[3d image in 80 cm x 120 cm format.]
[Previzualisation. Sculpture created using a prototyping technique. Size: 15 cm in diameter.]
In logic and computer programming, a Boolean operator is a type of variable between two states. In computer-generated imagery, Boolean operations enable us to subtract, add or create an intersection between two objects.
In this series I subtract a sphere from a landscape. The latter becomes hollow. It is sterile, it lacks something, the breath of life. It is a morbid image: a Boolean nature.
A sculpture completes the image by representing the missing part.
The sum of the image and the sculpture forms the landscape in its entirety.
Trollface is a meme that celebrates and disparages the Internet troll and the act of purposefully creating controversy and havoc in online communities. Trollface originated with a short comic posted to 4chan's /v/ boards around November of 2008, and soon the face was cut, pasted, and photoshopped into any situation that had been or needed to be trolled. Trollface captures the sadistic pleasure of trolling, but is also used as a justification for misinformation. It's a reminder that we are all taking this too seriously, and that we were just trolling you anyway.
This post was assembled in anticipation of the trollish behavior (and the trollfaces) which will be the focus of TROLL, a new group show at Envoy Enterprises in the Lower East Side, curated by gay digital media art collective CTRL+W33D. The exhibit opens tonight from 6-9 and will remain up until July 15th. TROLL includes original work by a whole roster of internet-based artists, many of whom we've posted to Rhizome before, here's the full list of participants: Jacob Meehan, Brad Troemel, Kari Altmann, Andrew Laumann, Michael Magnan, Patrick Dyer, Dylan Reece, Chris Udemezue, Scott Hug, Ben Schumacher, Cody Critcheloe, Chris Bogia, Matt Lifson, Jarrod Beck, Elijah Burgher, Daniel Leyva, Lazaro Rodriguez, Ben Aqua, Da Sul Kim, Travess Smalley, Mark Spalding, Kristin Smallwood, Ivan Lozano, Khalid Al Gharaballi, Shawn Maximo, Borna Sammak, Fatima Al Qadiri, Jason Villegas, Paul Cupo, Venus Jazmin Soto, Adam Radokovich and Anthony Thornton.
I am very concerned with problematizing the class and gender dynamics of this history in particular, especially since I am using the term "queer" here in a slippery way, applying it to a group of men who may better fit its historically pejorative definition more than its contemporary transgressive one. I'd love to chat more online and in person. I'll contact you through twitter and perhaps we can get a coffee.
Honestly I just found it more interesting to talk about what the show might mean instead of whether or not it was good. People are going to see the show regardless, and I'd rather they read a piece that puts the show in a context they hadn't thought of then go in with the idea that the show is good or bad because they read it on a website. Is it the responsibility of a site like Rhizome to publish reviews that take a clear stance on the quality or validity of shows such as this? Maybe. But honestly I find that kind of work dull, particularly when it devolves into snark and shade that does more to boost the ego of the reviewer than it does to inform its readers. In fact I would argue that it is precisely those kinds of reviews that are uncritical, or at least, critically shallow.
Part of the reason I reviewed the show as I did is that I was not particularly interested in the pieces as artworks - and how they might fit into a longer art historical tradition - but more what they might be saying about art, technology, and culture. Whether or not the pieces are good is entirely beside the point for me. And, not to contradict Brian, but what the artist's intentions were when creating that piece, or whether or not he did it for the reasons I gave in my review, is also not personally of interest. And while I said in the first paragraph of my review that even though the show was "about" failure the show itself was not a failure, that does not mean that many of the pieces were not critical or intellectual failures, particularly in their failure to provoke any consideration from the viewer beyond "I see what you did there."
But when I went to the show having to actually consider the pieces beyond their immediate punchline and forced myself away from the kind of knee-jerk eat-our-own criticism that is so easy with so much of this kind of work - and so prevalent in this community - I found something that I thought was worth writing about, and that (hopefully) wasn't the same kind of critique that everyone has given Cory for years. For me the review wasn't about if the show was good or bad, it was about what it meant both for the new media art community and within the broader context of art, technology, and culture.
So while this may be a question of defaults it doesn't seem to be reflecting on technologically specific defaults, just culturally specific defaults and readily available forms.