Tom Moody
Since 2002
Works in New York, New York United States of America

Discussions (244) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

The Accidental Archivist: Criticism on Facebook, and How to Preserve It


Or, it is horribly adequate if you want to vent to a few friends and not have a permanent searchable archive of your comments. (Assuming Facebook doesn't then blow another set of privacy seals, as it has been known to do.)
The decision to move new media discussion, announcements, etc to Facebook has already happened. The larger question is what does the "public sphere" mean when so many people have elected to use a system of Byzantine complexity with complex code and constantly shifting rules and allegiances. Is Rhizome the public sphere, attempting to collect this material, or is Facebook, where the discussion is happening in real time?

DISCUSSION

The Accidental Archivist: Criticism on Facebook, and How to Preserve It


Here is a specific example and a question about how this Facebook proxy would work.
According to Paddy Johnson ( http://artfcity.com/2014/05/23/friday-links-a-wall-of-dicks-and-some-internet-bickering/ ), Marisa Olson recently "took her complaints to Facebook" about a show she curated that was cancelled by a commercial gallery. Johnson links to the post ( https://www.facebook.com/marisaolson/posts/10151999971306442 ) but when I, as a non-Zuck, click it I see a broken thumb icon and the words: "Sorry, this page isn't available. The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed." Johnson says the link is correct and wonders if I have to be Olson's friend to see the post. I have no idea and this is normally the point that I go look for something more interesting on the internet.
My question is, will this Rhizome feed be a record of Zachary Kaplan's friends' activities? Not that there is anything wrong with that, if he's the person volunteering to do the difficult work of monitoring Facebook discussions, but I'm wondering how (or whether) Rhizome accesses a newsworthy or much-discussed event if the author is shielding it from public discussion by publishing only to a network of friends.

DISCUSSION

The Accidental Archivist: Criticism on Facebook, and How to Preserve It


I thought it was probably a joke but it still gives me the willies. Good work, Zach.

DISCUSSION

The Accidental Archivist: Criticism on Facebook, and How to Preserve It


As for grinding my teeth over this post (see, Twitter) two months ago I wrote here ( http://rhizome.org/editorial/2014/mar/19/commenter-lament/ ) that if "Zachary Kaplan is zealously following and participating in conversations elsewhere, why not enlarge that role and have a mechanism in place to feed those discussions back into Rhizome? A kind of human-edited 'track back' function. Take 'Facebook content' and reclaim it for a non-profit commons (within the bounds of copyright law, if that's even possible)."

That doesn't mean Facebook itself isn't grind-worthy. It's pretty much The Devil, for reasons mentioned by Marianna Aguirre (above), Geert Lovink, and many others (Zuckerberg's LOL about art criticism -- assuming it's not fake -- ought to send a shiver up everyone's spine). Yet for whatever reason the new media community has embraced it and often hides critical judgments behind various layers of friend connection and the impermanence you've described here. Am all in favor of getting this out in the open, or at least, more open.

DISCUSSION

Art Focused and Distracted: Three new media exhibitions curated by Joshua Decter


Mr. Decter points out a factual error in my post -- I wrote that in his "Screen" show he "placed TV cameras in the room to film the works." I updated the post to describe more accurately how video images of the works appeared in the gallery. Apologies for the error.
Otherwise, I think we mostly have differences of opinion, not fact. Mr. Decter's sense is that virtual curator and virtual artist displays aren't (or weren't) common in museum programming; my sense is that they are (or were). Who did them first doesn't really matter if they are unhelpful, as in overly reductive, ideas. My point in mentioning Google Sketch-Up wasn't to say it was around in 1999. Clearly it wasn't. It was to make a connection between what Mr. Decter was doing with then-current 3D software and what artists are still doing with virtual "white cube"-placed objects ("[reducing the slow] process of artistic thought and individuation of ... physical collections to simplified mix and match objects," I wrote in the post). Yesterday's unfortunate idea is today's unfortunate trend.
I haven't read Mr. Decter's book, the release of which roughly coincided with this Rhizome post. Here's hoping he'll be joining the conversation on the vagaries of post-internet art, or po-net, as some are calling it! These issues are too important to leave to Hollywood collectors.