#Jane Ruffino

[younes-ben-amara]

هناك معدنين من الناس: أناس تُشمّر وتصلح المشكلة [عددهم قليل جدًا] وأناس ترقص حول نار المشكلة [الأغلبية]

ما هذه المجموعة من المختارات تسألني؟ إنّها عددٌ من أعداد نشرة “صيد الشابكة” اِعرف أكثر عن النشرة هنا: ما هي نشرة “صيد الشابكة” ما مصادرها، وما غرضها؛ وما معنى الشابكة أصلًا؟! 🎣🌐تعرف ما هي صيد الشابكة وتطالعها بانتظام؟ اِدعم استمرارية النشرة بطرق شتى من هنا: 💲 طرق دعم نشرة صيد الشابكة. 🎣🌐 صيد الشابكة العدد #123 جمعة مباركة؛ السلام عليكم ومرحبًا وبسم الله. 🎣🌐 صيد الشابكة العدد #123💎 هناك معدنين…

[nightskied]

rosalie hale   (  twilight saga ,   marina ruy barbosa / danielle rose russell fc )  &   jane eyre   ( 2011 movie based ,   mia wasikowska / aurora ruffino fc )    have been added to the   muse list .

[geekynerfherder]

'The Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows' by J Scott Campbell & Nei Ruffino, variant cover art for issue #1 published June 2015 by Marvel Comics, and a new officially licensed print release through Sideshow Collectibles. Giclee print with embossed seals of authenticity in a signed Framed paper edition of 300, Framed Gallery wrapped canvas edition of 50 and a HD Aluminium edition of 100. On sale for Pre-Order in a framed edition Friday July 19 between 12pm-3pm PT from the Sideshow Collectibles website. Any remaining copies will be available for Pre-Order as an unframed edition from Friday July 22 between 12pm-3pm PT.

[militant-holy-knight]

As names of the victims of jihad who died on September 11, 2001 were read out on Wednesday morning in New York, it occurred to me that a crucial aspect of remembering the tragedy was missing.

There was no mention of the evil that struck us that day and has continued to hit us wherever liberal secular democracy exists, be it on 7/7 in London or 26/11 in Mumbai, or for that matter Kabul, Bali, Madrid, Paris, Damascus, and right here in Ottawa and Toronto.

If aliens were to drop by to watch the ceremony, they would get the impression that we were not commemorating the anniversary of an attack, but some catastrophic natural disaster such as the 1883 eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in Indonesia or the 1775 Lisbon earthquake.

It seems that from the centre-right to the centre-left, no one in the West dares to utter the ideology that nurtures our enemies, let alone develop a determination to defeat them.

Some have tried to eradicate the malaria of jihadi terrorism by shooting down individual mosquitoes, but as anyone who has fought that disease knows, one can only defeat malaria by draining the swamps. Invasions of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to eliminate Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Islamic State have all failed because the "war against terror" became a profitable venture for America's military-industrial complex.

Pakistan, the country that nurtured the mastermind of 9/11, Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, and hosted Al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden, escaped all scrutiny as its wily diplomats ran circles of deceit around Western governments while corrupt jihadi generals profited immensely and still do. In the meantime, our allies in India and Afghanistan suffer as they are used as laboratories where dozens of jihadi groups practice holy war, which is then exported from Mindanao in The Philippines, to California on the Pacific and Nigeria and Somalia in between.

Canadian newspapers too had little to say on the 9/11 anniversary, notwithstanding our own recent skirmishes with jihadis. At times we have even rewarded them, then allowed 'former' jihadis to 'deradicalize' them. Both must be laughing at us.

I scoured the New York Times story on the 9/11 anniversary for words like 'Al Qaeda', 'Bin Laden', 'jihad', 'Taliban', 'Khaled Sheikh Muhammad' and even 'Arab' or 'Saudi,' but found no mention. It seemed the liberal media dares not to mention the enemy for fear it may be labelled 'racist' and 'Islamophobic'.

While the West is in disarray with Trump, Boris Johnson and Macron fulfilling the role of the Three Stooges on the world stage, Islamists keep up a barrage of propaganda positioning the Muslim community as victims of what they see as essentially hostile Western society.

Even as Canadians prepare to vote in the 2019 October elections, not a single political party has raised the issue of how it will tackle the rise of Islamist terrorism worldwide. Not one. There was a time when a prime minister had the courage to name 'Islamism' as a worldwide threat, but not his successor in Sussex Drive nor the man who leads his party.

And while they were reading the names in New York of the women and men who perished as victims of jihad on 9/11, no one in Canada cared for our Canadian brothers and sisters who died that day. As a courtesy to the voiceless, here are the names of the forgotten 27:

Michael Arczynski Garnet Bailey Ken Basnicki David Barkway Jane Beatty Cynthia Connolly Joseph Collison Frank Joseph Doyle Arron Dack Albert Elmarry Michael Egan Christine Egan Meredith Ewart Alexander Filipov Peter Feidelberg Ralph Gerhardt LeRoy Homer Mark Ludvigsen Stuart Lee Bernard Mascarenhas Colin McArthur Michael Pelletier Donald Robson Ruffino Santos Vladimir Tomasevic Chantal Vincelli Debbie Williams

Their blood is on the hands of those who engineered 9/11. Until they are defeated, we should not rest.

[queenspoetlore]

Let's Start Over Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM EST

@ Wendy's Subway

379 Bushwick Ave, Brooklyn, New York 11206 Maybe the Sweet Honey Pours is a collaboration borne of Paolo Javier and Listening Center (David Mason’s) love of the tape loop. It also marks their debut recording as the band Fel Santos, named in honor of the Pilipinx American sound poet who’s been their muse throughout much of their collaborative work the past decade. Wendy’s Subway will host the NYC launch for both the chapbook (NION Editions) and cassette (Temporary Tapes) of Maybe the Sweet Honey Pours on Sunday, January 13, 2019, at 3pm. “‘Beginning An Expedition’ & ‘Timestream’ are essentially early Listening Center tracks transferred from a wavering four track cassette recorder; ‘From An Unknown Source’ is just that, it was found on a tape one day—I have no recollection of making it or where it originated.” —Listening Center on the B-Side tracks of Maybe the Sweet Honey Pours “The poem/libretto is made up of discrete short poems sequenced to resemble parts of a long poem composed during a single train ride from NYC to Toronto one midwinter day. I was moved to write it in early 2016, after hearing an unforgettable Listening Center tape loop that resonated with me emotionally, and the form of the poem/libretto evolved in-studio and during live performances over the next year and half.” —Paolo Javier Fel Santos/Listening Center will be joined by Bank of Forever, the instrumental, electronic project of Collin Ruffino who has recently released Music for Navigating with Temporary Tapes, and friends, the musician Howard Huang, and artists ray ferreira and Emmy Catedral. Temporary Tapes is a limited edition electronic music cassette label and home for all things analogue, doubtful and ferric. Founded in 2016 by Jane Gregory, Lyn Hejinian, and Claire Marie Stancek, Nion Editions publishes three titles per year, with special interest in chapbooks and uncategorizable forms. -- Image: Super 8 film still courtesy David Mason -- Accessibility Wendy's Subway strives to be accessible to all visitors . We are located on the ground floor at 379 Bushwick Avenue. At the entrance, there is a concrete ramp with some uneven surfaces and a raised threshold (measuring 2 1/4” in height). Our single, all-gender bathroom, is not currently ADA-accessible; however, there are several such bathrooms nearby that we would be happy to help direct to. This space is not scent-free, but we ask that attendees come fragrance-free. This event will be live-streamed and archived for future consultation. If you have specific questions about access, please write info@wendyssubway.com at least three days before the event and we will make every effort to provide accommodations for you.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“The Sentinelese are not “Stone Age” people. They live in the 21st century and, like all cultures, have changed and adapted, so are not somehow frozen in time. They use modern tools because they live now, and modern doesn’t have to mean industrialized.

When we call people “prehistoric�� or “Stone Age” or “pre-literate” we assume (often without meaning to!) that other cultures have to catch up with the rest of us, and we miss that there are lots of perfectly valid ways to live in the world. The Three-Age System is useful for some European and Mediterranean archaeology, but it doesn’t even generally fit well outside of this region.

The language of the Capitalocene makes it hard for us to talk about groups of people anywhere without presuming 1. An inherent right to have our curiosity satisfied and 2. An assumption that the idea of “human progress” is linear and industrial.

These are all things that have been used to justify colonialism and “civilizing” projects. They also experience the Capitalocene, even to the extent that they’ve had to adapt to the constant threats industrialized societies pose to them.

Even if there weren’t the issue of lack of immunity to diseases of the industrialized world, they would still deserve their privacy and independence because the very least we can do as part of industrialized cultures is not to wreck everyone else’s lives by thinking we know better.

The protection of their space shouldn’t be paternalistic or infantilizing. They aren’t simple or more “natural”, they’re complex like all humans are. The problem isn’t that a guy wanted to tell them about Jesus, it’s that we mostly carry an unchallenged belief that dominant cultures have a right to access anything we want.

It’s colonialism and capitalism, and missionary work is a vector, but so is a lot of adventure travel, development work, and even academic research. We don’t have a right to know stuff about people without their consent. (This is how we got digital colonialism, too.)” - Jane Ruffino, November 25, 2018.

[themarvelproject]

Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson by J. Scott Campbell (2012) with colors by Nei Ruffino.

[xalep]

By pretending the internet isn’t a physical thing we continue to ignore the impact of servers and processors. Even where they use renewable energy, that’s a LOT of power. Plus, the increasing need means the physical footprints will start to matter, esp once 5G spreads. https://t.co/qx2ML7rqAP

— Jane Ruffino (@janeruffino) October 3, 2019

[h0neyreads]

Gamification

“In Jane McGonigal’s book “Reality is broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World” (2011), gamification is not only a new goldmine for designers and business people; it is also a tool that has the power to change the world. In her understanding, gamification is a concept that describes a new age where gamers can collectively use their problem-solving skills not only to solve puzzles within a digital game but also to approach social and political issues in the real world.”

Source: Rethinking Gamification, Edited by Mathias Fuchs, Sonia Fizek, Paolo Ruffino, Niklas Schrape, Meson Press, Germany 

[des10d2bgr8]

Favorite tweets

Yessssss! And isn’t Clubhouse still iPhone only? Let’s do Spaces! I’ve never tried it!

— Jane Tiny Ship Helper Ruffino (@janeruffino) May 6, 2021

from http://twitter.com/janeruffino via IFTTT

[poetryhasvalue]

The Internet & the Value of Art (by Jane Ruffino)

photo by Per Almegård.

Of all the phenomena that repeat themselves, it’s pretty much guaranteed that any new communications technology will be followed by a response from the creative arts that this is a threat to whatever medium they work in. When photography was first developed, some visual artists believed it would free them up to stop trying to reproduce the ‘real’; others thought it was the death of painting. It was neither, and also sort of both. But that’s old news.

Today, of course, it’s harder than ever to make a living as a professional photographer: equipment is cheap, and people are so used to seeing just-above-mediocre images taken by someone with an SLR that’s too fancy for their skillset, that we’re less willing to pay for a professional who actually knows how to create an image. But that’s not about the technology, is it?

Writers like John Berger and Walter Benjamin argued — in very different ways, and at very different times — that the ability to reproduce art ad infinitum could destroy, not just its aura and authenticity, but its authority. They didn’t necessarily think it was a bad thing, but it wasn’t something that could be ignored. Now, almost everything can be copied without any loss of quality.

But technology isn’t a threat to art, no more than it has ever been. There’s always been a threat to art. Whether technological change frees it up or undermines it depends, not on some vague, slippery understanding of what technology is or does, or on insistences that people won’t pay for content, but on the overall value we place on art and artists.

Until we start talking about art with the understanding that art is a job, and an important one, the arguments about internet freebies, illegal downloads, and the devaluing of creativity will descend into simplistic binaries based on the presumption that enjoyers of creative work are either greedy dupes, or committed aesthetes and precious patrons of art for art’s sake. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the Daguerreotype, or about stories produced for the Oculus Rift: it isn’t about the technology, it’s about the people who create the stuff that gives the technology a point. If the creators are too low in the food chain, it’s because that’s where we collectively have put them.

It’s never been easier to fall in love with and share artistic works. Jessica Piazza, in Los Angeles, is a poet and professor who decided that for 2015, she will only submit her work to paying markets. It started with a conversation with poet Dena Rash Guzman, in Oregon, and a hashtag called #poetryhasvalue. The Poetry Has Value project isn’t about demanding cash, it’s a way of using technology and digital distribution to find new ways to talk about the value of art, whether or not we pay for it through our taxes, through philanthropic grants, or by paying artists directly.

My poet friends aren’t Luddites trying to smash the machines. This is about finding new ways to make a living as an artist. I’m a writer and radio-maker, and radio will always be my first love. But I also really like what I do as a technology marketer, and I’m not willing to say that it somehow undermines my right to call myself an artistic creator. The commercially-driven work I do makes me better at storytelling, and the stories I tell as passion projects make me a better content producer.

Not everyone is as lucky as I am, to find a career they enjoy that still allows them to be creative, but I still don’t need a reason to argue that it can and should be possible to make a living as an artist working on art alone. Or at least, it shouldn’t be quite as hard as it is. As Piazza points out, paying artists to work doesn’t undermine the emotional, spiritual and cultural value of art. The publishers, labels, and platform owners and distributors aren’t hurting. Guzman says that it’s probably easier to get paid now, but there’s a lot more competition, and name recognition matters more than it did before. Art in the age of web publishing metrics brings new complications: the ranking of your own name, as well as the SEO of whatever outlet carries your work.

I also asked musician Carol Keogh, one of my favourite Irish artists, what she thought. It’s easier to distribute, yes, but the proliferation of online distribution, she says, makes discernment a lot harder. Because even when it’s free, where do you start?

It’s never been easier to pay artists for their work, and yet our discussions seem to revolve around how people won’t pay for content. Keogh crowdfunded her recent album, Mongrel City. I bought a copy on Bandcamp, then bought one for my boyfriend. It took a couple of minutes and I did it from my desk in in Stockholm. Of course I listen to things for free, too, and always have. Digital downloads have changed the business landscape. But is the idea that people won’t pay for ‘content’ just helping fuel a race to the bottom for creators?

This week sees the 2015 Digital Biscuit, an event dedicated to the relationship between film and technology. It’s not just about putting stuff online, using cool effects, or getting people to pay for stuff, but about stretching boundaries, to see how we can change storytelling and artistic communication for the better, the more exciting, the more inclusive.

I hesitate to pay too much lip service to the overly pretentious ‘transmedia’ experience, but digital technology enables new and exciting narratives, just like it did with photography in the 1840s. And I don’t want to engage in some kind of ‘the internet is killing music’ because ‘home taping’ was the previous culprit, and music still isn’t dead.

There is so much more to the relationship between art and technology than dwelling on whether people will pay for ‘content’. Put that way, then sure, most people would like to get content for as little as possible, but what happens if we recast the question: how can we collectively make sure that the creators of art and literature get paid to do what they do?

If we really want to see technology enable art and artists, beyond the already-privileged sort like James Blunt (who would be wise to google ‘classism’), and continue producing both commercial successes like Taylor Swift (who removed her music from Spotify because she didn’t think she was being paid properly for it), as well as support the weirdness of Bjork, the subversiveness of Pete Seeger (who was blacklisted for many years, and yet still wrote one of the most popular songs of the 20th century), the most important thing we can do is very analogue: insist on the acceptance that art is a real, valid, and crucial job.

*A (shorter) version of this piece was published in Ireland’s Sunday Business Post, where I write a weekly technology column. The original piece is paywalled, but I wanted to share my tech-related perspective, especially since it’s this vague idea of “technology” that keeps being used as a reason to devalue the arts.