tom moody

216 Disqus Comments

The comments below originally appeared on a handful of different websites (the bulk are from Paddy Johnson's); they are a complete record of my "Disqus writing" from the time these sites started using the service (in 2010) to July 10, 2014, when I last saved this list. Disqus generates the list automatically, and while the vast majority of the comments are mine, a few "replies to me" also make it into their compilation -- not sure why. Timestamps were copied at the time of posting and aren't accurate now.

back to blog

Tuesday Links: How to Be Good at the Internet • 7 hours ago

House's gallery's website has a good range of different periods of his work: http://www.dma-art.com/#!perry...

Tuesday Links: How to Be Good at the Internet • 7 hours ago

 The Houston painter I liked best was Perry House, who is in Davenport's second tier. A De Chirico-esque semi-Modernist who is slightly out of step with the city and the times, but in a good way. His work changes from series to series, and from jpegs at least, it looks like he's still keeping it fresh.

Tuesday Links: How to Be Good at the Internet • 8 hours ago

I know Davenport from my Texas days so I'm kidding him a bit. Still, when I left (20 years ago next May), essentially the same group predominated. Of his top ten, only four weren't overwhelmingly familiar names, and they were in the slots 7-10. Consistency over the years isn't necessarily a vice, art-wise, but I'd have a hard time getting out of bed to write that same article for two decades.

Tuesday Links: How to Be Good at the Internet • 20 hours ago

What do you mean by "Naturally Adrian Chen writes the feature"? Is Chen the Boswell to Ripps' Samuel Johnson?
Bill Davenport's article illustrates the perils of being a critic in a small scene: It should be called "Five Painters in Addition to the Five I Usually Write About and/or Have Personal Connections To (and Sorry to the Ones I Put in the Second Tier)."
It is astonishing that Mark Flood keeps showing up on "hot emerging artists" lists. He has been exhibiting since 1981. That is a lo-o-o-ong emergence.

Paddles ON! Auction Exceeds Estimates in Developing Digital Market • 2 days ago

To wiki minaj: OK, so you haven't seen the work --- your rage about the terrible situation of Manning selling at auction is noted.

Paddles ON! Auction Exceeds Estimates in Developing Digital Market • 3 days ago

These were the two I saw:
American Contemporary (East Village, NYC)
http://americancontemporary.bi...
Apr - June 2014
Retrospective gallery (Hudson, NY)
http://www.retrospectivegaller...
 May - June 2014   

Paddles ON! Auction Exceeds Estimates in Developing Digital Market • 3 days ago

I've seen two shows of the work in person but I was already intrigued by the way Bill Brady presented it, just from the installation shot: http://www.billbradykc.com/mic...
I know of one feted new media painter (via hearsay) who was convinced by actually seeing the work.
 Hotel-y is part of the story -- in quotation marks -- but in person you are vacillating between the skepticism you would have if this work had actually been made with paint and the digital aspect, which is all about simulation and physical modeling (at the most accessible level of "consumer" tech). It's a matter of scale -- these things tower over you -- but also of presence and presentation. The gel medium is smeared on as if it were painted, yet has little actual relationship to the underlying strokes. This is funny, but is also adding a weird kind of solidity to the work.
They are pretty but not merely pretty, and certainly not cloying, in person.
By the "nose of the collector" I only meant that plunking down money will have to do until someone actually provides the critical exegesis. By then the flippers will be on to something else. I don't see any of our established NY painting critics providing this exegesis. I think they will avoid this work because it's "digital" and they still don't know how to talk about that. (Of course I'd be interested in any articles I might have missed.)
   
Paddles ON! Auction Exceeds Estimates in Developing Digital Market • 5 days ago

Michael Manning's finger wiggling is anything but lethargic, wiki minaj! His muscles are toned, and so powerful he has had to register his fingers as weapons. His studio floor is littered with broken phones from his enthusiastic jabs.

Kidding aside, Manning has yet to find a Harold Rosenberg to pen the definitive "American Action Painters" essay for phone and tablet painting, ultimately rendered as printed canvas, daubed with actual physical gel. So we are having to rely on the collector's nose for quality at this moment. The paintings are good in person -- have you seen them, or are you basing your dismissal on jpegs? There is a bit of a goofing quality to them but they also have a sense of freedom and openness, owing to the large scale. They don't read like "digital art" much at all, yet have an interesting artificiality. The viewer thinks about how -- and why -- they were made.

10 years ago you could hardly give away a digital painting, collectors were so nervous about them. Manning has broken the ice for more people working this way.

But who gives a tinker's damn about the money? Let's talk about the art.

Is Jeff Koons More Like Edward Snowden or Buzzfeed? • 5 days ago

In reply to my question above, "Is there any ceramic in the show?" -- some of the Banality sculptures are polychromed wood and some are porcelain.

Is Jeff Koons More Like Edward Snowden or Buzzfeed? • 7 days ago

I presumed to take your comment "I have only seen this work in reproduction" to mean all the work. Sorry if that's not the case.

Is Jeff Koons More Like Edward Snowden or Buzzfeed? • 7 days ago

See the work and read what the critics have said about it. You've formed an opinion based on jpegs and are hectoring people to get them to agree with it.

Is Jeff Koons More Like Edward Snowden or Buzzfeed? • 9 days ago

Thanks for giving us a glimpse of the heavy critical power talk on Facebook, the new home of art discourse (and hoodies). Not sure where Sally McKay is seeing "ceramics" and "soft, glazed curves," though. The Banalities series is polychromed wood. Koons also works in bronze, stainless steel, marble... Is there any ceramic in the show? Koons may have been sued over the pink panther but it was "string of puppies" that went into law books as a damaging precedent. Cooler heads advised Koons to settle that one and he kept fighting to prove that everything was fair game for appropriation. Eventually he got a judge who would definitely state, for posterity, that he stole the idea. This gave the litigation-minded firmer ground for coming after artists. In any event, I don't think we need to contextualize Koons as a forerunner, the critical (and audacious) nature of the work is fine in the here and now.

Is Jeff Koons More Like Edward Snowden or Buzzfeed? • 9 days ago


The intended audience of "appropriating advertisements in the hallowed white cube" is what Ronald Jones and others called the "decisionmaking class." Yes, believe it or not, the 1% don't actually look at the world all that critically unless you shove it in their faces, within their chosen haunts. Koons may be a rich and powerful artist now, but it was not always thus. Every artist, even ones with trust funds, start from a position of disenfranchisement because most people don't even know what art is (only what they like). The person "establishing critical intent to justify pleasure in Koons' work" is Koons himself, not the author of this blog post. It's always been a subtle dance, and will never satisfy Marxist scolds such as Ben Davis, who took a wrong turn on the way to a political science career and wound up in the art world.

One Night While I Was Driving • 9 days ago

The cubes inhabit an ambiguous space on either side of the windshield. One yellow slab briefly appears as a near-octagonal shape that could be an approaching road sign, but mostly the action hovers over the dash, right in the driver's field of view. High speed driving and hallucinating do not mix -- time to pull over. Also, there is a mashup of two very different types of 3D environments: the driving test and the tetris-style abstraction. The forced marriage via GIF makes me look at each more closely. This level of critical analysis didn't come until just now, three years after I posted it (and demanded upping the critical stakes for GIFs).

Thursday Links: Madoff’s Secret Office Art • 6 days ago

After Paddy's review came out, GIF Bites added the "infinity icon" that allows the user to click off a page and move to another.
The original "white castle review" video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thursday Links: Madoff’s Secret Office Art
• 6 days ago

Work and thought clearly went into the "slide show" and it is a better presentation than a tumblr. Essentially Rourke re-created the old YTMND format of combining a GIF with a sound clip into a full page "media" experience. With more variations than simple evenly spaced tiles to make it fullscreen. Also you can click through at your own rate, using the "infinity" icon. The "slide show" format solved the problems I was mentioning on the Disquiet thread in 2012 -- having side by side media from two hosts was awkward. However, the "slide show" also makes this more of a video event than a GIF event, but that's another conversation.

Thursday Links: Madoff’s Secret Office Art6 days ago

The Artnet article headline calls it an "Iranian GIF exhibition" and you use that phrase in the post above. That perhaps raises some confusion about what you're reviewing, and raises unnecessary issues re: the inclusion or proportion of "Iranian" content. The project predated the show -- GIFBites had its own independent life and concept. Whittling 70 GIFs from a tumblr down to 50 and making them into a slideshow is pretty slight grooming as far as exhibit-making goes. (Not that you can't consider it an exhibit.) Even harder to turn it into an "Iranian show," fully accountable as such, with such minimal, late-stage changes.

Thursday Links: Madoff’s Secret Office Art 7 days ago

I'm a bit confused about GIFBites in the context of this exhibition. I first learned about GIFBites shortly after its inception as a jointly hosted tumblr-soundcloud project. It was written about on the Disquiet website in December 2012 and I made some comments about it at that stage. See http://disquiet.com/2012/12/12...
It looks like anyone could submit a proposal and Rourke had been selecting one each week since late 2012. This might explain why so many familiar "net art" names showed up in the roster. Paddy's Artnet review makes it seem as if this was a project generated in connection with an Iranian art show, and that it was conceived as a stand-alone online "exhibit" but I don't think that's the case. It appears more likely that curators in the Iranian space invited Rourke to "show his tumblr," and that's all this is. Fach & Asendorf's GIF-with-sound is pretty damned horrible work (yet, from what Asendorf suggests on twitter, it would not violate community norms regarding racial caricature in Europe -- really?), but far worse things pop up on tumblr and dump.fm all the time, and no one holds them to a very high standard, art-quality-wise. Not sure that "being in a show in an art space," in Iran or anywhere else, makes that any different.

E-flux Supports DeviantArt’s Application for the .ART Domain • 8 days ago

The larger questions here are (i) should ICANN be doing this? (No) (ii) will these top level domains create new gatekeeper powers on the web? (Maybe) (iii) is it gatekeeping to have a "policy board of arts professionals to implement standards for the domain’s use"? (Yes) (iv) is curating the same thing as gatekeeping? (Yes) (v) are the applicants for these domains seeking to win for commercial reasons? (Yes)
Corinna, you mentioned that there were "initial fears" about deviantart or eflux "curating" the domain. Fear might be too strong a word but having either of these two competitors deciding what is or isn't art is a source of ongoing concern. If one of the other eight applicants wins, this entire issue goes away. Far more damage can be done by well-intentioned sounding but basically dishonest appeals to a community than will be done by organizations that have no communities to begin with. It would be good if ArtFCity would take a position rather than just reporting.

Are Cat Listicles an Effective Marketing Tool? • 17 days ago

The New York article was last year but it was discussed recently because some writers followed up on Peretti's early essay about “identity formation and the urge to consume,”    and one of them got a response from Peretti. I wrote about this in my post "I, Like, Reached Out to the Buzzfeed Guy."

Friday Links: A Wall of Dicks and Some Internet Bickering • 3 days ago

Thanks for the text. When I, a non-Zuck, go to that link 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."

Friday Links: A Wall of Dicks and Some Internet Bickering • 3 days ago

The link to Marisa Olson's post about Bitforms is taking me to a non-existent Facebook page. Did she remove the post? Change it since you published? If you saved it, or remember any of the substance, I'd be curious to know what she wrote.

Are Cat Listicles an Effective Marketing Tool? • 4 days ago

Paddy, you've mentioned Peretti's art world ties a few times but am not really sure how much claim that realm ever had on Peretti, or vice versa.

The New York magazine article sums it up: "Peretti’s first attempts to manufacture virality took the form of conceptual pranks, which he devised with his sister Chelsea, now a successful comedian. For one, Peretti set up a telephone hotline that played a recorded rejection, designed to be given out to guys at bars. Another, 'blackpeopleloveus.com,' purported to be the personal site of a white couple who were trying much too hard to prove they were down. The stunts garnered TV coverage, including an uncomfortable BET appearance, and a show at the New Museum."

Blackpeopleloveus was obnoxious and not all that funny, and that New Museum installation was dreadful, "wall installation 101." This was a man destined to be an Ad Man, not an artist. (In fairness, the "dirt style" HTML design page he did with Arcangel was amusing.)

The Eyebeam Reblog is credited to Peretti and Michael Frumin (who also collaborated with Arcangel). When I did the reblog in 2004, if I had questions they went to Frumin, or Alex Galloway. I'm not sure how much Peretti had to do with it -- that would be worth a follow-up to the New York magazine story.

Aaron Chan: Web 2.0 Towelette • 5 days ago

Chan's tumblr name is a tribute to wrestler Scotty 2 Hotty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotty_Too_Hotty

An amusing aspect of this GIF is that all the verisimilitude (and it ain't much) is in the falling cloth. Rippling, bouncing, and so forth. While the shoe, inexplicably suspended in midair, is as motionless as a brick.

Monday Links: Social Media Loses; Wet Dog Wins • 20 days ago

First Younger than Jesus, now the Glasshole Triennial. "Visitor Engagement Apps" sounds ominous (complimentary Google Glasses, to be returned at the door, perhaps?)

Tom Moody and deaniebabie: It’s a Ring…It’s a Shrimp • 20 days ago

I did a reply post on this and added something not discussed yet:

Both of us skirted an issue someone on dump.fm raised, the most basic
content-level kind of question: what's the symbolic connection of the shrimp and the ring (suggestive of a diamond wedding ring)? You could ask the maker of the original morph (it may or may not be deaniebabie -- aka Dean Schneider -- I'm not finding that GIF on his site). You could say it's Dada/absurdist or computer/random connection with no inherent meaning. Or you could draw your own connection, such as "marriage and seafood both stink after the first three days."

"Have fun," I suggested.

Tom Moody and deaniebabie: It’s a Ring…It’s a Shrimp • 20 days ago

Thanks for the post. The color version of this (as I recall from its momentary appearance on dump.fm, when deaniebabie posted it) had vaguely greenish colors and the "tween" frames were somewhat wispy. Converting it to this black and white dot rendering gave the whole more solidity and conviction. One reason it's so engaging is the way the ellipses twist in mid-morph. You would think the circular shape of the ring would follow the curve of the shrimp, but in just a few frames it becomes a kind of Moebius strip. In a way it convinces you that almost any two shapes can be morphed. The algorithm has powers of cleverness that seem greater than ours.

T.GIF, 2014 GIF Tourney • 25 days ago

 
As of March 27, five GIFs have been rescued from this ill-considered competition and given loving homes. If my comment announcing the GIF Rescue Service could be taken out of moderation it would be much appreciated (it probably happened when I edited to change the URL). --Tom

T.GIF, 2014 GIF Tourney • a month ago

Please note that the name and post title has been changed to GIF Rescue Service: http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2014/03/23/announcing-gif-rescue-service/
Competition is not fun but rescue warms the hearts of millions.

Art F City Is Liveblogging the Rhizome Telethon • a month ago

Thanks for these notes. Corinna, regarding your question about artist Google use: for clarification, here's a link to the text I was reading aloud (the slightly smoother blog version) about a Javier Morales post on Nasty Nets. Petra Cortright showed this Morales post when we did the Net Aesthetics 2.0 panel in 2008.

http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2008/06/26/thoughts-on-a-nasty-nets-post/
http://archive.rhizome.org/artbase/53981/nastynets.com/index2d7f.html

Wednesday Links: Unicorn and Wine Class • a month ago

Regarding your Troemel review, you're right that the problem is translating internet excitement into gallery excitement. Am not particularly excited by The Jogging, a kind of Nasty Nets-lite website that has the appearance of spontaneity but carefully stays on message. If we assume that the artist's various online efforts are about what Nicholas O'Brien calls "aggregation" (certainly Tumblr is all about that) it makes some sense to try to capture that spirit in the gallery setting, with these, let's call them "hoarder collages" of American Apparel ads and Semiotext(e) book covers. But aren't those references slightly out of date, relative to elements of the collages such as Litecoins (slightly more obscure than the highly topical bitcoins) and “customized human hair dreadlocks” that you might have to read the press release to identify? And what's up with those lentils? And ultimately, are the vacuum-sealed collages intriguing to look at, as collages? I'd say not very -- to be nice you could maybe relate them to Martin Kippenberger's bad-boy assemblages. One viewer I visited the show with thought the main value of the work was as a time capsule: in other words, you buy the work on faith that it will say more in a few centuries about the present moment than it does now.

Wednesday Links: Unicorn and Wine Class  • a month ago

Thanks, Paddy and Whitney. One correction: I'll be reading my comments at 12 noon, NY time, on March 19, 2014. This will be like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, except by invitation.

APlea 5 days ago

Your question "How do the strategies of innovation incubation funding effect the types of cultural production that will occur in this studio?" is the key one for me. I would phrase it: "is artistic innovation the same as invention of a product?" and say, no, it's not. The two can overlap but art is not science, or engineering. Crispin's "Turing vs Duchamp" polarity leaves out so much. The Duchamp rotoreliefs could be perceptual science, but the Large Glass is absurdist poetry - it's not about learning, earning, or making the world a better place. Where do Matta, Eva Hesse, or Oskar Fischinger fit into a Turing vs Duchamp scheme? To answer these questions you'd have to have strong opinions about art and willingness to laugh at the certainties of science. I don't see anyone with that mindset getting past the gatekeepers looking for innovation in the logical positivist sense. You would have to lie on the application form, which is what capitalism-averse artists routinely do to get Creative Capital grants.

APlea • 6 days ago

The conversation seems to have stalled out after that last bit of ad hominem analysis. It's disappointing to see so much "wait and see" pushback in favor of this proposed, murky, art/biz hybrid. Hard to know how much of that's fear of reprisals on the part of readers who essentially agree with O'Brien or just apathy as usual from creative folks to "politics." It should be noted O'Brien encouraged his critics on twitter to participate here (including Julia Kaganskiy, director of New Inc) and they've so far declined. Kaganskiy gave as a reason her fear that this thread would "devolve" into what's actually a fairly civilized discussion: http://altcrit.tumblr.com/post.... Disagreement isn't devolution. Yet one can certainly understand not wanting to have one's motives speculated upon, as happens in the comment above.
All that aside, this feels similar to the First Look situation, where left-leaning bloggers gave tepid-to-enthusiastic endorsements of the Greenwald-Omidyar partnership, with a tacit agreement to look the other way when Mark Ames asked obvious questions regarding how that partnership is going to work in practicality. (For those who haven't followed it, Ames questioned [in advance!] the integrity of an investigative site funded by a "free market zealot" whose micro-lending projects in India ended in disaster, and criticized that the Snowden docs were remaining in private hands, instead of being widely disseminated, as the Pentagon Papers were.)
We're in transition from the old, government-support-for-the-arts model to a kind of forced entrepreneurialism for what used to be called the "non-profit" sector. O'Brien is right to question this. "The old art world was bad, too" is a red herring - that's an entrenched model of commerce limited to the mega-wealthy. The question is, what is the best place for rule-breaking creative intelligentsia (the artists formerly known as artists)? The early web briefly promised a wide-open playground, but since roughly the time Google successfully monetized search, the channels keep narrowing. Talk of potlatch or sharing models (except in the sense of sharing-for-profit) is ludicrously quaint.
I know what works for me -- low overhead, low tech, and DIY. So New Inc isn't something I'd apply for. I'm "concern trolling" here to address the overall change in climate, which says something an artist makes out of pure need and/or a post-universalist quest for what used to be called beauty is increasingly something that has to be couched in terms of potential profitability, in the monetary sense. That's just wrong.

APlea • 7 days ago

These are good points, Nicholas. Take it from me, you will be ostracized, but it's OK, you will find your own support system and it will be better.
NEW INC - horrible name - can you believe they paid two branding agencies to come up with that? - seems to envision itself as a combination of MIT Media Lab and Creative Capital. From what I've heard CC is almost like Est or the, ahem, "science religion," where you have to repeat these new-age-y corporate mantras and drink the koolaid to participate. NEW INC director Julia Kaganskiy's interview with LouiseBlouinArtInfo is full of this breezy businesspeak, while promising to "peel back the curtain on some of these more insider art world and business practices and ideas." Peel back the curtain, not to debunk the practices but to improve them!
Supposedly Japan has never had a romantic, artists-starving-in-a-garret tradition, which is why Takashi Murakami can make Gucci bags - or was it Prada - without feeling like he's selling out. NEW INC's and Creative Capital's vision of a seamless art/commerce connection smells more horrendous since we in the "West" do have a tradition of intellectualism divorced from sales.
One thing that's notably missing from NEW INC is any kind of "critic grant" or fellowship. Something like that might inject some doubt and humility into their process. But only if the critic doesn't then have to worry about clicks and eyeballs a la Gawker or Buzzfeed - OK, forget I mentioned it.
Possibly the movement of Rhizome.org into NEW INC's building as what Kaganskiy calls an "anchor tenant" will give some of this needed intellectual balance. As long as you and I are free to post comments on Rhizome's blog, the potential exists to slip subversive messages in, like a restaurant menu under a New York apartment door.
Thanks for bringing this up.

The Best of Us, For the Rest of Us: Karen Archey · a day ago

Hi, Whitney. I'd be interested to know when Archey's "Image Conscious" blog content was removed from BlouinArtinfo and why and by whom. That seems like a story that's not addressed here and maybe merits an update to the post (since you discuss her later annotation and the link to the original writing goes to blank pages). I recall noticing the "Image Conscious" content missing before this interview because I was looking for that "minor leagues" essay that had also disappeared from "Bien-Pensant."

As for my linking to a past "gripe" (actually an argument that appeared on this blog where Paddy was extensively involved) I'm happy to provide it: http://www.artfagcity.com/2010/09/08/immaterial-dispersal-not-so-great/

Re-reading it, one of the topics was Gene McHugh's blog "Post Internet" and whether it was too cut off from Internet back-and-forth of links, comments, searching, etc. Archey tried to play "gotcha" about my lack of blog comments and Paddy put her in her place: "If you want to make an argument of authority through a false equivalency between a blog that maintains a no comment policy, no searchable url and no post linking ability to one that simply has its comments turned off, be my guest, but you won’t be talking to me any longer."

The Best of Us, For the Rest of Us: Karen Archey · 10 minutes ago

The most intriguing parts of this interview are found when you click the links. The non-clicking reader might not know that Archey's BlouinArtInfo blog now consists of twelve months of blank pages. One wonders who made the decision to purge the content and leave the blog title up: writer or publisher? Archey's previous Bien-Pensant blog seems to have suffered a similar fate. That was unfortunate for readers and commenters who were embroiled in discussions of (to cite an example where I was involved) whether new media artists were a "minor league" feeding into the commercial gallery system (I thought not, but now my commentary is gone). The same non-clicking reader also wouldn't know that the annotated BlouinArtinfo blog post is highly critical of ArtFCity -- I guess that's "brassy" but this interview would have been a good place to hash out these differences rather than washing them down the memory hole. From my limited experience of Archey's writing she seems obsessed with the economics of the art world and wears her ethics on her sleeve: she was quick to imply (in an AFC comment thread a few years back) that my own blog's lack of comments fit somewhere in her spectrum of moral failings (which was also an excellent way to avoid the topics under discussion). By her definition my writing may lack open source transparency -- although I do release early and often -- but at least it's still up on the web and not vanished without a trace (knock microchips).

The Measure Of Success: Making Art in the “Like” Economy last month

"The most successful creators will be those who choose to work within the system," with or without the qualifiers that follow, reads like a Party dictate in the former USSR.

Monday Links: Economies of Scale last month

Lindsay, Paddy said "at least one person who doesn’t give a shit about likes." It's interesting that you read "likes" as automatically equating with "social capital." There are other models besides Zuckerberg's.
The point I was making was the frame for your panel was "like economy; hot or not?" and I suggested that was a bad frame because it assumes there is a "like economy" and we all know what it is.
(I edited this after posting --tm)

on Friday Links! All the Important News You Won’t Find at the Beach 2 minutes ago

In his "Post Human" exhibition essay from 1992 Jeffrey Deitch marshaled ideas from 1980s theory and cyberpunk fiction and thoughtfully applied them to artists coming to prominence at the time. The artists and ideas now seem familiar but this was all pretty new 20 years ago.
http://www.artic.edu/~pcarroll/PostHuman.html (imperfect scan)
Give the man his due.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

I was explaining the connection Anonymous was making, since there seemed to be some confusion about that. As for me, I hope Corcoran will be a massive sea change from what we've had and would give her every benefit of a doubt.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

Anonymous says Corcoran "used to work in a senior post at the national centre for new media in the UK, FACT -- an organisation that produces so called 'museum' style shows, as well as technology related material." What is this in reference to? Paddy said that Eyebeam is "electronic" oriented and "Corcoran’s interests dovetail with those at Eyebeam," unlike Cornell, whose "curation aligned as much with traditional museum programming as with the technology world."

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

Actually Ben Vickers accused you of unsubstantiated claims, and then disappeared. I would say now they are partially substantiated.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

Yeah but what about all the sentences in the comments? Never mind, I give up.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

I would say you hold the new director to a higher standard when you have a host of qualified eager candidates. As you noted in your earlier post "OK So Who's Gonna Run Rhizome?" almost no one comes to mind. Then when the first possible candidate is rumored, you make the case in advance that's she will be an inferior fundraiser. This is one situation where a lighter touch might be called for.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 2 days ago

Cornell had 7 years to build all her connections. As best I can remember she started from scratch at Rhizome and no one publicly questioned her ability to do it. Why hold a new director to a different standard now? If it turns out to be Corcoran you've saddled her with amazing advance bad PR based partly on research and partly on your gut.

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 3 days ago

To meaningfully compare fundraising prowess you'd need the UK and Canadian equivalent of those 990s for Corcoran.
I'm not sure why Eyebeam is mentioned in this post. All "new media" organizations combine web, electronic, and traditional gallery approaches at this point. Rhizome hasn't been "all-web" for quite some time; I would expect "hybridization" to continue under almost any candidate.
(edited slightly)

on Rumors! Heather Corcoran Appointed Executive Director of Rhizome 3 days ago

"That said, we wonder how well Corcoran will fair [sic] in the New York
fundraising world. Cornell’s shoes are particularly big to fill here,
and Corcoran has less experience in this field. It will take some time
to get up to speed."

Where is the proof of Cornell's "large shoes"? How do you know Corcoran has less experience fundraising?

"We’re particularly interested about what this means for the direction
of Rhizome, as Corcoran’s interests dovetail with those at Eyebeam."

How?

"That wasn’t always the case with Cornell, whose curation aligned as much
with traditional museum programming as with the technology world."

Examples?

on Friday Links! Arty Sex Toys and a Swedish Librarian last week

Surfing around looking for the term "cinemagraph" it appears both Google and Microsoft are using that word to describe animated GIFs with a single moving element.

Google is using them for events and calling them "cinemagraphs," as described here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/google-plus-events-cinemagraphs-party-mode-post-event-reminders/

Probably copying Apple's "cinemagrams," Microsoft has an app called "cliplets" that you can use to make what they refer to as cinemagraphs (along with other effects): http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/cliplets/

Apple's cinemagram app is here: http://itunes.apple.com/app/cinemagram/id487225881?mt=8

If Beck/Burg successfully sued one of these giants they might demonstrate a protectable interest in that word. But the fact that there are quick-and-dirty apps available to make animated GIFs with a single moving element suggests that the artistic breakthrough they ballyhooed on PBS just isn't that special (and by extension, neither is the word they use for it).

on Friday Links! Arty Sex Toys and a Swedish Librarian last week

Anyone can trademark something, but then you have to establish a property interest in the mark. This isn't the same as a patent. Apple has an app called Cinemagram, and Google is using something they're calling Cinemagraphs to announce events. Beck/Burg will have to sue to "police their mark" if they want it to be anything other than an official-looking "TM" logo on their website. They will likely lose when courts decide what the rest of us already know: there's nothing new or unique about a photo with a single moving element. (Or the name that describes it.)

on e-flux Co-Founder Anton Vidokle Says .Art Will Not Be Curated last week

Paddy, no one on the previous thread said that E-flux would be curating the .art domain. Anton Vidokle used that word and then you quoted it and put it in your headline. It makes the criticisms seem unreasonable.

Grace Weir used the word "curatorial": "One alternative is e-flux donate .art freely back to the people. No one should decide what art or .art is. Exactly the way .com is now. .art being free does not preclude e-flux.art from pursuing their stated aims and curatorial strategies, in much the same way they do already with e-flux.com."

That is not the same as saying that E-flux will curate the art domain. Of course, "curate" nowadays means anything from reblogging a GIF to organizing a retrospective but Vidokle is putting words into the mouths of his critics. The stated objection was to the exercise of any level of control by a domain holder, beyond "is the domain name available?" and "can you pay the nominal fee?" Cybersquatting so the Brooklyn Museum doesn't get cybersquatted sounds noble but it's still a power move.

Repeating an earlier comment: Anton Vidokle says he doesn't employ "deceptive logic" but it's misleading to say, as he does in his pitch, that "the structure of the internet is about to shift in such a way that most information pertaining to food will be found in a .food domain, while most information on cars will likely be found in a .car domain, and so forth." Many commentators have argued that the new top level domains are a scam or sham -- extortion of well-capitalized companies by ICANN -- that will have no significant effect on people's search habits.

on e-flux Could Increase Future Funding for the Arts Through .art last week

Anton, it's misleading to say, as you do in your pitch, that "the structure of the internet is about to shift in such a way that most information pertaining to food will be found in a .food domain, while most information on cars will likely be found in a .car domain, and so forth." Many commentators have argued that the new top level domains are a scam or sham -- extortion of well-capitalized companies by ICANN -- that will have no significant effect on people's search habits.

on e-flux Could Increase Future Funding for the Arts Through .art 2 weeks ago

This plan has the potential to remove the heartbreak, uncertainty, and awe of a question that has long plagued artists and especially the public: "Is it art?"
"I may not know much about art but I know what's on the .art domain."
"Yeah it's just a urinal but I saw it on .art so what are ya gonna do?"
The internet eliminated gatekeepers, at least it was starting to, and now E-Flux wants to be the uber-gatekeeper for "art."
E-Flux completely accepts, and is trying to sell us on, the hype that the net is about to undergo a paradigm shift based on these new domains and that people will change their search habits to, say, only look on .food for something to eat or on .car for wheels. To win its application it tries to scare us that the philistines will take over art if we don't rally for E-flux.
The beauty of art on the net is it's spread around sites like .fm, .com, even .biz. E-Flux has the potential with this scheme to be a new Facebook of art (in the sense of "you have to be on it to play"). It is already Facebook-like in its maintenance of an exclusive mailing list.
.art under E-Flux also has the worrisome potential to become a place of knee-jerk left orthodoxy: trolls, wingnuts, and future urinal-appropriators need not apply.
What are the alternatives? One of the above-mentioned business entities wins .art, turning it into a tacky, profit-oriented no-go zone for anyone with a creative bone, and art continues to thrive in a decentralized way.

on Why is Sanja Ivekovic Plagiarizing From Wikipedia? 2 weeks ago

Am not sure if "plagiarism" is the right word for the unattributed use of open source, community-edited text..in an artwork. It makes for a nice "gotcha" headline, though.

on This Week’s Openings: Everyone’s a Curator! last month

"Portrait of a Generation," accompanied by NetGen icon "the Parked Domain Girl," includes Renee Ricard, Donald Baechler and Raymond Pettibon, demonstrating that a generation is as elastic as a gallery needs it to be.

on “C.R.E.A.M.” at Art Micro-Patronage, Now in Excessive Detail! last month

Your ennui is noted, however, Rhizome staffers were sending emails to artists and writers who mentioned the Armory incident, as recently as the C.R.E.A.M. show. The emails didn't say "We were wrong" but rather, blamed Sara Ludy for the business model and from what I've heard, spooked the email recipients rather badly. The Verge article you mentioned also had a correction added at Cornell's insistence that disavowed her involvement with "taking the work offline so the collector can have it locally." That isn't ancient history. Great if you want to assign blame for "building of general hostility" but it helps to know all the facts.

on Art Fag City at The L Magazine: What New Aesthetic? 2 months ago

Thanks for the link, Paddy. Your essay has just the right tone of being critically unimpressed by Bridle's claims. Hopefully what's "shining through" my notes isn't that Bridle isn't "one of us" (whoever us is) but that he's hodgepodging together critique and puffery into one of those "new and improved" commercial fairytales. (Learn to love the digital world, no matter how incompetent or intrusive it may be.) It's funny that Rob Myers is still complaining about surf clubs after all these years. Those were heterogeneous, improvisational affairs and made no claims to tie it all together the way Bridle's tumblr and lectures do.

on Okay, So Who’s Gonna Run Rhizome? 2 months ago

Another possibility is the New Museum rethinks its relationship with a vaguely-defined "net art" platform and either spins it off as a tech booster site or consolidates the Artbase as a relatively low-cost collection of new media art.
Because one person has been running Rhizome for seven years it's more of a series of habits than an institution at this point. What is Rhizome? It's an art collection, but it's never been clear whether it was curated or something like an unvetted artist slide registry. It's a magazine-like blog, which wavers between attempts at criticism and straight-up press releases, and will never have any real teeth as the "house publication" of a museum. And it's a place that organizes lectures, projects such as "7 artists/7 technologists," and the occasional show. Most of this has been decided in a fairly autocratic manner: instead of a people-powered, crowd-sourced "rhizomatic" model, Rhizome for the last several years has been closer to, say, China under Mao.
Now that the cult of personality is ending, and given the vagueness of the charter at this point, why keep the thing?
This post asks the wrong question.

on “C.R.E.A.M.” at Art Micro-Patronage, Now in Excessive Detail! 2 months ago

Rhizome's notion of "taking a GIF offline so the collector can have it locally" isn't a viable business model or a particularly good way of educating people about this ill-defined term "net art."
That's what Ben Fino-Radin (who works for Rhizome) and 0-Day were "fighting" about on Twitter--none of which is not explained here. Fino-Radin said he couldn't support 0-Day because their program is rooted in a "diss" -- that is, criticism of his employer.
The entire controversy is glossed over here as "the Armory fuss last year."

on Featured Artist: Out4Pizza 2 weeks ago

And apologies to Laura Brothers for the crossfire--very nice work.

on Featured Artist: Out4Pizza 2 weeks ago

Good artists can make lemonade from digital lemons (as Duncan suggests) but I don't think that's the subject of this post.

on Featured Artist: Out4Pizza 2 weeks ago

It does make sense to correctly reproduce the digital art you are advocating (which I note includes GIFs - is that partisanship?). Before these were my concerns they were Dragan Espenschied's concerns--he's been writing eloquently for years on the subject of accurate display. See, e.g., "How to correctly print low resolution screen graphics" http://drx.a-blast.org/~drx/pr...

on Featured Artist: Out4Pizza 2 weeks ago

"this is something the guy's right about" -
Paddy, I used to really like your blog, before incivility and casual slurs became the norm.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 2 weeks ago

These questions are too speculative. If what you've called GIF partisanship exists or has a purpose, it is to make "web developers" aware of what they're thoughtlessly phasing out before it happens. Suffice it to say, the new AFC meme of automatically equating GIFs with ugly MySpace design isn't what I'd call partisanship.

on The Art Kids Are Not Alright 2 weeks ago

They had YouTubes of Iggy in 1911?

on The Art Kids Are Not Alright 2 weeks ago

Thanks, Kyle. From what I've seen younger artists are generally sussing out what matters from prior generations (e.g., a YouTube of the Stooges' "1969" that I just saw on lolumad's tumblr) and I welcome the extension of art beyond the elegant, hallowed, miserable spaces of ancient plutocrats (which Saltz is professionally forced to cover) into cyberspace and associated makeshift venues. The problem isn't younger artists but it might be the selections of younger artists' work made by seasoned players picking what they already know for an environment that is too expensive for many trial balloons.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 2 weeks ago

Ian, I was kidding. These are... oh, never mind.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

I mentioned tumblr and dump because many users there are making GIFs for the first time, long after they were "discontinued," as opposed to clinging to an old form. Tumblr also gets its share of complaints re: GIF handling. Not sure why I keep getting lumped in with the insidious conspiracy straw man camp. I would say it's underexamined groupthink at the top.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

We're talking about Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook vs tumblr and dump? Sorry if the populist message seems "off" to you; I think I'm on pretty solid ground here, ethically.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Canary--agreed. Also, artists clinging to GIFs like photographers to Polaroid film doesn't adequately explain the GIF mania on tumblr, dump, and other current sites.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

"Tying Google's tech choices re: their doodles to policies against GIFs on their other sites (like Blogger) is naive (and, frankly, stupid)." If we don't know why Google blocks GIFs in one arm of its company and pushes other animation methods in another (and we don't), why is it automatically naive to consider connections between the two? More is at stake here than the type of "film" we use; it is completely fair to consider an across-the-board GIF phase-out in the larger context of the Web becoming a more controlled and controllable place (see my comment to Duncan below). "They don't want to be MySpace" is also pure speculation.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Duncan, this is great. It's not an apples and oranges debate though, or people wouldn't be yelling so much. Google doesn't mean to replace GIFs with another filetype people can share and take apart and play with. On its flagship search page it is clearly presenting its vision of a "one way web" crafted by its owners where the terms of your interaction are "click here" and "save your results." To consider the political dimension isn't conspiracy theory or empty railing against the man, it's a question of what kind of internet (and therefore, life) we want to have.

a comment by sstage on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

“3 things I think:

1.] Imho the vigorous discussion that Tom Moody has often sparked in the net art scene is vital and great - proof that the scene is filled with passion and has lots of peoples potentials, ideas, and dreams in it. Conflict prevents stagnation.

2.] In defense of Tom's critique of the google animation: I showed this article to a heavy duty web programmer friend of mine and he told me that while not necessarily agreeing with all the content, he really appreciated the article because it brought up interesting points that he had not considered. Tom's criticism often examines things in different lights than the regular.

3.] Your attack on Tom Moody's contributions to net art is pretty shitty - I can personally say that he has greatly contributed to my curiosity and love for it.”

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

If an obsession is five posts and a couple of GIFs over the span of about a month, then yes, I'm obsessed. Maybe not as obsessed as you are with me, though.
You may have noticed I update my blog posts as I learn new information.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Dragan, Alex Carlill just called you ignorant.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

"...Biblical..." (hat tip j1p2m3)

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Your critique of my critique boils down to one point--it was easy for you to make a CSS sprite animation. Congratulations on ballooning this up to Biblical proportions through constant, loud repetition about my "inaccuracy." I said that Google's Martha Graham animation required coding skills. Duncan Alexander, above, says, "Google likes to show off what their programmers can do with simple code." If anyone can do it, then it's not showing off.
As for all Google's JavaScript and CSS coding instructions to animate the Martha Graham dance being 2 kilobytes, where is your proof of this?

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Sorry, just noticed that Alex says he has enumerated the "inaccuracies" in my post on his Twitter page. I don't follow him (should I?) so, yes, by all means post them here so they can be read/evaluated/responded to by those looking at this thread. You might also respond to Dragan Espenschied and Michael Manning who have made some good points here.

Update: Never mind, see above.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Dragan, thanks, you are brave to come on here and risk getting slimed.
Alex--chill. You have seven comments on this thread all saying pretty much the same thing. As I glanced through them, I kept thinking you were going to correct my "inaccuracies," and then you didn't.
As for "casual fabrication" or "intellectual dishonesty," as noted above, the "open source" crack was in reply to Tim Whidden, not Tumult Hype. He suggested that "anyone" could make an animation for the "open" HTML5 standard using current authoring tools, and linked to Tumult Hype as an example. I was pointing out that you can only buy it in the Apple App Store, hardly the nerve center of distributed authoring.
As for my being curt to Will, you must have missed the earlier threads where he repeatedly got up in my face, as you're doing now. After a fair bit of that, I decided to try not conversing with him directly. (It's not working very well.)
OK, time to return to my lair and think up new ways to poison "the net art scene."

a comment by Michael Manning on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

“I downloaded HYPE the HTML5 animator a week or so back to try it out, it sucks. It is pretty much just a bad and less capable version of flash (I'm sure things will get better as HTML5 gets older but HYPE isn't replacing my GIF practice that is certain, especially with such a shitty loop function).

For all intents and purposes no one has posited a better solution to light weight animation online yet (at least in my mind, I know Tom would agree). HTML5 has a chance but it and its champions have different priorities in mind aside from giving us a better alternative to the GIF, and as interpret it, this is Tom's beef. Not just that the technologies are changing but that the web "powers that be" are ostracizing the GIF, (for whatever reason, most likely because they think it is irrelevant, ugly and unnecessary) and they have failed to provide a better alternative in the wake of their shunning GIFs (most likely because they are too out of touch to recognize the groups of people online who still love them). HTML5 isn't focused on giving us a new cool version of GIFs it's primary goal is to replace the need for things like Flash, and more easily display video and long-form animation.

I however tend to agree with Duncan that the Google case is more likely a chance for them to show off their coding skills than anything else, but the overall disdain for the GIF by large web companies can be seen all over the web.

I'm open to alternatives, I'm happy to embrace a new, better format, but as of yet you simply can't point me to a better light weight animation than the GIF, that I can make easily in free open source software (not that open source matters to me personally, but I know it does to others) or hey, even online ------> http://www.online-image-editor...

a comment by Dragan Espenschied on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

“Attempting to make something useful from this:

As far as I understand, Tom criticized the Googles for doing lots of complicated stuff in order to show this dance animation instead of putting the same effort into creating a simple GIF. He didn't criticize them for wasting bandwidth or other "technical" reasons, this came later in exploring their motives and thinking about other new (and more complex) ways moving images can be transferred online today and trying to make sense of them.

Tim's reply, that GIFs are regarded as simple and the mere mortals can create GIFs only because there is software that allows them to do so, is of course true -- however the software is there in bucketloads, it doesn't only theoretically exist in the future :) GIFs are files that are definitely easier to understand and handle than Google's scripting. If the animation would be a GIF, one could for example take the animation and post it to some forum or whatever, change the colors, play it backwards, etc. There is effectively not so much difference between the source material and the finished version to create a serious obstacle to work with it. So, a GIF would have been, also to my understanding, adequate to the spirit of the web. On the other hand, there is no tool for re-creating the source material from Google's animation "compiled" to Javascript. Of course it can be done, there is no standard way of doing so though. And it wouldn't make sense to create a tool that would do it because it is unlikely that Google or anybody else will use this exact technique, producing similar output, again.

The quite confrontational remarks that Tom doesn't know enough about the web and its technology are probably exactly the core of he issue. Tom's general question *is* why the hell one should have to know so much arbitrary stuff about the web to understand how a conceptually primitive animation is made. Does it mean only developers, who know every in and out of the latest tech, Google's organization and internally used tools, are allowed to interpret this piece of online art? These questions have nothing to do with Tom's age, his music or how often he checks his Twitter. The user facing web used to be simple yet powerful, it is made more complex and diffiult to understand, especially in an area where it seems completely arbitrary; what is the driving force behind this, how does it affect artistic expression and evaluation?

In general I think Tom's critique of the animation is exactly this: a critique, and interpretation of an artwork. And the seemingly superfluous complexity of it is part of the interpretation. Based on Google's artistic output to the world, he made an attempt to understand what are Google's motives, how they see their role and the role of their users.

And while Tom is pinned down on technical inaccuracy, nobody else seems bold enough to make definite technical counter claims. Maybe because there is so much potential for getting stuff wrong?

Technically, there is in many cases a right way to do something to achieve a verifiable goal. There are certain tricks to make web pages load faster, animations look smoother, etc. So let's assume that Google managed to save some bytes by delivering the animation in the means they decided to and therefore saved some money.

Culturally, however, there is not one right way to do stuff. Different choices, also in trechnology, express different things.

Interestingly, while animator, coreographer and dancer are credited for the dance animation, the "developer" is not, see http://www.google.com/logos/ (as long as it is listed under this URI). That probably means that somebody assumed that technology can be transparently applied here and "just" has to deliver the animation in the most effective way or something. As it turns out, this is not the case. So, if Google are not consciously widening the gap between professionals and users, they are at least naive.

I love you all by the way!”

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Tim Whidden links to Tumult Hype (available in the App Store) and says the program makes it possible for "anyone" to work with HTML5. HTML5 is supposedly an open standard. (You're welcome, since you couldn't find it on the thread.)
And yes, I knew about the Store and GPL.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Paddy, Will designed the web page for you that has links to many of my (and others') writings on the subject of "why artists use GIFs": http://www.artfagcity.com/gif/...

He knows my answers to his questions, he is being needlessly confrontational here.

As I said in one of the posts linked to on that page: "Have said before that I'm not married to the animated GIF for 'artistic expression' on the web. If at some point only of 40% of browsers, mobile devices, etc read them then it will be time to use something else."

Michael Manning is correct that we use GIFs because they're still the best for what they do--quick easily loaded animations that read on the most browsers. He's also right that the big companies are phasing them out without offering a better alternative. Some of us like the "GIF aesthetic" of reduced frame rates, compression, etc, but that's mainly a stylistic choice.

In light of "cinemagraphs" Reddit has a discussion on "successors to the animated GIF": http://www.reddit.com/r/AskRed... (hat tip Andrej)

That thread reiterates some of what has been said here but doesn't mention CSS.

I wish in these shouting matches we could agree on some basic post-GIF nomenclature. I originally referred to Google's Martha Graham animation as "html5 or canvas." Will called it "CSS sprites and JavaScript to animate them"; then Tim Whidden went back to calling it HTML5. According to Wikipedia "A common misconception is that HTML5 can provide animation within web pages, which is untrue. Either JavaScript or CSS3 is necessary for animating HTML elements. Animation is also possible using JavaScript and HTML."

I assume that Google's animation was a combination of CSS and JavaScript--that isn't automatically HTML5. Either way, our current GIF alternative seems to boil down to, as Michael Manning says about Tumult Hype, a "bad and less capable version of Flash."

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

It is certainly gibberish if you quote an incomplete sentence.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Outside of that, a more general question, which you're free to answer here or on your blog or not at all: why does YouTube matter to artists? Does it matter? Is this YouTube partisanship a social project, or is it relevant to the working methods of net artists today? Specifically, I'm looking for an answer that isn't equally applicable to another format.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

As for why Google chose HTML5 over GIFs, Tim Whidden says he doesn't know why and I don't either. I don't know why Blogger disables animated GIFs or why Facebook doesn't allow them.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

You definitely haven't been following this--that has been clearly established over several long comment threads full of sound and fury. Why did Paddy exhibit this GIF partisanship in curating a show called Graphics Interchange Format, or declare 2010 the "year of the animated GIF"? Maybe you should ask her.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Re: "It turns out I was right" - I didn't say anything about the Martha Graham animation's efficiency in my original post. You made that pronouncement without doing any fact checking and I checked.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

My "interpretation of Google's motives" isn't based on one animation, gang. We've been talking for a few months about the hurdles Google put up to searching for animated GIFs on Google Images, and the Google exec's comment about "not remembering the last time he saw an animated GIF." Facebook, Apple, even Microsoft are all making it clear that GIFs will be replaced with something more friendly to their various design/sales schemes (Windows no longer allows you to browse through moving GIFs in its photo-browser--you have to open them individually in a web browser). Pointing out the obvious isn't conspiracy-mongering.
Nor is asking why we need "next level" animation tools when they aren't actually as efficient as the one we have.
But Tim is right, you should only listen to people who make their living as programmers and web designers--they have done such a great job managing the Net so far.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

Let's add that the "open source" Tumult Hype editor plugged above only works on Apple devices and has to be purchased through the dreaded App Store.

on Massive Links: What Can Curators Tells Us About Not Shitting Ourselves All Day | Jim Carrey’s Nuts Are A-Okay | Some GIFs Are Small 3 weeks ago

My post was a response to a statement by an AFC commenter: "Google's decision to use CSS sprites and JavaScript to animate them was the most bandwidth-efficient way to create a cross-browser animation." Admitting that I am not a developer, I made a GIF that was smaller than Google's sprite sheet (and therefore more "bandwidth efficient") without losing any of the image. This seems to have upset someone.

on Massive Links: Lars Von Trier ... | Google Hates GIFs | Calling All Artists last month

Re: "Google's decision to use CSS sprites and JavaScript to animate them was the most bandwidth-efficient way to create a cross-browser animation"

Where is the proof of this? The CSS sprite sheet is 312 KB - that's big. The reason CSS sprites are "efficient" is they require less http requests to a server but a GIF also only loads once.

on Tim Griffin’s Second Act | The New York Observer last month

"After an interview, Mr. Griffin and The Observer walked in the rain to his new employer at 512 W. 19th Street, in the heart of the Chelsea art gallery district..."

Actually the "heart" would be around 22nd or 23rd Streets.

on Massive Links: Lars Von Trier ... | Google Hates GIFs | Calling All Artists last month

Paddy, there's an effort to phase out Flash and move to other codecs that are seen as more open but Flash is still ubiquitous. H.264 is the current "hot" spec but it's not really open source (as GIFs are). Google has changed its mind a couple of times about the YouTube standard. (See notes from Wikipedia below.)
I guess I should be clearer and say "Flash, H.264, or whatever file format runs or has run in YouTube" is the "preferred" animation file choice of art, along with DVD (mpeg2) and Apple's .mov format. Use of scripts or CSS or whatever to animate frames in the browser is an even less common method of web animation, but it's one Google would obviously like to see in greater use. A handful of upstarts have been using GIFs--by all means let's make a sarcastic dig at them.

From Wikipedia on H264 (supposedly Flash's successor-to-be): "Controversies surrounding the H.264 video compression standard stem primarily from its use within the HTML5 Internet standard. HTML5 adds two new tags to the HTML standard: < video > and < audio > for direct embedding of video and audio content to a web page. HTML5 is being developed by the HTML5 working group as an open standard to be adopted by all web browser developers. In 2009, the HTML5 working group was split between supporters of Ogg Theora, a free video format that its developers believe is unencumbered by patents, and H.264 which contains patented technology. As late as July 2009, Google and Apple were said to support H.264, while Mozilla and Opera support Ogg Theora. However, in January of 2011, Google announced that they were pulling support for H.264 from their Chrome browser and supporting both Theora and WebM."

on Massive Links: Lars Von Trier ... | Google Hates GIFs | Calling All Artists last month

The "preferred file formats of art" are jpeg and Adobe Flash.
Duncan, the Martha Graham drawings are ugly because of the sepia fake ink wash and middlebrow idea of modern dance. The anti-aliasing is the final layer of unnecessary pseudo-refinement.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 2 months ago

The crux of the argument here is Will Brand's statement "Firstly, the 'interchange' bit is absolutely the key word, insofar as these acronyms mean anything at all." I don't agree that it's key, absolutely or otherwise. It's an element of the appeal of GIFs but not the main one. In a subsequent thread Brand seems to be attempting to back away from his own words by saying our positions are the same and I don't know what we are arguing about. That is, to put it politely, rubbish.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 2 months ago

I didn't say you wouldn't listen to it, I said you hadn't listened to what Duncan, MTAA, and other artists were saying about the show.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 2 months ago

"I see your concern - you feel that an essentially visual and tribal
movement has been placed under the shadow of a foreign, conceptual rule.
MTAA are image-makers only incidentally, where your GIF tribe is about
visual effect first and foremost. I get it."

That is not what I wrote.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 2 months ago

"I see your concern - you feel that an essentially visual and tribal
movement has been placed under the shadow of a foreign, conceptual rule.
MTAA are image-makers only incidentally, where your GIF tribe is about
visual effect first and foremost. I get it."

Again - that is not what I wrote.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

Afterthought:

Will Brand does get angry and personal in this thread and the previous one ("If I wanted to suck wizard cocks for a living I'd be under a magical bridge of some sort," from the previous thread--that's just bizarre). I was a little surprised that Paddy Johnson relaxed her front page standards to allow this extended dig. I can take a joke (old man surfing in bathrobe, ha ha) but let's correct some stuff in the headline and lead paragraph:

--"Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand" - Well, no, I don't and that "publicly" has a bit of a dominance ring to it.

--"Tom Moody is pretty sure we’re fighting over something, but he can’t quite put his finger on it" - Implies I'm thickheaded, thanks.

--"We got in a little tiff" - I found it ugly, what with the wizard cocks and all.

--"I think it’s a decent read" - Not really, it was so unpleasant some people told me they didn't want to leave comments. This thread is also pretty bad.

--"he doesn’t allow comments on his blog" - Not true, my email is on my FAQ page and I often publish people's comments and complaints. Paddy once said that people who brought this up had very little to say, since everyone has a right to configure their site in the way that best suits them. I was surprised and disappointed to read this in AFC.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

When Paddy said "sites like Dump" a while back and Ryder said "what other sites are like Dump?" it should have been obvious that building historical precedents for it was going to be a hollow exercise. (I'm mentioning this since Will is very big on the importance of these historic timelines.)

I'm not the forerunner of dump and neither is MTAA's faux-participatory art--it took a particular kind of software/design/community/filetype to make this happen and it never did before in history.

This has been lost in the ridiculous discussion of "where the art happens" and remixing. It will always come back to MTAA as long as we're talking about what happened in 1997 but MTAA could never have created dump. If they could have, they would have. I would have said more on this but I've been busy trying to separate my own work from their non-precedent in the face of Will's angry harangues.

The piece in the show, "Gold Machine Cosmos" has many dump contributors that added little bits and pieces, including Mirrrroring and robocide.* Frankhats' tiled version was probably the definitive take but I was thinking of a way to make it more portable. Some of this history was linked to/referenced on my blog.

*originally I said LAVAR_LAMAR rather then robocide but I'm pretty sure L_L wasn't involved.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

^at least I have.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

"Active objects" - could be a puppet show. "[GIFs online] occur less like narratives or films and more like...like...like...ummmm...GIFs" is positively tautological.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

Thanks, Sally. Re: "agreeing on the battlefield":
Paddy Johnson's statement in the press release "Like any product of the Internet, sampling and remixing is a dominant method of working with GIFs and a theme in the show" has been enlarged by Will Brand, who worked on the website, to say that "the main appeal of a GIF is that it's so easily interchanged." We have been arguing about that change in direction of the show's rhetoric.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

"You're not some kind of guru that I need to listen to" is another ad hominem argument. Since you asked.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

"Has everybody else learned not to indulge you already?" is an ad hominem argument. (You asked for examples.)

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

I agree with all the commenters and "likers" who think this discussion is silly but not because "hey we're all artists together in the same new media pod." There are valid differences we are working out here, Will's ad hominem attacks notwithstanding. if you don't think GIF doctrine is important, read other blogs.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

OK, I've had my morning coffee and here's a "decent" reply to Will:

"Tom seems to believe that my thoughts on 'the preference for GIF as a medium' refer to a reference for GIFs by viewers rather than a preference by artists." Wrong, Will--I knew you were presuming to speak for the artists' reasons for making GIFs. You still are--you think that remixing is the main appeal of GIFs to artists. As for "your remix culture," you do know I started working in this vein 7 years before dump, right?

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

To paraphrase Keith Olbermann, "you talk of decency, sir, below a picture of a smug, middle-aged man in his bathrobe?"

I see Sally is making her usual "pox on all their houses" contribution.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

Speaking of mountains and molehills, where does a post titled "Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand" fit in that spectrum? Also, who am I arguing with here? I didn't say the show was bad, I said Will is wrong about GIFs. He still is--we don't agree. "Lodged complaints" is a bit strong.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

If you agree that "The Art Happens Here" graphic has dated badly and probably shouldn't be used to symbolize the rather more sophisticated things people are doing with GIFs these days (and no, we're not talking about cinemagraphs), then we definitely do agree and the title of this post is actually true. That *was* what we were arguing about--anyone can read the earlier thread and see that's the issue I raised.

on Tom Moody Publicly Agrees With Will Brand 2 months ago

As long as we're helpfully omitting information, here's a reminder of what we're disagreeing about. A vector graphic from 1997 (later converted into a GIF) says "the art happens here" and points to a cartoon lightning bolt (the only moving element) somewhere in the network space between 2 computers. This image was used as a defining graphic for a show of artists currently working with animated GIFs, even though its creators aren't particularly interested in GIFs, and think that talking about the network as the locus for art is more interesting than any final product that springs from that location. You insist it's a great image for the show and that "interchange" is the most important story here. You can find examples of where I've remixed GIFs and talked up the interchange aspect but it is of secondary importance. If you've changed your mind about that (and agree that's the wrong image to represent the show) then you are, in fact, publicly agreeing with me.

The photo of the middle aged man in the bathrobe--is that your Dad?--was funnier when it was paired with flaming text that said "you are curated" (by SeacrestCheadle on dump).

on Massive Links! New Media and NYTimes Trends Edition 2 months ago

An earlier, funnier reference to the parked domain girl was when Guthrie Lonergan spotted her on the Brown college website ( http://www.tommoody.us/archive... )

She was declared "most infamous" in 2008: http://yousuckatwebsites.com/w...

In view of all that, I didn't understand John Michael Boling putting the crappy painted version on the Rhizome.org front page in 2010 ( http://rhizome.org/editorial/2... ) or why we're still talking about it.

on Massive Links! New Media and NYTimes Trends Edition 2 months ago

The "parked domain girl" was already an iconic bad Net image before she was painted (badly). I've never understood the need for this to be a painting subject. (Maybe if she was painted well...)

Thanks for the shout on the McHugh bio.

on Chris Marker at Peter Blum 2 months ago

This is the filmmaker who made La Jetee. A legend, yadda yadda, but readers might want to know how the iconic still photography in that and other earlier works compare to what he's doing now. Does his careful style of framing and eye for vernacular street scenes make the jump from "quasi-documentary" to "urban flaneur" modes of working? How much of the magic of his photos lay in chemical darkroom technology? That sort of thing.
From his Wikipedia bio I see he was a digital pioneer, and made an "art" CD-ROM in the '90s. Another avenue to explore in writing about him is how such (now dated) media have informed current so-called (and likely-soon-to-be-dated) image aggregators such as Tumblr, and where he fits in the spectrum.
Reviewing cliched writing in the press release is usually kind of a low blow. You are privileged to be in New York seeing the actual work--others have to travel here.

on Talking With Images: Is Dump.fm the New 4Chan? 2 months ago

My link to Encyclopedia Dramatica's explanation of "direct action elements" and "invasion elements" is dead as of this month. ED self-sanitized and is now called "Oh Internet."

on Talking With Images: Is Dump.fm the New 4Chan? 2 months ago

Ryder's glitter text died but it said "What are you Groys talking about?"

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

trackback, 4-7-11, http://www.tommoody.us/archive... : "The above-linked thread grew progressively nutty. If you have the stamina to read it, please note the number of times my arguments are paraphrased, each time with increasing levels of speculation, paranoia, accusations of disloyalty and ingratitude, and plain old ad hominem abuse. The case for a difficult artist bucking the show for reasons of ego (as opposed to simple disagreement on principles) is vastly amplified."

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

Tim, Mike, thanks for making me possible!

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

Tim and I clearly don't agree, and Will is saying, "no, you not only agree, you're famous buds and will go down in the sinking GIF ship together!!"

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

"The relationships between the images (and how those relationships evolve) is usually more interesting than any of the individual images"

Riffs are great but there are also strong (or in Groys terms, universally weak) images that get the process going. Paddy mostly didn't pick works in process for the show, she picked finished statements that the artists worked hard on and thought about. OptiDisc has been remixed many times but those aren't what she picked. Embarrassing, but someone made a choice.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

This isn't Johns being represented by Pop, this is Rosenquist being represented by Kosuth. Duncan Alexander's point - "there isn't a cohesive 'art hack' online culture any more, or it's been overshadowed by the much more cohesive image-making culture" - is a good reason why MTAA's image isn't a good symbol for the show. Theirs is an illustration of an idea, "code as art," or "network as art," and it belongs to a self-conscious, semantic, Charles Harrison/Victor Burgin/Art & Language school within new media, which no one else in the show is really doing. Bewersdorf is responding to them in one GIF--is it typical of his work? I'd say not. Even MTAA has cast doubt on whether their file is a good symbol for the stand-alone GIF-making others are doing. By all means don't listen to the artists in the show, though.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

"and the position of the GIF is shaky enough that you're going to be remembered together or not at all"

That would be harsh even for a negative review of the show. It's awkward enough being reduced to a file format (a necessary fiction most artists would accept for the sake of context) without being told your art career will sink or swim depending on how it fares.

To underscore a point that was made late in the discussion: Some artists in the show use code in art but only one uses code as art. "Tribes" is the wrong word--this isn't anthropology--but these are some pretty strong camps. The discussion is much larger than flavors of GIF use.

Paddy, thanks for listening and responding.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

Thanks, hopefully Will Brand will read this and rethink his remarks above.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

See comment below.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

I don't like this kind of arguing. The comment I made below ("Will and I have a strong disagreement that 'interchange' is the most important reason someone would make a GIF") is really the crux of the argument to me.

a comment by Duncan Alexander on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

“Minor point: Some people really dig the compression:
http://dump.fm/images/20110219... You should see what modern browsers do to screen-door type compression when GIFs are resized with antialiasing. When used correctly, it leaves the audience begging for moire.

Bad puns aside, if we ignore the politics for a second, I'd like to argue that this show is a great "sampler" (not to be demeaning) of how things have been branching online since the whole GIF as art thing took off in the 90s. It's historical, it shows what people remember from when and what we're all up to today. Paddy has done a great job.

That said, I think that Tom is right in that there isn't a cohesive "art hack" online culture any more, or that it's been overshadowed by the much more cohesive image-making culture. This is natural; it's a lot easier to plunk down in front of Photoshop (or the GIMP - cheaper!) than to learn HTML, CSS, Java, Javascript, JQuery, Flash, PHP, Processing, Ajax, etc.

When the web was younger, the demographics leaned more nerdy because of the initial hurdle of computer access/knowledge/internet access. Now, not so much. Because it's easy for your average Joe to make an image, a demand for image hosting sites popped up with the rise of niche forums in the late 90s and early 2000s. This led to sites like Tumblr being developed; whereas no large social sites appeared for image/art/hack culture.

My guess is this is because coding is a liability; when you let your users screw around with the fabric of your chunk of Internet, you run the risk of someone damaging the site, damaging other people's computers, and getting you into a lot of trouble. Images are much easier to control as they are passive files by nature. Just ask Ryder or Scott how many times I and the other dump mods have destroyed rooms by playing around with recursive iframes or chat z-indexes... I don't think it's necessarily a culture thing that has kept the coders and hackers separate in net art, I think it's that there's nowhere to meet up and do what they do best.”

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

And congratulations to m.river not only for dominating the show but for kicking my ass in the "like" button war.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

I don't know what Will's intentions are, Paddy, I am talking about his language and word choices. He puts me in a defensive position when he says I must "prove convincingly" that MTAA and I occupy different parts of the art map. That was demonstrated pretty well, and it's all a matter of public record, during the arguments over surf clubs three years ago, and four years before that in the "art happens here" discussion.

Will and I have a strong disagreement that "interchange" is the most important reason someone would make a GIF. My guess is that the reason people put "OptiDisc" on their websites isn't because they thought, "oh this is something I can remix" but rather because it appealed on some more fundamental level. I'm interested in what that fundamental level is--probably a combination of formal properties, psychological investigation, critique, humor--and "remixability" comes somewhere further down the list. Will uses strong language to make his point (that I am wrong about my own reasons for making work) and I'm replying in kind.

Please don't get upset, I appreciate having the forum to hash this out and appreciate having a voice in the show.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

It's pretty lackluster--"available," wow--and it follows sentences that suggest that GIFs are "eclipsed," un-modern, and with lingering issues of patent "tyranny." (Why bring that up now? The patent lapsed 7 years ago, 8 in the US.) Will disputes almost everything I say in my comments here, with hints there is even more he has to argue with. His phrasing--"your remix culture," "circlejerk shows," "your GIF tribe"--goes beyond dispassionate into active disgust with the people he is writing about.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

Right, but in the PDF and word doc the GIFs don't move. Much of the excitement of your post is lost, and the press release seems tacked on to the MTAA narrative and Will's dispassionate view of GIF makers as some weird throwback tribe. I would like to see you integrate your story into the website!

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

Paddy's post announcing the show ( http://www.artfagcity.com/2011... ) does a good job of communicating the spirit of the event. There are multiple images that can be read at a glance, and the writing is warm and enthusiastic.

Will's phrase from this thread -"GIF support is integrated into every layout engine worth considering" - gets at the urgency of the medium. Contrast that with phrases from the website: "Today the format has been eclipsed by the near-universal support for Flash and PNG," or the idea that GIFs thrived "before the general turn to modernist web design and free professional CMSes like Wordpress." Not such a strong case.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

More biting the hand and amusing the boys...

The Simple Net Art Diagram isn't just used as the main image for the website, it is shown next to the words "Graphics Interchange Format" in the signage for the physical exhibition. The word "interchange" is reinforced by nearby images of "network art" and circulation, implying that (i) "interchange" is the key word in the GIF acronym and (ii) the Simple Net Art Diagram is first and foremost a GIF, rather than a piece of '90s clip art used to illustrate a utopian concept of how art would operate on the Net. It's certainly true that remixing is an attribute of 2.0 or social media art but it mostly just happens, it doesn't announce itself as a new principle complete with its own diagram.

Simple Net Art diagram imagines a world of programmer artists practicing the art of the hack. The more interesting story is how the GIF slipped out of the hands of programmers and became a popular medium, reducing artists to mostly invisible fellow remixers. Contrary to the implications of the GIF Story told on the exhibition website, GIFs have been completely open source worldwide since 2004 and during that time their use has grown, despite the indifference of the major software and social media providers. Sites like YTMND, 4Chan, and various "meme" purveyors contributed to this explosion of GIF usage, which even the mainstream media has noted in the last year.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

The distinction I'm making is between an art that is predominantly text and critique vs an unabashedly visual style. Much of late '90s '"net.art" was visually starved, partly of necessity (low bandwidth and puny CPUs) but partly because it was made by academic-based conceptualists who favored bare bones documentation as art. I'm happy you didn't include more of that--it's really another show ("How Art on the Net Got More Interesting to Look At, 1997- 2011").

Even GIFs in the '90s were mostly silly flying mailboxes. Charming, but so much has been done with this filetype since then.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

^is that net.art?

Paddy, it's true I was interested in how that GIF made its way around the web but I was collecting screen shots of the target patterns and presenting them as a kind of mega-painting. The Web Art 1.0 style would be a list of IP addresses followed by a long string of dots.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

With all due respect to Paddy and my esteemed online colleagues:
I dislike that simple net art diagram and all the pretentious assumptions it stands for ("art is like, on the net, and happens in the space between computers, like wow") and wish it was not on the front page of the GIF show website. GIFs happen on the screen where they are made and the screens where they are shown, not in some vague in-between place. It's true that GIFs can be collaborative and take elements from various locations on the web but they are not an "art of the network." That is MTAA's position but it is an old, Web Art 1.0 position (art solely as critique of invisible hegemonic structures) and doesn't speak for at least one artist in the GIF show. I also dislike Kevin Bewersdorf's hippie zen new age "art circulating through our chakras" GIF--that is no better as an alternative. DH Lawrence might have liked the idea of the solar plexus as the seat of creation but I'll take the mind, thanks. I made my own "art happens here" GIF seven years ago and don't feel like posting it again. I basically don't care "where the art happens."

on Forget in Ten Parts, Part 7: The Aesthetics of Impermanence 3 months ago

Agreed that socializing and being cool carries weight, but only in the short term. (As Dan Colen recently found out, I think.)

on Forget in Ten Parts, Part 7: The Aesthetics of Impermanence 3 months ago

The reconstituted interview has a little clearer frame here: http://www.tommoody.us/archive...

The intro reads: "GF, a philosophy student, interviews FP, a visual artist with an MFA in studio art who shows in top museums around the globe. In his studies GF has come to think that contemporary philosophy, whether of the British analytical or continental post-structural model, is specious nonsense, so he seeks out an artist who famously scoffs at his discipline as it is currently practiced, to get her thoughts:"

I added Ayn Rand to Timothy Leary as an example of a thinker operating outside the academy who acquired a significant following. (fixed spelling of "Ayn")

on Forget in Ten Parts, Part 7: The Aesthetics of Impermanence 3 months ago

Why should her critique of the art field be presumed more valid than an artist's critique of hers? If you had suggested that her quest for philosophy accreditation was the result of ego-driven striving, she would probably be upset. But it's fine for her to say that about artists.

on Forget in Ten Parts, Part 7: The Aesthetics of Impermanence 3 months ago

GF: So you don’t think philosophy has a defining feature?

FP: If there is a defining feature, it’s a secondary one, which is strange. As open as philosophy has become, it’s still very much constrained by one very conservative characteristic. That thinking is only thinking insofar as it is accepted into the academic system, or at least expressly wants to be part of that system. By this I mean it’s philosophy if it’s in a peer-reviewed journal, or it’s philosophy because a journal is where it belongs. It’s philosophy if it’s validated or presented as such.

GF: So if I just do something that I consider philosophy out in the street, it’s not philosophy? It wouldn’t be identifiable. I mean, it wouldn’t be a book or something, maybe a rant through a bullhorn.

FP: Your bullhorn rant would be philosophy since you consider it such.

GF: Why, because I say so?

FP: Sure. You’re the one validating it.

GF: Like Timothy Leary or whatever. So thinking that’s self-aware is philosophy, even if I’m the only one who ever knows about it.

FP: More or less. If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

GF: I always thought it would. I never understood that one.

FP: Most times thinkers are looking outside of themselves for validation of their ideas, where in fact, should they have the strength to recognize it, their work is work insofar as they deem it so. It just gets more complicated when other things come into play, like wanting to be recognized by an acceptable audience or to get tenure or whatever. A lot of it is ego driven.

on Introducing The Graphics Interchange Format Exhibition Website 3 months ago

This show needs to be in New York. It would upset Man Bartlett, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

on Meeting JstChillin IRL: Turns Out It’s Actually Fat 3 months ago

Will, you are so mean. Just chill, d00d.

on just chillin – not really at tom moody 3 months ago

This gets back to the discussion we had a few years ago about the importance of bracketing for surf club type posts: http://www.artfagcity.com/2007...

"Spirit" is a highly loaded term to apply to yourself. I wouldn't go there. "Moody," however...

The best name for a future blog is going to be Will Brand.

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

I have been continuing to update my "broken links to Rhizome" list in the post Paddy links to above. Nick fixed a few things by creating an archive page, but I still have a slew of "front page" and "thread" links that don't redirect to their new homes.

Much of the content reblogged from my blog in the '05-'07 period gave me attribution in the form of a hyperlink. Those seem to have been stripped from the new, tagged "reblog archives" so it appears that Lauren Cornell or Marisa Olson did the artwork or writing. Am not the only one affected by this--many no longer have credit for their work.

Mattf has got me thinking about a book. It's just vaporware or a thought experiment at this stage but covers a multitude of ills. It's called The Lost Years: Art on the Internet Between the Dot Com Crash and the Rise of Facebook.

on RISD’s President John Maeda Responds to No-Confidence Vote 4 months ago

Am looking at the "President's Page" and having a good laugh at the design. Maeda can't fit an organizational chart on a webpage without mashing it down to illegible size ( https://sites.google.com/a/ris... ) and note how badly compressed the arty "visualization" of the school population is: https://sites.google.com/a/ris...

The man needs to take some courses at his own school!

on Blogger Announces ArtKrush Interview to be Killin’ 4 months ago

The Artkrush interview link no longer works - I found it again at http://artkrush.com/33189.html
Probably better save this interview - somehow I get the feeling it won't be long for the web.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

Hi, Sara,
Lack of curiosity is a two way street, I think. Only a few years ago Paul Slocum was running And/Or Gallery in Dallas and Aron Namenwirth was running artMovingProjects in Brooklyn. I was involved with both galleries as an artist and there was a fair amount of discussion on my blog, Paddy Johnson's blog, and at Rhizome about the exhibition and, yes, sale of the art by these and other spaces. You may not have been aware of the history but Lauren Cornell certainly is. An email to any of these parties asking "how did you folks do it?" would certainly have been answered.
Best, Tom

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

Sara, why work in the GIF format at all, since one of its main properties is ease of transmission? There's always a possibility your work will leak back online and be circulated by the unelect. Perhaps you're adding some DRM code that disables the GIF for all but the collector, as well?

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

Talked to a couple of my net artiste friends about "taking the work offline so the collector can have it locally." The drift seems to be, yeah, it sucks, maybe the collectors will have the good sense to post the GIF and put it back in circulation, and ultimately we don't care how non-open-source Cornell has to be to get people to buy GIFs--it's important for new media type art to be making inroads in the gallery world. So there you have it.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

OK, it's your site, you win.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

Hrag, you should listen to people's criticism and not just try to be right all the time. Lindsay has some valid points.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

This gets back to a subject Paddy and I have been discussing--the disappearance of links from institutional websites (including Rhizome) that would make it possible to learn about the history.

Rhizome co-sponsored a show called "The GIF Show," at a space in San Francisco, in April 2006. The link for the show is dead ( http://www.rhizome.org/events/... ) but a reblog post discussing it is still active ( http://rhizome.org/editorial/2... ).

Here is a Rhizome post discussing a 2008 show in Brooklyn where GIFs were sold: http://rhizome.org/editorial/2... ("they were all commissioned on three days' notice ... and are being sold in unlimited editions [accompanied by a personalized note from the artist] for $20"). Probably a bit lower price than what Cornell is asking!

Some artists convert GIFs to DVD and sell the DVDs as editioned works. Others sell the software on dedicated hard drives. The norm is what works best for the display of the piece, although the bigger norm, I would argue, is staying true to the nature and spirit of the work.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

When you say "there were so many questions swirling in my head about how you can buy pixel-based art" this suggests not having had much previous thought or knowledge about the subject. My apologies if I'm reading too much into that. In any event, the question I asked above, about what it means to "take a piece offline," deserves further consideration and inquiry, I think.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

She gave two examples so the post should be called "how do you sell software as art?" or something like that. You say there is no norm for selling animated GIFs. How do you know if you just learned about this?

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

Right but your post is titled how do you sell an animated GIF? And she only gives one example. You're continuing to suggest this is without precedent and that isn't true.
In any case, it might be good to have some clarification of what Cornell means by "taking it offline so the collector can have it locally." Does that mean save a copy to a thumb drive and sell the drive and GIF (with the artist's authentication) while allowing the work to circulate online? Or does it mean removing it from public circulation to "lock up the rights" for a single (or edition) owner? The latter is kind of the antithesis of both an open source ethic and the democratic appeal of GIFs.

on How Do You Sell an Animated GIF? 4 months ago

My first gif sale was 5 years ago.
Hrag, one of the items Cornell is selling is a web page--it hasn't been unusual to market those since the dot com era. That was ten years ago. Many museums own websites and internet-specific art.
As for "taking it offline so the collector can have it locally"--Lauren, Lauren, where have we failed you? No director of a new media website should be promoting work in those terms.

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

Nick, great, glad this is getting done. I know we're riding you hard, but as Paddy noted on the Rhizome thread, "of all the broken links that need to be fixed, I'd say the exhibition links should take top priority." Also there is a longish list of broken URLs in the post of mine that Paddy links to above.

Mattf, thanks for the kind words. A book of epic battles from Rhizome and AFC comments might be fun but it could take years to do the explanatory annotations.

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 4 months ago

Replying to Walter Latimer's "What Brad Troemel and others in the same school of thought have going for them is a strong understanding of formalist net art about itself, which is in a way fantastic."

I think the point of Paddy's post is that Troemel's school is the "school of Brad Troemel"--no one else particularly shares these beliefs because the essay is a manifesto for his own activities disguised as an objective assessment of others'.

That said, the surf club activities described in the Marcin Ramocki essay linked to above don't really constitute "formalist net art about itself," anymore than the science of linguistics is only concerned with the interplay of signs. There is always a connection to, and a concern about, the world these signs represent. When a web 2.0 artist talks, jokes, or makes art about art (or politiics or science) expressed in internet terms--i.e., reduced to jpegs and YouTubes--a comparison to the underlying "signifieds" of physical reality and history--their original meanings--is usually part of the equation. Not always, but with the better work.

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

Auralee, in answer to your question, no, I haven't asked Rhizome or Eyebeam if I could host their archives. It's more than just saving the database, despite how easy Dragan makes it sound. Rhizome has changed several times the way posts are organized and named --when you go from, say, a numbered post to having the word "reblog" in the url to removing the word "reblog" and assigning a content tag "reblog" to those old posts, links break and commands to "redirect" to the old links have to be written. You could go post by post and do this but usually programmers try to find a way to automate the process, so inevitably content gets lost. It's still in the database, but invisible to anyone using the site. Also, sites change their CSS design and information specific to the original post is lost that way, too. (E.g., removing a date stamp or a comment link by making it invisible in the CSS script.) Eventually you end up needing massive detective work to find posts (using Google's cache, other blogs, etc) and can never fully reconstruct a site as readers originally saw it. (I am open to any correction of my understanding of the above--these observations are based on my blog and observing others' over the years.)

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

drx, thanks, I have been saving my archives but will try these out. If one of us had been using them to save web pages of public institutions that are now inaccessible we wouldn't be having this discussion. I haven't checked, maybe Internet Archive has this page of the radical software group:

http://www.rhizome.org/rsg/

I linked to it from my blog, that's the only way I know it ever existed.

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

At least a couple of recent histories I know of started with the precedents in Rachel Greene's book "Internet Art," published in 2004, and proceeded to erect shaky timelines leading to whatever artist they were championing at the moment (that is, Jon Rafman). This was possible in part because Eyebeam's archive is gone and Rhizome's is a "work in process." The moral here is: write a book. L.M., it's time for us to put our heads together and write the Digital Media Tree Guide to What's Important in Internet Art. On second thought, we need to find a ghost writer so our own roles aren't sidelined.

on Give Me Back My Reblog Archives: Bringing An End To The Perpetual Rediscovery of Net Art 4 months ago

When "net natives" talk about living in a timeless vacuum of contextless data, this is partly because their elders are too weary or cash-strapped to create a decent archive. Contentious academic types wishing to write pseudo-histories about net expression can get away with bloody murder since they can't be fact-checked.

Rhizome has had at least three technical directors since the mid-'00s; every time the site architecture is revamped stuff breaks and much of it doesn't get fixed.

My three weeks reblogging for Eyebeam in '04 vanished down the memory hole, along with Paddy's work and many others.This was content from easily over a hundred websites as well as comments I added to posts--a snapshot of the state of tech, art, and politics in the dark days right before Bush's re-election. Even if someone doesn't want to read that, they might be interested to know what Alex Galloway, Marisa Olson, Cory Arcangel or SCREENFULL reblogged.

We've complained about this several times and the current Eyebeam regime clearly doesn't care. They launched a new reblog that replaced the old without so much as an explanation. The new model doesn't have timestamps, which makes it easier to hide that it hasn't been updated since November.

Ironically solo bloggers have a better record and memory than public institutions. I will try not to abuse this power.

on The Love List: Power Couples of the Art World > 5 months ago

Also, what is "power"?

on Graphics Interchange Format At Denison University’s Mulberry Gallery 5 months ago

Paddy, a topic on my blog(s) for the last six years or so is how--or whether--to show animated GIFs in a physical, public space. As part of your follow-up documentation to this show, would appreciate any thoughts you have on how the GIFs you chose "translated"--better, worse, the same? Does a GIF on DVD become a video? How does scale and projection alter a GIF? As a participant, working with Chris Faur was helpful because he clearly "gets" GIFs and their display issues and made helpful suggestions. For those of us who couldn't attend--but also for the nay-sayers who see GIFs as some mindless post-hipster conspiracy--some installation notes would be very useful.

on Graphics Interchange Format At Denison University’s Mulberry Gallery 5 months ago

It's a shame that Man Bartlett never responded to my blog questions about animated GIFs, he might have been able to talk you out of doing this show. Just kidding, looks great, looking forward to Phase Two, The Documentation.

on The Long Lost Burnisher: Do Tools Ever Disappear From Use? 5 months ago

Wired should read its own writers. Here is Bruce Sterling's speech on the Dead Media Project: http://www.alamut.com/subj/art...

It's where I learned about the Incan quipu ("a dead medium which was once the nervous system of a major civilization").

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

Well, historians don't have to live in the time they write about, but peer-reviewed articles are generally fact-checked. Still thinking about Anna's near-instant response to Paddy's list of errors and mutations in the essay. It's like the spouse of a serial killer who says "Yes he did kill ten people, but that doesn't affect the narrative arc that he's basically a good person. The dead people didn't like being murdered but it's all subjective."

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

My comment to 491, asking where Manning's essay was, got published eventually, after Manning's link appeared in the 491 comments.

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

Agreed. The footnotes are an anachronism in web writing but they lend an air of objectivity. Even when a note doesn't stand for the proposition stated in the essay.

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

You mean Bret's?

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

The interesting questions are (i) if or how the ironically-named "surf clubs" changed visual practice on the Web (e.g., through the process of near-real-time semiotic play described by Marcin Ramocki in a more credible essay) and (ii) whether Tumblr and Dump have altered or merely accelerated that process. Troemel distorts the "exclusivity" of the clubs because that is the only real difference he can see between the clubs and Tumblr. A better essay is still waiting to be written on these topics.

Ramocki's essay: http://www.ramocki.net/surfing...

on The Decentralization of Art on The Internet: An Imagined History 6 months ago

A link to Manning's essay appears in 491's comments--not the essay itself, as Paddy notes in her correction.

on Art Club Calendar: Seth Price, January 25th 6 months ago

But not too lazy to comment!

on News Desk: Incident in Art Land : The New Yorker 6 months ago

Just for clarification, it's the New Yorker article that's long-winded, not Gagosian. Although the Kiefer show was somewhat visually long-winded. Towering heels are the new jackboots.

on The Blog in 2011: More Pictures, More Words 6 months ago

Hi, Joanne, This timeline is helpful, even though I can't find my own experience as a longtime blogger in it anywhere, exactly. If you click on a few links in the 2001 blog archive for my first site ( http://www.digitalmediatree.co... ) you'll see I was writing what you're calling First Draft essays, combining pictures, art criticism, political essays, and artwork by myself and others. I was somewhat swept up in the warblogger madness but always hated that the mainstream media characterized that as mostly a pro-war phenomenon. Because my first site had open, largely unmoderated comments, I found myself by the mid-'00s with a "nascent social network" mostly based around art and new media criticism (see, e.g.: http://www.digitalmediatree.co... ) I've been twittering since March '08 but mostly on a lark and mostly disconnected from my blog. My basic style of blogging was established ten years ago and I haven't deviated much from what has proved to be a successful model (in terms of building a readership), even with my comments turned off. As for Facebook, it violates every empirical, open society principle I believe in so I'm not on it but am happy to be providing content Facebookers can link to. Best, Tom

on Playlist Opens Tonight at Postmasters! 7 months ago

Heffernan didn't have to "worry" about the concept because it hadn't been done before! Will, we had an interesting discussion a few weeks ago where you proposed the idea of a gallery show consisting of works that failed to translate the internet into real space, or that concentrated only on the inherent limits of such an endeavor. One category of such work might be social media "playlists" where the "artist" undergoes a transformation from "one of the gang," a peer picking "favs," to an all-seeing, all-knowing, Roland Barthes-like genius who steps outside the fray and plucks his/her former peers out of their former shared environment for gallery delectation, like Gulliver grabbing Lilliputians. Haven't seen this show yet, but it doesn't seem to buck the trend started by the Kitchen and continuing with the Guggenheim. Will let you know.

on A Steve Martin Event That Disappointed the 92nd Street Y – NYTimes.com 7 months ago

This post suggests it had nothing to do with art and everything to do with Deborah Solomon's abominable interviewing style: http://emdashes.com/2010/12/mo...
I believe it, but the solution would be for 92Y not to invite her, as opposed to trying to micromanage the result.

on A Steve Martin Event That Disappointed the 92nd Street Y – NYTimes.com 7 months ago

Might have been the same audience that booed Robert Wilson at the Met a few years back: Homo Manhattan Neanderthalensis. On the other hand, not wanting to hear Deborah Solomon is perfectly understandable, but it does seem cruel to Steve. One last quip: sounds like the Y is getting back in the gymnasium business.

on New Style Curators: Do They Exist? 8 months ago

Paddy, did you talk about your IMG MGMT series at all? That has been one of the brighter lights shining through this foggy topic. You curate the essayists, the essayists curate online "artifacts" they care about, the artifacts lead to more content-- the whole spreads out, ahem, rhizomatically, taking the reader further and further away from the original cult of expertise and deeper into realms where they have to make their own judgments. Almost 10 years ago William Gibson wrote about "the otaku, the passionate obsessive, the information age's embodiment of the connoisseur, more concerned with the accumulation of data than of objects..." Gibson felt that "understanding otaku -hood [was] one of the keys to understanding the culture of the web. There is something profoundly post-national about it, extra-geographic. We are all curators, in the post-modern world, whether we want to be or not." ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/book... )

The blogging tools you and Sorgatz are talking about are high tech ways to fine-tune personal obsessions and make them marketable (if not financially then in terms of building readership). Yet at the same time we are told newsreaders such as Bloglines and Google Reader are falling out of fashion. I wonder if Zuckerberg's vision of "connection" and "likes" chips away at the authority of the obsessive--in the world of corporate social media, everyone needs to know about everything in order to be the best informed consumers of paid-for goods and services, and the old web of carefully cultivated "weird" collections begins to disappear.

on BYOB: The Best of What Didn’t Happen 8 months ago

(Justin's link goes to a Rickroll.) Thanks, Rene and RR for posting additional documentation; RR also posted some photos of the show here: http://www.byobworldwide.com/tagged/nyc The thing about rectangles is when you project them on the wall at odd angles and without keystoning they become a collection of trapezoids, parallellograms, and irregular polygons.

The photos include a more dynamic shot of the fishtank by Hayley Silverman and Charles Broskoski (with live lobster) casting a shadowy clone of itself on the back wall.

on BYOB: The Best of What Didn’t Happen 8 months ago

Would like to see the videos if you could provide non-Zuckerberg links for those of us on the "public internet."

on BYOB: The Best of What Didn’t Happen 8 months ago

Hi, Will,
Connections could be made to past art (and among works in the show), but you've skipped lightly over descriptions of what was actually in BYOB. Some artists may not have felt any sense of responsibility to Wodiczko or other precedents you linked to and are possibly more interested in what the computer can show us at this point--BYOB was medium-specific in that way. But not exclusively: many artists thought about the space. You mentioned Ripps' nomadic, interactive (parasitic?) piece. I don't know if you saw Britta Thie's landscape (with figures and floating gossamer FX blobs), which had symmetrical flipping in the video that she aligned perfectly with a gallery corner. I know you saw Jeremy Bailey roaming around the gallery with his projector strapped to his chest, essentially a portable webcam with geometric effects beyond the capability of most webcam software. Believe it or not, the GIFs I showed were "auditioned" beforehand and chosen for how well they "scaled up" to wall size. Am guessing most of the artists recognized that in the chaos of a large show, nuances of their work would be lost or out of their control. Yet they were willing to sacrifice to the "lack of planning" to see their work in a panoramic conversation with other art. I'm biased, but I'd submit that BYOB was collectively beautiful and more energetic and up-to-date than most of what I see in gallery spaces.

on Art Fag City at The L Magazine: A Disappointing Thomas Nozkowski Show at Pace 8 months ago

Making side by side comparison the focus basically says to the viewer (i) we're not confident about these works individually or (ii) this artist is so important you need to see a show documenting his thought process while he is still alive. Pace needs a resident "no person" to veto such ideas.

on BYOB (Bring Your Own Beamer) and The Social Graph Open Tonight 8 months ago

Ha ha, one back-of-the-class miscreant made virtual picture frames that could be moved around the room and positioned around others' work. For 25 cents your precious digital creation could be adorned with the frame of your choice, from a selection that included gold baroque, medieval, modern, office (binder clips), etc. One of my loved ones visiting the show commissioned a frame and I feel it set off my artwork nicely.

on BYOB (Bring Your Own Beamer) and The Social Graph Open Tonight 8 months ago

Lots of projections but not too many animated GIFs at BYOB. Only a handful of back-of-the-class miscreants doing that in the midst of all the data-wrangling, special effects video, regular video, bouncing light through gels and along floorboards, projecting video onto objects Tony Oursler-style, conglomerations of found footage and photos, vintage computer animation made with assembly language, etc.

on Meaningless Protest in The Name of Art 8 months ago

It appears Troemel's essay was deleted from Mediafire. No idea of the reason but a person might have more martyr-like sympathy if he were arrested for talking in a dispassionate way about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as opposed to just doing the yelling.

on Meaningless Protest in The Name of Art 8 months ago

Thanks to Brad Troemel for confirming that the goal of the project was to shut down Rhizome.org (for the greater cause of ambiguity). But everyone knows you can be denied access to a plane for talking (or joking) in the security queue about a bomb, and threats of cyber-mayhem similarly have hosts in a panic--this is not a stunning insight about the modern world. References to Duchamp, LeWitt, Morris, Manzoni, Buchloh, Dominguez, Cage, Groys, Haacke, Bourriaud, Baudrillard, and Fraser do give the project more torque, though.

on From The Comment Section: Breaking Down the Lynchsons 9 months ago

thx for the close reading and confirming my guess that "pieces of this same episode [were] spooling in a different time continuum"

on From The Comment Section: Breaking Down the Lynchsons 9 months ago

Thank you Jackson!
I laughed while watching it and also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

on From The Comment Section: Breaking Down the Lynchsons 9 months ago

"Dart," you have a hard time recognizing when compliments are paid to you. People *like* this work!! As for apes and fingers, sorry that's all I could come up with. I lost interest in the Simpsons when I found out recent Ivy League graduates were writing it (this was about 10 years ago--I thought it was Matt Groenig!). But am always interested in work that derails the mechanics of popular entertainments running on networks such as Rupert Murdoch's, and would like to see YouTube "glitching" replace TV's faux transgression and facile insights. The chaos is its own best message.

on Is The Value of Abstraction Lessened on The Internet? 9 months ago

Someone on dump.fm told me people want to have sex with me so I guess all those Google hits are finally paying off. I foresee an army of sandy haired kids with glasses and a glib and aggressive internet manner.

on From The Comment Section: Breaking Down the Lynchsons 9 months ago

In the previous thread Howard claims the Duarte doesn't make him view the Simpsons or animation conventions any differently than he did before. Jesse states well the effect the video has of making "one kind of abstraction - cartooning - more explicit through density and layering." For example, when you take away Homer's yellow skin (why is it yellow?) and replace it with a recursive void of old episodes (or pieces of this same episode spooling in a different time continuum), his beige beard stubble makes him look like an ape. And Lisa has three fingers, which you especially notice when her skin turns into a dark silhouette. Is she mutilated? Do all family members have this deformity? I enjoyed the musicality of Nelson's high pitched laugh.and learned from this video that he is voiced by a woman. Maybe others could list tropes this video made them notice in the Simpsons.

on Is The Value of Abstraction Lessened on The Internet? 9 months ago

Reply to Howard Halle: the consensus of the Newsome threads Paddy linked to above was that the Newsome video was a "forced meme" that didn't tell us anything we didn't already know about rap videos and Carl Orff. You made your views to the contrary known. Thanks for weighing in on the Duarte video's (presumed) lack of "difficulty"--good to know it tells you nothing about animation and/or Simpsons conventions. Please see the comments to Paddy's next post.

on Is The Value of Abstraction Lessened on The Internet? 9 months ago

Dan, who gives a crap what sells?
Sally, if you speed-scroll through the Lynchsons it lessens the humorous impact of the reprise of "Nelson's theme."

on Is The Value of Abstraction Lessened on The Internet? 9 months ago

What Beau said (damn that's good) with the added thought that the "difficult" elements of the Duarte make us think about the source material more and it's therefore better than the Newsome, which repackages what we already know.

on Meaningless Protest in The Name of Art 9 months ago

Maxwell, your faith in sites willing to blow up for no reason is commendable!

on Meaningless Protest in The Name of Art 9 months ago

I'm actually still not clear on the mechanics. You said "Once the offending site was chosen, JstChillin.org would serve as the site of protest, hosting 25 constantly reloading iframes on one day only (November 1st). Troemel then invited people to visit the site and keep their browsers open all day. This would use up the bandwidth, and result in a denial of service (DoS)." Troemel invited people to visit the site--which site? The offending site or jstchillin? And whose bandwidth was going to be used up by this? The offending site's or jstchillin's? Had an offending site been chosen? (Democratically determined abuse--how nice.) I know Rhizome was chosen in the "Assembly" poll on Troemel's blog, but was there an earlier poll on jstchillin and if so, what were the results? Was Rhizome actually going to be shut down by Troemel's tumblr? Or was jstchillin going to be shut down in protest as some act of virtual self-immolation? How would the latter be possible if jstchillin was already shut down by Dreamhost?

on Meaningless Protest in The Name of Art 9 months ago

In my post I linked to a recent Nasty Nets thread where I mentioned EDT and Floodnet: http://nastynets.com/?p=3319#comments (Interestingly - or disgustingly - it seems Google disabled my link to an Alex Galloway book explaining that vintage flooding controversy. Apparently, these days, if enough hits come to a Google Book page it is erased from view, like disappearing ink. Who needs to hack when our rulers do it for us?
Back to the topic: Paddy, I don't think Troemel's idea is all that simple. It's still not clear to me who was hosting, who was protesting, what was being protested, and who was going to be shut down. I had to keep updating my post this morning. This isn't complexity in the academic sense of "problematization" but in the "not thinking it through and explaining it clearly" sense. As a certain wise man has said (I'll let him take credit for it), if you can't explain a net art idea to someone at a bar, it's probably not so hot.

on IMG MGMT: New Century Modern Surface Magazine 9 months ago

"Building a lifestyle out of recreating various obscure moments from the past" aka "temporal defection" means you can time-travel back to a past that doesn't include anything remotely postmodern--seems to be the point of Kline's essay (great job, BTW) even though such defection itself is thoroughly poMo. The appeal of the "rat pack" early '60s continues to escape me (see also "lounge" and "library" revivals of the early '90s) but Kline does a good job of connecting this yen to current trends. A sketchy reply is here: http://www.tommoody.us/archive... (caution: Palazzo Chupi reference).

on Survival in New York: An Interview With William Powhida 9 months ago

What artist expects to be paid for an interview? Most are honored to have a chance to explain what they're about. Powhida says press is part of his business, blogs are press, why the extreme moralizing? "Slaves," such melodrama.

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

My point was there isn't a consensus, it's Net Gen Skeptic vs the New Museum (which itself can't definitely state a thesis). It's Paddy vs Duncan on the relevance of childhood experiences to adult work. One could argue that all the multi-tasking and "moving across media" you describe are conditions the modern techno-state is forcing on everyone, regardless of age, and imagine a counter-exhibit to "Younger Than Jesus" called "Techno-Paternalism and The Cult of Youth." If you want to argue that there is a radical break in the type of work being made between generations (sounds like you do), I would start with the New Museum exhibit and the writers cited in its 512 page catalog.

on Jeff Koons Does Just Fine As An Adult 9 months ago

He regrets making the slides?

on Jeff Koons Does Just Fine As An Adult 9 months ago

Koons spoke in Dallas years ago right after Made in Heaven--I was living there at the time and likened the performance to a combination of art historian, zen master, and Ronald Reagan. Koons had constructed a retroactive narrative--essentially the "story of banality" that he told and retold--to explain each phase of his career, leading up to the Made in Heaven images. Like Reagan, who generally said nothing but was very congenial, Koons walked us, with calm, slightly psychotic certainty, through wacky explanations of how earlier pieces laid the foundations for the current work, for example, "this is a porcelain pig ushering in banality, the herald of my future perfect love for Illona." It was all so measured and plausible-sounding that by the time he got to showing enormous, projected slides of his skanky porn (in one of the most conservative cities on the planet!), the images seemed logical, inevitable and normal. Commenter Sven (and from what it sounds like, Roberta Smith) aren't accounting enough for the irony in Koons' schtick; porn is not "perfect love" or, jeezus, "emotional vulnerability" any more than his "wholehearted embrace of capitalism" uh, wholeheartedly embraces capitalism.

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

Vera (is that your real name?), there was a recent exhibit at the New Museum in NY called "Younger than Jesus." The YTJ generation was described as "incredibly diverse, with artists moving seamlessly across mediums. Instead of radically breaking from the past, these artists draw from a myriad of influences across historical movements and geographies to highlight the intergenerational dynamics that drive contemporary art.” At the same time a claim was being made that net natives were unique in their ability to move seamlessly across mediums, the museum was assuring us that they weren't radical in any way. This could use some elaboration.

on Dirty Hands at Soloway 9 months ago

Also, these photos don't necessarily have to be Jessie Stead's desktop - it could be a fictional nerd with lots of files, and time to arrange them, who likes Realdolls.

on Dirty Hands at Soloway 9 months ago

As I recall, those Strawhand drawings were reblogged by Eyebeam Art & Technology center. But we'll never know, because Eyebeam took down several years' worth of archives in a colossal extended middle finger to the new media community.

on Dirty Hands at Soloway 9 months ago

"Desktop still lifes" is good. This reminds me of drawings Justin Strawhand made by dragging icons around his desktop and capturing the results: http://www.digitalmediatree.co...

on Dirty Hands at Soloway 9 months ago

I wasn't clear on the relationship of the foreground to the background in those photos. For example, I didn't notice that the X and O file icons form an American flag when I was in the gallery--I see it now. My guess is the photos are high res screenshots of a computer desktop, with the "dolls" serving as provocative wallpaper for someone's working files, which may or may not be related to the dolls. Thus "dandylion copy 22" could refer to whatever file has that filename. A quick look at the realdolls site - uggh - shows the dolls all have names like Britney and Nika, no Dandylions. Your photo of the photo, Paddy, has more extraneous elements, such as the vertical stripes of the gallery veneer reflected behind you, and a guy in the lower left corner staring with puzzlement at the photo.

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

PaintFX isn't such a bad example. I would call this writing of Parker Ito's "digital native-esque," especially since he's elsewhere self-identified as a net native (from State - http://thestate.tumblr.com/pos... ): "PAINT FX (imagine a really badass voice saying this) is the newest, hottest, sexiest, nastiest, chillest, painting collective/ club/ company/ brand/ website/ blog/ party consisting of Jon Rafman, Micah Schippa, and myself. We’re kinda like Jogging meets Poster Company meets shiny stuff, but we’re way juicier. Each work featured on the site is intended to belong to the brand PAINT FX as opposed to the individual who created the work. Maybe we’ll outsource some work too. We started the project because we were popping huge boners off of juicy gestural marks and we thought it would be fun and easy to make a lot of those. But PAINT FX doesn’t favor styles or themes, but favors shiny computer screens..."

De Kooning is spinning in his grave over "we thought it would be fun and easy to make a lot of those."

on IMG MGMT: Untitled 9 months ago

Stock images are also squeaky clean and upper middle class, like most of our TV shows and movies. The circulation you describe takes place in a rarified, mostly fake social stratum. (Although there are also images of poverty stricken Others used in similar way.) Your essay has some interesting parallels to Marc Handelman's earlier IMG MGMT essay equating images of skies in defense ads with a vague, magisterial perspective: "In many of the skyscapes of the 20th century, the sky would cease to function as a mere backdrop, but take on a central role becoming an ostensible protagonist of visual and rhetorical effects." ( http://www.artfagcity.com/2009... )

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

To paraphrase a new media colleague: "I meant you, but no one's feelings were hurt because I emailed everyone else on the thread to tell them I didn't mean them."

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

Would rather not talk about this issue at all. For the record, dump.fm is a brilliant site and it was conceived by "children of the net." I've been 100% supportive, even if the site provides a forum for the NetGen nazi who told me my "perception of dump was horribly fucked and wrong."

on The Year of The Animated Gif 9 months ago

Your system gets great results, Jesse, and I'm not knocking it. It's pointless of me to criticize Google's handling of animations at this stage, since the big boys are thinking ahead to whatever image mechanism they're going to force on us (probably some kind of video spec). As a consumer you are supposed to be buying animation apps that play on your phone and make someone money, not sifting through the rubble of "free," failed dotcom era artifacts. Artists do that, but Google is only incidentally interested in artists.

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

If you look at the jstchillin manifesto ( http://www.jstchillin.org/abou... ) they hit the digital native stereotypes pretty hard ("If ur lukin 2 meet nu frndz, enemies or if ur lukin 2 ave fun..." "a new material idealism that is being bred out of the culture of digital natives..."). Older curators buy into this "authenticity." I talk about home computers and workplace computers (i.e., Windows) in my artwork - tools and subsistence jobs that affect every generation (and provide a rich source of negative inspiration). I didn't think it was generation-specific until spending some time on dump.fm, where I constantly have to field questions and criticisms about my age. Just the other day, Duncan, you were arguing that older people are more easily shocked by porn and gore on the Net--it's not true but it puts me on the defensive against your supposedly more thick skin.

on Taking Stock of Art Making in The Age of “I’m A Child of The Internet” 9 months ago

There is a blog called Net Gen Skeptic ( http://www.netgenskeptic.com/ ) that questions - mostly in the context of education - whether "digital natives" have different cognitive skills or insights that need to be understood and addressed by teachers. It's an interesting inquiry. The so-called Pictures Generation of the '70s-'80s was proud of itself for being "TV babies" who were supposedly more media savvy than their parents but I don't remember critics claiming special powers of perception for these folks--everyone was too damned jaded. By contrast, the way current curators talk about the Net Gen is really like the second coming of Christ. Not just the curators, I have many Net Gen friends who speak this triumphalist rhetoric. I don't really understand it: we all "grew up with the net," it's just that some of us don't remember anything before it. As a fan of science fiction and cyberpunk, I don't rule out that there's some David Bowie-esque Homo Superior growing in our midst, I just wish curators would shut up about it until we have proof.

on The Year of The Animated Gif 9 months ago

Just did a test. If you search "atom" in Google Images this doesn't come up:

http://sciencejunkies.com/medi...

But if you search "atom animated" it is the second result and is in fact a moving gif. So you have to go to advanced search and choose ".gif" and add the word "animated" to the search string and even that provides no certainty you'll get what you're looking for. Clearly it's a case of "Google to Animated GIFs: FU."

on The Year of The Animated Gif 9 months ago

Paddy, regarding your update: Google lets you search for the.gif file extension but if you want an *animated* GIF you have to put the word "animated" in the search string. Very awkward and it won't always pull up what you are looking for. The new Google Images search popups are not animated so you could end up clicking through to several URLs before you found a moving image. This may be apocryphal but a Google executive was quoted as saying "I don't remember the last time I saw an animated GIF."


back to blog