Archive for the ‘art as criticism’ Category
One of those specimens of impromptu public art where a knife is used to cut a section out of a subway poster to reveal another poster underneath.
A prominent "art and technology" website had a get-together in a NYC bar last night -- apropos of yesterday's post I made these business cards (it took about thirty minutes) and handed them around to a few people. Not so much for self-promotion (most of them know me) as to advance the cause of computer stupidity awareness and the need for a boosterism-counteracting hate zine in the art/tech space where people can vent about computer and phone failure and omnipresent thought control. Left ambiguous was whether the card referred to 15 years' independence on the web or from the web, as it is ordinarily experienced (walking zombie-like around the city streets staring at a glowing slab to see what "friends" are saying at every particular nanosecond).
Thanks to andrej for the webcam shot.
Suggested feature for the "art and technology" websites:
A page where people can talk candidly about how stupid computers, phones, and social media are.
Failures, breakages, outages, poor design, scams, stories about people falling into manholes while reading phones, etc.
The tech sites all have such upbeat, utopian attitudes, and their partnerships with Silicon Valley rent-extractors are ominous.
You have your occasional "broken kindle" jokes but what's needed is a page of pure zine 80s style hatred.
I would contribute.
hat tip cheseball for burning laptop
hat tips jules laplace, giorgio de chirico and scuola metafisica (google campus)
Michael Manning's work at the NADA art fair this year (reproductions cribbed from various online documentation). Note that the color doesn't have to "go" with the texture. Smart! These are handsome objects that don't take themselves too seriously, as with Manning's phone and tablet paintings that raised the ire of Art F City commenters because of their lethargic finger wiggling. Real men use their muscles!
The Hole gallery shows this artist, Matthew Stone. Haven't seen these in person but the concept doesn't appeal. Evidently they are based on photos of "phat" brushstrokes (as in, self-consciously flamboyantly lovely) that are then transposed into impossible environments where they cast fake shadows on pointless geometric objects. We've been here, in the '70s, with abstract illusionism, and it didn't go well.
Yes, that would have to be Van Gogh reproductions sold by his namesake museum. All this ingenious algorithmic mimickry of color and texture in the service of Puff-Paint™-like kitsch. Maybe they are amazing in person but again, it's the concept that's revolting. Is our understanding of Van Gogh's work enhanced by running it through the Star Trek replicator?