general

1. From Michael Manning:

2. GIF version by SeacrestCheadle

3. Appeal to highbrow sensibilities:

Suggestion to critics of new media events: please write about the work in front of you and not how the show measures up to the one in your head. Have read several reviews of the latter type regarding BYOB nights (one-time gatherings where participants bring projectors and beam their projects onto large communal walls). One review spanked artists for not consciously tackling the history of projected art in the contemporary gallery scene; another questioned how successfully the show combated institutional reliance in art practice.

Neither of these have been declared goals of BYOB events, from what I have seen or read. The BYOB FAQ page announces such intentions as "making a huge show with zero budget" and "an exploration of the medium of projection." No one can accuse the organizers of biting off more than they can eschew.

It's difficult to write about new media work, especially when artists use obscure technical processes or have back stories for the art you don't know about. It's even harder when you only have one night and much work to cover. Nevertheless, please try. Criticism starts with description, and theory that addresses that description, and then how that theory connects to a larger body of theory. You can't really bypass the first step--people notice you aren't saying anything.

If your description is partial, you can explain that. Take pictures and write about the pictures. Those are your building blocks, not your preconceptions.

Definition of CRITIC
1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances
2: one given to harsh or captious judgment
3: an inspiring troll
4: one with a personal beef or grudge against an artist (internet parlance only)
5: some kind of a**hole (general vernacular)

Thanks to Rhizome.org for fixing all but one of the broken links listed here and here. Those were from my old blog. Have found a fresh crop that don't work (all found in tommoody.us posts). In the pairs below, the non-underscored link, which doesn't redirect to the new post, is followed by the current, working link for the post. Speaking of redirects, many of these "dead" links below don't go to a "page not found" page but rather land on an earlier post in same category (news, editorial, etc.). This isn't helpful because the reader may spend time trying to figure out why the incorrect post is relevant. Once again, it was interesting to go back and revisit arguments, some old, some ongoing. Sorry if this public bug-hunting seems mean-spirited, as one Rhizome commenter stated; that's not my intent, just being a link nerd.

Rhizome's links to Michael Smith's Open House project have been changed. http://www.rhizome.org/artbase/Open_House is now http://archive.rhizome.org/Open_House/. That is also now the root URL for the individual rooms I linked to: http://archive.rhizome.org/Open_House/FP/FPmenu.html, http://archive.rhizome.org/Open_House/FP/closet.html, and http://archive.rhizome.org/Open_House/FP/storage.html

http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/905 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/jul/11/interview-with-joampatildeo-ribas/ (that's João Ribas)

http://rhizome.org/editorial/news/?timestamp=20080630 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/jun/30/go-ahead-touch-her/

http://rhizome.org/editorial/news/?timestamp=20080516 is now http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/may/16/tweaking-tweets/ (news item re-categorized as an editorial item)

http://rhizome.org/editorial/news/?timestamp=20080602 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/jun/2/net-aesthetics-20/.

The date of this announcement is incorrect: the panel described in it took place in 2006, not 2008.

http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/689 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/apr/28/video-of-futures-of-the-internet-panel/

http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/616 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/apr/9/let-it-spin/

http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/590 is now http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/apr/1/the-rematerialization-of-art/

http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/575 has been changed to http://rhizome.org/editorial/2008/mar/27/out-of-office-autoreply/ / note comments

http://rhizome.org/art/exhibition/montage/14_slocum.php has been changed to http://archive.rhizome.org:8080/exhibition/montage/14_slocum.php

http://rhizome.org/editorial/archives/119 is now http://rhizome.org/editorial/2007/oct/4/8-bit-cliques/

imaginariel goldberger, commenting on a Kyle Chayka post about younger artists' work, says he teaches them in school and believes

This generation is not about being "Blank" [it's] about being "Instant." Most artistic products I see are about ephemerality, about "recycollage/recyclage" (collage made with recycling media) and about creating and re-creating art that references this generation's fascination with social connections in cyber-space. Yes, it looks trite or over intellectualized at a superficial level if I look at it with my generational filter, but if i exercise curiosity, invite the artists in a dialogue with me as equals and ask them what they are doing and why, I find that the art I see is a decoy. It is basically an instantaneous and calculated obsolete contribution to a continuously obsolescing sea of social networking blips. The "art" itself is worth nothing, since it is no longer the medium. The social millieu is now the medium, as performance, presence and discourse. The "art" is but another excuse for creating and re-creating personages, stories, glimmers of presence, and possibilities, meant to last only until the next spark. Galleries and institutions are slowly trying to figure out how to monetize this, until then, critics are not going to get it.

This recalls the recent argument on AFC about whether or not Graphics trump Interchange in a certain much-discussed Format. Goldberger's description inspires but the work we see on the (ageless) internet is too complex, hypnotic, and emotionally charged to be just a decoy. More is happening than the Beuysian social sculpture new media professors were heralding before their students came along and embodied it. This page of Duncan Alexander's, for example, is no decoy, although the simplicity of the abstract forms might be deceptive. These aren't just ovals clinging to a great circle, struggling to align themselves with the common perspective as the (w)hole slowly turns; it's a collective Sisyphean struggle to maintain discipline within the elastic gyres of constantly dating technology, symbolized by the shaky GIF anchoring the illusion. Whether this interpretation is too overbearing, the content is in the piece and my response to it and not somewhere off in the Cloud.
(continuing minor edits)