The next Digital Arts and Culture conference is going to be in Copenhagen, December 1-3, and the call for papers is just out! Full papers to be submitted by August 1.

My advisor, Espen Aarseth, started the Digital Arts and Culture series with a generous four-year grant from the Norwegian Research Council. I was the local coordinator for the first DAC, back in 1998, in charge of emails and the website and practical details. I had lots of help from Torill and others in the final weeks – I was finishing my MA at the same time and it was really exhausting! Look, the conference website is still there, papers and all! The year after, Terry Harpold chaired the second iteration at Georgia Tech in Atlanta, and it was excellent: twice as big as the year before and webcast and full of art installations and far more food than anyone could eat. (I met my not-yet-then-boyfriend for the first time; he was sitting in the sun with a group of young men and they fascinated me though I didn’t speak with them much. Later I insisted they come to the hotelroom party and he and I flirted but that was all.) I haven’t checked whether the webcasts still work – perhaps you can still watch quarrels about narrative and cybertext and fiction? The year after that, the conference returned to Bergen, chaired by Jan Rune Holmevik, and new people turned up, lots of people I still know and love to meet at conferences. The DAC 2000 website (designed by Elin) is still there too. 2001 was the final year of Norwegian Research Council funding, and the conference was held at Brown, where Espen was a visiting scholar. I arrived late for this conference, having – uh – well, actually I turned up at the airport with my daughter’s passport and understandably wasn’t let on the plane. Interestingly it only cost $50 to change my non-refundable dirt-cheap ticket to one leaving the next day, so I turned up a day late and the conference was already in motion and I never quite caught up. (I barely spoke with my not-yet-boyfriend but there was a smile as we rushed past each other; his hands were full of ELO t-shirts and he gave me one. I was surprised, and pleased.) There was a gap after that, until RMIT in Melbourne sponsored DAC 2003, which featured kangaroos and bite-sized lamingtons in addition to excellent shopping and a lot of very good papers.

I’m so pleased that the IT University in Copenhagen is keeping DAC alive with DAC 2005. Obviously I’m partial, having been involved in this baby’s conception, but the Digital Arts and Culture conferences have been my home ground, the place I meet people doing things like me and things I’d never have though of but intensely related to what I might want to do. They’ve combined art and literature and theory, and they’ve usually been small enough to be social, though I guess I got a pretty serious head start in the socialising. I hope I’ll see you there!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “DAC 2005 in Copenhagen!

  1. All things Bru

    Digital Arts and Culture 2005 in Coopenaghen

    The next Digital Arts and Culture conference is going to be in Copenhagen, December 1-3, and the call for papers is just out! Full papers to be submitted by August 1. Via Jill…

  2. […] The Digital Arts and Culture conferences are another kind of home to me. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.