Critical digital culture and media arts · Since 1993
The Neural Archive is a repository of publications collected by us during the years. Browse our collection here.
Sometimes the online world reveals unsuspected parallel dimensions. This is an unknown restyle of Neural independently (and secretly as we never knew about it) made by NY-based Motion and Graphic Designer, Clarke Blackham. Very nicely made, perhaps only a bit glossier for the magazine’s line, it testifies once more how even your most familiar outcomes can have another life somewhere else.
The value of craft after software sounds rampant sometimes, expressing the freedom of escaping repetitive taps and clicks to accomplish some assumed tasks. Mixing media, electricity, electronics, mechanics and inert objects Graham Dunning has realised a structured track/performance/open script in his “Mechanical Techno: Ghost in the Machine Music.” More than a proof of concept a machine music declination.
Isn’t ASCII Art a perfect form of “graffiti” in 2010s? The 8-bit aesthetics is among the strongest visual references connecting the analogue recent past with the omni-digital present, so why not adopt it to finally have some public art embedded in the present? In Varberg, Sweden, 2016, the GOTO80 crew (feat: Karin Andersson) did it, choosing (not by accident) the Mo Soul Amiga-font.
YesNo by Timo Kahlen feels like “traditional” net art, a well crafted stuck webpage for the user’s aural and clickable enjoyment.
The relationship between Andy Warhol and personal computers (becoming quite popular during his last years) has been only partially investigated beyond his Amiga works. In November 2015, Sotheby’s sold his “Apple (from Ads)” (acrylic and silkscreen ink on canvas) for 910.000 USD, and in catalogue’s notes Warhol tells about his meeting with Steve Jobs insisting to give him one and showing him how to draw (even if still in black and white): “we went into Sean [John Lennon’s son]’s bedroom–and there was a kid there setting up the Apple computer that Sean had gotten as a present, the Macintosh model. I said that once some man had been calling me a lot wanting to give me one, but that I’d never called him back or something, and then the kid looked up and said, ‘Yeah, that was me. I’m Steve Jobs.’ And he looked so young, like a college guy. And he told me that he would still send me one now. And then he gave me a lesson on drawing with it. It only comes in black and white now, but they’ll make it soon in color…I felt so old and out of it with this young whiz guy right there who helped invent it.”
Harsh Noise Wally, is a sophisticated mashup mixing strips of Wally, the lazy and cynic colleague of Dilbert with some epic noise music extreme attitudes. Well conceived and assembled.
Minority Report comes closer… Three huge screens at Birmingham New Street railway station are scanning passers-by and play advertisements accordingly. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-street-station-advertising-screens-9920400
GoPro ancestors in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly sport and movie persons like F1 driver Jackie Stewart, Bob Sinclair and Steve McQueen.
by Alessandro Ludovico
What, in your opinion, is the worst danger for the free software, and what is the strongest point that still makes it worth for millions of people?
The worst danger comes from laws that prohibit free software for certain jobs. Some laws prohibit developing free software for accessing encrypted published materials: for instance, DVDs, ebooks, and audio streams. This is a narrow range of tasks, but many users want to do them. In the United States, the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) prohibits this; int he EU, a new copyright directive prohibits it. In Norway, teenager Jon Johansen faces criminal charges for helping to develop DeCSS, the free software to read a DVD. A broader range of prohibitions come from software patents: patents covering software techniques and ideas. (Software patents are NOTpatents on individual programs, and that is why they are dangerous.) In the United States there are many jobs free software is not allowed to do, because patents stand in the way. The EU is now deciding whether to allow software patents. Mega-corporations, and those they dominate (such as the U.S. Trade Representative), are in favor of this. It is vital for the computer users of Europe to oppose it firmly. See petition.eurolinux.org. Another area where companies seek laws to prohibit our work is in writing free drivers for hardware whose specifications are secret. We need to do reverse engineering to figure out how to write the free software to talk with this hardware. Italy adopted a law in 2000 that prohibits distribution of software without a special government seal to prove compliance with copyright. It is pointless and absurd to apply this to free software–pointless, that is, for everyone except the proprietary software developers.
Which are the three things the free software foundation currently needs most (more volunteers, more funds, broader public recognition)?
What we need most is an end to the laws that prohibit us from serving the public. Beyond that, the three items you mentioned are what we need. The GNU Project can use many kinds of help–see www.gnu.org/help. I’m sure that the FSF Europe would like help in organizing activities in Italy, too.
Do you think the free software model would be applied to the traditional publishing also? What about GPL licences for magazine articles and books?
I don’t believe the issues are the same for all kinds of articles and books. It depends what the subject is. Writings that serve a functional purpose, such as textbooks and reference books, ought to be released under a free license that permits publishing modified versions. The GNU Free Documentation License is what we recommend for this. But I wouldn’t say the same thing for a novel, a memoire, or an essay of opinion. Their role in society is different from that of a dictionary or software manual. When I write those kinds of articles, I use a license that permits verbatim copying only. Developing free manuals and free reference books is already thriving–even, sometimes, as a commercial activity. I’ve heard of three successful free dictionary projects, including a Spanish dictionary and a Walloon dictionary. Perhaps someone reading this will launch a project for a free Italian dictionary.
Do you think the free software model would be applied to the traditional publishing also? What about GPL licences for magazine articles and books?
I don’t believe the issues are the same for all kinds of articles and books. It depends what the subject is. Writings that serve a functional purpose, such as textbooks and reference books, ought to be released under a free license that permits publishing modified versions. The GNU Free Documentation License is what we recommend for this. But I wouldn’t say the same thing for a novel, a memoire, or an essay of opinion. Their role in society is different from that of a dictionary or software manual. When I write those kinds of articles, I use a license that permits verbatim copying only. Developing free manuals and free reference books is already thriving–even, sometimes, as a commercial activity. I’ve heard of three successful free dictionary projects, including a Spanish dictionary and a Walloon dictionary. Perhaps someone reading this will launch a project for a free Italian dictionary.
In your opinion parliament lobbying is necessary for obtaining laws that’d reinforce and protect the free software model in every nation?
We would certainly appreciate active help from governments, but what we really want them to do is stop obstructing our work with software patents and the DMCA. If, in addition, they would like to help, such as by choosing free software in schools and government departments, we welcome that too.
Is the peer-to-peer practice a ‘social advance’ for people, finally free to exchange (music primarily) data?
Absolutely. Sharing useful information is a basic act of friendship, and society should encourage it. In the age of the printing press, copyright was an industrial regulation, restricting publishers, authors and musicians for the sake of the public. It did not restrict readers and listeners, who had no ability to copy anyway. Today, in the age of the computer networks, copyright has become a system of repression, restricting the public for the sake of wealthy publishers in the name of authors and musicians. Copyright as it exists today is wrong. That does not mean copyright should be entirely abolished. I think that it is acceptable to have a copyright system covering commercial distribution of novels and recorded music; but everyone should be free to do noncommercial verbatim copying. To achieve the intended public benefit of copyright, which is to encourage writing and music, we can make redistribution the ally of the author and the musician. We can do this by providing easy ways to send them anonymously a small voluntary gift. Imagine that playing a piece of music displays a box on the side of the screen that says, “Click here to send one euro to the band”. Wouldn’t you click and give from time to time, if you like the music?
Once you said that you don’t use passwords and even the security measures of your computer are minimal. But on the other hand you support encryption algorithms. How the two concepts (no security and encouraging encryption) are non in contradiction in your point of view?
There was no contradiction–I supported encryption so that people can protect themselves from corporate and government snooping, but I was proud to have no secrets and leave my computer’s door open for everyone. I kept doing this for a decade after nearly everyone on the net said it was impossible. Unfortunately, though, I have had to start having real security measures on the FSF’s computers, too. I am sad, and ashamed, that I no longer leave the computer’s door open for everyone to enter.
Why hardware firms don’t rent hardware instead of just sell it, and why governments don’t force them to recycle every little bit of electronic stuff they produce?
I don’t know why they do what they do, but I don’t see anything wrong with buying and selling hardware. On the contrary, I see a danger in a system where you could not buy a computer, only rent it. If it is not yours, you are not allowed to change it, and that could provide companies an excuse to restrict what you can do with computers.
The so called ‘net.art’ (the art that deals with the internet interface, metaphors and technical protocols) is a form of art that is upsetting the official art world, due to its public and free access, and because is not possible to sell it (it’s not a physical object, of course). What do you think of it?
I am not familiar with this.
How many years old is the GNU Project? Which will be the most important further developments?
We started developing the GNU system in 1984. The first usable version of GNU, the GNU/Linux system, became available in 1992/1993. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html for more explanation. The GNU/Hurd system is becoming usable now. Unfortunately I can’t foretell the future. My crystal ball is
cloudy today ;-).
What do you think of the Freenet project? Haven’t ever thought about a strategic collaboration with them?
I support Freenet in principle, but I have always doubted that a solution like Freenet would really work to prevent governments from censoring and controlling us.
