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

Discussions (245) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

transformer fire (2008) - Paul Slocum


typo 2: "the piece was transformed from a series of YouTubes with ordinary, interactive controls into a rather elegant video collage," not "the piece was transformed to a series of YouTubes with ordinary, interactive controls into a rather elegant video collage." jeebus.

DISCUSSION

transformer fire (2008) - Paul Slocum


typo: "I think it was a better piece," not "i think it was better piece." (How is babby formed?) I miss not being able to edit my fkubs.

DISCUSSION

Wikipedia Art


Curt, I don't doubt you are capable of being even more condescending.

On my blog I've listed other instances of Lichty's "pseudo-scholarship as performance," or however it's being justified here: http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2009/02/17/daniel-rigal-toughs-it-out/

On the Wikipedia "articles for deletion" page Lichty repeatedly cites himself as an authority in support of the piece and refers to "a developing discussion on a 10,000 person listserv (Rhizome)" without mentioning that he initiated it.

(http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713)

He isn't playing academia off of Wikipedia. He is earnestly arguing for inclusion of the piece, citing himself as an authority. Either way it is wasting the Wikipedia editors' time.

Editor Daniel Rigas was the soul of patience in saying: "I don't think it is productive to discuss this. I now regret giving it an opening as it isn't relevant here. (This is what I get for trying to be helpful.) Some people reject the concept of encyclopaedic knowledge. That is their choice but I don't see any reason for a person of that view to hang out on an encyclopaedia. This sort of stuff gets discussed interminably by philosophers. We are not going to get anywhere with it here. Lets let it drop.

DISCUSSION

Response to "New Media Artists vs Artists With Computers"


Well, you can shoot the messenger and say he's missing the point all you want but there are divisions between new media and the "artists with computers" category discussed in my post.

Look at the mostly supportive threads on Rhizome re: a recent Wikipedia-intervention-as-art:

http://www.rhizome.org/discuss/view/41713
http://rhizome.org/editorial/2360

vs the thread on Paddy Johnson's blog discussing the same piece. Most of the people on Johnson's blog are strangers to me but they don't seem to be new media regulars and they have come together to say the intervention is a weak idea:

http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/16/wikipedia-art-lasts-all-day/

Someone left this little gem: "Maybe flashy icons and digital bling would have made it more interesting?" I can only speculate that that's someone who followed a link over to Johnson's from Rhizome but that is definitely a reference to the "surf club" artists Johnson frequently writes about, written in the snotty, deliberately obtuse style one frequently sees here in discussions of such artists.

Stark polarization is a fact, deny it all you want.

DISCUSSION

transformer fire (2008) - Paul Slocum


Yes, the artMovingProjects version definitely tipped the idea away from the personal home computing experience (although it was shown on a standard Samsung LCD monitor with Mac Mini visible nearby) and injected it into the realm of video art, which has a history and value-set independent of any emerging "net aesthetic." Without saying whether that is better or worse, or more true or untrue to the source material, it is certainly one of the best translations I've seen between contexts. Ah, what the heck, I think it was better piece, for the simple reason that you could watch the actions on all five screens simultaneously without having to scroll up and down and with no loss of scale or resolution. In a sense the full poetry and all the visual connections of the simultaneous disasters could be felt at once. It was a technical tour de force to get that to happen and extra kudos go to Slocum for figuring it out.