Andrea Fraser Arthur Omar Nil Yalter
G.R.A.M Joao Onofre YANG Fudong
Anna Gaskell Dennis Oppenheim Carey Young
Armand Gatti Jean Otth Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries

Périodiques-Ouvrages spécialisés-Ouvrages généraux-Catalogues de festivals-Articles et essais

Filed under: BOOKS MAGAZINES — admin @ 18:03

Périodiques
Afterimage. Rochester, New York (Etats-Unis), Visual Studies Workshop, depuis 1973.
Art Com. La Mamelle, San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), Contemporary Arts Press, 1975-1979.
Art in America. New York (Etats-Unis), depuis 1913.
Art on screen. New York (Etats-Unis), Program for Art on Film, depuis 1992.
Art press. Paris (France), depuis 1972.
Artforum. San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), depuis 1962.
Artweek. Castro Valley, Calif. (Etats-Unis), McCann Publ., depuis 1970.
Avalanche. New York, (Etats-Unis), Center for New Art Activities, 1970-1973.
Beaux-Arts Magazine. Levallois (France), éd. Nuit et jour, depuis 1983.
Cahiers du cinéma. Paris (France), Editions de l’Etoile, depuis 1951.
Camera obscura. Berkeley, Calif. (Etats-Unis), depuis 1976.
Chimaera. Hérimoncourt (France), CICV, Centre international de création vidéo, Montbéliard Belfort (France), depuis 1991.
Cøil : journal of the moving image. Londres (Royaume-Uni), Proboscis, depuis 1995.
Community Video Report. Washington, D.C. (Etats-Unis), Washington Community Video Center.
Contrill’s filmnotes : a review of independent cinema and video, Melbourne (Australie).
East Village Eye. New York (Etats-Unis), Eye Production, depuis 1979.
Environmedia. Venise (Italie), depuis 1972.
Felix. New York (Etats-Unis), depuis 1991.
Film Quaterly. Berkeley, Calif. (Etats-Unis), University of California, depuis 1958.
Frieze. Londres (Royaume-Uni), depuis 1991.
Fuse. Toronto, Ont. (Canada), Arton’s Publ., 1980-1986.
Gen-Lock. Genève (Suisse), Gen-Lock, 1986-1990.
Hybrid. Londres (Royaume-Uni), 1992-1994.
Independent Film and Video Monthly. New York (Etats-Unis), Foundation for Independent Film and Video, depuis 1978.
Kunstforum International. Wetzlar (Allemagne), depuis 1973.
L’Image vidéo. Paris (France), Editions Fréquences, 1989-1991.
Leonardo. Oxford, Ala. (Etats-Unis), Pergamon Press, depuis 1968.
Leonardo music journal. San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, depuis 1991.
Media Arts. New York (Etats-Unis), National Alliance of Media Arts Centers, depuis 1996.
Mediamatic. Groningen (Pays-Bas), Stichting Mediamatic, depuis 1986.
Metronome. Dakar (Sénégal), Londres (Royaume-Uni), Berlin (Allemagne), Bâle (Suisse), Francfort (Allemagne), Vienne (Autriche), Metronome Publ., depuis 1996.
Mouvement. Paris (France), depuis 1993.
Mute. Londres (Royaume-Uni), Pauline Van Mourik Broekman, Simon Worthington, depuis 1994.
Nomad’s land. Paris (France), Pays nomade, depuis 1997.
October. Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), Jaap Reitman, depuis 1976.
Octopus (suppl. de Mouvement)Paris (France), Hyacinthe, depuis 1993.
Omnibus. Paris (France), Omnibus l’avance artistique, 1991-2000.
Parachute. Montréal, Québec (Canada), Artdata Enr., depuis 1975.
Para-para (suppl. de Parachute). Montréal, Québec (Canada), Parachute, depuis 2000.
Performance Magazine. Londres (Royaume-Uni), 1979-1992.
Pix. Londres (Royaume-Uni), Pix, depuis 1993.
Pixel : le magazine des nouvelles images. Paris (France), Zao, depuis 1988.
Prototypes. Hérimoncourt (France), CICV, Centre international de création vidéo Montbéliard Belfort (France), 1991-1992.
Radical Software. New York (Etats-Unis), Raindance Corporation, depuis 1970.
Scope magazine. Veyrier (Suisse), 1992-1993.
Screen. Oxford (Royaume-Uni), Oxford University Press, vol. 37, n. 1, 1996.
SEND. San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), San Francisco International Video Festival.
Studies in Visual Communication. Philadelphie, Pa. (Etats-Unis), Annenberg School of Communications.
Trafic. Paris (France), Editions POL, depuis 1991.
Turbulences vidéo. Clermont-Ferrand (France), depuis 1991.
Vidéodoc’. Bruxelles (Belgique), Médiathèque de Belgique, 1976-1989.
Video guide : Vancouver’s Video Magazine. Vancouver, B.C. (Canada), depuis 1978.
Video Networks. San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), Bay Area Video Coalition.
Video Texts. New York (Etats-Unis), Anthology Film Archive.
Vidéochroniques. Marseille (France), IMEREC, Institut méditerranéen de recherche et de création, depuis 1991.
Video d’autore. Rome (Italie), Gangemi editore, depuis 1994.
Videoglyphes. Paris (France), Association Vidéoglyphes, depuis 1979.
Videography. New York (Etats-Unis), United Business Publ.
Vidéo ? vous avez dit vidéo ? Liège (Belgique), Cirque divers, depuis 1979.
Zapp Magazine. Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), depuis 1994.

Numéros spéciaux
” Audiovisuel “, Art press, hors série, Paris (France), n. 1, 1982.
” Aux frontières du cinéma “, Les Cahiers du cinéma, Paris (France), hors série, avril 2000.
” Electrosons = electrosounds “, Parachute, Montréal, Québec (Canada), n. 107, 2002 ; Para-para, suppl. de Parachute, 07-08-09-2002.
Flash Art International, n. 228, janvier-février 2003.
” Internet all over : l’art et la toile “, Art press, hors série, Paris (France), n. 2, 1999.
” Landscapes “, Felix : A Journal of Media Art and Communication, New York (Etats-Unis), vol. 2, n. 1, 1995.
” Mouvances de l’image = Image shifts “, Parachute, Montréal, Québec (Canada), n. 103, 2001 ; Para-para, supplément de Parachute, 07-08-09-2001.
” Nouvelles technologies : un art sans modèle ? “, Art press, hors série, Paris (France), n. 12, 1991.
” Nouvelles technologies “, Parachute, Montréal, Québec (Canada), n. 84, 10-11-12.1996.
” Où va la vidéo “, Cahiers du cinéma, Paris (France), hors série, 1986.
” Techno. Anatomie des cultures électroniques “, Art press, hors série, Paris (France), n. 19, 1998.
” Télévision et démocratie “, Chimaera : Les cahiers du Centre international de Création Vidéo,
n. 1 et 2, Montbéliard Belfort (France), 1991.
” Vidéo “, Art press, Paris (France), n. 47, 1981.
” Vidéo “, Communications, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, n. 48, 1988.
” Video Art “, Art Journal, Londres (Royaume-Uni), vol. 54, n. 4, 1991.
” Video Art-Video Alternative “, High Performance, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), vol. 10, n. 1, 1987.
” Video Art Explorations “, Cahiers du cinéma, Paris (France), hors série, automne 1981.
” Vidéo des années 80 “, Film action, n. 30, 12.1981-01.1982.
” Video Issue “, Arts Magazine, New York (Etats-Unis), n. 4, décembre 1974.
” Video the Reflexive Medium “, Art Journal, Londres (Royaume-Uni), vol. 45, n. 3, automne 1985.
” Vidéo-Vidéo “, Revue d’esthétique, Paris (France), Klincksieck, 1986.
Quaderni del Museo dell’Accademia Linguistica, n. 24, Gênes (Italie), Accademia linguistica di belle arti (Italie), [n. consacré au langage vidéo].
” World Wide Video “, Art Design, Londres (Royaume-Uni), vol. 8, n. 7-8, juillet-août 1993.


Ouvrages spécialisés
D’AGOSTINO Peter, Transmission-Theory and Practice for a New Television Aesthetics, New York (Etats-Unis), Tanam Press, 1985.
D’AGOSTINO Peter, MUNTADAS Antonio, The Un-Necessary Image, New York (Etats-Unis), Tanam Press, 1982.
ARMES Roy, On Video, Londres (Royaume-Uni), New York (Etats-Unis), Routledge, 1988.
Nouvelles images, nouveau réel : cahiers internationaux de sociologie / sous la dir. de G. BALLANDIER, Paris (France), Editions PUF, 1987.
Film et vidéo 82-92 : catalogue / préf. de François BARR, Paris (France), Centre national des arts plastiques, 1993.
BATTCOCK Gregory, Minimal Art : A Critical Anthology, New York (Etats-Unis), E.P. Dutton, 1968.
BATTCOCK Gregory, New Artists Video : a Critical Anthology, New York (Etats-Unis), E.P. Dutton, 1978.
Cinéma et dernières technologies / sous la dir. de Franck BEAU, Paris (France) ; Bruxelles (Belgique), De Boeck Université, 1998.
BELLOUR Raymond, Eye for I : Video Self-Portraits, Independent Curators Incorporated, New York (Etats-Unis), 1989. Eye for I : Video Self-Portraits, Montréal, Québec (Canada), Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, 1992.
BELLOUR Raymond, L’Entre-images : photo, cinéma, vidéo, Paris (France), Editions La Différence, 1990.
BELLOUR Raymond, L’entre-images 2 : mots, images, Paris (France), Editions POL, 1999.
BERGER Hans, BERGER René, L’art vidéo : défis et paradoxes, Lausanne (Suisse), 1974.
BERGER René, La Téléfission, alerte à la télévision, Paris (France), Casterman, 1976.
BEY Hakim, TAZ, The Temporary Autonomus Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, New York (Etats-Unis), Autonomedia, 1991 ; TAZ, Zone autonome temporaire, Paris (France), Editions de l’Eclat, 1997.
BLOCH Dany, Art et vidéo, 1960-1980/82, Locarno (Suisse), Flaviana, 1982.
BLOCH Dany, Art vidéo, Condé-sur-Noireau (France), L’image 2-Alin Avita, 1983.
BONET E., DOLS J., MERCADER A., MUNTADAS A., En torno al video, Barcelone (Espagne), G. Gili, 1980.
BOYLE Deirdre, Video Classics : A Guide to Video Art and Documentary Tapes, Phoenix, Ariz. (Etats-Unis), Oryx Press, 1986.
BRUGEROLLE Marie de, L’enrichissement des collections du Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou ; les nouveaux supports : vidéo-numériques, [diplôme, muséologie, Ecole du Louvre, 1992], Paris (France), Ecole du Louvre, 1992.
Connections : art réseaux média / textes réunis et présentés par Annick BUREAUD et Nathalie
MAGNAN, Paris (France), Ecole nationale des beaux-arts, 2002.
BURGIN Victor, In Different Spaces : Places and Memory in Visual Culture, Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), University of California Press, 1996.
CAC, Critical Art Ensemble, The Electronic Disturbance and Electronic Civil Disobedience, New York (Etats-Unis), Autonomedia, 1994 ; La Résistance électronique et autres idées impopulaires, Paris (France), Editions de l’Eclat, 1997.
CADOZ Claude, Les réalités virtuelles : un exposé pour comprendre, un essai pour réfléchir, Paris (France), Flammarion, 1994, (Dominos).
CAGE John, Silence : lectures and writings, Middletown, Ohio, Wesleyan University Press, 1961. Silence : discours et écrits,  Paris (France), Denoël, 1970.
CARDAZZO Paolo, LUGINBÜHL Sirio, Videotapes : arte tecnica storia, Padoue (Italie), Mastrogiacomo, 1980.
CAUQUELIN Anne, DUGUET Anne-Marie, KUNTZEL Thierry, MEREDIEU Florence de, WEISSBERG J.L., Paysages virtuels, Paris (France), Editions Dis Voir, 1988.
CELANT Germano, OffMedia : nuove techniche artistiche : video disco libro, Bari (Italie), Dedalo Libri, 1977.
CHARLES Daniel, Gloses sur John Cage : suivies d’une Glose sur Meister Duchamp, [nouv. éd. revue et augmentée], Paris (France), Desclée de Brouwer, 2002 (Arts et esthétique).
COLOGAN Guy, SIMONI Jean-Bernard, Passages de l’image [petit journal], Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1990.
COSTA Mario, Artmedia : rassegna internazionale de estetica del video e della communicazione, Salerne (Italie), Opera universitaria di Salerno, 1985.
COTTON Bob, OLIVIER Richard, Understanding hypermedia : from multimedia to virtual reality, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Phaidon, 1993.
COUCHOT Edmond, Images : de l’optique au numérique, Paris (France), Hermès, 1986.
CUBBIT Sean, Timeshift on Video Culture, Londres (Royaume-Uni), New York (Etats-Unis), Routledge, 1991.
CUBBIT Sean, Videography : Video Media as Art and Culture, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Macmillan Education, 1993.
DAGOGNET François, Philosophie de l’image, Paris (France), Librairie Vrin, 1984.
DE KERCKHOVE Derrick, Brainframes : Technology, Mind and Business, Utrecht (Pays-Bas), Bosch & Keuning, 1991.
DERY Marc, Escape Velocity : Cyberculture at the End of the Century, New York (Etats-Unis), Groove Press, 1996 ; Vitesse virtuelle, la cyberculture aujourd’hui, Paris (France), Abbeville, 1997.
DERRIDA Jacques, STIEGEL Bernard, Echographies de la télévision : entretiens filmés, Paris (France), Galilée ; Bry-sur-Marne (France), INA, 1996.
DOUGLAS Davis, SIMMONS Allison, The new television : a public-private art, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 1977.
DOWMUNT Tony, Channels of Resistance : Global Television and Local Empowerment, Londres (Royaume-Uni), British Film Institute and Channel Four Television, 1993.
DRUCKREY Timothy, Ars Electronica, Facing the Future, A survey of Two Decades, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 1999.
DUGUET Anne-Marie, Déjouer l’image, créations électroniques et numériques, Paris (France), J. Chambon, 2002 (Critiques d’art).

DUGUET Anne-Marie, Vidéo, la mémoire au point, Paris (France), Hachette, 1981.
Formation Art : Images de synthèse [colloque] / sous la dir. de Anne-Marie DUGUET, Paris (France), Université de Paris 1, 14-15 octobre 1988.
L’art vidéo 1980-1999, vingt ans du Video Art Festival, Locarno : recherches, théories, perspectives / sous la dir. de Vittorio FAGONE, Milan (Italie), Mazzota, 1999.
FIESCHI-VIVET L., Pratiques vidéo et plastiques godardiennes : élaboration de formes cinématographiques, [conférence suivie de débats], Cerisy (France), Centre culturel International, Cerisy la Salle, 14-21 juin 2001.
FOREST Fred, Art sociologique, Vidéo, Paris (France), UGE, 1977.
FORESTA Don, Mondes multiples, Paris (France), Boutique à signes, 1991.
FROHNE Ursula, Video cult/ures, multimedial Installationen der 90er Jahre, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1999.
GAILLOT Michel, La techno, un laboratoire artistique et politique du présent, Paris (France), Editions Dis Voir, 1999 (Sens multiple).
GALE Peggy, Video by artists, Toronto, Ont. (Canada), Art Metropole, 1976.
GANTY Alfred, MILLIARD Guy, WILLENER Alex, Vidéo et société virtuelle, Paris (France), Editions Tema, 1972.
GOLDBERG RoseLee, Performance Art from Futurism to the Present, New York (Etats-Unis), H. N. Abrams, 1988.
GOLDBERG RoseLee, Performance art, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Thames and Hudson, 1998.
GOLDBERG RoseLee, Performances, l’art en action, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Thames and Hudson, 1999.
GRAHAM Dan, Video-Architecture-Television, Halifax, N.S. (Canada), Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, 1979.
GROOS Ulrike, MÜLLER Markus, Make it Funky : Crossover zwischen Musik Pop, Avantgarde und Kunst, Cologne (Allemagne), Oktagon, 1998.
GRUBER Bettina, VEDDER Maria, Kunst und Video : internationale Entwicklung und Künstler, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1983.
HALL Doug, FIFER Sally Jo, Illuminating Video : An Essential Guide to Video Art, New York (Etats-Unis), Aperture, Bay Area Video Coalition, 1990.
Video culture : a critical investigation / sous la dir. de John G. HANHARDT, New York (Etats-Unis), Visual Studies Workshop Press, 1986.
Culture Technology and Creativity in the Late Twentieth Century / sous la dir. de Philip HAYWARD, Londres (Royaume-Uni), J. Libbey and Cy, 1990.
HELSEL Sandra K., PARIS ROTH Judith, Virtual Reality : Theory, Practice and Promise, Londres (Royaume-Uni), M. Westport, 1991.
HASENLECHNER Anja, Vorbilder und Nachbilder : Positionen österreichischer Künstlerinnen zu neuen Medien, Vienne (Autriche), Triton, 2001.
HENNION Antoine, La Passion musicale : une sociologie de la méditation, Paris (France), Editions Métaillé, 1993.
HERZOGENRATH Wulf, Videokunst in Deutschland 1963-1982 : Videoinstallationen, Video-Objekte, Videoperformances, Fotografien, Stuttgart (Allemagne), Gerd Hatje, 1982.
HERZOGENRATH Wulf, DECKER Edith, Video-Skulptur retrospektiv und aktuel : 1963-1989, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1989.
HERZOGENRATH Wulf, GAEHTGENS Thomas W., THOMAS Sven, HNISCH Peter, TV Kultur : das Fernsehen in der Kunst seit 1879, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas) ; Dresde (Allemagne), Verl. der Kunst, 1997.
Widerstände : Kunst, cultural Studies, neue Medien : Interviews und Aufsätze aus der Zeitschrift Springerin 1995-1999 / sous la dir. de Christian HÖLLER, Vienne (Autriche) ; Bolzano (Italie), Folio, 1999.
HOTZ-BONNEAU Françoise, L’image et l’ordinateur, Paris (France), Aubier-INCA, 1986.
The Media Arts in Transition / sous la dir. de Bill HORRIGAN, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), Walker Art Center, 1983.
Video : A Retrospective, 1974-1984 / sous la dir. de Kathy Rae HUFFMAN, Long Beach, Calif. (Etats-Unis), Long Beach Museum of Art, 1984.
JENKINS Henry, Textual Poachers : Television Fans and Participary Culture, Londres (Royaume-Uni) ; New York (Etats-Unis), Routledge, 1992.
JENKINS Janet, In the Spirit of Fluxus, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), Walker Art Center, 1993.
JOHNSON T., The Voice of the New Music, New York (Etats-Unis), Het Apollohuis, 1989.
KAPROW Allan, Assemblages, Environnements, Happenings, New York (Etats-Unis), H.N. Abrams, 1966.
KAPROW Allan, L’art et la vie confondus, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1996 (Supplémentaires).
KARCZMAR Natan, Vidéo 6e : événement vidéo collectif et simultané, 8-9-10 janvier 1986. Paris (France), Ecole nationale des beaux-arts, 1986.
KHAN Douglas, Noise Water Meat : A History of Sound in the Arts, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 1999.
KIVY Peter, The Fine Art of Repetition : Essays in the Philosophy of Music, Cambridge (Royaume-Uni), Cambridge University Press, 1993.
KLONARIS Maria, THOMADAKI Katerina, Technologies et imaginaires, Art cinéma, art vidéo, art ordinateur, Paris (France), Editions Dis Voir, 1990.
Pour une écologie des médias : art, cinéma, vidéo, ordinateur / sous la dir. de Maria KLONARIS et Katerina THOMADAKI, Paris (France), ASTARTI, 1998.
Video Art : an Anthology / sous la dir. de Beryl KOROT, Mary LUCIER, Ira SCHNEIDER, New York (Etats-Unis) ; Londres (Royaume-Uni), Harcourt, Bace and Jovaniovitch, 1976.
KRUGER Barbara, TV Guides, A Collection of Thoughts about Television. New York (Etats-Unis), Kuklapolitan Press, 1985.
KULTERMAN Udo, Art, Events and Happenings, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Matthews, Miller and Dunbar, 1971.
Wie haltbar ist Videokunst ? = How durable is Video Art ? [colloque], Wolsburg (Allemagne), Kunstmuseum, 1997.
LANDOW George, Hypertext :the Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, Baltimore, Md. (Etats-Unis), Londres (Royaume-Uni), Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
LERNER Loren, Canadian film and video : a bibliography guide to the literature = Film et vidéo canadiens : bibliographie analytique sur le cinéma et la video, Toronto, Ont. (Canada) ; Buffalo, N.Y. (Etats-Unis) ; Londres (Royaume-Uni), University of Toronto Press, 1997.
LEVINSON Jerrold, L’art, la musique et l’histoire, Paris (France), Editions de l’Eclat, 1998.
LEVY Pierre, La machine univers : création, cognition et culture informatique, Paris (France), Editions La Découverte, 1987.
LEVY Pierre, Les technologies de l’intelligence : l’avenir de la pensée à l’ère informatique, Paris (France), Editions La Découverte, 1990.
LEVY Pierre, Qu’est-ce que le virtuel ? Paris (France), Editions La Découverte, 1995.
LEVY Pierre, Cyberculture, Paris (France), O. Jacob, 1997.
LEVY Pierre, Becoming virtual : reality in the digital age, Paris (France) ; Londres ; Glasgow (Royaume-Uni), HarperCollins, 1998.
LOVEJOY Margot, Postmodern Currents, Art and Artists in the age of electronic media, Londres (Royaume-Uni), UMI Research Press, 1989.
Double take / sous la dir. de Anja LUTZ, Horst LIBERA, Berlin (Allemagne), Shift, 2000.
MADESTRAND Bo, Till filmen, Göteborg (Suède), Konstmuseum, 1996.
La vidéo, entre art et communication : guide de l’étudiant en art / sous la dir. de Nathalie MAGNAN, Paris (France), Ecole nationale des beaux-arts, 1997.
MALSCH Friedemann, STRECKEL Dagmar, PERUCCHI-PETRI Ursula, Künstler-Videos, Entwicklung und Bedeutung, Zurich (Suisse), Kunsthaus Zürich, 1995.
MANOVICH Lev, The Language of New Media, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 2000.
MARION Ph., Contraintes temporelles et plasticité : publicité et vidéo-clip [conférence suivie de débats], Cerisy, Centre culturel International, Cerisy la Salle (France), 14-21.06. 2001.
MAZA Monique, Les installations vidéo, ” œuvres d’art “, Paris (France) ; Montréal, Québec (Canada), L’Harmattan, 1998 (Champs visuels).
McLUHAN Marshall, FIORE Quentin, The Medium is the Message, New York (Etats-Unis), Random House, 1967 ; Message et massage, Paris (France), J.-J. Pauvert, 1968.
MOLES Abraham, Art et ordinateur, Paris (France), Blusson, 1990.
MONET Dominique, Le multimédia, Paris (France), Flammarion, 1998 (Domino).
MORSE Margaret, BLUNCK Annika, INÁCIO Isabel, Hardware, software, artware : die Konvergenz von Kunst und Technologie = Confluence of art and technologie, Ostfildern (Allemagne), Cantz, 1997.
MOVIN Lars, CHRISTENSEN Torben, Art and Video in Europe : Electronic Undercurrents, Copenhagen (Danemark), Statens Museum for Kunst, 1996.
Circulating Film and Video Catalogue : vol. 2. New York (Etats-Unis), Museum of Modern Art, 1990.
NASH Michael, Vision after television : technocultural convergence, hypermedia and the new media arts field, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
NELSON J., The Perfect-Machine, TV in the Nuclear Age, Between the Lines, Toronto, Ont. (Canada), 1988.
NYMAN Michael, Experimental Music : Cage and Beyond, New York (Etats-Unis), Schirmer Books, 1974.
PAIK Nam June, Du cheval à Christo et autres écrits, Bruxelles (Belgique) ; Hambourg (Allemagne) ; Paris (France), L. Hossmann, 1993.
PAIK Nam June, Niederschriften eines Kulturnomaden : Aphorismen, Briefe, Texte, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1992.
PAIK Nam June, Beuys vox 1961-86, Séoul (Corée), Won Gallery ; Hyundai Gallery, 1986.
PAIK Nam June, Art for 25 million people-Bonjour, Monsieur Orwell-Kunst und Satelliten in der Zukunft, Berlin (Allemagne), DAAD Galerie, 1984.
PAIK Nam June, Art and Satellite, Berlin (Allemagne), DAAD Galerie, 1984.
PAIK Nam June, HANGARDT John G., Nam June Paik : Mostly Video, Tokyo (Japon), Metropolitan Art Museum, 1984.
PAIK Nam June [préf.], Catherine Ikam : dispositif pour un parcours vidéo, Paris (France), Musée national d’art moderne, 1980.
PARFAIT Françoise, Vidéo : un art contemporain, Paris (France), Editions du Regard, 2001.
Vidéo / sous la dir. de René PAYANT, Montréal, Québec (Canada), Editions Artextes, 1986.
Critical issues in electronic media / sous la dir. de Simon PENY, Albany, N.Y. (Etats-Unis), State University of New York, 1995.
PERINCIOLI Cristina, RENTMEISTER Cillie, Computer und Kreativität : ein Kompendium für Computer-grafik, Animation, Musik und Video, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1990.
PERREE Rob, Into Video Art : the Caracteristics of a Medium = de karakterieken van een medium, Rotterdam ; Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), Con Rumore, 1988.
Künstler-Video : Entwicklung und Bedeutung : die Sammlung der Videobänder des Kunsthauses Zurich / sous la dir. de Ursula PERUCCHI-PETRI, Ostfildern-Ruit (Allemagne), Cantz, 1996.
PEZOLD Friederike, Kunst für das 21. Jahrhundert : Entwurf einer Gegenwelt = Art for the 21st century : Design of a counterworld = L’art pour le 21ème siècle : croquis d’un contremonde, Ostfildern (Allemagne), Cantz, 1995.
POPPER Frank, L’Art à l’âge électronique, Paris (France), Hazan, 1993.
POTTIER Marc, MOISDON Stéphanie, MOURAUD Tania, Walk on the Soho Side, Turin (Italie), Arte Fratelli Pozzo, 1997.
PREIKSCHAT Wolfgang, Video : Die Poesie der Neuen Medien, Bâle (Suisse), Belz, 1987.
PRICE Jonathan, Video-visions : a medium discovers itself, New York (Etats-Unis), New American Library, 1977.
QUEAU Philippe, Eloge de la simulation : de la vie des langages à la synthèse des images, Paris (France), Champ-Vallon, 1986.
QUEAU Philippe, Metaxu : Théorie de l’art intermédiaire, Seyssel (France), Champ-Vallon, Bry-sur-Marne (France), INA, 1989.
QUEAU Philippe, Le Virtuel : vertus et vertiges, Seyssel (France), Champ-Vallon ; Bry-sur-Marne (France), INA, 1993.
Resolution : contemporary video practices / sous la dir. de Michael RENOV et Erika SUDERBURG, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
REYNOLDS Simon, Blissed out : the Rapture of Rock, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Serpent’s Tail, 1990.
REYNOLDS Simon, Energy Flash : A Journey through Rave Music and Dance Culture, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Picador, 1998 ; éd. américaine, Generation Ecstasy : Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture, Boston, Mass. (Etats-Unis), Little Brown, 1998.
ROSS Christine, Images de surface : l’art vidéo reconsidéré, Montréal, Québec (Canada), Artextes, 1996.
ROSS D., Artist’s Video, New York (Etats-Unis), 1973.
ROSSET Clément, Le réel : traité de l’idiotie, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1977.
ROSSET Clément, Le réel et son double, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1984 (1ère éd.).
ROSSET Clément, Le réel, l’imaginaire et l’illusoire, Biarritz (France), Editions Distance, 2000.
RUSH Michael, New Media in Late 20th Century Art, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Thames and Hudson, 1999 (World of art).
RUSH Michael, Les nouveaux médias dans l’art, Paris (France), Thames and Hudson, 2000 (L’Univers de l’art ; 82).
RUSH Michael, L’art vidéo, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Thames and Hudson, 2003.
SAGERER Alexeij, ProT bringt Video, Film auf Video, Munich (Allemagne), Werkstatt, 1983.
SCHIMMEL Paul, Out of Actions : Between Performance and the Object 1949-1979, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 1998.
SCHNEIDER Irmela, THOMSEN Christian, W. Hybridkultur : Medien, Netze, Künste, Cologne (Allemagne), Wienand, 1997.
SCHWARZBAUER Georg F., Video in Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf (Allemagne), Staatlische Kunstacademie, 1984.
SHAPIRO Peter, LEE Iara, Modulations : A History of Electronic Music : Throbbing Words on Sound, Amsterdam (Pays Bas), DAP ; New York (Etats-Unis), Caipirinha Prod., 2000.
Widerstände : Kunst, Cultural Studies, Neue Medien : Interviews und Aufsätze der Zeitschrift Springerin 1995-1999 / sous la dir. de SPRINGERIN, Hefte für Gegenwartskunst, Vienne (Autriche) ; Bolzano (Italie), Folio, 1999.
TAMINIAUX P., Modernisme et mythes de l’image, [conférence suivie de débats], Cerisy, Centre culturel International, Cerisy la Salle (France), 14-21.06.2001.
Petits écrans et démocratie : vidéo légère et télévision alternative au service du développement / sous la dir. de Nancy THEDE et Alain AMBROSI, Paris (France), Syros/FPH/GRET, 1992 (Ateliers du développement).
THÉLY Nicolas, Vu à la webcam : essai sur la web-intimité, Dijon (France), Les Presses du réel, 2002 (Documents sur l’art).
TOOP David, Ocean of Sound, Aether Talk, Ambient Sound and Imaginary Worlds, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Serpent’s Tail, 1995 ; Ocean of Sound, Ambient music, mondes imaginaire et voix de l’éther, Paris (France), Kargo-L’Eclat, 2000.
TOOP David, The Rap Attack : African Jive to New York Hip Hop, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Pluto Press, 1984.
TOOP David, The Rap Attak 2 : African Rap to Global Hip Hop, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Serpent’s Tail, 1991.
TOOP David, The Rap Attak 3 : African Rap to Global Hip Hop, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Serpent’s Tail, 2000
TOUCHARD Jean-Baptiste, Images numériques, Paris (France), Cedic Vifi International ; Nathan, 1987.
Video by artists 2 / Elke TOWN, Toronto, Ont. (Canada), Art Metropole, 1986.
TRESCHER Stephan, Light boxes : Leuchtkastenkunst, Nuremberg (Allemagne), Institut für moderne Kunst, 1999.
ULMER Gregory, Teletheory : Grammatology in the Age of Video, New York (Etats-Unis), Routledge, 1989.
VAILLANT Alexis, PARFAIT Françoise, JANCOVIC Nikola, Les nouvelles images en 2001 : tome 1 : télévision, vidéo, internet, Paris (France), AFAA ; Ministère des affaires étrangères, 2001 (Chroniques de l’AFAA ; 29).
VALENTINI Valentina, Dirottamenti : Calle, Cohen, DV8, Pellizzari, Sellars, Milan (Italie), Comune di Milano, 1997.
La camera astratta : tre spettacoli tra teatro e video / sous la dir. de Valentina VALENTINI, Milan (Italie), Ubulibri, 1988.
Allo specchio / sous la dir. de Valentina VALENTINI, Rome (Italie), Lithos, 1998.
Il video a venire / sous la dir. de Valentina VALENTINI, Rome (Italie), Rubbettino, 1999.
Vidéo et après : la collection vidéo du Musée national d’art moderne / sous la dir. de Christine VAN ASSCHE, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1992.
Actualité du virtuel, revue virtuelle sur CD-Rom / sous la dir. de Christine VAN ASSCHE, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1996.
Art after Modernism : Rethinking Representation / sous la dir. de B. WALLIS, New York (Etats-Unis), New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1984.
The artist’s body / Tracey WARR avec la collab. d’Amelia JONES, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Phaidon, 2000.
WEIBEL Peter, On Justifying the Hypothetical Nature of Art and the Non-identicality within the Object World, Cologne (Allemagne), T. Grunert, 1992.
Les Chemins du virtuel : simulation informatique et création industrielle / sous la dir. de J.L.
WEISSBERG, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1989.
WYWER John, The Moving Image : An International History Film : Television and Video, Oxford (Royaume-Uni), British Film Institute-Basil Backwell, 1990.
YOUNGBLOOD Gene, Expanded Cinema, New York (Etats-Unis), Dutton, 1969.
Electronic Arts Intermix : video / sous la dir. de Lori ZIPPAY, New York (Etats-Unis), Electronic Arts Intermix, 1991.


Ouvrages généraux
ARDENNE Paul, Un art contextuel : art urbain, en situation, d’intervention, de participation, Paris (France), Flammarion, 2002.
ADORNO Theodor Wiesengrund, Théorie esthétique, Paris (France), Klincksieck, 1974.
ADORNO Theodor Wiesengrund, Philosophie der neuen Musik, Tübingen (Allemagne), P. Siebeck, 1949 ; Philosophie de la nouvelle musique, Paris, Gallimard, 1962 [dernière éd. 1995].
BAUDRILLARD Jean, Simulacres et simulation, Paris (France), Galilée, 1979.
BAUDRILLARD Jean, Les stratégies fatales, Paris (France), Grasset, 1983.
BENJAMIN Walter, L’homme, le langage et la culture, Paris (France), Gonthier, 1974.
BENJAMIN Walter, Essais II, 1935-1940, Paris (France), Denoël / Gonthier, 1983.
From Work to Text = Da obra ao texto / sous la dir. de Jürgen BOCK, Centro cultural de Belém, Lisbonne (Portugal), 2002.
BOISSIER Jean-Louis, La relation comme forme. L’interactivité en art, Genève (Suisse), Editions MAMCO, 2004.
BOLTER Jay David, GRUSIN Richard, Remediation : Understanding New Media, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 1999.
BOUCHINDHOMME Christian, ROCHLITZ Rainer, L’Art sans compas : redéfinitions de l’esthétique, Paris (France), Editions Le Cerf, 1992.
BOURDIEU Pierre, Sur la télévision, Paris (France), Liber Editions, 1998.
BOURRIAUD Nicolas, Esthéthique relationnelle, Dijon (France), Les Presses du réel, 1998.
BOURRIAUD Nicolas, Formes de vie : l’art moderne et l’invention de soi : essai, Paris (France), Denoël, 1999.
BÜRGER Peter, Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
BÜRGER Peter, The Decline of modernism, Philadelphie, Pa. (Etats-Unis), University Park Press, 1992.
DAMISH Hubert, Théorie du nuage, Pour une théorie de la peinture, Paris (France), Editions du  Seuil, 1972.
DEBORD Guy, La société du spectacle, Paris (France), Buchet-Chastel, 1967 [1ère éd.].
DEBORD Guy, Commentaires sur la société du spectacle, Paris (France), G. Lebovici, 1988.
DELEUZE Gilles, Logique du sens, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1969.
DELEUZE Gilles, Cinéma 1. L’image-mouvement, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1983.
DELEUZE Gilles, Cinéma 2. L’image-temps, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1985.
DELEUZE Gilles, Le pli, Leibniz et le baroque, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1988.
DELEUZE Gilles, GUATTARI Félix, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie ? Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1991.
DERRIDA Jacques, L’écriture et la différence, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1967.
DERRIDA Jacques, La voix et le phénomène, Paris (France), Editions PUF, 1967.
ECO Umberto, L’oeuvre ouverte, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1965.
ECO Umberto, La structure absente : introduction à la recherche sémiotique, Paris (France), Mercure de France, 1972.
FOSTER Hal, The Anti-Aesthetic, Essays on Postmodern Culture, Seattle, Wash. (Etats-Unis), Bay Press, 1983.
FOSTER Hal, Recodings, Art, Spectacles, Cultural Politics, Washington, D.C. (Etats-Unis), Bay Press, 1985.
FOSTER Hal, Discussions in Contemporary Culture, Seattle, Wash. (Etats-Unis), Bay Press, 1987.
FOUCAULT Michel, Surveiller et punir : naissance de la prison, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1975.
FOUCAULT Michel, Les mots et les choses, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1976.
GODARD Jean-Luc, Introduction à une véritable histoire du cinéma, Paris (France), Editions Albatros, 1980.
GRAHAM Gordon, The Internet : a Philosophical Enquiry, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Routledge, 1999.
HOFSTADTER Douglas, Gödel, Escher, Bach : les brins d’une guirlande éternelle, Paris (France), Inter Editions, 1985.
JAMESON Frederic, Postmodernism or the cultural logic of the late capitalism, Durham (Royaume-Uni), Duke University Press, 1991.
JAMESON Frederic, The Anti-Aesthetic, Washington, D.C. (Etats-Unis), Hal Foster, 1983.
KRAUSS Rosalind, Passages in Modern Sculpture, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Thames and Hudson, 1977 ; Passages : une histoire de la sculpture de Rodin à Smithson, Paris (France), Macula, 1997.
KRAUSS Rosalind, The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), Cambridge MIT Press, 1985 ; L’originalité de l’avant-garde et autres mythes modernistes, Paris (France), Macula, 1993.
LACAN Jacques, Ecrits I, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1971.
LUNENFELD Peter, The Digital Dialectic, new essays on new medias, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), MIT Press, 1999.
LYOTARD Jean-François, Discours, figure, Paris (France), Klincksieck, 1978.
LYOTARD Jean-François, La condition postmoderne, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1979.
McLUHAN Marshall, Pour comprendre les médias, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1968.
McLUHAN Marshall, La galaxie Gutenberg, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1977.
MARCUS Greil, Lipstick traces : a secret history of the 20th century, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), Harvard University Press, 1989 ; Lipstick traces : une histoire secrète du 20e siècle, Paris (France), Allia, 1998.
MERLEAU-PONTY Maurice, Le Visible et l’invisible, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1964.
MERLEAU-PONTY Maurice, Le primat de la perception et ses conséquences philosophiques, précédé de Projet de travail sur la nature de la perception, 1933 ; La nature de la perception, 1934, Lagrasse (France), Verdier, 1996.
PANOFSKY Edwin, La perspective comme forme symbolique, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1975.
POSCHARDT Ulf, Dj Culture, Hambourg (Allemagne), Rogner und Bernhard bei Zweitausendeins, 1995 ; Dj Culture, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Quartet Books Limited, 1998 ; Dj Culture, Paris (France), Kargo, 2001.
RANCIÈRE Jacques, Le partage du sensible : esthétique et politique, Paris (France), Editions La Fabrique, 2000.
RANCIÈRE Jacques, L’inconscient esthétique, Paris (France), Editions Galilée, 2001.
RANCIÈRE Jacques, La fable cinématographique, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 2001 (La Librairie du 20e siècle).
ROCHLITZ Rainer, Théories esthétiques après Adorno, Arles (France), Actes Sud, 1990.
SERRES Michel, La communication, Hermès 2, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1974.
SHUSTERMAN Richard, Pragmatist Aesthetic : Living Beauty, Rethinking Art, Oxford, Blackwell, 1992. L’Art à l’état vif : la pensée pragmatiste et l’esthétique populaire, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 1992 (Le Sens commun).
SONTAG Susan, La photographie, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1979.
SONTAG Susan, A Susan Sontag Reader, New York (Etats-Unis), Vintage, 1982.
SZENDY Peter, Ecoute, une histoire de nos oreilles, Paris (France), Editions de Minuit, 2001.
THOM René, Paraboles et catastrophes, Paris (France), Flammarion, 1983.
VATTIMO Gianni, La fin de la modernité, Nihilisme et herméneutique dans le Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1961.
VATTIMO Gianni, La culture postmoderne, Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1987.
VATTIMO Gianni, La société transparente, Paris (France), D. de Brouwer, 1990.
VATTIMO Gianni, Ethique de l’interprétation, Paris (France), Editions La Découverte, 1991.
VIRILIO Paul, Vitesse et Politique, Paris (France), Editions Galilée, 1977.
VIRILIO Paul, Esthétique de la disparition, Paris (France), Balland, 1980.
VIRILIO Paul, L’Espace critique, Paris (France), C. Bourgeois, 1984.
VIRILIO Paul, L’Horizon négatif, Paris (France), C. Bourgeois, 1984.
VIRILIO Paul, L’Inertie polaire, Paris (France), C. Bourgeois, 1984.
VIRILIO Paul, Guerre et cinéma 1 : logistique de la perception, Paris (France), Editions de l’Etoile, 1986.
VIRILIO Paul, L’Art du moteur, Paris (France), Editions Galilée, 1993.
VIRILIO Paul, Cybermonde, la politique du pire, Paris (France), Editions Textuel, 1996.
VIRILIO Paul, La Machine de vision, Paris (France), Editions Galilée, 1998.
WILLIAM Gilda, BAUMAN Zygmunt, GILLICK Liam, GROSZ Elizabeth, Fresh Cream : art contemporain et culture : 10 conservateurs, 10 auteurs, 100 artistes, Paris (France), Phaidon, 2000.
WITTGENSTEIN Ludwig, Recherches philosophiques, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1970.
WITTGENSTEIN Ludwig, Leçons et conversations : conférences sur l’éthique, Paris (France), Gallimard, 1971.

Catalogues d’expositions
010101. Art in Technological Times / John S. WEBER, Aaron BETSKY, Benjamin WEIL, MoMA, San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 03.03.-08.07.2000.
About Time : Video, Performance and Installation by 21 Women Artists, Institute of Contemporary Art, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 1980.
A Forest of Signs : Art in the Crisis of Representation / sous la dir. de Catherine GUDIS, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 07.05.-13.08.1989.
Americal Film and Video / Peggy AHWESH, Lawrence ANDREWS, Stan BRAKHAGE, Whitney Biennial : Electronic Undercurrents, Statens museum for kunst, Copenhague (Danemark), 07.09.-30.11.1996.
Action, on tourne = Action, we ‘re filming / sous la dir. de Laurence GATEAU, Villa Arson, Nice (France), 2000-2001.
Acting Out : the Body in Video then and now / org. par Julia BUNNAGE, Clarrie RUDRUM, Annushka SHANI, Alessandro VINCENTELLI, Victoria WALSH, Henry Moore Gallery, Royal College of Art, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 22.02.-13.03.1994.
American Documentary Video : Subject to change : a Video Exhibition / Deirdre BOYLE, Museum of Modern Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 17.11.1988-10.01.1989.
American Landscape Video / William D. JUDSON, Electronic Grove, Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Etats-Unis), 1988.
Art and Electronics / Uwe NITSCHKE et Wulf HERZOGENRATH, Pao Sui Loong Gallery ; Pao Yue Kong Galleries ; Hong Kong Art Centre, Hong Kong (Hong Kong), 16.02.-05.03.1995.
Art and Film since 1945 / Kerry BROUGHER, Jonathan CRARY, Russell FERGUSON, Hall of Mirrors, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 1996.
Art and Technology / sous la dir. de Atsuhiko SHIMA et Masakatsu OTA, Museum of Modern Art, Toyama (Japon), 01.07.-04.09.1983.
Art and Video in Europe : Electronic Undercurrents / Lars MOVIN, Torben CHRISTENSEN, Soren ANDREASEN, Statens museum for kunst, Copenhague (Danemark), 07.09-30.11.1996.
L’Art au corps, le corps exposé de Man Ray à nos jours / Catherine MILLET et François PLUCHART, MAC, Musées de Marseille, Marseille (France), 06.07.-15.10.1996.
Art et ordinateur, vidéo et ordinateur /Anne-Marie DUGUET, Maison de la Culture, La Rochelle (France), 24.06.-31.08.1983.
The Arts for Television / sous la dir. de Kathy Rae HUFFMAN et Dorine MIGNOT, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis) ; Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), 1987.
Art >Music : Rock, Pop, Techno / Sue CRAMER, Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney (Australie), 21.03.-24.06.2001.
Art vidéo : rétrospectives et perspectives / sous la dir. de Laurent BUSINE, Palais des beaux-arts, Charleroi (Belgique), 1983.
Art vidéo : confrontation 74 / Suzanne PAGÉ, Claudine EIZYKMAN, Yann PAVIE, Donald A. FORESTA, ARC, Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 08.11.-8.12.1974.
L’art vidéo depuis 1976 en République Fédérale d’Allemagne : une sélection / Helmut FRIEDEL et Wolfgang PREIKSCHAT, Goethe Institut, Munich (Allemagne), 1986.
Art vidéo-vidéo art / Don FORESTA et Dominique BELLOIR, Le nouveau musée, Institut d’art contemporain, Villeurbanne (France), 19.02.-28.03.1980.
L’arte elettronica : metamorfosi e metafore / sous la dir. de Silvia BORDINI, Palazzo dei Diamanti, Ferrare (Italie), 24.06.-02.09.2001.
Artronica : videosculture e installazioni multimedia / sous la dir. de Anna D’ELIA, Santa Scolastica, Bari (Italie), 1987.
Being and Time : the Emergence of Video Projection / sous la dir. de Marc MAYER, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, N.Y. (Etats-Unis), 1996.
3e Biennale de Lyon : installation, cinéma, vidéo, informatique, Musée d’art contemporain ; Cité internationale ; Palais des Congrès, Lyon (France), 1995.
11e Biennale de Paris, Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 1980.
12e Biennale de Paris, Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 1982.
Blam ! The Explosion of Pop, Minimalism and Performance, 1958-1964 / sous la dir. de Barbara HASKELL, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 1984.
Boomerang / sous la dir. de Susan HINNUM, Malene LANDGREEN, Sanne KOFOD OLSEN, Nicolaj-Copenhagen Contemporary Art Center, Copenhague (Danemark), 21.02.-19.04.1998.
Campo video : nuova videoarte slovena = Slovenian videoart / sous la dir. de Aurora FONDA, Venise (Italie), 06-31.12.1999.
CH’ 70-’ 80 : schweizer Kunst ‘70-’80 / préf. de Martin KUNZ, Kunstmuseum, Lucerne (Suisse), 1981.
Cinema Cinema : Contemporary Art and the Cinematic Experience / Jaap GULDEMOND, Jean-Christophe ROYOUX, Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum, Eindhoven (Pays-Bas), 1999.
Correnti magnetiche : immagini virtuali e installationi interattive / sous la dir. de Maria Grazia MATTEI, Centro espositivo della Rocca Paolina, Pérouse (Italie), 11-25.05.1996.
La création vidéo en Belgique 1970-1990 / Philippe DUBOIS et Marc-Emmanuel MÉLON, Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 1991.
Crossings : Kunst zum Hören und Sehen / sous la dir. de Cathrin PICHLER et Edek BARTZ, Kunsthalle, Vienne, (Autriche), 29.05.-13.09.1998.
De l’instabilité / sous la dir. de Jean-Michel FORAY et Martine BOUR, Centre national des arts plastiques, Paris (France), 16.11.-10.12.1989.
De la création vidéo française / sous la dir. de Stephen SARRAZIN, Institut français, Bucarest (Roumanie), 15-21.11.1991.
Digital Visions, Computer and Art, Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, N.Y. (Etats-Unis), 1987.
Dirottamenti / sous la dir. de Valentina VALENTINI, Fondazione Mudima, Milan (Italie), 1996.
Ecstatic Memory : a Year-Long Series of 5 Video Programs = Souvenir sublime : une série de 5 programmes vidéo / préf. de Peggy GALE, Musée des beaux-arts de l’Ontario, Toronto, Ont. (Canada), 09.01.1999-02.01.2000.
Electra : l’électricité et l’électronique dans l’art au 20e siècle = Electra : Electricity and Electronics in the Art of the 20th Century / textes de Marie-Odile BRIOT, Jean VERMEIL, Sylvain LECOMBRE, Jean-Louis BOISSIER, Dominique BELLOIR, Edmond COUCHOT, Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 1983.
Elettroshock : 30 anni di video in Italia 1971-2001 / sous la dir. de Bruno DI MARINO et Lara NICOLI, Museo Laboratorio di arte contemporanea, Rome (Italie) 21-27.05.2001.
En el lado de la televisión : projecte de Jorge Luis Marzo, Espai d’art contemporani de Castelló, Castelló (Espagne), 04.10.-01.12.2002.
L’Epoque, la mode, la morale, la passion / sous la dir. de Bernard BLISTÈNE, Catherine DAVID, Alfred PACQUEMENT, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), 21.05.-17.08.1987.
L’ère binaire : nouvelles interactions / sous la dir. de Charles HIRSCH et Michel BAUDSON, Musée communal, Ixelles (Belgique), 4.09.-29.11.1992.
Escape-Space : Raumkonzepte mit Fotografien, Zeichnungen, Modellen und Video / sous la dir. de Ursula FROHNE et Christian KATTI, Ursula Blickle Stiftung, Kraichtal (Allemagne), 2000.

Ex oriente lux / sous la dir. de Calin DAN, Sala Dalles, Bucarest (Roumanie), 24.11.-20.12.1993.

FremdKörper = Corps étranger = Foreign Body / texte de Theodora VISCHER, Museum für Gegenwartskunst, Bâle (Suisse), 01.06.-29.09.1996.
From TV to Video e dal video alla TV : Nuovo tendenze del video nordamericano, L’immagine elettronica, Bologne (Italie), 1984.
Geschichten des Augenblicks : über Narration und Langsamkeit = Moments in time : on narration and slowness / sous la dir. de Susanne GAENSHEIMER et Helmut FRIEDEL, Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich (Alemagne), 1999.
Heart of darkness / sous la dir. de Marianne BROUWER, Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo (Pays-Bas), 18.12.-1994-27.03.1995.
: Video als weibliches Terrain = Video as a Female Terrain / sous la dir. de Stella ROLLIG, Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz (Autriche), 28.10.-10.12.2000.
Herz von Europa = Heart of Europa / sous la dir. de Ilse GASSINGER, Inge GRAF, Walter ZYX, Infermental 9, Vienne (Autriche), 1989.
Het lumineuze beeld = The luminous image, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), 14.09.-28.10.1984.
Hors-Limites, l’art et la vie 1952-1994 / sous la dir. de Jean de LOISY, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), 09.11.1994-23.01.1995.
Ich und die anderen : Fotografien und Videoarbeiten / sous la dir. de Ulrich POHLMANN, Ursula Blickle Stiftung, Kraichtal (Allemagne), 14.11-12.12.1999 ; Fotomuseum, Munich (Allemagne), 16.03.-07.05.2000.
Image on the Run : Dutch Video Art of the 80’s / textes de Rob PERRÉE et Sebastian LOPEZ, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), 1985.
Image World : Art and Media Culture / Marvin HEIFERMAN, Lisa PHILLIPS, John G. HANHARDT, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 08.11.-18.1989-18.02.1990.
Imágenes del video 1989 : ayudas para jóvenes creadores 1988, Instituto de la juventud, Madrid (Espagne), 24.05.-17.06.1989.
Images en scène : installations vidéo et cinéma, spectacle, danse, image / sous la dir. de Anne-Marie CORNU, Palais de Tokyo, Paris (France), juin 1993. Art 3000, Jouy-en-Josas (France), 1993.
Imatges en moviment = Moving Image : Electronic Art / Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe, Fundació Joan Miró, Barcelone (Espagne), 1992, Munich (Allemagne), Oktagon, 1992.
L’immagine elettronica : Eu-video ’85 : tendenze europee a confronto, Palazzo dei Congressi, Bologne (Italie), 16-19.02.1985.
L’immaginario technico : rassegna internazionale, Museo del Sannio, Bénévent (Italie), 26.03.-14.04.1984.
Les Immatériaux / Yannick COURTEL, Nathalie HEINICH, Jean-François LYOTARD, Charles PERRATON, Centre de création industrielle, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), 28.03.-15.07.1985.
Imperfect innocence : the Debra and Dennis Scholl collection / Nancy SPECTOR, James RONDEAU, Michael RUSH, Contemporary Museum, Baltimore, Md. (Etats-Unis), 11.01.-11.03.2003 ; Palm Beach Institute of Contemporary Art, Lake Worth, Fla. (Etats-Unis), 12.04.-15.06.2003.
Impressions danse, Intermédia, Paris (France), 1988.
In video / sous la dir. de Sandra LISCHI et Felice PESOLI, Centro internazionale di Brera, Milan (Italie), 22-25.11.1990.
Das innere befinden : das Bild des Menschen in der Videokunst der 90er Jahre = The inner state : the image of man in the video art of the 1990s / Christiane MEYER-STOLL, Hannelore PAFLIK-HUBER, Annette PHILIP, Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein, Vaduz (Liechtenstein), 2001.
Into the Light : the Projected Image in American Art 1964-1977 / sous la dir. de Chrissie ILES, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 18.10.2001-06.01.2002.
Installations vidéo : en collaboration avec Video Art Plastique, Théâtre d’Hérouville (France), 26.11.-13.12.1988.
Iterations : the New Image / sous la dir. de Timothy DRUCKREY, International Center of Photography, New York (Etats-Unis), 1993-1994.
Junge Szene ’96 / Andreas SPIEGL et Doris ROTHAUERWiener Secession, Vienne (Autriche), 19.07.-15.09.1996.
Kunst und Technologie : elektronische Künste / sous la dir. de Philomene MAGERS, Bärbel MOSER, Petra UNNÜTZER, Wissenschaftszentrum, Bonn-Bad Godesberg (Allemagne), 12.12.1986-04.01.1987.
KünstlerInnen : 50 Positionen, zeitgenössischer internationaler Kunst : Videoportraits und Werke / sous la dir. de Edelbert KÖB, Kunsthaus, Bregenz (Autriche), 28.09.-30.11.1997.
La Imagen sublime, video de creación en España 1970-1987, Madrid (Espagne), 1987.
Laboratorio de Luz : PB 97-0335 : idea, imagen, universidad / Amparo CARBONELL, Salomé CUESTA, Maribel DOMÈNECH, Sala de exposiciones, Universidad politécnica, Valence (Espagne), 8-30.03.2001.
Lost in Sound 2 / sous la dir. de Manoel de OLIVEIRA, Centro galego de arte contemporánea, Saint-Jacques de Compostelle (Espagne), 02.12.1999-12.03.2000.
Le ludique / Marie FRASER, Musée du Québec, Québec (Canada), 27.09.-25.11.2001.
Magnetic North : Canadian Experimental Video / sous la dir. de Jenny LION, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis), octobre 2000 ; Plus In, Winnipeg, Man. (Canada), novembre 2000.
Memoria del video : 1 : La distanza della storia : vent’anni di eventi video in Italia raccolti da Luciano Giaccari / sous la dir. de Marco MENEGUZZO, Padiglione d’arte contemporanea, Milan (Italie), 15.12.1987-31.01.1988.
Mirades impúdiques : foto, video, film, websites / Rosa OLIVARES et Manuel DELGADO, Centre cultural de la Fundació La Caixa, Barcelone (Espagne), 13.04.-25.06.2000.
Monter-sampler : l’échantillonage généralisé / sous la dir. de Yann BEAUVAIS et Jean-Michel BOUHOURS, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou ; Scratch Projection, 2000 (Quinze x Vingt & Un : Cinéma musique).
Moving Pictures / sous la dir. de Lisa DENNISON et Nancy SPECTOR, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York (Etats-Unis), 28.06.2002-12.01.2003.
Múltiplas dimensões = Multiples dimensions / Eugeni BONET et Christine VAN ASSCHE, Centro cultural de Belém, Lisbonne (Portugal), 07.06.-31.07.1994.
Mutations de l’image : art cinéma, vidéo, ordinateur / sous la dir. de Maria KLONARIS et Katerina THOMADAKI, ASTARTI pour l’audiovisuel, Paris (France), 1994.
Nature is Perverse, Fylkingen ; Moderna Museet, Stockholm (Suède), 27-29.11.1998.
Net-Condition : Art and Global Media / sous la dir. de Peter WEIBEL et Timothy DRUCKREY, Steirischer Herbst, Graz (Autriche), 25.09.-24.10.1999.
New California Video : a Survey of Open Channel, 1985-89, Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 1989.
New video : Japan : a video exhibition …, Museum of Modern Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 1985.
Nouvelles fictions dans la vidéo en France / Jean-Paul FARGIER, ARC, Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 07.12.1985-09.02.1986.
Nouvelles tendances de la vidéo en France / sous la dir. de Christine VAN ASSCHE,
Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), 23.06.-30.10.1993.
Now See Hear ! Art, Language and Translation / sous la dir. de Ian WEDDE, City Art Gallery, Wellington (Nouvelle Zélande), 1990.
” On s’émerveille qu’une image arrive. Il pourrait ne rien y avoir “, Ecole régionale des beaux-arts Georges Pompidou, Dunkerque, (France), juin 1986.
Outer Space : 8 Photo and Video Installations / sous la dir. de Alexandra NOBLE, Newcastle upon Tyne, Laing Art Gallery, 1991 ; Hull, Ferens Art Gallery, 1991-1992 ; Londres, Camden Arts Centre, 1992 ; Bristol, Arnolfini Gallery, 1992. Londres (Royaume-Uni), South Bank Centre, 1991.
Passages de l’image / sous la dir. de Raymond BELLOUR, Catherine DAVID, Christine VAN ASSCHE, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France) ; Fundación Caixa de Pensiones, Barcelone (Espagne) ; Wexner Center for the Arts, Columbus, Ohio (Etats-Unis) ; Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 1990-1991.
Performance Art and Video Installation, Tate Gallery, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 16.09.-06.10.1985.
The Pleasure Machine : Recent American Video / Dean SOBEL, Milwaukee Art Museum, Milwaukee, Wis. (Etats-Unis), 14.06.-18.08.1991.
Points de vue, images d’Europe / sous la dir. de Christine VAN ASSCHE, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), 14.12.1994-30.03.1995.
Positionen junger Kunst und Kultur : : im Rahmen von ” Das Neue Berlin “ / sous la dir. de Gisela SCHÖNE, Akademie der Künste, Berlin (Allemagne), 23.05.1999-01.01.2000.
Projections, les transports de l’image / Jacques AUMONT, Yann BEAUVAIS, Raymond BELLOUR, Le Fresnoy, Studio national des arts contemporains, Tourcoing (France), novembre 1997-janvier 1998.
Regards projetés : art vidéo dans les Balkans = Projected visions : video art in the Balkans / Marina GRZINIC, Zoran ERIC, Zoran PETROVSKI, Strasbourg (France), Musée d’art moderne et contemporain, 2001 ; Ecole supérieure des arts décoratifs, 2001.
Re-Play : Anfänge internationaler Medienkunst in Österreich / sous la dir. de Sabine BREITWIESER, Generali Foundation, Vienne (Autriche), 12.05.-06.08.2000.
Remembrances of Things Past : Collected Writings and Exhibition Catalog / sous. la dir. de Lane RELYEA et Connie FITZSIMONS, Long Beach Museum of Art, Long Beach, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 23.11.1986-18.01.1987.
Le repubbliche dell’arte : Schweiz = Suisse = Svizzera = Svizra / Daria FILARDO et Sergio RISALITI, Palazzo delle Papesse, Centro arte contemporanea, Sienne (Italie), 1999.
Le repubbliche dell’arte : Art and Artists from Israel and Palestina / sous la dir. de Emidio DIODATO et Asher SALAH, Sienne (Italie), Palazzo delle Papesse, Centro arte contemporanea, 2000.
Resolution, a Critique of Video Art, Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 1986.
Revision, Art Programmes of European Television Stations / sous la dir. de Dorine MIGNOT, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), 1987.
Salade liégeoise : une rétrospective de dix ans de production de la vidéo de Liège = Ten years of video production from Liège / C. DERCON, P. DUBOIS, R. KALISZ, Internationaal Cultureel Centrum, Anvers (Belgique), 27.02.-17.04.1985.
Sans titre : contemporary photography and video from France / sous la dir. de Mary Evelynn SORRELL, International Contemporary Art Production, Houston, Tex. (Etats-Unis), 1985.
Scream and scream again : film in art / Chrissie ILES, Museum of Modern Art, Oxford (Royaume-Uni), 14.07.-27.10.1996.
The Second Link, Viewpoints on Video in the Eighties, Walter Phillips Gallery, Banff Center School of Fine Arts, Banff, Alta. (Canada), 1983.
Segnali d’opera : arte e digitale in Italia per l’aggiornamento di un museo : 19 premio nazionale arti visive, Civica galleria d’arte moderna, Gallarate (Italie), 19 octobre-23 novembre 1997.
Señales de vídeo : aspectos de la videocreación española de los ultimos años, Madrid ; Las Palmas de Grande Canarie ; Pamplune ; Palma de Majorque (Espagne), 1995-1996.
Signs of the Times : a Decade of Video, Film and Slide-Tape Installations in Britain, 1980-1990 / sous la dir. de Chrissie ILES, Museum of Modern Art, Oxford (Royaume-Uni), 1990.
Signs of the Times / sous la dir. de Chrissie ILES, La Ferme du Buisson, Centre d’art contemporain de Marne-la-Vallée, Noisiel (France), 26.11.1993-13.02.1994.
Sonic Boom, Hayward Gallery, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 27.04.-18.06.2000.
Sonic Process : une nouvelle géographie des sons /sous la dir. de Christine VAN ASSCHE, Museu d’art contemporani, Barcelone (Espagne), 04.05.-30.07.2002 ; Musée national d’art moderne, Paris (France), 16.10.2002-06.01.2003.
Space Odysseys : Sensation and Immersion / sous la dir. de Victoria LYNN, Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney (Australie), 18.08.-14.10.2001 ; Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Melbourne (Australie), 03-04.2002.
Spellbound : Art and Film / Ian CHRISTIE et Philip DODD, Hayward Gallery, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 1996.
Sound and vision. Musikvideo und Filmkunst : Ausstellung Retrospektive / sous la dir. de Herbert GEHR, Deutsches Filmmuseum, Francfort sur le Main (Allemagne), avec la collaboration de Long Beach Museum of Art, 16.12.1993-03.04.1994.
Sounds and Files, Künstlerhaus, Vienne (Autriche), 10.03.-16.04.2000.
Sound Art-Sound as Media / Minoru HATANAKA et Rob YOUNG, NTT Inter Communication Center (ICC), Tokyo (Japon), 28.01.-12.03.2000.
Studio Azzurro / Andrea LISSONI, Palazzo delle Papesse, Centro arte contemporanea, Sienne (Italie), 22.06.-25.08.2002.
Subverting Television : a Three Part Programme of British Video Art, Arts Council of Great Britain, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 1986.
Schweizer Videokunst, Kunsthaus, Langenthal (Suisse), 1994.
Swiss video, Musée des beaux-arts, Lausanne (Suisse), 09.1978.
Technopop in Wonderland, Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris, Paris (France), 06.05.-12.06.1983.
Tele-Journeys / sous la dir. de Joan JONAS et Jane FARVERList Visual Arts Center, Cambridge, Mass. (Etats-Unis), 2002.
Télé-visions de l’Europe, Bibliothèque publique d’information, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (France), Réunion des musées nationaux ; Editions du Centre Pompidou ; La Sept, 1990.
Transit : 60 artistes nés après 60 : œuvres du Fonds national d’art contemporain, Ecole nationale supérieure des beaux-arts, Paris (France), 16.09.-02.11.1997 ; Caisse des dépôts et consignations, Paris (France), 16-28.09.1997.
TV as a Creative Medium, Howard Wise Gallery, New York (Etats-Unis), 1969.
UVS-Videosampler = VIS-Vidéosampler = VIS-Videosampler : Unabhängiges Video Schweiz 1987 = Vidéo Indépendante Suisse 1987 = Video Indipendente Svizzera 1987, Lucerne (Suisse), 1987.
Video der 80er Jahre, Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz (Autriche), 19.09.-11.10.1987.
Video Skulptur, Retrospektiv und Aktuell 1963-1989, Kölnischer Kunstverein ; Kunststation St. Peter ; Belgisches Haus ; Kunsthalle, Cologne (Allemagne), DuMont, 1989.
Video, Lijnbaancentrum, Rotterdam (Pays Bas), 09.02.-12.03.1973.
Video, europäische Videotheken / Helmut FRIEDEL, René COEHLO, Wies SMAIS, Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich (Allemagne), 20.10.-01.11.1981.
Vidéo topiques :  / Patrick JAVAULT, Georges HECK, Maurizio LAZZARATO, Strasbourg (France), Musée d’art moderne et contemporain, 18.10.2002-02.02.2003.
Video : Towards Defining an Aesthetic / David HALL et Tamara KRIKORIAN, Third Eye Centre, Glasgow (Royaume-Uni), 16-21 mars 1976.
Video about video : Four French Artists : P.-A. Gette, Ph. Guerrier, Thierry Kuntzel, Ph. Oudard, University Art Museum, Berkeley, Calif. (Etats-Unis), 10.1980.
Video Art 4 : Contemporary Israeli Artists / Richard FLANTZ, Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Tel Aviv (Israël), 14.04.-10.06.2000.
Videoarte a Palazzo dei Diamanti 1973-1979, Foyer della Camera di Commercio, Turin (Italie) avril 1980.
Video arte internacional / Jorge GLUSBERG et Laura BUCCELLATO, Buenos Aires (Argentine) 1990, Museo nacional de bellas artes, Buenos Aires (Argentine), 1990.
Vidéo Cube, FIAC 2001, Pavillon du Parc, Paris (France), 10-15.10.2001.
Vidéo Cube, FIAC 2002, Pavillon du Parc, Paris (France), 24-28.10.2002.
Video cult/ures : multimediale Installationen der 90er Jahre / sous la dir. de Ursula FROHNE, Museum für Neue Kunst-Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie, Karlsruhe (Allemagne) 1999.
Video de artista e televisão : a televisão vista por artistas de video, Museu de arte contemporanea, São Paulo (Brésil), 1986.
Videodreams, zwischen Cinematischem und Theatralischem = Videodreams, between the cinematic and the theatrical / éd. par Peter PAKESCH, Kunsthaus Graz am Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz (Autriche), 15.05.-19.09.2004 ; Cologne (Allemagne), W. König, 2004.
Vidéo et multimédia / Soon-Gui KIM et Daniel CHARLES, Centre de la Vieille Charité ; Institut méditerranéen de recherche et de création, Marseille (France), 25.06.-10.07.1986.
Video-film et audio-visuel, Musée Sart Tilman, Liège (Belgique), 15.10.-15.11.1977.
Video International, Kunstmuseum, Aarhus (Danemark), 10-22 février 1976.
Video from Tokyo to Fukui and Kyoto / préf. de Barbara J. LONDON, Museum of Modern Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 19.04.-19.06.1979.
Videoscape : an Exhibition of Video Art / Marty DUNN, Peggy GALE, Gary Neill KENNEDY, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Ont. (Canada), 20.11.1974-01.04.1975.
Video-sonorité : la vidéo naît du bruit / sous la dir. de Jean GAGNON, Musée des beaux-arts du Canada, Ottawa, Ont. (Canada), 06.10.1994-02.01.1995.
Video Spaces, Eight Installations / Barbara LONDON, Museum of Modern Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 22.06.-12.09.1995.
Video Spain, ExiT Art, New York (Etats-Unis), 1988.
Vidéo sculptures / Dominique BELLOIR, Bernard MARCADÉ, Charles DREYFUS, Michel GIROUD, ARCA, Centre d’art contemporain, Marseille (France), 03-22.06.1985.
Video : The Distinctive Features of the Medium, Video Art, Institute of Contemporary Art University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. (Etats-Unis), 17.01.-28.02.1975.
Video Times, Serpertine Gallery, Londres (Royaume-Uni), 01-26.05.1975.
Video Tapes, Kölnische Kunstverein, Cologne (Allemagne), 06.07.-08.08.1974.
VIP : Albert Benamou présente VIP, vidéo-image(s)-peinture / Stephen SARRAZIN, Galerie du Génie, Paris (France), 20.10.-20.11.1990.
Voices = Voces = Voix / sous la dir. de Christopher PHILLIPS [catalogue de l’exposition itinérante], Rotterdam, Barcelone, Tourcoing, 1998-1999. Rotterdam (Pays-Bas),
Witte de With, 1998 ; Barcelone (Espagne), Fundació Joan Miró, 1998 ; Tourcoing (France), Le Fresnoy, 1999.
What a Wonderful World  : Musicvideos in Architecture / Frans HAKS et Niek VERDONK, Groninger Museum, Groningen (Pays-Bas), 1990.
White Cube, Black Box : Skulpturensammlung, Video, Installation, Film / sous la dir. de Sabine BREITWIESER, Generali Foundation, Vienne (Autriche), 26.01.-14.04.1996.
X-Y : / Stéphanie MOISDON, Nicolas TREMBLEY, Christine VAN ASSCHE, Musée national d’art moderne-Centre de création industrielle, Paris (France), 26.10.1995-12.02.1996.


Catalogues de festivals
Argos festival, Bruxelles (Belgique), depuis 1989.
Artec, International Biennale in Nagoya, Nagoya (Japon), depuis 1989.
Artifices, Saint-Denis (France), depuis 1990.
Artlab, Tokyo (Japon), depuis 1991.
Ars Electronica, Linz (Autriche), depuis 1986.
Australian Video Festival, Sydney (Australie), depuis 1986.
AVE, International audiovisual experimental festival, Arnhem (Pays Bas), depuis 1986.
Bandits-mages, Bourges (France), depuis 1992.
Bienal de la imagen en movimiento, (Espagne) [dans différents lieux], depuis 1985.
Bienal de São Paolo, São Paolo (Brésil), depuis 1951.
La Biennale de Paris, Paris (France), 1972-1985.
Biennale de l’image, Paris (France), depuis 1998.
Biennale de l’image en mouvement, Centre pour l’image contemporaine Saint-Gervais, Genève (Suisse), depuis 1985.
Biennale de Lyon d’art contemporain, Lyon (France), depuis 1991, section vidéo depuis 1995.
Biennale de Montréal, Montréal, Québec (Canada), depuis 1998.
La Biennale di Venezia, Venise (Italie), depuis 1982.
Biennale internationale de l’image, Nancy (France), auparavant Festival international de l’image, depuis 1979.
Biennial of Sydney, Sydney (Australie), depuis 1979.
Documenta, Internationale Ausstellungen moderner Kunst, Cassel (Allemagne), depuis 1972.
Experimenta, Melbourne (Australie), depuis 1988.
Festival des arts électroniques, Rennes (France), 1986-2001.
Festival européen d’art des médias, Osnabrück (Allemagne), depuis 1988.
Festival International de l’Image, photographie, cinéma et multimedia, Vevey (Suisse), 1995-2000.
Festival international du nouveau cinéma et de la vidéo, Montréal, Québec (Canada), section vidéo depuis 1982.
Festival nacional de video, Círculo de bellas artes, Madrid (Espagne), 1984 et 1986.
Film-, Video-und Multimedia-Festival Luzern (VIPER), Lucerne (Suisse), depuis 1970.
GAMVideoFestival, Galleria civica d’arte moderna e contemporanea, Turin (Italie), depuis 2002.
Japan Video Television Festival at Spiral, Tokyo (Japon), depuis 1988.
Imagina, Monaco (France) ; CNIT La Défense (France), depuis 1999.
International Film Festival, Rotterdam (Pays-Bas), depuis 1971.
ICA Biennial of Independant Film and Video, Londres (Royaume-Uni), depuis 1992.
International Open Encounter on Video, CAYC, Centro de arte y comunicación, Buenos Aires (Argentine) [dans différents lieux], depuis 1972.
International Sound Basis Visual Art Festival, Wroclaw (Pologne), depuis 1991.
London Festival of Moving Images, Londres (Royaume-Uni), depuis 1996.
Manifestation internationale de vidéo et télévision, Montbéliard (France), 1982-1992.
Marler Video-Kunst Preis, Marl (Allemagne), depuis 1986.
Das Medienkunstfestival des ZKM, Karlsruhe (Allemagne), depuis 1992.
Merseyside’s International Video Festival, Liverpool (Royaume-Uni), depuis 1991.
National Video Festival, American Film Institute, Los Angeles (Etats-Unis), depuis 1982.
Paris photo, Salon international de la photographie, Paris (France), section vidéo depuis 2001.
Perú-video-arte-electronico : memorias del festival internacional de video-arte-electrónica, Lima (Pérou), 2003, depuis 1997.
Salso Film TV Festival, Salsomaggiore (Italie), depuis 1978.
Semaine internationale de Vidéo, MJC Saint-Gervais, Genève (Suisse), depuis 1985.
SONAR, Barcelone (Espagne), depuis 1994.
Vidéo Art Plastiques, Hérouville Saint-Clair (France), depuis 1987.
Video positive, Liverpool (Royaume-Uni), FACT, Foundation for Art & Creative Technology, depuis 1995.
Vidéoformes, festival de la création vidéo, Clermont-Ferrand (France), depuis 1986.
Videonale Bonn, Bonn (Allemagne), depuis 1985.
Visibilità zero, rassegna internazionale del video d’autore, (Italie, différents lieux), depuis 1997.
Whitney Museum of American Art Biennal, New York (Etats-Unis), depuis 1932.
World Wide Video festival, Kijkhuis, La Haye (Pays-Bas), depuis 1982.
World Wide Video festival, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas), depuis 1984.


Articles et essais
APPADURAI Arjun, ” Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination “, Public Culture, n° spécial ” Globalisation ” vol. 12, n° 1, Chicago, Ill. (Etats-Unis), 2000.
APPADURAI Arjun, ” Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy “, Public Culture, vol. 2, n° 2, Chicago, Ill. (Etats-Unis), 1990.
APPADURAI Arjun, ” Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy, Modernity at Large ” / sélection par Hou Hanru, Cream, Contemporary Art in Culture : 10 Curators, 10 Writers, 100 Artists, Londres (Royaume-Uni), Phaidon, 1998, p. 21-24.
BARTHES Roland, ” La Mort de l’auteur “, Le Bruissement de la langue. Paris (France), Editions du Seuil, 1984, p. 61-69.
BELLOUR Raymond, ” La forme où passe mon regard “, Dans la vision périphérique du témoin, Marcel Odenbach, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1987, p. 10-19.
BITOMSKY Hartmund, ” Cinéma, vidéo et histoire “, Face à l’histoire 1933-1996, l’artiste moderne devant l’événement historique, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1996, p. 552-556.
BLISTÈNE  Bernard, ” ‘Espérez-vous vivre quelque chose d’extraordinaire dans ce lieu ?’ demande le vieil homme au plus jeune “, Dans la vision périphérique du témoin : Marcel Odenbach, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1987, p. 22-23.
CAMOLLI Jean-Louis, RANCIÈRE Jacques, ” L’inoubliable “, Arrêt sur histoire, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1997 (Supplémentaires, n. 4).
CHEVALIER Denis, ” Ouverture du champ musical “, Monter-sampler : l’échantillonnage généralisé, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 2000 (Scratch Projection), p. 70-72. P. (74, 76, 78, 80).
DUBOIS Philippe, ” La passion, la douleur et la grâce, note sur le cinéma et la vidéo dans la dernière décennie (1977-1987) “, L’époque, la mode, la morale, la passion : aspects de l’art d’aujourd’hui 1977-1987, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1987, p. 74-87.
DURAND Régis, ” Toute l’histoire du monde dans une image … à propos d’Harun Farocki “, Art press, Paris (France), n. 190, avril 1994.
FARGIER Jean-Paul, ” Où va la vidéo ? “, Cahiers du cinéma, hors série, Paris (France), 1986.
FLECK Robert, ” L’actualité du happening “, Hors limites, l’art et la vie, 1952-1994, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1994, p. 310-317.
HEINTZ Julie, ” La question des médias “, Joseph Beuys, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1994, p. 284-288.
KAPROW Allan, ” L’art vidéo : vieux vin, nouvelle bouteille “, L’art et la vie confondus, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1996, p. 182-187.
LAGEIRA Jacinto, ” L’image du monde dans le corps du texte “, Gary Hill, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1992, p. 34-70.
MANOVICH Lev, ” Echantillonner, mixer l’esthétique de la sélection dans les anciens et les nouveaux médias “, Monter-sampler : l’échantillonnage généralisé, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou ; (Scratch Projection), 2000, P. 46-48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60.
MASSÉRA Jean-Charles, ” Danse avec la loi “, Bruce Nauman : image-texte 1966-1996, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1997, p. 20-33.
PAIK Nam June [entretien], ” Nam June Paik, Fluxus a changé le monde “, Hors limites, l’art et la vie, 1952-1994, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1994, p. 177-187
PAIK Nam June, ” L’homme qui est mort deux fois “, Joseph Beuys, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1994, p. 362-363
POSCHARDT Ulf, ” Le Sampling à l’époque de son utilisabilité technique “, Nomad’s Land, n° 3, printemps-été 1998, p. 18-22, [extrait de Ulf Poschardt, Dj Culture, Hambourg, Rogner und Bernhard bei Zweitausendeins, 1995].
ROSOLATO Guy, ” La voix : entre corps et language “, Revue française de psychanalyse, Editions PUF, Paris (France), vol. 38, n. 1, janvier 1974.
ROYOUX Jean-Christophe, ” Le conflit des communications = Kommunikationskonflikte = The conflict of communications “, Stan Douglas, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1994, p. 24-71.
ROYOUX Jean-Christophe, ” Pour un cinéma d’exposition, retour sur quelques jalons historiques “, Omnibus, Paris (France), n. 20, avril, 1997.
ROYOUX Jean-Christophe, ” Expanded-Extended. Héritage, transformation et ramification d’un concept esthétique dans l’art des années 60 “, 1 : Omnibus, Paris (France), n. 23, janvier 1998, 2 : Omnibus, Paris (France), n. 24, avril 1998.
VAN ASSHE Christine, ” La vidéo, 14 ans plus tard “, L’époque, la mode, la morale, la passion : aspects de l’art d’aujourd’hui, 1977-1987, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1987, p. 332-356.

VAN ASSHE Christine, ” People die of exposure “, Bruce Nauman : image-texte 1966-1996, Paris (France), Editions du Centre Pompidou, 1997.

Sites Internet

Filed under: LINKS — admin @ 17:55

from
http://www.newmedia-art.org/francais/biblio.htm

Adaweb
http://www.adaweb.com/adaweb
Argos, Bruxelles (Belgique)
http://www.argosarts.org
Ars Electronica Center, Linz (Autriche)
http://www.aec.at
Artcrime
http://www.graffiti.org
ARTEC, Arts Technology Centre, Londres (Royaume-Uni)
http://www.artec.org.uk
Artnetweb
http://www.artnet.com
Banff Center, Banff, Alta. (Canada)
http://www.banffcentre.ca
C Theory
http://www.ctheory.net
Centre national d’art et de culture  Georges Pompidou, Paris (France)
http://www.centrepompidou.fr
Centre pour l’image contemporaine, Saint-Gervais, Genève (Suisse)
http://www.sgg.ch
CICV Pierre Schaeffer, Montbéliard (France)
http://www.cicv.fr
Critical Forum (Jordan Crandall)
http://www.eyebeam.org
Dia Center for the Arts, New York (Etats-Unis)
http://www.diacenter.org
Electronic Arts Intermix, New York (Etats-Unis)
http://www.eai.org
Fluxus
http://www.panix.com/~fluxus/fluxusText.html
Fonds régional d’art contemporain, région Languedoc-Roussillon, Montpellier (France)
http://www.fraclr.org
Guerrilla Girls
http://www.guerrillagirls.com
Getty Museum, Los Angeles (Etats-Unis)
http://www.getty.edu/museum
Icono Cie, Paris (France)
http://www.icono.org
Institut für Neue Medien, Francfort (Allemagne)
http://www.inm.de
Journal of Contemporary Art
http://www.jca-online.com
Laboratoire d’art de Paris 8 / Artifices, Paris (France)
http://www.labart.univ-paris8.fr
Le Magasin, Grenoble (France)
http://www.magasin-cnac.org
Leonardo
http://cyberworkers.com/Leonardo
Locus + (Royaume-Uni)
http://www.locusplus.org.uk
London Electronic Arts, Londres (Royaume-Uni)
http://www.lea.org.uk
Medialounge, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas)
http://www.medialounge.net
Mediamatic (Pays-Bas)
http://www.mediamatic.nl/Magazine
Le Métafort, Aubervilliers (France)
http://www.heartgalerie.fr
Musée d’art contemporain de Montréal, Montréal, Québec (Canada)
http://media.macm.qc.ca
Musée des beaux-arts, Montréal, Québec (Canada)
http://www.mbam.qc.ca
Museum Moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig, Cologne (Allemagne)
http://www.museenkoeln.de/ludwig
Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Calif. (Etats-Unis)
http://www.moca.org
Museum of Modern Art, New York (Etats-Unis)
http://www.moma.org
Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, Calif. (Etats-Unis)
http://www.sfmoma.org
NTT Intercommunication Center, Tokyo (Japon)
http://www.ntticc.or.jp
Palais de Tokyo, Site de création contemporaine, Paris (France)
http://www.palaisdetokyo.com
Rencontres internationales Paris-Berlin, Paris (France) ; Berlin (Allemagne)
www.art-action.org
Rhizome (Mark Tribe)
http://www.rhizome.org
Studio national des arts contemporains Le Fresnoy, Tourcoing (France)
http://www.le-fresnoy.tm.fr
Synesthésie, Aubervilliers (France)
http://www.synesthesie.com

The Thing, Vienne (Autriche) ; Amsterdam (Pays-Bas) ; Berlin (Allemagne) ; Francfort (Allemagne) ; Bâle (Suisse).
http://www.thing.net

Villa Arson, Centre national des arts plastiques, Nice (France)
http://www.cnap-villa-arson.fr
Video Data Bank : Video Art and Video Artist, Chicago, Ill. (Etats-Unis)
http://www.vdb.org
Walker Art Center : Minneapolis, Minn. (Etats-Unis)
www.walkerart.org
World Wide Video Festival, Amsterdam (Pays-Bas)
http://www.wwvf.nl

Zentrum für Kunst und Medientechnologie, Karlsruhe (Allemagne)
http://www.zkm.de

24 Απριλίου 2016

The Art of PNG Glitch

Filed under: Notes,NOTES ON PHOTOGRAPHY — admin @ 22:20

https://killscreen.com/tag/net-art/

http://ucnv.github.io/pnglitch/

 

Overview

PNG is an image format that has a history of development beginning in 1995, and it is still a popular, long living format. Generally, it is known for its features such as lossless compression and the ability to handle transparent pixels.
However, we do not look at image formats from a general point of view, but rather think of ways to glitch them. When we look at PNG from the point of view of glitch, what kind of peculiarity does it have?

Checksum

We should first look into the checksum system of the CRC32 algorithm. It is used to confirm corrupted images, and when it detects corruption in an image file, normal viewer applications refuse to display it. Therefore, it is impossible to generate glitches using simple methods such as rewriting part of the binary data using text editors or binary editors (you will completely fail). In other words, the PNG format is difficult to glitch.
We need to create glitches accordingly to the PNG specification in order to avoid this failure. This means that we must rewrite the data after decoding CRC32, re-calculate it and attach it to the edited data.

State

Next we want to look at the transcode process of PNG. The chart shown below is a simplified explanation of how PNG encoding flows.
Figure 1)  PNG encoding flow
Figure 1) PNG encoding flow
Each of the four states that are shown above can be glitch targets. However, glitching the the first “Raw Data” is the same as glitching BMP, so it technically isn’t a PNG glitch (at the end, it is the same as PNG with the None filter applied. I will explain this in the next section). The final “Formatted PNG” glitch will not work because of the checksum system I mentioned above.
This means that PNG glitches can be made when the “Filtered Data” or “Compressed Data” is manipulated. I will explain about filters in the following subsection. When “Filtered Data” is glitched, it shows a distinctive effect; patterns that look like flower petals scatter around the image. The difference between the filters become clear when the “Filtered Data” is glitched. On the other hand, “Compressed Data” glitches are flavored by their own compression algorithm, which is Deflate compression. It shows an effect similar to a snow noise image.
There are elements else besides the transcoding process that could also influence the appearance of glitches such as transparent pixels and interlaces.

Five filters

The factor that characterizes the appearance of glitches the most is the process called filter. The filter converts the uncompressed pixel data of each scanline using a certain algorithm in order to improve the compression efficiency. There are five types of filters that include four algorithms called Sub, Up, Average and Paeth, and also None (which means no filter applied). PNG images are usually compressed after the most suitable filter is applied to each scanline, and therefore all five filters are combined when PNG images are made.
These five filters usually only contribute to the compression efficiency, so the output result is always the same no matter which filter is applied. However, a clear difference appears in the output result when the filtered data is damaged. It is difficult to recognize the difference of the filters when an image is optimized and has all five filters combined, but the difference becomes obvious when an image is glitched when the same, single filter is applied to each scanline.
I will show the difference of the effect that each filter has later on, but when we look close into the results, we will understand which filter is causing which part of the beauty of PNG glitches (yes, they are beautiful) to occur.
I will show the actual glitch results in the next section.

Glitching: In practice

Figure 2) Original PNG image
Figure 2) Original PNG image
Figure 3) Glitched PNG image
Figure 3) Glitched PNG image
I have shown two PNG images above: one is an image before it has been glitched, and one is an image that has been glitched.
This is a Filtered Data glitch, which I explained in the previous section.
The original PNG has optimized filters applied to each scanline, and all of the five filters have been combined. The glitch reveals how the five filters were balanced when they were the combined.

Difference between filters

Lets look into the difference between each filter type.
Figure 4) Glitched PNG, filtered with None
Figure 4) Glitched PNG, filtered with None
Figure 5) Magnified view of fig. 4
Figure 5) Magnified view of fig. 4
The image above has applied “None (no filter)”, meaning that it is a raw data glitch. Each pixel stands alone in this state and do not have any relationship with the others, so a single re-wrote byte does not have a wide range influence.
Figure 6) Glitched PNG, filtered with Sub
Figure 6) Glitched PNG, filtered with Sub
Figure 7) Magnified view of fig. 6
Figure 7) Magnified view of fig. 6
This is a glitched image that has the filter “Sub” applied to each scanline. When the Sub algorythm is applied, the target pixel rewrites itself by refering to the pixel that is right next to it. This is why the glitch pattern avalanches towards the right side.
Figure 8) Glitched PNG, filtered with Up
Figure 8) Glitched PNG, filtered with Up
Figure 9) Magnified view of fig. 8
Figure 9) Magnified view of fig. 8
This is the filter “Up”. This filter is similar to Sub, but its reference direction is the top and bottom.
Figure 10) Glitched PNG, filtered with Average
Figure 10) Glitched PNG, filtered with Average
Figure 11) Magnified view of fig. 10
Figure 11) Magnified view of fig. 10
The filter “Average” refers to a diagonal direction. It shows a meteor like tail that starts from the damaged pixel. The soft gradation effect is also one of the peculiarities of this filter. The result of a PNG glitch when the Average filter is applied is a glitch that lacks glitchiness, and is also the most delicate portion of PNG glitching.
Figure 12) Glitched PNG, filtered with Paeth
Figure 12) Glitched PNG, filtered with Paeth
Figure 13) Magnified view of fig. 12
Figure 13) Magnified view of fig. 12
The filter “Paeth” has the most complicated algorithm when compared with the others. It also has the most complicated glitch effect. The glitch will affect a wide range of areas even with the least byte re-writing. The keynote effect of PNG glitch is caused by this filter; the figure shown in the original image is maintained, but is intensely destroyed at the same time.

Glitch after compression

Figure 14) Glitched PNG, after compressed
Figure 14) Glitched PNG, after compressed
Figure 15) Magnified view of fig. 14
Figure 15) Magnified view of fig. 14
This is a glitch of the state that I referred to as Compressed Data in the previous section. A snowstorm effect appears, and it is difficult to recognize the original figure in the image. It infrequently remains to show effects of the filters. The image is often completely destroyed.

Transparence

Lets look into what happens when an image that includes transparent pixels is glitched.
Figure 16) Original PNG image
Figure 16) Original PNG image with alpha pixels
Figure 17) Glitched PNG, with alpha pixels
Figure 17) Glitched PNG, with alpha pixels
The transparency comes as an effect. Especially the filter “Average” seems to blend transparent pixels gradually. A 100% gathering of transparent pixels is handled in the same way as a solid colored section. You can tell that the filter “Up” is often applied to solid colored sections.
(There is a possibility that newer general-purpose image formats switch their compression scheme of each part depending on if the image is a solid colored section, or else a complicated image such as photographs. The use of images that include solid colored sections for testing glitches is an effective method. One example is a WebP. )

Interlace

Figure 18) Glitched PNG, with interlace
Figure 18) Glitched PNG, with interlace
Figure 19) Magnified view of fig. 18
Figure 19) Magnified view of fig. 18
PNG interlaces are divided into seven passes, using the Adam7 algorithm based on 8×8 pixels. We are able to visualy observe that algorithm when an interlaced PNG is glitched. We can also confirm a stitched effect, and that its angle has become narrow towards the Average filter (see appendix B).

Conclusion

PNG is a very simple format compared to JPEG or other new image formats. The filter algorithms are like toys, and its compression method is the same as oldschool Zip compression. However, this simple image format shows a surprisingly wide range of glitch variations. We would perhaps only need one example to explain a JPEG glitch, but we need many different types of samples in order to explain what a PNG glitch is.
PNG was developed as an alternative format of GIF. However, when it comes to glitching, GIF is a format that is too poor to be compared with PNG. PNG has prepared surprisingly rich results that have been concealed by the checksum barrier for a long time.

Appendix A: PNGlitch library

The author released a tiny script for PNG glitch in 2010. Back then, it only removed the CRC32 and added it back again after the internal data was glitched.
Since then, the author has continued to rewrite the script and make improved versions of it for the purpose of using it in his own work, but he decided to make a library that adopts his know-how in 2014. The Ruby library PNGlitch came out as the result.
Every glitch image that appears in this article is made by using this library.
Appendix A explains how to use the PNGlitch library.
(The user must have a certain level of knowledge of the Ruby language in order to understand the code snippet samples.)

How to use this library: The Simple Way

 

png = PNGlitch.open '/path/to/your/image.png'
png.glitch do |data|
  data.gsub /\d/, 'x'
end
png.save '/path/to/broken/image.png'
png.close

 

 

The code above can also be written in a different way, like the one below.

 

PNGlitch.open('/path/to/your/image.png') do |png|
  png.glitch do |data|
    data.gsub /\d/, 'x'
  end
  png.save '/path/to/broken/image.png'
end

 

 

The glitch method handles compressed and decompressed data as a single string instance. It is handy, but on the other hand the memory usage amount can become enormous. When the memory usage is an issue, the user can write a code that uses IO instead of String like the one below.

 

PNGlitch.open('/path/to/your/image.png') do |png|
  buf = 2 ** 18
  png.glitch_as_io do |io|
    until io.eof? do
      d = io.read(buf)
      io.pos -= d.size
      io.print(d.gsub(/\d/, 'x'))
    end
  end
  png.save '/path/to/broken/image.png'
end

 

 

PNGlitch also provides a method to manipulate each scanline.

 

PNGlitch.open('/path/to/your/image.png') do |png|
  png.each_scanline do |scanline|
    scanline.gsub! /\d/, 'x'
  end
  png.save '/path/to/broken/image.png'
end

 

 

The first example that uses the glitch method sometimes destroys bytes that express the filter type, so it might output a file that cannot be opened by certain viewer applications. The each_scanline method is much safer, and the memory usage is also low. It is a thorough method, but it takes more time than the glitch method.

How to use this library: Complex Manipulatin

Scanline data is made out of pixel data and the filter type value.
The user can also rewrite pixel data using Scanline#replace_data.

 

png.each_scanline do |scanline|
  data = scanline.data
  scanline.replace_data(data.gsub(/\d/, 'x'))
end

 

 

The user can also use Scanline#gsub! and do treatments like String#gsub!.

 

png.each_scanline do |scanline|
  scanline.gsub! /\d/, 'x'
end

 

 

The user can confirm the filter type of the PNG file by running the command below. Internally, the filter types None, Sub, Up, Average and Paeth are all expressed by numeric values between 0 and 4.

 

puts png.filter_types

 

 

The user can also check each filter type using each_scanline.

 

png.each_scanline do |scanline|
  puts scanline.filter_type
  scanline.change_filter 3
end

 

 

The sample above has had each filter type changed to 3 (Average). change_filter properly applies the new filter type. This treatment will not cause glitches to occur because the filter is re-calculated and the PNG will be properly formatted. This also means that the resulting image will appear as the same to our eyes.
However, the difference of each filter has a large influence on the glitches.

 

PNGlitch.open(infile) do |png|
  png.each_scanline do |scanline|
    scanline.change_filter 3
  end
  png.glitch do |data|
    data.gsub /\d/, 'x'
  end
  png.save outfile1
end

PNGlitch.open(infile) do |png|
png.each_scanline do |scanline|
scanline.change_filter 4
end
png.glitch do |data|
data.gsub /\d/, ‘x’
end
png.save outfile2
end

 

The output results of the two samples above are completely different. The difference is in the filters.
The code examples that I have explained are all manipulations done to the “Filtered Data” state. When the users want to glitch “Compressed Data” in PNGlitch, they must use the glitch_after_compress method.

 

png.glitch_after_compress do |data|
  data[rand(data.size)] = 'x'
  data
end

 

 

“The PNGlitch library is released as open source.
https://github.com/ucnv/pnglitch

Appendix B: PNG glitch catalogue

Appendix B includes a list of glitch variations that were not covered in the main article. This catalogue will reveal how wide the variety of PNG glitch expressions can be.
I will define 3 simple methods to destroy data.
Replace: 
Randomly rewrite the byte string.
Transpose: 
Divide the byte string into large chunks and re-arrange them.
Defect: 
Randomly delete the byte string (to rewrite as an empty string).
It mentions five types of filters which are: Sub, Up, Average, Paeth, and the optimized and combined filter.
It also shows 120 patterns of combinations of if there is an alpha or not, if it is interlaced or not, and which state was glitched.
The generating script is shown at the end.
Figure B.1) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.2) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.3) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.4) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.5) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.6) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.7) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.8) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.9) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.10) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.11) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.12) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.13) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.14) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.15) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.16) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.17) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.18) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.19) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.20) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.21) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.22) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.23) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.24) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.25) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.26) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.27) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.28) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.29) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.30) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.31) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.32) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.33) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.34) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.35) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.36) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.37) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.38) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.39) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.40) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.41) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.42) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.43) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.44) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.45) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.46) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.47) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.48) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.49) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.50) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.51) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.52) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.53) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.54) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.55) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.56) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.57) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.58) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.59) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.60) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.61) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.62) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.63) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.64) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.65) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.66) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.67) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.68) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.69) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.70) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.71) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.72) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.73) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.74) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.75) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.76) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.77) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.78) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.79) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.80) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.81) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.82) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.83) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.84) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.85) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.86) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.87) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.88) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.89) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.90) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Filtered data
Figure B.91) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.92) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.93) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.94) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.95) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.96) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.97) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.98) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.99) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.100) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.101) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.102) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.103) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.104) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.105) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: None / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.106) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.107) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.108) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Optimized / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.109) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.110) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.111) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Sub / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.112) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.113) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.114) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Up / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.115) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.116) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.117) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Average / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.118) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Replace / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.119) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Transpose / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
Figure B.120) Glitched PNG
Glitch method: Defect / Filter: Paeth / Interlace: Interlaced / Glitched on: Compressed data
require 'pnglitch'

count = 0
infiles = %w(lena.png lena-alpha.png)
infiles.each do |file|
alpha = /alpha/ =~ file
[false, true].each do |compress|
[false, true].each do |interlace|
infile = file
if interlace
system(“convert -interlace plane %s tmp.png” % infile)
infile = ‘tmp.png’
end
[:optimized, :sub, :up, :average, :paeth].each do |filter|
[:replace, :transpose, :defect].each do |method|
count += 1
png = PNGlitch.open infile
png.change_all_filters filter unless filter == :optimized
options = [filter.to_s]
options << ‘alpha’ if alpha
options << ‘interlace’ if interlace
options << ‘compress’ if compress
options << method.to_s
outfile = “lena-%03d-%s.png” % [count, options.join(‘-‘)]
process = lambda do |data, range|
case method
when :replace
range.times do
data[rand(data.size)] = ‘x’
end
data
when :transpose
x = data.size / 4
data[0, x] + data[x * 2, x] + data[x * 1, x] + data[x * 3..-1]
when :defect
(range / 5).times do
data[rand(data.size)] = ”
end
data
end
end
unless compress
png.glitch do |data|
process.call data, 50
end
else
png.glitch_after_compress do |data|
process.call data, 10
end
end
png.save outfile
png.close
end
end
end
end
end
File.unlink ‘tmp.png’

 

Appendix C: Incorrect filters

A PNG scanline consists of a combination of a filter type byte and filtered pixel data. Deliberately making an incorrect combination is another technique in PNG glitching.
Figure C.1)
Figure C.1) PNG applied wrong filter types
The image above is generated by the code below.
In PNGlitch, the method graft is prepared so that the user can attach an incorrect filter type to a scanline.

 

require 'pnglitch'
PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |png|
  png.each_scanline do |line|
    line.graft rand(5)
  end
  png.save "png-glitch-graft.png"
end

 

 

This technique is convenient, even for checking how different the glitching effect of each filter is. Next five images are the results that applied one particular filter type byte to every scanline, without modifying scanline data.
Figure C.2)
Figure C.2) PNG applied wrong filter types, changing every filter type as None
Figure C.3)
Figure C.3) PNG applied wrong filter types, changing every filter type as Sub
Figure C.4)
Figure C.4) PNG applied wrong filter types, changing every filter type as Up
Figure C.5)
Figure C.5) PNG applied wrong filter types, changing every filter type as Average 
Figure C.6)
Figure C.6) PNG applied wrong filter types, changing every filter type as Paeth 

 

require 'pnglitch'
(0..4).each do |filter|
  PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |png|
    png.each_scanline do |line|
      line.graft filter
    end
    png.save "png-glitch-graft-#{filter}.png"
  end
end

 

 

Implementation of an incorrect filter

What will happen if an incorrect filter is implemented? PNGlitch is designed to allow the user to freely change filter methods, so the user can test what happens at that state. A normal viewer application that uses a standard filter method is decoding a PNG image that is encoded by a distinctive filter method. This will perhaps generate an algorithmic glitch (I will not argue about if we should call that a glitch or not). The images below are part of such generated images.
Figure C.7) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 1
Figure C.7) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 1

 

require 'pnglitch'
PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |p|
  p.each_scanline do |l|
    l.register_filter_encoder do |data, prev|
      data.size.times.reverse_each do |i|
        x = data.getbyte(i)
        v = prev ? prev.getbyte(i - 1) : 0
        data.setbyte(i, (x - v) & 0xff)
      end
      data
    end
  end
  p.output 'png-incorrect-filter01.png'
end

 

 

Figure C.8) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 2
Figure C.8) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 2

 

require 'pnglitch'
PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |p|
  p.change_all_filters 4
  p.each_scanline do |l|
    l.register_filter_encoder do |data, prev|
      data.size.times.reverse_each do |i|
        x = data.getbyte(i)
        v = prev ? prev.getbyte(i - 6) : 0
        data.setbyte(i, (x - v) & 0xff)
      end
      data
    end
  end
  p.output 'png-incorrect-filter02.png'
end

 

 

Figure C.9) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 3
Figure C.9) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 3

 

require 'pnglitch'
PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |png|
  png.change_all_filters 4
  sample_size = png.sample_size
  png.each_scanline do |l|
    l.register_filter_encoder do |data, prev|
      data.size.times.reverse_each do |i|
        x = data.getbyte i
        is_a_exist = i >= sample_size
        is_b_exist = !prev.nil?
        a = is_a_exist ? data.getbyte(i - sample_size) : 0
        b = is_b_exist ? prev.getbyte(i) : 0
        c = is_a_exist && is_b_exist ? prev.getbyte(i - sample_size) : 0
        p =  a + b - c
        pa = (p - a).abs
        pb = (p - b).abs
        pc = (p - c).abs
        pr = pa <= pb && pa <= pc ? a : pb <= pc ? b : c
        data.setbyte i, (x - pr) & 0xfe
      end
      data
    end
  end
  png.output 'png-incorrect-filter03.png'
end

 

 

Figure C.10) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 4
Figure C.10) PNG encoded with an incorrect filter 4

 

require 'pnglitch'
PNGlitch.open('png.png') do |p|
  p.change_all_filters 2
  p.each_scanline do |l|
    l.register_filter_encoder do |data, prev|
      data.size.times.reverse_each do |i|
        x = data.getbyte(i)
        v = prev ? prev.getbyte(i) : 0
        data.setbyte(i, (x - v) & 0xfe)
      end
      data
    end
  end
  p.output 'png-incorrect-filter04.png'
end

About the author

UCNV
He is a programmer and an artist based in Tokyo. He develops programs to damage images and movies, and creates visual works and gives performances with them.
http://ucnv.org/

Acknowledgment

Original photography by Takehiro Goto, and the Lena on the catalogue
Support for Japanese-English translation by Makoto Oshiro
Edit: After the publish of this article, we got a chance to argue about the use of the Lena image for technical demos. The image has a strange history to make people controversial. We hope readers to know the people’s reaction and this article’s position for the Lena. https://github.com/ucnv/pnglitch/pull/2
2015 UCNV

23 Απριλίου 2016

How to Disappear in America

Filed under: Notes — admin @ 11:04

How to Disappear in America

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_gIRdS4XPk]

The Quick and the Dead-Walker Art Center

Filed under: Notes — admin @ 10:59
Surveying art that tries to reach beyond itself and the limits of our knowledge and experience, The Quick and the Dead seeks, in part, to ask what is alive and dead within the legacy of conceptual art. Though the term “conceptual” has been applied to myriad kinds of art, it originally covered works and practices from the 1960s and ‘70s that emphasized the ideas behind or around a work of art, foregrounding language, action, and context rather than visual form. But this basic definition fails to convey the ambitions of many artists who have been variously described as conceptual: as Sol LeWitt asserted in 1969, conceptual artists are “mystics rather than rationalists.” Although some of their work involves unremarkable materials or even borders on the invisible, these artists explore new ways of thinking about time and space, often aspiring to realms and effects that fall far outside of our perceptual limitations. 
The exhibition title derives from a biblical phrase describing the judgment of the living and the dead at the end of time. But it has been used in innumerable ways since, including by the designer and engineer R. Buckminster Fuller, who in 1947 lauded what he called the “quick realities” of modern physics, condemning the “dead superstitions” of classical, object-based Newtonian theories. This distinction between objects and events underlined many conceptual practices of the late 1960s and ‘70s that pressed at the edges of the discernable—the work of artists like George Brecht, who seamlessly transformed objects into motionless events and asked us to consider “an art verging on the non-existent, dissolving into other dimensions;” Lygia Clark, whose foldable sculptures sought to dissolve the boundary between inside and outside, each “a static moment within the cosmological dynamics from which we came and to which we are going;” and James Lee Byars who, obsessed with a magically gothic idea of perfection that included metaphorical enactments of his own death, declared that “the perfect performance is to stand still.”
With an international group of 53 artists in a range of media, The Quick and the Dead expands beyond the here and now, reaffirming conceptual art’s ability to engage some of the deeper mysteries and questions of our lives. The exhibition brings together more than 90 works, juxtaposing a core group from the 1960s and ‘70s with more recent examples that might only loosely qualify as conceptual. Included in the show are new works made specifically for the exhibition and a number that have not been previously shown or realized. The presentation expands beyond the Walker’s main galleries to its public spaces, parking ramp, the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden, and the nearby Basilica of Saint Mary.

Artists in the Exhibition

Francis Alÿs, Robert Barry, Joseph Beuys, George Brecht, James Lee Byars, John Cage, Maurizio Cattelan, Paul Chan, Lygia Clark, Tony Conrad, Tacita Dean, Jason Dodge, Trisha Donnelly, Marcel Duchamp, Harold Edgerton, Ceal Floyer, Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Roger Hiorns, Douglas Huebler, Pierre Huyghe, The Institute For Figuring, Stephen Kaltenbach, On Kawara, Christine Kozlov, David Lamelas, Louise Lawler, Paul Etienne Lincoln, Mark Manders, Kris Martin, Steve McQueen, Helen Mirra, Catherine Murphy, Bruce Nauman, Rivane Neuenschwander, Claes Oldenburg, Roman Ondák, Giuseppe Penone, Susan Philipsz, Anthony Phillips, Adrian Piper, Steven Pippin, Paul Ramírez Jonas, Charles Ray, Tobias Rehberger, Hannah Rickards, Arthur Russell, Michael Sailstorfer, Roman Signer, Simon Starling, John Stezaker, Mladen Stilinović, Sturtevant, Shomei Tomatsu

Filed under: Animation works,Uncategorized — admin @ 08:58

Sword editing on Maya and after on Mudbox (in progress). Αντικειμενο για το matchmoving και τον χωρο

20 Απριλίου 2016

ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΑ Στο 10ο Φεστιβάλ Οπτικοακουστικών Τεχνών θα πραγματοποιηθούν εξειδικευμένα θεματικά εργαστήρια.

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 16:46

http://avarts.ionio.gr/festival/2016/gr/workshops/registration/
bodies Ακραία σώματα – Sumo, butoh και τέχνη της performance
game Επισκόπηση στον Ήχο Παιχνιδιού
stories Δρόμος και χωρικές ιστορίες: Η ποιητική και η πολιτική του περπατήματος
mapping Χαρτογράφηση: σκέψεις για τους χάρτες και την οπτικοποίηση
translation Comics Translation Workshop: Μια πρακτική προσέγγιση
writing Λέξεις Χαμένες και Εντοπισμένες: Ένα εργαστήρι Δημιουργικής Γραφής μέσα από Άνισες Λέξεις
habitual Kινούμενοι Πέρα Από το Σύνηθες: Η Σωματική Εκπαίδευση στην Προετοιμασία του Performer
video Βίντεο Τέχνη: η χρήση της Τεχνολογίας στη Τέχνη
hybrid Η Επιμέλεια Εκθέσεων στις Υβριδικές Τέχνες
bio Bio Art
experiential Βιωματικό Εργαστήριο: ΤΠΕ και Συνεργατική Δημιουργικότητα στο Σύγχρονο Σχολείο
transgression H υπέρβαση της μουσικής μας ταυτότητας: από το δημοτικό τραγούδι στο παραβατικό ρεμπέτικο και από το συρτάκι του «Ζορμπά» στο ψυχεδελικό postfolk του 21ου αιώνα
solan Sound over LAN
participating Συμμετοχική Κάμερα, σωματική εμπειρία και πρακτική: κινηματογραφώντας σ(το) κοινωνικό πεδίο

16 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: UNCLASSIFIED 1 — admin @ 12:45

14 Απριλίου 2016

examples

Filed under: ΚΑΛΛΙΤΕΧΝΕΣ-ARTISTS — admin @ 09:22

https://player.vimeo.com/video/93658299 Travelogues from Diller Scofidio + Renfro on Vimeo.

13 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: UNCLASSIFIED 1 — admin @ 16:47

Filed under: UNCLASSIFIED 1 — admin @ 16:42

t6est- ergasia

Filed under: UNCLASSIFIED 1 — admin @ 10:01

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuiR_MsKwro]

8 Απριλίου 2016

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 09:45
[DCG15] (De-)Construct Gender: Urban Culture for Equality and Sexual Diversity (Baltrum 2015): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXbcAJYeTGA0SGa1YrpFKir4LxgEy4rOB
Στο παρά πάνω playlist  διαδραματίζεται μία σειρά Από καλλιτεχνικά βίντεο που έλαβαν μέρος στην κολώνια και στο νησί baltrum της γερμανικής χώρας.
Υπό την αιγίδα της ευρωπαϊκής ένωσης, το Erasmus + καθώς μεγάλο ρόλο λαμβάνει και η UNESCO.
Ή οικογένεια του Routes &Roots είναι εν σύνολο δράσεων με στόχο την εκμάθηση και  το συνεργατικό πνεύμα με βάση ενα θεματικό. Ένα υπέροχο παιχνίδι εκμάθησης και συνεργασίας με άτομα από όλη την ευρωπη.
Σε αυτή την οικογένεια λοιπόν έχω την τύχη να είμαι και εγώ με την σειρά ένα μέλος της κερδίζοντας ίσως πρός το τις καλύτερες εμπειρίες της ζωή μου.
Σε αυτή την σειρά από βίντεο 51 άτομα εντός 17 ημερών κλήθηκαν να αποφέρουν έργο με θεματικό το ” sexual diversity”.
Ήμουν σε ευχάριστη θέση να λάβω θέση από μοντέλο φωτογράφισης σε κινηματογραφιστή, ηχολήπτη καθώς και στο ποιό δύσκολο κομμάτι το μοντάζ.[DCG15] (De-)Construct Gender: Urban Culture for Equality and Sexual Diversity (Baltrum 2015): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXbcAJYeTGA0SGa1YrpFKir4LxgEy4rOB

7 Απριλίου 2016

Wipe Cycle – Frank Gillette & Ira Schneider 1969

Wipe Cycle – Frank Gillette & Ira Schneider 1969

With nine monitors and a live camera, “Wipe Cycle”  transposes present-time demands as a way to disrupt television’s one-sided flow of information. In the exhibition “TV as a Creative Medium,” the installation was constructed before the elevator. So each visitor was immediately confronted with his or her own image. But the monitors also showed two video tapes and a television program. The installation, which made visitors a part of the information, was rigged in a highly complicated fashion: in four cycles, images wandered from one monitor to the other delayed by eight or sixteen seconds, while counter-clockwise a gray light impulse wiped out all the images every two seconds.
(Source: «Video-Skulptur retrospektiv und aktuell 1963–1989», Wulf Herzogenrath/Edith Decker (eds.), Cologne, 1989, p. 114.)
…The effect of Wipe Cycle, by the young New York artists Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider, was to integrate the viewer and his local environment into the larger macrosystem of information transmission. Wipe Cycle was first exhibited at the Howard Wise Gallery in New York in 1969 (“TV as a Creative Medium). It consisted of nine monitors whose displays were controlled by synchronized cycle patterns of live and delayed feedback, broadcast television, and taped programming shot by Gillette and Schneider with portable equipment. These were displayed through alternations of four programmed pulse signals every two, four, eight, and sixteen seconds. Separately, each of the cycles acted as a layer of video information, while all four levels in concert determined the overall composition of the work at any given moment.
“The most important function of Wipe Cycle,” Schneider explained, “was to integrate the audience into the information. It was a live feedback system which enabled the viewer standing within its environment to see himself not only now in time and space, but also eight seconds ago and sixteen seconds ago. In addition he saw standard broadcast images alternating with his own delayed/live image. And also two collage-type programmed tapes, ranging from a shot of the earth, to outer space, to cows grazing, and a ‘skin flick’ bathtub scene.”
“It was an attempt,” Gillette added, “to demonstrate that you’re as much a piece of information as tomorrow morning’s headlines – as a viewer you take a satellite relationship to the information. And the satellite which is you is incorporated into the thing which is being sent back to the satellite. In other words, rearranging one’s experience of information reception.”* Thus in Wipe Cycle several levels of time and space were synthesized into one audio-visual experience on many simultaneous frequencies of perception. What is, what has been, and what could be, were merged into one engrossing teledynamic continuum and the process of communication was brought into focus.
(*) From an interview with Frank Gillette and Ira Schneider by Jud Yalkut in “Film,” East Village Other, August 6, 1969.
– Gene Youngblood: EXPANDED CINEMA, 1970, pp.341-343 (Closed-Circuit Television and Teledynamic Environments)

6 Απριλίου 2016

The Truth of Art

Filed under: ΚΕΙΜΕΝΑ — admin @ 17:57

Boris Groys

 Truth of Art

The central question to be asked about art is this one: Is art capable of being a medium of truth? This question is central to the existence and survival of art because if art cannot be a medium of truth then art is only a matter of taste. One has to accept the truth even if one does not like it. But if art is only a matter of taste, then the art spectator becomes more important than the art producer. In this case art can be treated only sociologically or in terms of the art market—it has no independence, no power. Art becomes identical to design.
Now, there are different ways in which we can speak about art as a medium of truth. Let me take one of these ways. Our world is dominated by big collectives: states, political parties, corporations, scientific communities, and so forth. Inside these collectives the individuals cannot experience the possibilities and limitations of their own actions—these actions become absorbed by the activities of the collective. However, our art system is based on the presupposition that the responsibility for producing this or that individual art object, or undertaking this or that artistic action, belongs to an individual artist alone. Thus, in our contemporary world art is the only recognized field of personal responsibility. There is, of course, an unrecognized field of personal responsibility—the field of criminal actions. The analogy between art and crime has a long history. I will not go into it. Today I would, rather, like to ask the following question: To what degree and in what way can individuals hope to change the world they are living in? Let us look at art as a field in which attempts to change the world are regularly undertaken by artists and see how these attempts function. In the framework of this text, I am not so much interested in the results of these attempts as the strategies that the artists use to realize them.
Indeed, if artists want to change the world the following question arises: In what way is art able to influence the world in which we live? There are basically two possible answers to this question. The first answer: art can capture the imagination and change the consciousness of people. If the consciousness of people changes, then the changed people will also change the world in which they live. Here art is understood as a kind of language that allows artists to send a message. And this message is supposed to enter the souls of the recipients, change their sensibility, their attitudes, their ethics. It is, let’s say, an idealistic understanding of art—similar to our understanding of religion and its impact on the world.
However, to be able to send a message the artist has to share the language that his or her audience speaks. The statues in ancient temples were regarded as embodiments of the gods: they were revered, one kneeled down before them in prayer and supplication, one expected help from them and feared their wrath and threat of punishment. Similarly, the veneration of icons has a long history within Christianity—even if God is deemed to be invisible. Here the common language had its origin in the common religious tradition.
However, no modern artist can expect anyone to kneel before his work in prayer, seek practical assistance from it, or use it to avert danger. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Hegel diagnosed this loss of a common faith in embodied, visible divinities as the reason for art losing its truth: according to Hegel the truth of art became a thing of the past. (He speaks about pictures, thinking of the old religions vs. invisible law, reason, and science that rule the modern world.) Of course, in the course of modernity many modern and contemporary artists have tried to regain a common language with their audiences by the means of political or ideological engagement of one sort or another. The religious community was thus replaced by a political movement in which artists and their audiences both participated.
However, art, to be politically effective, to be able to be used as political propaganda, has to be liked by its public. But the community that is built on the basis of finding certain artistic projects good and likable is not necessarily a transformative community—a community that can truly change the world. We know that to be considered as really good (innovative, radical, forward looking), modern artworks are supposed to be rejected by their contemporaries—otherwise, these artworks come under suspicion of being conventional, banal, merely commercially oriented. (We know that politically progressive movements were often culturally conservative—and in the end it was this conservative dimension that prevailed.) That is why contemporary artists distrust the taste of the public. And the contemporary public, actually, also distrusts its own taste. We tend to think that the fact that we like an artwork could mean that this artwork is not good enough—and the fact that we do not like an artwork could mean that this artwork is really good. Kazimir Malevich believed that the greatest enemy of the artist is sincerity: artists should never do what they sincerely like because they probably like something that is banal and artistically irrelevant. Indeed, the artistic avant-gardes did not want to be liked. And—what is even more important—they did not want to be “understood,” did not want to share the language which their audience spoke. Accordingly, the avant-gardes were extremely skeptical toward the possibility of influencing the souls of the public and building a community of which they would be a part.

Dziga Vertov kneels to shoot a train in Man with a Movie Camera (1929).
At this point the second possibility to change the world by art comes into play. Here art is understood not as the production of messages, but rather as the production of things. Even if artists and their audience do not share a language, they share the material world in which they live. As a specific kind of technology art does not have a goal to change the soul of its spectators. Rather, it changes the world in which these spectators actually live—and by trying to accommodate themselves to the new conditions of their environment, they change their sensibilities and attitudes. Speaking in Marxist terms: art can be seen as a part of the superstructure or as a part of the material basis. Or, in other words, art can be understood as ideology or as technology. The radical artistic avant-gardes pursued this second, technological way of world transformation. They tried to create new environments that would change people through puttting them inside these new environments. In its most radical form this concept was pursued by the avant-garde movements of the 1920s: Russian constructivism, Bauhaus, De Stijl. The art of the avant-garde did not want to be liked by the public as it was. The avant-garde wanted to create a new public for its art. Indeed, if one is compelled to live in a new visual surrounding, one begins to accommodate one’s own sensibility to it and learn to like it. (The Eiffel Tower is a good example.) Thus, the artists of the avant-garde also wanted to build a community—but they didn’t see themselves as a part of this community. They shared with their audiences a world—but not a language.
Of course, the historical avant-garde itself was a reaction to the modern technology that permanently changed and still changes our environment. This reaction was ambiguous. The artists felt a certain affinity with the artificiality of the new, technological world. But at the same time they were irritated by the lack of direction and ultimate purpose that is characteristic of technological progress. (Marshall McLuhan: artists moved from the ivory tower to the control tower.) This goal was understood by the avant-garde as the politically and aesthetically perfect society—as utopia, if one is still ready to use this word. Here utopia is nothing else but the end stage of historical development—a society that is in no further need of change, that does not presuppose any further progress. In other words, artistic collaboration with technological progress had the goal of stopping this progress.
This conservatism—it can also be a revolutionary conservatism—inherent to art is in no way accidental. What is art then? If art is a kind of technology, then the artistic use of technology is different from the nonartistic use of it. Technological progress is based on a permanent replacement of old, obsolete things by new (better) things. (Not innovation but improvement—innovation can only be in art: the black square.) Art technology, on the contrary, is not a technology of improvement and replacement, but rather of conservation and restoration—technology that brings the remnants of the past into the present and brings things of the present into the future. Martin Heidegger famously believed that in this way the truth of art is regained: by stopping technological progress at least for a moment, art can reveal the truth of the technologically defined world and the fate of the humans inside this world. However, Heidegger also believed that this revelation is only momentary: in the next moment, the world that was opened by the artwork closes again—and the artwork becomes an ordinary thing that is treated as such by our art institutions. Heidegger dismisses this profane aspect of the artwork as irrelevant for the essential, truly philosophical understanding of art—because for Heidegger it is the spectator who is the subject of such an essential understanding and not the art dealer or museum curator.
And, indeed, even if the museum visitor sees the artworks as isolated from profane, practical life, the museum staff never experiences the artworks in this sacralized way. The museum staff does not contemplate artworks but regulates the temperature and humidity level in the museum spaces, restores these artworks, removes the dust and dirt from them. In dealing with the artworks there is the perspective of the museum visitor—but there is also the perspective of the cleaning lady who cleans the museum space as she would clean any other space. The technology of conservation, restoration, and exhibition are profane technologies—even if they produce objects of aesthetic contemplation. There is a profane life inside the museum—and it is precisely this profane life and profane practice that allow the museum items to function as aesthetic objects. The museum does not need any additional profanation, any additional effort to bring art into life or life into art—the museum is already profane through and through. The museum, as well as the art market, treat artworks not as messages but as profane things.
Usually, this profane life of art is protected from the public view by the museum’s walls. Of course, at least from the beginning of the twentieth century art of the historical avant-garde tried to thematize, to reveal the factual, material, profane dimension of art. However, the avant-garde never fully succeeded in its quest for the real because the reality of art, its material side that the avant-garde tried to thematize, was permanently re-aestheticized—these thematizations having been put under the standard conditions of art representation. The same can be said of institutional critique, which also tried to thematize the profane, factual side of art institutions. Institutional critique also remained inside art institutions. Now, I would argue that this situation has changed in recent years—due to the internet and to the fact that the internet has replaced traditional art institutions as the main platform for the production and distribution of art. The internet thematizes precisely the profane dimension of art. Why? The answer to this question is simple enough: in our contemporary world the internet is the place of production and exposure of art at the same time.

A movie theater audience participates by calling out in response to onscreen actors’ lines at a screening of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
This represents a significant departure from past modes of artistic production. As I’ve noted previously:
Traditionally, the artist produced an artwork in his or her studio, hidden from public view, and then exhibited a result, a product—an artwork that accumulated and recuperated the time of absence. This time of temporary absence is constitutive for what we call the creative process—in fact, it is precisely what we call the creative process.
André Breton tells a story about a French poet who, when he went to sleep, put on his door a sign that read: “Please, be quiet—the poet is working.” This anecdote summarizes the traditional understanding of creative work: creative work is creative because it takes place beyond public control—and even beyond the conscious control of the author. This time of absence could last days, months, years—even a whole lifetime. Only at the end of this period of absence was the author expected to present a work (maybe found in his papers posthumously) that would then be accepted as creative precisely because it seemed to emerge out of nothingness.1
In other words, creative work is work that presupposes the desynchronization of the time of work and the time of the exposure of the results of this work. The reason is not that the artist has committed a crime or has a dirty secret he or she wants to keep from the gaze of others. The gaze of others is experienced by us as an evil eye not when it wants to penetrate our secrets and make them transparent (such a penetrating gaze is rather flattering and exciting), but when it denies that we have any secrets, when it reduces us to what it sees and registers—when the gaze of others banalizes, trivializes us. (Sartre: the other is hell, the gaze of the other denies us our project. Lacan: the eye of the other is always an evil eye.)
Today the situation has changed. Contemporary artists work using the internet—and also put their work on the internet. Artworks by a particular artist can be found on the internet when I google the name of this artist—and they are shown to me in the context of other information that I find on the internet about this artist: biography, other works, political activities, critical reviews, details of the artist’s personal life, and so forth. Here I mean not the fictional, authorial subject allegedly investing the artwork with his intentions and with meanings that should be hermeneutically deciphered and revealed. This authorial subject has already been deconstructed and proclaimed dead many times over. I mean the real person existing in the off-line reality to which the internet data refers. This author uses the internet not only to produce art, but also to buy tickets, make restaurant reservations, conduct business, and so forth. All these activities take place in the same integrated space of the internet—and all of them are potentially accessible to other internet users. Here the artwork becomes “real” and profane because it becomes integrated into the information about its author as a real, profane person. Art is presented on the internet as a specific kind of activity: as documentation of a real working process taking place in the real, off-line world. Indeed, on the internet art operates in the same space as military planning, tourist business, capital flows, and so forth: Google shows, among other things, that there are no walls in internet space. A user of the internet does not switch from the everyday use of things to their disinterested contemplation—the internet user uses the information about art in the same way in which he or she uses information about all other things in the world. It is as if we have all become the museum’s or gallery’s staff—art being documented explicitly as taking place in the unified space of profane activities.
The word “documentation” is crucial here. During recent decades the documentation of art has been more and more included in art exhibitions and art museums—alongside traditional artworks. But this arena has always seemed highly problematic. Artworks are art—they immediately demonstrate themselves as art. So they can be admired, emotionally experienced, and so forth. But art documentation is not art: it merely refers to an art event, or exhibition, or installation, or project which we assume has really taken place. Art documentation refers to art but it is not art. That is why art documentation can be reformatted, rewritten, extended, shortened, and so forth. One can subject art documentation to all these operations that are forbidden in the case of an artwork because these operations change the form of the artwork. And the form of the artwork is institutionally guaranteed because only the form guarantees the reproducibility and identity of this artwork. On the contrary, the documentation can be changed at will because its identity and reproducibility is guaranteed by its “real,” external referent and not by its form. But even if the emergence of art documentation precedes the emergence of the internet as an art medium, only the introduction of the internet has given art documentation a legitimate place. (Here one can say like Benjamin noted: montage in art and cinema).
Meanwhile, art institutions themselves have begun to use the internet as a primary space for their self-representation. Museums put their collections on display on the internet. And, of course, digital depositories of art images are much more compact and much cheaper to maintain than traditional art museums. Thus, museums are able to present the parts of their collections that are usually kept in storage. The same can be said about the websites of individual artists—one can find there the fullest representation of what they are doing. It is what artists usually show to visitors who come to their studios nowadays: if one comes to a studio to see a particular artist’s work, this artist usually puts a laptop on the table and shows the documentation of his or her activities, including production of artworks but also his or her participation in long-term projects, temporary installations, urban interventions, political actions, and so forth. The actual work of the contemporary artist is his or her CV.

Frances Bacon’s studio, photographed by Perry Ogden.
Today, artists, like other individuals and organizations, try to escape total visibility by creating sophisticated systems of passwords and data protection. As I’ve argued in the past, with regard to internet surveillance:
Today, subjectivity has become a technical construction: the contemporary subject is defined as an owner of a set of passwords that he or she knows—and that other people do not know. The contemporary subject is primarily a keeper of a secret. In a certain sense, this is a very traditional definition of the subject: the subject was long defined as knowing something about itself that only God knew, something that other people could not know because they were ontologically prevented from “reading one’s thoughts.” Today, however, being a subject has less to do with ontological protection, and more to do with technically protected secrets. The internet is the place where the subject is originally constituted as a transparent, observable subject—and only afterwards begins to be technically protected in order to conceal the originally revealed secret. However, every technical protection can be broken. Today, the hermeneutiker has become a hacker. The contemporary internet is a place of cyber wars in which the prize is the secret. And to know the secret is to control the subject constituted by this secret—and the cyber wars are the wars of this subjectivation and desubjectivation. But these wars can take place only because the internet is originally the place of transparency …
The results of surveillance are sold by the corporations that control the internet because they own the means of production, the material-technical basis of the internet. One should not forget that the internet is owned privately. And its profit comes mostly from targeted advertisements. This leads to an interesting phenomenon: the monetization of hermeneutics. Classical hermeneutics, which searched for the author behind the work, was criticized by the theoreticians of structuralism, close reading, and so forth, who thought that it made no sense to chase ontological secrets that are inaccessible by definition. Today this old, traditional hermeneutics is reborn as a means of economically exploiting subjects operating on the internet, where all the secrets are supposedly revealed. The subject is here no longer concealed behind his or her work. The surplus value that such a subject produces and that is appropriated by internet corporations is the hermeneutic value: the subject not only does something on the internet, but also reveals him- or herself as a human being with certain interests, desires, and needs. The monetization of classical hermeneutics is one of the most interesting processes that has emerged in recent decades. The artist is interesting not as producer but as consumer. Artistic production by a content provider is only a means of anticipating this content provider’s future consumption behavior—and it is this anticipation alone that is relevant here because it brings profit.2

Mark Zuckerberg unveils a Facebook team dedicated to creating social experiences in virtual reality.
But here the following question emerges: who is the spectator on the internet? The individual human being cannot be such a spectator. But the internet also does not need God as its spectator—the internet is big but finite. Actually, we know who the spectator is on the internet: it is the algorithm—like algorithms used by Google and the NSA.
But now let me return to the initial question concerning the truth of art—understood as a demonstration of the possibilities and limitations of the individual’s actions in the world. Earlier I discussed artistic strategies designed to influence the world: by persuasion or by accommodation. Both of these strategies presuppose what can be named the surplus of vision on the part of the artist—in comparison to the horizon of his or her audience. Traditionally, the artist was considered to be an extraordinary person who was able to see what “average,” “normal” people could not see. This surplus of vision was supposed to be communicated to the audience by the power of the image or by the force of technological change. However, under the conditions of the internet the surplus of vision is on the side of the algorithmic gaze—and no longer on the side of the artist. This gaze sees the artist, but remains invisible to him (at least insofar as the artist will not begin to create algorithms—which will change artistic activity because they are invisible—but will only create visibility). Perhaps artists can still see more than ordinary human beings—but they see less than the algorithm. Artists lose their extraordinary position—but this loss is compensated: instead of being extraordinary the artist becomes paradigmatic, exemplary, representative.
Indeed, the emergence of the internet leads to an explosion of mass artistic production. In recent decades artistic practice has become as widespread as, earlier, only religion and politics were. Today we live in times of mass art production, rather than in times of mass art consumption. Contemporary means of image production, such as photo and video cameras, are relatively cheap and universally accessible. Contemporary internet platforms and social networks like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram allow populations around the global to make their photos, videos, and texts universally accessible—avoiding control and censorship by traditional institutions. At the same time, contemporary design makes it possible for the same populations to shape and experience their apartments or workplaces as artistic installations. And diet, fitness, and cosmetic surgery allow them to fashion their bodies into art objects. In our times almost everyone takes photographs, makes videos, write texts, documents their activities—and then puts the documentation on the internet. In earlier times we talked about mass cultural consumption, but today we have to speak about mass cultural production. Under the condition of modernity the artist was a rare, strange figure. Today there is nobody who is not involved in artistic activity of some kind.
Thus, today everybody is involved in a complicated play with the gaze of the other. It is this play that is paradigmatic of our time, but we still don’t know its rules. Professional art, though, has a long history of this play. The poets and artists of the Romantic period already began to see their own lives as their actual artworks. Nietzsche says in his Birth of Tragedythat to be an artwork is better than to be an artist. (To become an object is better than to become a subject—to be admired is better than to admire.) We can read Baudelaire’s texts about the strategy of seduction, and we can read Roger Caillois and Jacques Lacan on the mimicry of the dangerous or on luring the evil gaze of the other into a trap by means of art. Of course, one can say that the algorithm cannot be seduced or frightened. However, this is not what is actually at stake here.
Artistic practice is usually understood as being individual and personal. But what does the individual or personal actually mean? The individual is often understood as being different from the others. (In a totalitarian society, everyone is alike. In a democratic, pluralistic society, everyone is different—and respected as being different.) However, here the point is not so much one’s difference from others but one’s difference from oneself—the refusal to be identified according to the general criteria of identification. Indeed, the parameters that define our socially codified, nominal identity are foreign to us. We have not chosen our names, we have not been consciously present at the date and place of our birth, we have not chosen our parents, our nationality, and so forth. All these external parameters of our personality do not correlate to any subjective evidence that we may have. They indicate only how others see us.
Already a long time ago modern artists practiced a revolt against the identities which were imposed on them by others—by society, the state, schools, parents. They affirmed the right of sovereign self-identification. They defied expectations related to the social role of art, artistic professionalism, and aesthetic quality. But they also undermined the national and cultural identities that were ascribed to them. Modern art understood itself as a search for the “true self.” Here the question is not whether the true self is real or merely a metaphysical fiction. The question of identity is not a question of truth but a question of power: Who has the power over my own identity—I myself or society? And, more generally: Who exercises control and sovereignty over the social taxonomy, the social mechanisms of identification—state institutions or I myself? The struggle against my own public persona and nominal identity in the name of my sovereign persona or sovereign identity also has a public, political dimension because it is directed against the dominating mechanisms of identification—the dominating social taxonomy, with all its divisions and hierarchies. Later, these artists mostly gave up the search for the hidden, true self. Rather, they began to use their nominal identities as ready-mades—and to organize a complicated play with them. But this strategy still presupposes a disidentification from nominal, socially codified identities—with the goal of artistically reappropriating, transforming, and manipulating them. The politics of modern and contemporary art is the politics of nonidentity. Art says to its spectator: I am not what you think I am (in stark contrast to: I am what I am). The desire for nonidentity is, actually, a genuinely human desire—animals accept their identity but human animals do not. It is in this sense that we can speak about the paradigmatic, representative function of art and artist.
The traditional museum system is ambivalent in relation to the desire for nonidentity. On the one hand, the museum offers to the artist a chance to transcend his or her own time, with all its taxonomies and nominal identities. The museum promises to carry the artist’s work into the future. However, the museum betrays this promise at the same moment it fulfills it. The artist’s work is carried into the future—but the nominal identity of the artist becomes reimposed on his or her work. In the museum catalogue we still read the artist’s name, date and place of birth, nationality, and so forth. (That is why modern art wanted to destroy the museum.)
Let me conclude by saying something good about the internet. The internet is organized in a less historicist way than traditional libraries and museums. The most interesting aspect of the internet as an archive is precisely the possibilities for decontextualization and recontextualization through the operations of cut and paste that the internet offers its users. Today we are more interested in the desire for nonidentity that leads artists out of their historical contexts than in these contexts themselves. And it seems to me that the internet gives us more chances to follow and understand the artistic strategies of nonidentity than traditional archives and institutions.
×

© 2016 e-flux and the author

A Conversation with Martha Rosler, Nancy Buchanan, and Andrea Bowers

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 17:53

Saisha Grayson

Agitprop!: A Conversation with Martha Rosler, Nancy Buchanan, and Andrea Bowers

Saisha Grayson: Because we think of you all as co-curators of this exhibition, I wanted to start by talking about how the invitation to nominate a fellow artist struck you when we first presented that as part of the invitation to participate in an exhibition. It’s sort of an unusual model.1 
MR: It threw me into an absolute panic. It took me ages to answer. There were so many aspects of art and activism to consider, not to mention the title of the show, which is “Agitprop!”


Artist and activist Michael Zinzun reports for Message to the Grassroots, 1992.
That’s a very specific type of address to the public. I’ve been an ardent supporter of Nancy’s work for decades upon decades, ever since we knew each other in California. Her work is complex, always political in every aspect—feminist and other forms of activism, as well as always embodied. Political thinking pervades everything she does.
Because of the “agitprop” part of the brief, I thought that it would be really important to highlight Message to the Grassroots, which was an hour-long, monthly television show she hosted and coproduced with activist Michael Zinzun, every month in LA, for nearly ten years, until it was brought to a close by Michael’s untimely death in 2006. It was a show which I thought spoke to every audience, but certainly to the present one. And for many reasons, it exemplified not only Nancy’s commitment to speaking, if you’ll allow me, to the grassroots, but also her feminism in her collaborative relationship to it, and her willingness to sort of take a backseat in its public presentation.
Nancy Buchanan: When I was thinking about who to nominate, actually very quickly I thought of Andrea because her work always involves an activist group. She has managed, somehow, to bridge so many different issues with her work, and yet still present things that are elegant, that are beautiful, but that bring in a lot more than just the artwork. Usually, there’s a component that involves some kind of activity out in the real world. So that people come away not just educated about the issue, but able to contribute to change.
Andrea Bowers: I didn’t have to curate anyone. But I’m so honored to be in this chain, because I think one of the most important things for me, as an artist, is the ethical aspects of it. And I think there’s probably five artists who I really look to for guidance in these issues. And two of them are sitting on the stage right now.
SG: I was hoping you might talk a little bit about how each of you decided it made sense to fuse your activism and your art. For some of you that’s something that happened right away, and for some of you, art and activism were separate practices that merged later on.
NB: Well, when I was an art student, I was also demonstrating against the war in Vietnam. And then I realized that I didn’t have to compartmentalize my life, that I could bring the subject right into my practice. That was an amazing revelation at the time, because it wasn’t a very popular thing at that moment in some art circles. Since then, one of the central questions that I’ve always had is: How can the individuals responsible for some of the problems that we see think the way they do?
When I met Michael, I was actually doing community art workshops in the city of Pasadena. They had just set up their cable television station. And I did these workshops for adults and children. And I’d met Michael on an art panel, actually, in an exhibit. And then, later on, just as I was planning to leave the Public Access Corporation, he walked in and said, “I want to produce a show.”
And I said, oh, great. I’d like to help you. And that was that. When I went on to work at CalArts, we had a public program where artists and students went out into the community and did their workshops with a partner organization. I was in the Film School, and I was partnered with the Watts Towers Arts Center. And I said, well, if I’m going to go to this center, I would like a collaborator who really knows this community. And so I said I would only do it if they also hired Michael. So we also did these workshops together with people down in Watts, which included some of the members of the groups that came together in the historic gang truce in 1992. And so that was part of our show and also part of our workshops.

Martha Rosler, Afghanistan (?) and Iraq (?), (Detail), 2008. Photomontage. This image constitutes the right half of a diptych.
SG: Very cool. And Martha?
MR: Yeah, art and activism. I grew up about ten blocks from here, in Brooklyn, and when I was a junior in high school I was an Abstract Expressionist painter in training. The  Brooklyn Museum hosted an art school that was, one could say, pitched at Sunday painters. But, I was a high school kid, and anyway, there were serious painters teaching there. And that’s where I was as an artist when I also became a protester, first, against having to take cover for air raid drills, which I always thought was ridiculous. As though we can hide from nuclear bombs! But it was illegal to not take cover in those days, to be standing in a public space when you were supposed to be cowering in a cellar.
But it took me a while to integrate any kind of subjectivity, aside from an abstract one, into my work. It first happened, actually, in my use of photography, because I had gotten the idea that abstract painters dealt with narrativity by taking photographs of things, in real everyday life.
Martha Rosler, Untitled (Small Wonder), 1972. Photomontage.
I think feminism was the first activist practice that made a direct appearance in my work, when I started making montages of the representation of women in magazines and newspapers, especially in ads. It was always a question of how representation produces and promotes and carries forward a picture of who we are. But one day, sitting at my mother’s dining room table, looking at a photograph of a Vietnamese woman swimming across the river with a child, desperately trying to escape, it occurred to me that that kind of imagery was central to trying to talk about who are we, and who are the supposed “theys” on the other side. And I realized that I could incorporate this idea into the work that I was doing. But it took me about six or seven years to quit the painting, which I carried on simultaneously. But at that point, I was doing activist work, which I kept out of the art world. I have to say it was not intended for the art world. It really was agitprop!
SG: This definition of agitprop came up during the nomination discussion. You said that it means something quite specific to you, that it refers to how something is distributed, where it lands originally. You also mentioned being an abstract painter. Andrea, you mentioned that male activists, in your opinion, were sometimes like abstract painters. Can you talk a little about where that critique comes from?
AB: From studying with many feminists? I went to school and studied with Millie Wilson. Nancy was there. And also with Charles Gaines and Michael Asher.
I became really aware of issues of subjectivity, and that that was the standard modernist methodology for how you work. What did Pollock say? That he was painting his internal arena or something like that? It just seemed that if that was the standard, then women and artists of color just didn’t live up to it. And so I didn’t want to work that way. I wanted to throw that out the window.
So in almost all of my work, there are jabs at these involuntary, expressive, emotional, dysfunctional men that are celebrated in the art world. Once I became really involved in activism I realized that these same personalities existed there too, especially in climate justice and environmentalism. Just because I was doing activism didn’t mean I was overcoming patriarchy or mansplaining. So I’ve been making some work that comments on that.

Andrea Bowers, Radical Feminist Pirate Ship Tree Sitting Platform, 2013. Recycled wood, rope, carabiners, misc. equipment and supplies. Photo: Nick Ash.
SG: This one you said is a radical feminist pirate ship.
AB: Yeah. I got arrested for tree sitting in Arcadia, California. There was a forest of 250 pristine oaks and sycamores. I’d never walked on ground like that, where no one’s ever walked, it was this really soft kind of growth. Plus it was pitch black, because we were breaking in at four o’clock in the morning. There were four of us, including this young man named Travis who spent three of the last six years as an Earth First! activist living in a tree in Northern California.
He doesn’t really make money living in a tree. He’s doing really good work, but he has no money. So, every once in a while, he would call and say, do you have any work for me? And I said, well, sure, let’s make some sort of pimp-my-ride tree-sitting platforms, because when you’re in a tree, you can’t sit on a tree branch for a year. You have to have a platform up there. And I thought it would be really funny to make these really accessorized tree-sitting platforms.
And I just see them as super, elaborate, ornate, political posters, because they’re covered in slogans, and they’re just really entertaining. Often, you can sit in them.
So I had said to Travis, “Travis, so what’s your dream tree-sitting platform?” And he was like, “A pirate ship.” And I got so pissed off because I would never have thought of that. Of course a guy would make that. I just don’t have that mentality. So then, I thought, I’ll make this radical, pirate, tree-sitting platform. There is this amazing quote from Mary Daly where she says:
Ever since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a radical feminist pirate and cultivating the courage to win. The word “sin” is derived from the Indo-European root “es-,” meaning “to be.” When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy … “to be” in the fullest sense is “to sin.”
But then I found out that Mary Daly wrote—and it was a long time ago—a lot of transphobic comments. And I didn’t know that. I hadn’t done my research properly, and so that’s kind of the problem with the piece, which I decided to correct with this show, actually, that’s up now.
SG: That’s always an interesting question, sort of how I think all of you have so many intersexual—intersectional—issues.
AB: We do.
(Rosler laughs)
SG: Intersexual, intersectional, they’re all of a piece. There’s an origin in feminism, but it leads you to many different places. How do you prioritize when you’re across-the-board concerned about economic injustice, environmentalism, racial issues? How do you move between these?
NB: I’ve been, in the last many years, actually, really concerned about money and consumption. And so, for me, it’s like, how can I bring the issue of commodification and consumerism really upfront? What’s a new way to do that? Because that’s at the bottom of so much that’s wrong.
It’s the problem with police brutality. It’s the problem with housing. It’s the problem with most everything, these issues of disempowerment and inequality. And so, because of how widespread a problem it is, there’s always a new way to represent it. The image is from a web-based piece that was called Sleep Secure, which invited visitors to the website to create a pattern inside one of the slices of the annual pie chart made by the War Resisters League.
Every year they make a pie chart to show you what US taxes are spent on. I tried to find web-based images for these different categories, so you could click on one of the slices and kind of play with it. You could make a pretty pattern. But you could also print out that pattern and make your own real, physical—as in, not-virtual—quilt. You could save your decorative pies on the website, and share them, too.
I like to use humor with things, when I can, and make them playful. The image is a flag embroidered with sequins representing income inequality. I had glommed onto George H. W. Bush’s statement about voodoo economics. And I thought, okay, all right, let’s make some voodoo flags about economics.

Nancy Buchanan, Income Increases, 2002. Embroidery with sequins.
SG: Martha, your Garage Sales are also a feminizing of an economic critique, or getting at international economics by way of the domestic.
MR: There’s an extensive, direct quote from the chapter on commodity fetishism in volume one of Capital that played continuously throughout each of the Garage Sales. I understood that when you say to someone, “Here’s some cheap stuff!” they’re not listening to somebody talking about commodity fetishism. But it represents an unacknowledged background to a general critique.
But this, in and of itself, is a playing out of the tacit underpinnings of our lives, which are often neither audible, nor visible, even though they’re in our face every minute. Which is kind of what Nancy was talking about when both she and Michael were pointing out, bluntly, how neoliberal capitalism basically controls who we are and how we inhabit our social spaces.
AB: Martha, the night before last you were talking about the cycle of visibility for women artists, about being invisible for decades and then suddenly visible when they want the old broads back again.
MR: Yes, every actress will tell you this as well. As a young female, you’re a phenom, the talking dog. Like: “Wow! She’s got this shape, and that shape, and this shape! (gesturing) And she talks. She walks. She acts. She makes art! Look at that. Wow.” And then, in middle age, the bloom’s off the rose. That was then, they say. And then, when you’ve reached a certain age, it’s: “Look, she’s still alive! Maybe we should go talk to her before she stops being alive.”
There’s nothing that has changed. But if I point this out to men, they may say, “But I disappeared, too … ” No, you didn’t.
SG: From inside the art world, what do you feel like you can you do? What would you like to see change that we should be working on?
AB: Equality. I think it’s visibility and it’s economics. Personally I would, of course, love to get rid of patriarchal capitalism. But that’s probably not going to happen immediately. That’s going to take a longer time. But in the meantime, I would like to see women have equality with men, and have the same visibility, and also survive, financially.
SG: Very often, each of you are building platforms and creating spaces for other people to present and talk. And I want to open up the conversation about how this connects to feminism, because very often, I think, we do feel conscious about our own invisibility and how that is created. With the result being that feminist artists are constantly creating platforms and making space for other people to speak, too.
NB: I think that it’s a matter of deeply feeling and understanding our connection to other human beings. That’s it. It’s not me struggling to be at a certain level in the art world, or anywhere else. It’s a real visceral, literal connection. We’re all going to sink. Or we’re going to change.
AB: I don’t know. I learned about an alternative practice through feminism in the Seventies, studying you guys and some of your early practices. Why can’t we have models of collectivity? Why can’t we start to question authorship in some way? It’s about learning, too. I need to be around other artists I respect so I can grow and learn. Nancy’s always calling me: “There’s this protest,” “There’s this talk.” She keeps me on my toes. I need that. That’s what I need community to help me with. It’s sort of selfish, in a way, for personal growth. I’m so grateful for it.
MR: Obviously, the art world is driven at base by the fact that it’s a market economy. And the institutions within it have to figure out how to carve out spaces that are relatively insulated from the payment structure.
Every institution tries to open up a space of autonomy within itself. On the tour I conducted at the Frieze Art Fair as one of its artists’ projects, I forgot to have the group interview a dealer. We did everybody else. Every single person, from the toilet keeper—there is a famous toilet facility at the Frieze—to the sandwich people, security, the newspaper, the accountants, the Royal Parks rep., and the doorkeepers at the  VIP Lounge, and the VVIP Lounge. But I forgot to talk to the dealers, which I admit was idiotic. But those financial constraints can never be cast aside. 
And obviously, the museum world is driven by donors and by budgets that come from places where people don’t look kindly on stuff that doesn’t fit with that desired aesthetic separation between the street and the museum. And there’s something to be said for that.
There’s a constant negotiation of how we make a space within these places. Curators have to answer to that same structure. You can’t do a show because you feel like doing a show. You have to sell it. It has to go up the chain of management like anywhere else, and often this takes years.
There was a moment of relative democratization, in the US and beyond, in the ‘70s, when we had artist-run spaces at a time when artists were developing apparently noncommodifiable forms in a bid for autonomy from the market. And then the dealers reestablished—I mean this quite literally—the market, with neo-neoexpressionist painting, reestablished a certain kind of control over the whole system. The government funding for artist-run spaces was yanked, which meant that we, then, had to be cast back on the kindness of established institutions.
But because of the gigantic floods of money currently flowing everywhere through the economy, art fairs actually supplanted the exhibition model, and this has made things a lot worse. The art fair model is not too concerned about ethics. I mean, business centers on people with big bucks who can buy a Wu-Tang album and stick it in a drawer, or whatever the hell it is.

Martha Rosler, Frieze Art Fair (Walking Tour of Sites of Labor), 2006. Performance.
AB: Is that what they’re buying?
NB: There was a great moment at one of the recent LA art fairs where some younger artists, Audrey Chan and Elana Mann, remounted Suzanne Lacy and Leslie Labowitz’s piece about myths of rape. And so, at this cocktail reception, when people were enjoying themselves and having their drinks, they were accosted, or confronted, by young people carrying colorful signs and talking about how this is a myth about rape, and here’s the truth. It was a nice collision, I thought.
SG: That’s an interesting example, because it touches on the usefulness of history in your projects. You work with archives a lot. You revive the structure of certain strategies. Why are we not learning from history? Or, how we can learn better from history, through a look to the archives, or by looking to the older performance projects that are in danger of being lost?
AB: I think archiving accidentally fell into my lap because most of my projects sort of start with an activist that I learn about, just through circles of friends, or I seek out, because I see they’re doing something. And I email them, or I try to get a hold of them.
But what I started finding out was that all of these activists that I would go and interview in videos—because I almost always interview in videos, because I’m trying to create literally an archive of activists, during my lifetime, that I think are amazing and may be underrepresented—but what I discovered was, in all of their closets, or in all of their drawers, were these amazing archives that no one was seeing. So I just asked them if I could scan them. I’d give them all the scans back. And then, that started circling into social media and stuff. And then, I’m collecting all of that stuff, too. But it’s really about under-recorded, underrepresented, under-seen, really important historic events, because activism doesn’t end, right? These actions don’t end.
MR: That’s right.
AB: People work their lifetimes doing different things. But the issues keep coming up again and again and again. So it’s important to look back.

Nancy Buchanan, Sleep Secure, 2003–4. Interactive web project for The Alternative Museum; this is a detail of quilted income tax pie charts created by users.
MR: There’s a trend in academe, and perhaps elsewhere, to critique the idea of collaboration, and participation. And interestingly, a number of these attacks on inclusiveness have come from female scholars, which I always find interesting. I did write a little bit about it in the book that I did on the culture class, in part to agree with the idea that somehow public projects wind up being social management tools for social and political elites.
But it’s a mistake to make a totalizing criticism of a process that’s actually very porous—the idea of inviting other people into whatever space you’ve been accorded for whatever amount of time.
Let’s say you are working with people who have not otherwise been given access to a public space to represent themselves. You never want to speak for people, which is a serious issue. So how to name them in the production of the work? Repeatedly, when I’ve invited other people to collaborate with me, I’ve run into a problem with the curators and the art space who refuse to acknowledge the collective authorship of the work. The problem of saying, “no, it’s not a work by me. It’s a work by me and this person, and this person, and this person, and this person, and this person.”
Noah Fischer, who I see in this audience today, with Occupy Museums, has managed to write a contract in which the institution acknowledges the co-authorship of the other people who have participated in a project, because otherwise you wind up, against your will, with people seemingly in a subordinate relationship to you, because of the way the institution insists on naming the author of the work, whom they call “the invited artist.” This is something not talked about publicly, the way that institutions insist on controlling the record, telling artists, “We nominated you. You don’t have the right to nominate anyone else,”—But the partial departure from that model is what makes this particular exhibition, Agitprop!, unique.
SG: Thank you. And I want to add, Interference Archive, which is in the show and has this great poster that says, “We Are Who We Archive,” gave us a wall label with sixty people’s names, every single person who was involved in that group during that period of time. Because we’re not trying to shut down [crediting] based on the market-driven interest to name one artist in relation to this.
NB: My friends Christine and Margaret Wertheim, who made the Crochet Coral Reef, which has traveled around the world, felt that the reason why some places didn’t want to take their work, and why there’s no market for it, is that they insisted on listing every single name of every person involved as being a part of that work. They would not allow it to be represented as “by Christine and Margaret Wertheim.”
MR: This is a kind of an ossified mindset that comes from people who have been trained, and rightly, to verify historical facts. They become so stuck in the fetishization of the shards of evidence that they have trouble stepping backward to an actual larger event, or a larger piece of evidence. Hence this problem of segmenting out the artist as the one who gets nominated. And everybody else is, well, who the hell are you?
SG: And focusing on the fetishized object instead of the issue, or the moment, or the event that’s being brought up. Speaking of fetishization, I read a number of interviews with each of you in preparing for this. And almost in every case you guys are asked to speak to the efficacy of activist art. “Did you successfully end the war, or stop patriarchy through your work?,” and so on.
AB: Yes, we did.
NB: We did.
SG: Yeah.
NB: War’s gone.
SG: Okay. Good. So that’s settled. I was wondering if your beginnings in activist feminist spaces helps avoid the expectation of totalizing successes or failures.
MR: Well, activism is a process. And we’re dealing here in a world of objects, art objects.
AB: I mean, activist change is inherently about collectivity, right? We’re back at that idea again. So all you can do is do your part. You do your part. You speak up, as a citizen—
MR: You took the word right out of my mouth!
AB: —and you trust that there are others who are like-minded who are out there working as hard as you are. And together, over time, change will occur. Chris Carlsson, who is an activist from San Francisco has spoken of radical patience, of knowing that it was started before you arrived and that it will continue after you are gone.

Andrea Bowers, #justiceforjanedoe, Anonymous Women Protestors, Steubenville Rape Case, March 13–17, 2013,2014. Graphite on paper. Courtesy of the artist and Susanne Vielmetter Los Angeles Projects. Photo: Robert Wedemeyer.
NB: I have a quote from Michael Zinzun which I think is really important. Michael founded the Coalition Against Police Abuse in 1976 and was tireless as a worker and an advocate working with families whose children, or loved ones, had been injured or killed by the police. He called for a lot of changes that we still need to make today regarding racial profiling and demonizing young people. And he ended this speech that I found by saying: “We won’t struggle for ya. But we will struggle with ya. We can bring some lessons and experience to the struggle, but the most important one is that the people are their own liberators.” 
SG: That’s great. Thank you.
MR: I want to say something about art.
SG: Okay, great.
MR: Because you asked specifically about art and “did you guys stop the war?” And I want to affirm that I think art is revolutionary.  I truly mean that, and I think we probably all do. But art doesn’t make revolution. People make revolution. And it’s as citizens, as Andrea said, that we struggle. And if our art is imbricated and implicated in that struggle, that’s what we do. But it’s still people who make the revolution, whatever that revolution is.
×

© 2016 e-flux and the author

5 Απριλίου 2016

Olafur Eliasson Recruits Refugees to Assemble Symbolic Green Lights

Filed under: ΚΑΛΛΙΤΕΧΝΕΣ-ARTISTS,ΚΕΙΜΕΝΑ — admin @ 12:43
Green_light_117999

Olafur Eliasson, Green light (2016), wood, recycled yogurt cups, used plastic bags, recycled nylon, LED (green), 35 x 35 x 35 cm (all photos by Thilo Frank & David de Larrea Remiro/Studio Olafur Eliasson, courtesy the artist and Thyssen-Bornemisz Art Contemporary)
In February, in the midst of Europe’s worst refugee crisis since World War II, Austria issued a cap on the number of asylum seekers it would accept: just 80 per day. The decision to tighten border controls, made in the wake of 90,000 asylum claims in the country, last year,sparked outrage throughout the EU.
In response to Austria giving migrants a red light, Danish-Icelandic artist Olafur Eliasson decided to create a “Green light,” a crystalline polyhedral LED light made from recycled materials. Over the course of three months, the lights will be assembled by refugees and migrants, working alongside local university students in a weekly workshop at Thyssen-Bornemisza Art Contemporary (TBA21) in Vienna. Built from recycled yogurt cups, plastic bags, nylon, and neon green LEDs, the modular lights can be stacked in any number of configurations. The project as a whole — including seminars, performances, screenings, lectures at TBA21, and the lights themselves — is meant to test “the agency of contemporary art and its potential to initiate processes of civic transformation,” according to a press release
MDA118079_118079

Olafur Eliasson, Green light, and artistic workshop at Green light, TBA21-Augarten, Vienna, 2016 (photo by Sandro Zanzinger)
“Green light is an act of welcoming, addressed both to those who have fled hardship and instability in their home countries and to the residents of Vienna,” Eliasson said in a statement. “It invites them to take part in the construction of something of value through a playful, creative process. Working together in an artistic context, in dialogue with the regular visitors of the Augarten, participants build both a modular light and a communal environment, in which difference is not only accepted but embraced.” At TBA21, the Green lights will be stacked to create in a growing installation in the exhibition space.
One thing that remains unclear is if and how those assembling the lights are being compensated for their work. We’ve reached out to TBA21 to ask, and will update this post when we hear back.
Eliasson’s Green lights cost $336 a pop and can be purchased on-site at TBA21, online, and through selected partners. Proceeds will go to various initiatives helping refugees in Austria.
Green_light_117761

Olafur Eliasson, Green light (2016)
Green_light_117945

Olafur Eliasson, Green light (2016)
MDA118081_118081

Olafur Eliasson, Green light, and artistic workshop at Green light, TBA21-Augarten, Vienna, 2016 (photo by Sandro Zanzinger)
Green_light_118000

Olafur Eliasson, Green light, 2016

Powered by WordPress

error: Content is protected !!