phone call to Karen Archey


"Hello, Karen Archey? Mr. Hyrax here. Listen, I'm a busy man, but I read your institutional blog post about Joel Holmberg and had some bones to pick with what you said about Nasty Nets. I loved that blog and it wasn't Art, it was trash, it was nuts.
"The way you write it up it sounds like a vehicle for getting into galleries and you even gave a recap on who from the group was exhibiting and who was a miserable lapsed artist. Ms. Archey, who gives a shit about any of that. You need to stop reading so much Brad Troemel. The beauty of Nasty Nets was it had people working on all levels simultaneously (lapsed artist, non-artist, fanatic climber) with the idea of creating something that had nothing to do with the existing art world. It was the internet, man. That was the subject. Also, you could use a fact checker, or at least an implication checker: several Nasty Netters were exhibiting artists before the group, including Michael Bell-Smith. Whether any of the self-identified artists in the group had "considerable success in the art market" before or after only matters to capitalist tools such as yourself. Also, as Tom Moody noted in his comment, you ignored the most prolific contributors to the group and concentrated on a handful of less productive users--why was that? I'd say because it fit your bogus rags to riches narrative. Also, it's like you're picking your favorite members of the Beatles. It was the Beatles, right? OK, gotta go, I'm a busy man, but I'll be keeping an eye out for your corrections."

collage posted to by Island had nothing to do with this post

Ficus Focus (2)

Manuel Fernández sent a very nice email regarding the previous post on his GIF series. While it's polite and complimentary, he has a couple of issues:

But I think that the text [discusses] if these gifs are fake. I just wanted to clarify it. The text of the project says: "The project uses the face recognition software as pretext to generate a series of animated gif images emulating the process." [Also,] the project does not talk about ubiquity of surveillance.


Thanks, Manuel.
I did read your statement before I posted and linked to it. What I wrote is interpretation.
Face-recognition-as-surveillance is a "hot button" issue it would be hard to ignore. I'd be derelict if I didn't at least mention it.
The point of the post was I don't care that much about art's relation to hot button issues but I liked the GIFs for other reasons.
What I hadn't considered before the update was that the green rectangle was instantly recognizable code for a particular product, since I'm not an iPhone user myself and kind of hate them. That is much more problematic to me -- the extent to which your GIFs are an in-joke for iPhone users and therefore a subtle form of brand promotion.
In my own work I make jokes about primitive paint programs but when I first started doing that I thought the pixelly drawings could be read as either MacPaint (Apple/Claris) or Microsoft Paintbrush. Mostly they were (seen as generic) and I was very uncomfortable the first time a gallery described them as "Microsoft Paintbrush drawings" (this was around '98).
Nowadays MSPaint has become synonymous with pixelly paint programs (even though they are changing it), people have forgotten MacPaint from the '80s, and I've even been accused of "loving Windows." Yipe, that's insane.