[Draft][but public]

Conceptual Art is dead. Read The Unmaking of Conceptual Art for one reason why.

The next set of figures I'm doing, mostly in pewter, will acknowledge the process of making not just the idea behind them, the idea as patron of the arts is dead.

Now basically I do like ideas, so anticeptual is a way of saving ideation space, thus any concepts or ideas associated with my work will be post hoc. Currently called anticeptual this is in contradistinction to conceptual. Might be a bad start I guess. Postceptual might be better. We'll see.

Basically the idea here comes last in the process of making the art. It is th eofficial end of hte process. As I am very process focussed I need that sort of clear definition to end the process. What's good about this is that there should be a lot less untitleds around. Naming the working is part of process of making the Art. I am sure this is not a new thing, I just want to acknowledge it in the face of idea driven art.

What I like in including the naming of the artwork in the process of making it, particularly in pouring metal metal sculpture, is that the accidents of the process will not portend disaster. Especially when using all wallaby-dung investments to the wax positives, where the process is trying to minimise it environmental impact.

I also like the way I recognise my previous want to be a writer in this, and not suppress it. I've always like names. People like names. "What's your name?"

Don't Vote for these Candidates in the 2010 Tasmanian Election #TAS2010

The candidates below have had relatives in Parliament before. Most notable their fathers were previous Premiers or Federal Politicians. Or come from old landed gentry type too.

DENISON
Scot Bacon (Labour)
Madeleine Ogilvie (Labour)?
Elise Archer (Liberal)
Matthew Groom (Liberal)

FRANKLIN
Will Hodgman (Liberal)

You may not know this if this is your first Tasmanian election. You may have moved from interstate recently. You might be a tree changeer, sea changer, or even a returning Tasmanian.

If you want a healthy Tasmanian parliament don't vote for any of on the list by seat below. AT ALL.

Political incest is wrong too.

Vote for the others according to your political preference.

It's a conservative list. Please let me know about the others and I will update it.
(Now that Wreidt and Napier are not standing perhaps some new blood will be allowed in)

authorised by meika loofs samorzewski in cascades

 RE:Mandatory internet service provider (ISP) filtering: Measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material | Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy

"Public comments are sought on the proposed additional measures to increase transparency and accountability as set out below."

I''ve put in a submission similar to the stuff below (into the online form, link to in the page linked above).

My main concern is that the current and proposed legislation options completely ignores recent social media internet technologies which can already rate and filter sites, these websites (at least their technologies) could and should be leveraged into providing adequate filtering for home use, especially where content on websites is not illegal.

This would require no ISP filtering. Gains that the National Broadband Network would bring would wasted by the proposed changes in this needless meddling.

Illegal activities such as child pornography would be better policed if the resources wasted through ISP filtering and supporting the Classifications Board in its cute Victorian Era way were redirected to actual police investigations. These activites are already illegal, weighing down an entire sector with this burden is not a productive use of resources.

In short: The broad work of Classification Board could easily be 'wikified'.

The Classification Board is an anachronism and it cannot possibly hope to cope with the new emerging media realms in the future. However, the same processes that create the emerging internet experiences can also be used to classify it.

Has this been looked at all?

My suggestion is that Australian web-browsing users should be linked up in order to the classify the web. This would increase transparency and accountability no end. It would make people browsing the web responsible for rating and filtering content.

Where values lead to polarised judgement in some areas,  end users of a 'wikified Classification Board' could choose which adjudicated channel to filter their internet experience. Households could choose a filter to suit their needs, whether righteous, environmental, Roman Catholic or 'whatever'.  (This would require non-anonymity on the part of users providing ratings.)

Many social media website rating channels, such as stumbleupon.com, already have "no adult" channels on by default. Surely this could be explored.

Tranparency and accountability would be best served by the complete re-structuring of the Classifications Board via 'wikification', and it's resources re-directed to police work.

BTW
I've noticed Optus has put up a "Sure thing Conroy!" response. Do not Singaporean interests, government retirement investment vehicles, own a major portion of Optus. Is the  Singapore government not one of the more paternalistic baboon-like governments in the world?

yours sincerely

meika loofs samorzewski

http://meika.loofs-samorzewski.com/
http://twitter.com/meika

http://a-gallo-roman-god.blogspot.com/
http://consortstothemountaingoddess.blogspot.com/

http://spacecollective.org/meika
http://thaumatrope.greententacles.com/contributors/meika/stories/