Zachary Seldess

I've just finished a set of standalone interactive sound pieces that run only once per computer. Actually, I'm sure there are MANY here who could find ways around the limited lifespan of these standalones, but it would take at least some creativity.

If you're interested, a more detailed description of the project is at 

http://www.zacharyseldess.com/scores/EmptyShell_RobbedTime_info.pdf

or you can view demo videos and download the software (Win or OSX) at the addres below - the series is at the top:

If you're interested, a more detailed description of the project is at http://www.zacharyseldess.com/scores/EmptyShell_RobbedTime_info.pdf

or you can view demo videos and download the software (Win or OSX) at the addres below - the series is at the top: 

"Empty Shell, Robbed Time"
http://www.zacharyseldess.com/works.html

max-standalones-that-self-destruct

Thanks Julien. I'll look forward to hearing how it goes for you (whenever you get around to it).

It was only a matter of time to see the copy protection technology 

Now the hackers will have another goal to unprotect these pieces... ;-)

I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a certain 

sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is the most 

interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't uncover, but 

an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to put out her own 

Zachary Seldess schrieb:
> I'd love to hear any feedback.

It was only a matter of time to see the copy protection technology 
arrive in art... ;-)
Now the hackers will have another goal to unprotect these pieces... ;-)

I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a certain 
sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is the most 
interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't uncover, but 
an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to put out her own 
pieces... ;-)

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


I just tried them, and i can say that the self-destruction definitely has an effect on me. I'm very conscious of my participation and i examine the content with much more attention than normal.

While I didn't find all the art terribly interesting (Treasure Chest was actually quite good, Mouse Captive was okay, Little Digerati i didn't understand), I'd have thrown them out much sooner if i'd known it wasn't forever.

So i definitely like your idea here, it would be cool if would become more common so you wouldn't have to explain it. On the other hand, it should not be used to make stuff interesting when it isn't.

While I didn't find all the art terribly interesting (Treasure Chest was actually quite good, Mouse Captive was okay, Little Digerati i didn't understand), I'd have thrown them out much sooner  if i'd known it wasn't forever.

So i definitely like your idea here, it would be cool if would become more common so you wouldn't have to explain it. On the other hand, it should not be used to make stuff interesting when it isn't.


Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 02:48

----------------------------------------------------

> It was only a matter of time to see the copy protection technology 

Ha! Yes, I like the idea (at least in this scenario) of imposing lifecycle behaviors onto things that have none "naturally". It's not typical copy protection though: Here you can copy a fresh version as many times as you want to as many computers as you want, and all will work once. So you have as many chances to listen as you have "spaces" within which to listen.

If you copy a "used" version of a piece to a new computer and run it though, you will ruin that space. (Why? I don't know... just for fun ;)

> I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a certain 

> sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is the most 

> interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't uncover, but 

> an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to put out her own 

Quote: Stefan Tiedje wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 02:48
----------------------------------------------------

@Stefan
> It was only a matter of time to see the copy protection technology 
> arrive in art... ;-)

Ha! Yes, I like the idea (at least in this scenario) of imposing lifecycle behaviors onto things that have none "naturally". It's not typical copy protection though: Here you can copy a fresh version as many times as you want to as many computers as you want, and all will work once. So you have as many chances to listen as you have "spaces" within which to listen. 

> I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a certain 
> sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is the most 
> interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't uncover, but 
> an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to put out her own 
> pieces... ;-)

Quote: Bas van der Graaff wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 05:59

> While I didn't find all the art terribly interesting (Treasure Chest was actually quite good, Mouse Captive was okay, Little Digerati i didn't understand), I'd have thrown them out much sooner if i'd known it wasn't forever.

And I think this is an important reason for adding the lifecyle stuff: that is, to nudge the player/listener into a pseudo-analog space where they are aware of finite time and access... much like in a live performance scenario.

Who hasn't seen a live performance and been uninterested for a period of time? GENERALLY speaking, because of the liveness of it and the real-spaceness of it, we commit to it... wait it out. Often times, at least in my own experience, the most engaging experiental moments come after various periods of boredom or lack of interest.

We don't as easily "throw it out" in real-space - which could amount to leaving the space. BUT, if we knew it went on forever... that's another story.

> So i definitely like your idea here, it would be cool if would become more common so you wouldn't have to explain it. On the other hand, it should not be used to make stuff interesting when it isn't.

I completely agree (unless of course the point is to make uninteresting things become interesting via this technique ;)

For me, this whole approach simply provides a conceptual shell for the art. I wasn't interested in wrapping art that I considered subpar.

Quote: Bas van der Graaff wrote on Mon, 18 June 2007 05:59
----------------------------------------------------
@Bas van der Graaff

> While I didn't find all the art terribly interesting (Treasure Chest was actually quite good, Mouse Captive was okay, Little Digerati i didn't understand), I'd have thrown them out much sooner  if i'd known it wasn't forever.

And I think this is an important reason for adding the lifecyle stuff: that is, to nudge the player/listener into a pseudo-analog space where they are aware of finite time and access... much like in a live performance scenario. 

Who hasn't seen a live performance and been uninterested for a period of time? GENERALLY speaking, because of the liveness of it and the real-spaceness of it, we commit to it... wait it out. Often times, at least in my own experience, the most engaging experiental moments come after various periods of boredom or lack of interest. 

> So i definitely like your idea here, it would be cool if would become more common so you wouldn't have to explain it. On the other hand, it should not be used to make stuff interesting when it isn't. 

I completely agree (unless of course the point is to make uninteresting things become interesting via this technique ;)
For me, this whole approach simply provides a conceptual shell for the art. I wasn't interested in wrapping art that I considered subpar.

i happen to think that the idea of software that self-destructs over 

time was one of nn's better ones. i actually was looking forward to 

ways that 242.senescence was going to manifest itself. perhaps it 

was quietly implemented and processed as rage and social engineering, 

also see jonah brucker-cohen's webpage that hurt a building every 

http://www.mee.tcd.ie/~bruckerj/projects/alertinginfrastructure.htm

On Jun 18, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> Now the hackers will have another goal to unprotect these 

> I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a 

> certain sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is 

> the most interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't 

> uncover, but an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to 

i happen to think that the idea of software that self-destructs over  
time was one of nn's better ones.  i actually was looking forward to  
ways that 242.senescence was going to manifest itself.  perhaps it  
was quietly implemented and processed as rage and social engineering,  
who knows.

also see jonah brucker-cohen's webpage that hurt a building every  
time you looked at it--

> Zachary Seldess schrieb:
>> I'd love to hear any feedback.
>
> It was only a matter of time to see the copy protection technology  
> arrive in art... ;-)
> Now the hackers will have another goal to unprotect these  
> pieces... ;-)
>
> I love volatile art, but I also believe that any art is in a  
> certain sense volatile, or better the volatile part of any art is  
> the most interesting part of it... (That's the part a hacker can't  
> uncover, but an artist could, if she wouldn't be more interested to  
> put out her own pieces... ;-)
>
> Stefan
>
> -- 
> Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
> --_____-----------|--------------
> --(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
> -- _|_)----|-----()--------------
> ----------()--------www.ccmix.com
>
>


and for an early pre-digital manifestation of self-destruction: see Tinguely's sculptures of 1960/61

> also see jonah brucker-cohen's webpage that hurt a building every 

Hadn't seen this before. It's great. thanks.

> also see jonah brucker-cohen's webpage that hurt a building every  
> time you looked at it--
>
> http://www.mee.tcd.ie/~bruckerj/projects/alertinginfrastructure.htm

Hadn't seen this before. It's great. thanks.


Max standalones that self-destruct