As we've discovered in the most recent comments, websites have degrees of interactivity. I run a blog
(shameless plug 1) and also a website
(shameless plug 2). The blog allows for anyone to comment - even anonymous individuals. The website is static html - it's just a place for me to put some of my pretty stuff and hope people read my CV. Which one is "more social?" You'd probably choose the blog. OK, now let's say we throw my Facebook profile, my Youtube page, and some Livejournal I started when I was 13 into the mix. What's more social? Well, again you'd probably choose Facebook or Youtube. But let's consider: what if Kanye started marketing his "paintings" on his blog instead of Youtube? That might be considered even more of a social media marketing technique, even though he would be harnessing word-of-mouth (old school!)over Facebook ads. The problem is that the internet is dynamic, and people are constantly intrigued by new ways to communicate, and so when something is online and has any
interactive component, it's impossible to say what is or isn't social media.
Now that I've stated my case, let's return to the problem at hand: Social Media Art. Based on my previous arguments, it should be obvious that I am against any sort of timeline construction or "start dates" for social media - even more so for social media art. Anyone with any art history knowledge should know the Alfred Barr Chart of Everything
. Belief in this sort of comfortable linearity in human thought is what has kept people digging up the rotting corpse of Postmodernism and parading it around for the past 10 years. Timelines in art encourage bad art historical jokes that are unintelligible to people without BFAs, notions of purity and essentialism, and worst of all, retconning