the simplest mashup

select first word in title in last item in del.icio.us RSS feed (recent?min=2):

+

select last image in flickr feed using this selected word as tag

=

http://www.datapainting.com/flickrmixr/tsm/the-simplest-mashup.html

(SVG file)

–

Comments

, Salvatore Iaconesi

aahh, lovely..

but i like them more chaotic:

this one features angry emails from electors in italy (offensive language shown) reinterpreted with images coming from flickr and remixed with a discussion about the original artwork on the AHA italian mailinglist, discussing "is it art or not?" :

http://www.artisopensource.net/hacks/elections.php


and del.icio.us poetry, an everchanging composition based on the things people love most in a specific instant (this one is truly chaotic and may freeze your browser):

http://www.artisopensource.net/hacks/deliciouspoetry.php


byebye!

, Pall Thayer

"this one features angry emails from electors in italy…"

No, I'm afraid it doesn't: Warning: file_get_contents(http://www.partitodemocratico2008.org/risposte.php) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: Connection refused in /hacks/elections.php on line 157

I also like it chaotic but for artistic reference (as well as ambiguous/cryptic suggestion) have chosen to call it "aleatoric."

http://pallit.lhi.is/nude_studies

Please, people. Feel free to use the "about the work" to ask questions. Tons of people have looked and I don't believe that not a single one of them is curious. I don't know, perhaps my "mission" is a lost cause. Lost on the fleeting moment that the work is, ironically enough, addressing. Oh well.

Pall

, Salvatore Iaconesi

:)

the original website is down (too many angry replies from electors or simple maintenance? … the bug turns into narrative..)

… and it's part of the mashing-up, isn't it?

and about your nude_studes: opening up the commentary right inside the code is a wonderful approach.

it could turn to be very narrative (to re-use a word i really like) .. too bad for the lack of curiosity in the audience.

and, on this issue: a really interesting thing i notice in arts that offer interaction of some sort is that many many times people are just "embarassed" and they just don't interact.

some times it's that they are used to art that you look at (and that's it), other times they don't understand, some other times they feel that someone is going to scold them because they are touching the artwork.

museums often being dead places filled with "don't touch" signs probably have something to do with this attitude, too.

once i spoke with the flute player in the Ozric Tentacles band and he told me "people just don't get involved in the music.. either they are on drugs or they just stand there, looking up at the stage with their arms crossed, and the most they do is nod to the music and try to look happy and comfortable".

i have nothing against "standing there nodding" without getting involved. I am just curious of why it happens, because if you do get involved you get a totally different experience/understanding of what you're looking at.

i feel that this is also true for interactive arts, and for arts on the web. either the works present something that is immediately recognizable or perceptively fun, or they just look (even for a long time, according to statistics) and leave.

the StumbleUpon web application is remarkable in this sense: i studied the access statistics coming from that service on about a dozen of websites and got really interestng measures. loads and loads of un-interacting, passive, practically-dead visits spending several minutes staring at a screen full of interaction hints.

to answer myself some of the questions, i am turning to the studies on visual fetishes and on things that are closer to marketing than thay are to art.

byebye
s

, Pall Thayer

I think the "embarrassed" reason might be true for gallery exhibitions where the person would be exposing themselves to the gaze of a crowd but online? I don't think so. In my commentable code forum people can post anonymously. There's nothing to connect the individual to the comment unless they choose to do so. I think it does have more to do with what I said about the fleeting moment, with Paul Virilio's notions on speed and the fact that we just don't have time to stop and dwell on things in the info-world because we might miss the live broadcast of the next big news item. "Pics or it didn't happen" has been pushed aside by "live broadcast or it didn't happen." It's an infatuation we've had for a while now, especially since the day the world watched the twin towers collapse in real time. I'd write more but I have to go check news.bbc.co.uk It's been almost 10 minutes since I last looked.

, x-arn

>I'd write more but I have to go check news.bbc.co.uk It's been almost 10 minutes since I last looked.

:))

i think you're right

i took a look at nudes studies , and it's a quite complex work, conceptualy really fine, but i understand that people do not take time to 'enter in it', it means , going behind the drawings, behind the screen, behind the code, behind data from hearthquake centers, behind…. themselves.

i guess it's the kind of work you have to come back to, in order to reflect about the work and reflect about yourself reflecting about the work.
And to be able to come back to this work, i have to know where i put a reference to it, so, in a way, i have to become a curator (before being an actor of the work).

How does a spectator become a curator ? i don't know, but perhaps it's a way to think about what we are doing here, in this small area of the cyberspace.

, Pall Thayer

Heh.. that sentence does a pretty good job of getting right to the central point of what I was talking about.

And yes, I think that for many people today, it is quite correct and I'm not saying that as a criticism of the behavior of others. I'll admit that I am one of those people. If I'm within range of a computer I can't go more than a half hour or so without checking a news site to see if I'm missing out on something. It's as if we think that if we don't catch that "live broadcast" or "breaking news headline," we've missed the news.

I have a hard time seeing Nude Studies as highly complex. Probably because I'm too involved in the work. No, it's not immediately obvious what's going on but it's up to the viewers whether they feel that they "require" more information than that which is given up front. What I wanted to do was create something that could provide relatively immediate satisfaction but still be "mysterious" enough to compel inquisitive viewers into wanting to dig up more information. By providing the information in the manner that I do I'm essentially pointing out that I don't really have to tell them, it's all revealed in the code and in rather plain English even. But it helps to know at least which lines to look at. The gallery version does a more complete job of drawing the viewer in. It's projected and draws the image 12 times simultaneously so that the viewer's visual field is filled. It also provides audio queues as new seismic data is received.

The spectator becoming curator; never thought about it that way. Interesting.

Pall