NEWSgrist: “AUTOMOTIVE” Vol

NEWSgrist: Get Your Agitprop On - Vol. 3, no. 15 (Sept. 30, 2002)

============================

NEWSgrist

where spin is art

http://newsgrist.net

{bi-weekly news digest}

============================

Vol. 3, no. 15 (Sept. 30, 2002)

============================

CONTENTS:

- *Splash* Get Your Agitprop On

- *Quote/s* Ars E: blue screen of death?

- *Url/s* Flight 404 – Search & Recovery

- *More Agitprop* much much more...

- *A Bridge Too Far* MidEast tensions hit Queens Museum

- *Queens Partition?* Palestine Pamphlet Flap (full article)

- *DOCudrama* CODeDOC launched at Whitney artport

- *Un-Secret Code* Mirapaul revels in CODeDOC revelations

- *It’s a Small World* art trumps privacy in Kruger case

- *Sixes & Sevens* 6 Design Teams selected for 9/11 site

- *Book Grist* Virtuous War

- *Classified* THE THING ISP: Wouldn’t you rather switch than fight?

============================

*Splash* http://newsgrist.net

Get Your Agitprop On

“Is the impending war in Iraq getting you down?
Are you tired of being held hostage by your own government?
Is the growing need to agitate gnawing at your insides?

“While you pause to consider your repressed subversive tendencies,
print out these four Quick 'n Easy posters with one click of a mouse.

“Save 'em, trade 'em, or go out in the dead of night and paper the subway,
the grocery store, the post office...

[good recipe for wheat paste adhesive here]

“Or just forward them by email.”

Note:
These posters are fashioned after PSYOPs leaflets that were dropped over

Kosovo and Serbia by NATO, courtesy the US Department of Defense in

Spring 1999. To see the original leaflets click through large posters to

original versions...

splash page: http://newsgrist.net

============================

*Quote/s*

"This year's Ars Electronica took the theme "Unplugged: Art as the Scene

of Global Conflicts" a metaphor for the state of post 9/11 artistic

practice amid an international climate of political tension surrounding

globalization, terrorism, and threats of war. As it was my first visit to

Ars, I tried to inhale as much stimuli as possible without suffering my

own blue screen of death."

-- Report from Ars Electronica 2002

Jonah Brucker-Cohen (Rhizome, 9/24/02)

http://www.rhizome.org/object.rhiz?9003

============================

*Url/s*

1) Flight 404 – Search & Recovery

http://www.flight404.com/

[Needs at least IE.5]

============================

*More Agitprop*

The ‘Not in Our Name’ full page ad placed in NYTimes 9/19/02:

[Note: this is a pdf file. Requires Acrobat Reader.]

http://www.nion.us/nion_NYT9-19.pdf

The anti-war ad that was rejected by the NYTimes:

http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad.cfm/ID/6438/view/print

Digital Ultra’s ‘No War in Iraq’ – piccolo network contra la guerra

http://www.digitalultras.com/nowariniraq/

The Optimist's Guide To War With Iraq

[This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow] Salon.com, Aug. 30, 2002

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2002/08/30/tomo/index.html

Know Your Place! Shut Your Face! Posters by

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

Artnet Magazine Comments, 9/19/02:

ARTISTS JOIN ANTIWAR EFFORT

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews2/artnetnews9-19-02.asp

Several top contemporary artists have joined celebrities, academics

and political figures in signing a highly public petition protesting the

potential U.N. invasion of Iraq. Called "Not in Our Name" http://www.nion.us/

and appearing today as a full-page ad in the New York Times, the

petition expresses support for the regime of Saddam Hussein ("nations

have the right to determine their own destiny") and seems to object

to the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the Philippines and

Israel. Signers include art-world stars Laurie Anderson, Leon Golub,

Barbara Kruger, Lucy Lippard, Linda Nochlin, Claes Oldenburg, James

Rosenquist and Kiki Smith along with notorious peace-niks like Ramsey

Clark, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Howard Zinn. "Let it not be

said that people in the United States did nothing when their government

declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of

repression," says the loony-left ad -- which ordinarily would cost

around $100,000.

============================

*A Bridge Too Far*

MIDEAST TENSIONS HIT QUEENS MUSEUM SHOW

Artnet Magazine, Sept. 20, 2002

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/artnetnews2/artnetnews9-19-02.asp?C=1

The Queens Museum of Art, which opened the bridge-building "Queens

International" exhibition, Aug. 11-Nov. 3, 2002, to emphasize the many

cultures cohabiting in the borough of Queens, now finds itself caught up

in a bit of a controversy about the Middle East. After a museum visitor

objected to anti-Israel statements in a pamphlet that was part of an

installation by Palestinian-American artist Emily Jacir, the museum removed

the pamphlet -- prompting protests of censorship from the artist. "Our

position is that Jacir is an interesting artist who lives in Queens," museum

director Tom Finkelpearl told the Jewish Press. "And the museum doesn't

want to censor." [see full article below]. The pamphlet is a reproduction of

one originally distributed at the Jordanian Pavilion at the 1964 World's Fair,

and includes a poem lamenting the U.N. partition of Palestine in 1948.

Jacir's installation also includes a Memorial to 418 Palestinian Villages

Which Were Destroyed, Depopulated and Occupied by Israel in 1948 (2001),

http://www.queensmuse.org/exhibitions/ a refugee tent embroidered with

Palestinian names. Jacir is slated for a show at Debs & Co. in Manhattan's

Chelsea art district in the spring of 2003.

============================

*Queens Partition?*

Propaganda Or Art? Queens Museum Withdraws Arab Pamphlet `For Now`

By Tzivia Emmer, Jewish Press Staff Writer

The Jewish Press - Posted 9/11/2002

http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=1543

The Queens Museum of Art has provisionally removed an emotionally-

charged piece of literature that was part of an installation created by artist

Emily Jacir. The handout re-creates a pamphlet originally distributed at

the Jordan Pavilion of the 1964 Worlds Fair, which was held at the

museum’s site at Flushing Meadows.

In a poem lamenting the United Nations Partition of Palestine in 1948, the

pamphlet contains lines such as, The strangers, once thought terror’s

victims,/Became terror’s fierce practitioners. It asks visitors to hear a

word on Palestine/And perhaps to help us right a wrong.

Jacir’s work is part of an exhibit on the activities of the U.N. during the

four years it occupied the New York City building that now houses the

museum. In 1948 U.N. Partition of Palestine was ratified there, and the

museum commemorates the event with a news items and photographs.

It also includes a tent embroidered with the names of Arab villages whose

residents were displaced after the Partition agreement, and a strong

message of blame toward Israel.

On August 18 Nicole Levine of Brooklyn was visiting the museum with her

children, ages 11 and 14. She told The Jewish Press she was shocked to

discover the politically-oriented pamphlet here in the art museum a

politically neutral place.... right next to the wall with the bubble gum!

(a hands-on exhibit for children).

The passing remark of a museum patron at the scene furthered her point:

“The (expletive) Jews they [the Arabs] should never have given in to them.”

For the Israeli-born Levine it was a highly emotional moment, bringing

back memories of her family’s wartime ordeals and of friends and relatives

wounded and killed by terrorists.

It was the handout rather than the entire exhibit that she found

disturbing, since it is something one carries away and keeps. It is not

the museums business to help this Palestinian further her cause, she said.

Levine called curator Tom Finkelpearl to voice her dismay. Finkelpearl

politely expressed the view, she said, that the exhibit was simply a work

of art.

“Dont you understand that this feeds anti-Semitism?” she reportedly

countered. The offending pamphlet was sheer propaganda, she said she

pointed out at a time when people are dying on both sides.

Finkelpearl promised to bring up the issue with museum officials. A few

days later, he told Levine by phone that the pamphlet had been removed

from the exhibit, pending further discussion.

Responding to a call from The Jewish Press, Finkelpearl took pains to note

that the exhibit doesn’t reflect the point of view of the museum. He said

he was not unsympathetic to the issues raised by Levine, but that the

museums stance is basically that Emily Jacir is an interesting artist

living in Queens and that the museum didn’t want to censor the artist once

she had been asked to participate in the exhibit.

A panel discussion that will present both the Israeli and Arab points of

view was already slated for Sunday, Sept. 15. Informed that the erev Yom

Kippur timing was problematic, Finkelpearl said they were aware of the

date and had therefore scheduled the meeting for 1 p.m.

“What I’m hoping for,” said Finkelpearl, “is that we can put forward a

balanced program that will enable people to make up their minds.” He said

he hopes the controversy wont overshadow the creative aspects of the

exhibit as a whole.

============================

*DOCudrama*

9/16/02

CODeDOC launched today at artport

Christiane_Paul

CODeDOC

An online exhibition

at the Whitney Museum's artport

http://artport.whitney.org

http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/

Participating artists: Sawad Brooks, Mary Flanagan, Alex Galloway, John

Klima, Golan Levin, Kevin McCoy, Mark Napier, Brad Paley, Scott Snibbe,

Camille Utterback, Martin Wattenberg, Maciej Wisniewski

CODeDOC takes a reverse look at 'software art' projects by focusing on

and comparing the 'back end' of the code that drives the artwork's 'front

end'the result of the code, be it visuals or a more abstract communication

process. A dozen artists coded a specific assignment in a language of

their choice and were asked to exchange the code with each other for

comments [...]

Intrinsic to software art is a procedural element that allows for

reconfiguration and extension, and, as way of commenting on the projects,

artists started to 'remix' their work, applying their own code to other

projects or combining sections of code into a new project.

One does not need to be a programmer and have an in-depth under-

standing of computer languages to establish a connection between the

code and its respective results: even a glance at the artists' source code

will reveal certain mathematical functions, and in many cases, the artists'

comments on their writing clarify the functionality of a line or section of the

code. In some cases, reading the source code will enhance the perception

of the work; in other cases, the code doesn't necessarily add to the

projects. CODeDOC is an endeavor to take a closer look at the process of

this particular artistic practice, and to raise questions about the

parameters of artistic creation.

============================

*Un-Secret Code*

ARTS ONLINE

Secrets of Digital Creativity Revealed in Miniatures

By MATTHEW MIRAPAUL

NYTimes, Sept. 16, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/16/arts/design/16ARTS.html

Most of us seem to want to experience an artistic creation as a finished

product, not as a mound of raw materials. So an exhibition called "Gobs of

Paint" or a concerto titled "Loads of Notes" would probably have some

problems attracting an audience.

Which means that "Codedoc," an online exhibition of digital artworks that

focuses on their underlying computer code, is a daring endeavor. It asks

viewers without any programming knowledge to step back from the

animated lines and interactive elements of computer art and instead

consider the geeky techniques that digital artists use to create those

works. This would be like studying the artist's brush and paints and not

the painting.

"Codedoc" was organized by Christiane Paul, the Whitney Museum of

American Art's new-media curator. She commissioned small pieces from a

dozen digital artists on the condition that they also publish the computer

code behind their works. The online-only exhibition opens today in Artport,

the Whitney's virtual gallery of Internet-based art projects, at

artport.whitney.org.

Although the 12 works are little more than miniatures, the overall

exhibition provides a revealing look at how digital art is actually

created. In this medium, the raw material is computer code, and when

shaped by the artist it determines the final product. "Codedoc" is

shorthand for the code documents that are essential to the works'

existence.

"To understand art, you need to understand artistic practice," Ms. Paul

said. "We have looked at paintings for hundreds of years, and at some

point, everybody notices that there is something in the stroke of the

brush. Van Gogh looks very different from Seurat, and you see how that

works on the canvas."

With digital art, the creative brush strokes, if you will, are embedded in

the code. Yet its role in the creative process is rarely seen. "We

experience digital art in reverse," Ms. Paul said. "We look at the visual

front end, but what the artist wrote first is the code." The Whitney

exhibition shows the artistic process, since the code precedes a work's

rendering on the computer screen.

For those whose dealings with code are limited to five zippy numbers on an

envelope, a brief tutorial. In the digital realm, code is the set of

instructions that drive a computer's hardware and software. Most code

exists as text, written in Java, C++, Perl or another of the foreign

languages spoken by the software-development tribe. Whether code is

written for a word-processing program or a digital artwork, its authors

are usually the only ones who see it. What counts is what it does, not how

it looks.

But with "Codedoc," viewers areforced to look at each work's code

document before they can see the art. The link that leads to each work

has been placed at the bottom of its page of code, and visitors must scroll

through a list of computer commands like "go to the frame" or, more

typically, "double filtVel = 1."

Ms. Paul is determined to refute the notion that digital artists simply

buy a program, flip a switch and let a computer do its thing. By putting

the code of 12 different artists side by side, she said, even nonexperts

can discern that "it is all written from scratch and that it shows a lot

of individuality."

True, up to a point. For instance, Scott Snibbe's code for "Tripolar" is a

sliver of text, while John Klima's code for "Jack and Jill" resembles the

script for a three-character drama. As it turns out, Mr. Snibbe's work is

a minimalist take on chaos theory, while Mr. Klima's work adds a

psychological dimension to the children's poem.

Still, for those who do not speak the languages, reading the exhibition's

code is like attending a concert where scores are distributed rather than

program notes. Yo-Yo Ma is able to flip through the sheet music and hear

the sound, but the average concertgoer is liable to remain baffled by all

those funny symbols.

Mr. Snibbe, a San Francisco artist, agreed that people unfamiliar with

programming would be stumped by the Whitney site's code documents.

"Really, they're all going to look the same," he said. "If we had eight

Russian poets, we might have similar problems. But to my eyes, all the

code looks really different."

He continued, "People had really distinct styles." He said he enjoyed how

Camille Utterback, a Brooklyn artist, embellished her code with poetic

comments, and he described Mr. Klima's code as social psychology because

"it's all about relationships." To help viewers grasp what is on the site,

Mr. Snibbe and his colleagues have inserted explanatory remarks into their

own documents and then annotated others' code.

Once one gets past the code, some of the exhibition's works are quite

entertaining. Each artist was asked to create a work that would move and

connect three points in space. Most responded with animated graphic

contraptions. Some works are hypnotic. Others were less literal in how

they interpreted the assignment. Sawad Brooks overlaid the home pages

of Web sites for three international newspapers.

But the site's most remarkable works are six reinterpretations, or

remixes, in which the artists process the others' code through their own

programs. For instance, Brad Paley wrote a program that analyzes his own

code, but he also turned the program on Mr. Snibbe's code. It is meant as

spirited fun, but if code is a reflection of personal style, it also

serves as portraiture.

Admittedly, computer code is not the most accessible of art subjects. Ms.

Paul said, "This is a very unusual artistic practice in that the artist

completely writes the project in verbal terms and that determines the

visual outcome." She likened the writing of code to the conceptual-art

projects of Sol LeWitt, who drafts precise instructions on how to create a

wall painting, then leaves it to others to execute the work.

The New York artist John F. Simon Jr. takes this thinking a step further,

arguing that programming is a form of creative writing. "What you choose

to write about in code is very important," he said. "It's like what you

choose to write about when you write a book. The plot can determine the

beauty of the story. You have to make the same kinds of choices when you

write code."

Ms. Utterback said: "Most people as kids wielded a paintbrush, so it's not

mysterious to them how you create a painting. But people have no concept

of what computer code looks like. Even if what's there still looks

mysterious and crazy, it humanizes it."

============================

*It’s a Small World*

Art trumps right to privacy [EXCERPTS]

A US Federal court has thrown out the case against artist Barbara Kruger

for her appropriation of a 1960 photo, and against the Whitney Museum

and LA MoCA for selling merchandising reproducing the offending image

By Martha Lufkin

[FULL ARTICLE: The Art Newspaper, 9/20/02]

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=10030

NEW YORK. A Federal court in New York has thrown out a lawsuit against

the artist Barbara Kruger, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the

Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, and others including the

MIT Press. In the lawsuit, two individuals, the photographer Thomas

Hoepker and his friend Charlotte Dabney, had sought damages stemming

from the use and exhibition of an image of Dabney within a work created

by Barbara Kruger.

The Kruger work shows Dabney, right eye partially enlarged by a

magnifying glass, with the words “It’s a small world but not if you have

to clean it.” The plaintiffs claimed that the work violated Dabney’s right to

privacy and Hoepker’s copyright.

The decision clarified important aspects of US copyright law, the court said.

It also stated the rule for New York in cases pitting privacy rights against

freedom of speech as applied to the sale of museum gift shop items. The

May 2002 decision was written by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In 1960, Hoepker, a well-known German photographer, created the

photographic image of Dabney with the magnifying glass, and published it

with the title “Charlotte As Seen By Thomas” in the German photography

magazine FOTO PRISMA in 1960.

Enter Barbara Kruger

Thirty years later, Kruger was specialising in “appropriation art” collages

which combined photographs and text. She created an untitled silkscreen,

called the “Kruger Composite” by the court, incorporating Hoepker’s

“Charlotte” and adding three red rectangles carrying the “It’s a small

world” text. In 1990, Kruger sold the Composite to the Museum of

Contemporary Art in Los Angeles (MoCA), and from 1999-2000 the museum

displayed it as one of 64 works in an exhibition of Kruger’s work.

Merchandising including t-shirts, note cubes, magnets and postcards

decorated with the Kruger work were offered for sale in the MoCA shop,

and the work was also reproduced in the exhibition catalogue published

with MIT Press. In July 2000 The Kruger work travelled to New York for an

exhibition at the Whitney Museum, which also sold similar items in its shop,

and where the image was reproduced on five-story-high vinyl billboards at

several locations in Manhattan.

Before the exhibition had completed its run, Hoepker and Dabney sued

(The Art Newspaper, No. 110, January 2001, p.10). [Newsgrist Vol.1, no.53:

http://www.geocities.com/newsgrist/newsgrist1-53.html ]

[...]

The court rejected Hoepker’s argument that Kruger’s Composite was a

mere reproduction and not an original work.

The right to privacy

Charlotte Dabney sought damages for violation of her right to privacy, a

claim which must meet a statutory test in New York. Three of four

requirements under that statute had been met, the court said: Dabney’s

picture was used, without her consent, and within the state of New York.

The only required test left for Dabney to prevail on a privacy claim, then,

was whether the image was used “for advertising purposes or for the

purposes of trade.” The advertising and trade tests, the court said, were

designed to protect against privacy intrusions while simultaneously

“protecting the quintessential American right” to freedom of speech.

Commercial speech, the court said, could be restricted more readily than

“pure” First Amendment speech.

Art over privacy

While art was not as clear as political speech, New York courts have

afforded First Amendment protection to art when pitted against privacy

rights, the court said. A New York 1993 case held that an artist could make

and sell 20 bronze busts of model Cheryl Tiegs—at $20,000 each—without

her written consent, and without violating her privacy rights, which “fell”

to the artist’s free speech rights. In California, the court said, the question

was whether a work of art sufficiently “transformed” the person’s image,

or whether instead “the celebrity” was what was being sold. Under either

State law, the court said, Kruger’s work was “pure First Amendment

speech in the form of artistic expression.”

The Whitney’s display of the work was therefore protected by the First

Amendment, the court said, as was the reproduction of the image in the

exhibition catalogue. Similarly, the court said, the leaflets, newsletters, and

other exhibition advertisements, including the large vinyl “billboards,” fell

outside New York’s privacy protection, because they merely “proved the

worth and illustrated the content” of the show. [...]

============================

*Sixes & Sevens*

Design Teams Are Selected for New Plans for 9/11 Site

By EDWARD WYATT [EXCERPTS]

NYTimes, Sept 27, 2002

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/27/nyregion/27REBU.html

Six teams of architects, artists and designers, including individuals and

firms that have created some of the most renowned buildings and public

works of the last quarter-century, were chosen yesterday by the Lower

Manhattan Development Corporation to create new designs for the World

Trade Center site. The people selected are representatives of 27

architecture and design firms in the United States and in four foreign

countries. Their selection opens a new phase in the rebuilding of Lower

Manhattan, one that has been strongly influenced by the public's highly

negative reaction to the initial six designs for the trade center site.

[...]

The problem in need of a solution is how to reconcile the requirements of

the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the trade

center site and earns money from private developers' payments for the

rights to the office and retail space there, with the public's desire for the

accomplishment of an array of goals.

Among these goals are the creation of a memorial including the footprints

of the twin towers, the restoration of a soaring element to the city's

skyline, and renovation of an area of downtown that while thriving before

Sept. 11, was not the easiest place in which to live or work. Each team will

produce multiple sets of designs for the 16-acre site, incorporating office

space, stores, transportation and a memorial. Each will also create designs

that keep substantially all the former office and retail space on the site as

well as designs that move substantial portions to nearby properties.

In the next two weeks, the development corporation and the Port Authority

will settle on requirements for the architecture teams to use in allocating

office space to the site, Mr. Betts said. The requirements will range from the

11 million square feet outlined in the lease held by Larry A. Silverstein, to

"a substantially lower amount," Mr. Betts said.

[...]

Details of the six teams selected to work on the trade center site designs

can be found on the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation's Web

site at http://www.renewnyc.com.

The six teams are:
1- Studio Daniel Libeskind, Berlin.

2- Foster and Partners, London.

3- A team of four individuals: Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman, Charles

Gwathmey and Steven Holl, all of New York.

4- United Architects, a team including three firms (Foreign Office Architects

of London, Imaginary Forces of New York and Los Angeles, and UN

Studio of Amsterdam) and three individuals (Greg Lynn of Los Angeles,

Reiser Umemoto of New York and Kevin Kenon of New York).

5- A team led by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill of New York, assisted by

Tom Leader of Berkeley, Calif., Michael Maltzan of Los Angeles,

Neutelings Riedijk of Rotterdam, Field Operations of Philadelphia and

New York, SANAA of Tokyo; and four artists, Inigo Manglano-Ovalle,

Rita McBride, Jessica Stockholder and Elyn Zimmerman.

6- Think, a team including Shigeru Ban, Tokyo; Frederic Schwartz, New York;

Ken Smith, New York; Rafael Viñoly, New York; and as consultants, Arup,

London; Buro Happold Engineers, Bath, England; Jorg Schlaich, Stuttgart,

Germany; William Moorish, Charlottesville, Va..; David Rockwell, New

York; and Jane Marie Smith, Baltimore.

============================

*Book Grist*

Virtuous War

Mapping the Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment Network

By James Der Derian

Westview Press; June 2001

272 pp.

ISBN 0813397944

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813397944/ref=ase_techdirectionson/002-8578364-7084850

Review:

http://www.techdirections.com/html/JDerDerian.html

In the Mojave Desert, off the shores of San Francisco Bay, in the hills of

southern Germany, down the road from Disney World, and in the heart of

Hollywood, the United States armed forces are preparing for the next war.

They are fought by the military in the same manner as they are viewed by

citizens, on real-time networks and by live-feed videos, on the PC and TV,

actually and virtually. Motivated by political and ethical imperatives,

enabled by smart technologies, a new form of high-tech, low-risk,

networked warfare is emerging: virtuous war.

Virtuous War is a road trip into the cyborg heart of the

military-industrial-media-entertainment network. James Der Derian takes

the reader from a family history of war and genocide to new virtual

battlespaces in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Orlando’s Simulation

Triangle. We travel with the author to the Army’s Advanced Warfighting

Experiment in the Mojave Desert, the Marines Urban Warrior occupation of

the San Francisco Bay area, and the staging areas of the Kosovo air

campaign in Italy. Der Derian redesigns a ships command center as the

Disney Room, and the Army builds a Holodeck at a California university.

Computer simulations, cable news coverage, and feature movies all blur

and converge in this new virtual alliance of the military, the media, and the

entertainment industry.

Der Derian traces the hardwiring of Virtuous War through new technologies

of global surveillance, networked communications, computerized logistics,

and precision munitions. But he also digs deeply into the political and

philosophical questions posed by this new form of secular holy war, where

killing--based on our images of conflict in the Gulf, Bosnia, and

Kosovo--appears to be distant and discriminate, efficient and ethical. Will

the tail of technology not only wag the dog of military strategy but also

up-end the policy of civilian control? Will going to war become easier,

the making of peace bloodier? What happens to those at the short-end of

the virtual stick? Is virtuous war the harbinger of a new world order or a

brave new world? The result is the first book to offer a virtual theory

for the military strategies, philosophical questions, ethical issues, and

political controversies surrounding the future of war and peace.

[James Der Derian is the director of INFO/tech/war/peace project:

http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/index2.cfm

He is Professor of International Relations (Research) at Brown University

and Professor of Political Science at UMASS/Amherst. His articles on war

and technology have appeared in the New York Times, Nation, Washington

Quarterly, and Wired.]

============================

*Classified*

Wouldn’t you rather switch than fight?

Ask them - the many people who use and love THE THING - why it's become

such an integral part of their lives, and they'll tell you that it's because it

just works. Letting them do what they want to do. Whether it's dial-up,

domain hosting, email services, or co-location. No filters, no data harvesting,

no ads, no fishy reseller deals. So if you are still on AOL, Earthlink, Rhizome

or some idiotic Yahoo email service, go ahead and switch!

http://isp.thing.net/switch/switch1.html

http://bbs.thing.net

============================

NEWSgrist – where spin is art

http://newsgrist.net

free e-subscriptions:

subscribe @ newsgrist.com

unsubscribe @ newsgrist.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++