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

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

What?


Thanks, Tracky, that is very clear. I would like to amend your statement...

the newer net art is more about processing cultural input than it is about the dimensions and the possibilities of the web

...to say that it's not just something your generation of artists is doing. Damon's list bugs me for being so generation-specific. Some of us have been practicing and preaching the presets gospel for years. The difference is it's done with an element of conscious opposition to old-guard net art practice, much (not all) of which is over-intellectualized and looking back to '60s (text-centric, gallery-centric) conceptual art for models. I prefer my Fluxus on the fly (hence the interest in 4chan) not through stating a proposition of what a piece is going to be and then "proving" (ie, illustrating) it.

DISCUSSION

What?


Tracky and M.River above:

Tracky quote: “And even though it's clear by now that net.art doesn't equal today's net art and the rules are that there are no rules and uncool is the new cool and all that”

M.River reply: Yeah, I think that is where I kinda sta[r]ted with all this in my mind. They don’t equal but then again they are not that different. I’m just trying to figure some of the “ifs” and “thens”.


What? To the extent this exchange can be parsed, it seems like a descent into mushy relativism.
(1990s) net.art and today's net art are completely different. There are rules for both. It's not just about "cool" and "uncool." Why don't you address Damon's lists?
He put some thought into that dichotomy and you're just meandering around in mush-land.

DISCUSSION

What?


Several people in this thread will be participating in a Rhizome panel next month on Net Aesthetics 2.0, including at least one person Eric Dymond has never heard of. I learned a lot and appreciate hearing others' thoughts.

DISCUSSION

What?


Damon,
"fragile," as in, many dead links?

It's funny/sad to see what happened to some of those (e.g., netomat).

Looking back at my own blog posts about "net art" ca. 2001 bounded media objects were what grabbed me. See, e.g., a post on Michael Ensdorf's piece "Momentary Distractions" http://www.digitalmediatree.com/artifax/?4140
It has vanished so I'll try to describe it:

Grids of quicktimes fill the screen. Each QT is a shot of an individual in a crowd or street scene (or an unknown official at a public podium) at the moment that person notices he or she is being filmed (hence their momentary distraction from whatever they are doing). There were about ten people caught this way, one person per page. The grid on each page was multiple repetitions of the same shot of the person noticing the camera but with slightly different start times so there was a kind of ripple down the page. It would have fit right in with your second group, minus the cheeky humor of most of those. The only thing connecting it to your first group was that it was hosted on a university site rather than linked to by a blog. The vids loaded quickly. As I recall they could play on different video formats.

It seems to me everything was from media sources so it was arranged found footage.

DISCUSSION

What?


Jeff,
I propose we have cognitive surplus credits.
You can trade comments you have posted elsewhere in English for three of these YouTubes.
High-fiving Tracky results in a loss of one YouTube credit.

Not really, but Clay Shirky has convinced me we need to start taking our surplus more seriously.