general

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:

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 Ayn Rand or 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.

You may have determined this is fiction. It's based on actual interview where a philosopher who isn't embarrassed by her own quest for professional validation dismisses similar striving by artists as an insecure, ego-driven craving for recognition.

In response to my invitation, Nick DeMarco emailed the following comment:

Chill and Chill Alike

Thanks for the invitation to join in your conversation, I'm happy to!

For starters, I'm very curious as to why you seem to be focusing heavily on the tangential aspects of the show (who we are, where we're from, what we call the group, the format of the exhibitions etc) and have avoided talking about almost any of the actual pieces in the show? Then, to go even further, and to claim that the content of the show was disingenuous, while still not providing any examples (sort of a fox news "some people say" kind of tactic).

There was a lot of real thought and care that went into each piece in the show, and I would very much like to hear some thoughtful responses from the critical netart community.

Nick, the last time we talked online you were focused on who I am, how I present myself, etc.

I didn't say the show was disingenuous.

I gave an example of disingenuousness of the website--Daniel Leyva's page is made to seem like chillin' (lazy, relaxed, kickin back) when it is anything but. You have to sign in and click stuff--that's work!--and then the software assembles a pixel art room for you with elements that took much time and talent to draw. It's good but your typical heavily-determined piece of net art. Is it chillin? I'd say not. Why call it that? False modesty?

Much care and thought went into my discussion of Tolga Taluy's painting in the show. Sorry if that seemed Fox News-like to you.

We're discussing jstchillin at Paddy's.

Also Beau Sievers says on Twitter, in response to my earlier post:

The vibe I caught at jstchillin was that disingenuousness/ambiguity about "chillin'" was the product/lifestyle posture being sold.

(But the best works there transcended that.)

Perhaps Nick DeMarco will join the discussion!

After the surf club experiments jstchillin seems retrograde. Several "gallery art" structures are imported to the web: (i) curators (whose names are constantly mentioned); (ii) a schedule of exhibitions (one week instead of a month); (iii) the curators control the schedule and who is invited. Reasserting authority in this manner after the comparative looseness of letting invitees post whenever and whatever they wanted isn't softened just because you call the site "just chilling." In fact, calling a site of such obvious structured workaholism "chillin" seems disingenuous, and colors how the viewer perceives the work. Some of the projects are laid-back goofs but others certainly aren't (caution: sign-in required). This is not to say there isn't interesting work on the site, only that the spin was never convincing.

"Spirit Surfers" has the same problem--every post is supposed to be a joke about New Age consciousness via web consumption. By contrast, "Nasty Nets" and "Dump.fm" work because they wed unpretentious names with unpretentious practices (which may in fact be quite laborious--they can sneak up on you).

A GIF I found/posted a while back is featured in a Flavorpill essay by Paddy Johnson, Watching the Pot Boil: Artists Who Use Anticipation in Their Work. Get-you-to-go-to-the-jump-page-type-teaser: it involves a baby and a hammer.