general

Paddy Johnson is having a fundraiser and I just made a contribution. A writer for a New York newspaper recently emailed me asking (i) why I thought people were attracted to Johnson's blog, and (ii) what she does that other people writing about art don't.
Here was my reply:

Johnson's blog blends thoughtful writing about art, news, humor, original reporting, lively comment threads, guest contributions, and "dish."
She was an immediate hit because she calls 'em like she sees 'em in an art world where everyone watches what they say.
She is also one of the few writers that can talk intelligently about two fields, art and new media, and their points of crossover.
This has attracted two large readerships that might not otherwise mingle.

Speaking of new media, Rhizome.org is also having a fund drive and I contributed there, too. (Just call me Santa.) Things I'd like to see happen there in the next year:

1. Redirect old posts to their new editorial numbers. Just noticed that sometime between July and December 2008 Rhizome completely renumbered its blog posts so "permalinks" to posts prior to that time period are broken (including many links from this blog*). No redirect, just a 404 message.

2. Restore reblogged content from the non-Rhizome web community. After its short-lived but vital "glasnost" era of guest editors and heavy reblogged content from non-staffers (around 2006 or so) Rhizome removed the reblogged content (including posts of mine) from their blog archives. Eyebeam also zapped years of guest content--what is going on? The Rhizome posts are still there if you dig for them, they just aren't coming up in the monthly archive.

*example of what happened when Rhizome changed its posts: My link to their article about painter Dan Proops used to go to http://rhizome.org/editorial/fp/blog.php/611 (see Google's cache of the post). This was changed to http://www.rhizome.org/editorial/297 (see my revised post, only because I happened to catch it). With the link dead the discussion makes even less sense than it does with it.

Update: Item 1 above has been fixed; regarding item 2, a browsable list of the reblogged content is in the works, per Rhizome.

Unqualified as this blog is to comment on Australian politics, our editorial staff favors the barely repentant kid who hosted a "destructive" street party over the nightly newscaster who is far, far too confident of her right to meddle, as seen in this YouTube clip. (hat tip aron and paul for what has all the earmarks of satire but probably isn't)

"What type of problems are you having with the unit?"
"There is a sort of drift between channels."
"Drift? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about."
"The stereo image isn't stable."
"Stereo image? Again, you'll need to explain that a little better."
"The panning isn't fixed. One channel will suddenly get louder and the other softer."
"That is not a known issue with this unit. Did you [check all the other things that might be contributing to a wavering audio signal]?"
"Yes. It's only the analog outs that are a problem. I can ADAT the signal into another sound card and get perfect stereo from that card's analog outs. According to the specs there is some sort of 'servo-controlling' of the pan. Could that be out of whack?"
"No, no. That would be a hardware problem."
"I think we're talking about a hardware problem."
"OK, what about this? Is there corrosion around the output jacks?"
"Yes, I think there is."
"OK, here's your job number. Send the unit back to us for inspection, and write the number on the outside of the box."

From the previous post:

Most attempts by net artists to break the fourth wall and reveal their studio environment are as banal as those environments: webcam feeds, grinning avatars, etc.

And then there's this strategy, from a Salon-hosted blog, the "it's not really me, it's some guy's eye" graphic:

Have always disliked this kind of arty cropping. It's especially obnoxious in ads for politicians. Eliot Spitzer and Geraldine Ferraro both hired some art director genius to do this for them--or am I thinking of an old Pepsi ad with Ferraro? But that's another rant.

In response to this, from the previous post:

"The studio--artist sitting in a Starbucks, a cubicle, or his mom's basement surrounded by empty Cheetoh bags--will not be seen or become part of the mythology of the work."

JS emailed:

I am actually very interested in the mythology of an artist sitting in dumb places while making profound work online. This contextual information actually interests me more for someone with a virtual practice than it would for someone who makes work offline, especially given the cryptic styles preferred by many net artists for their online portfolios. But maybe this just belies my bias towards Keeping It Real.

Some non-virtual artists actually do have fascinating studios; it's not fair to them that I'm complaining about MOMA recreating Pollock's Long Island barn inside a 53rd Street office tower. Visiting those locales and listening to the artists talk about their work can and does add to their mystique, or, if you don't believe in mystique, "a depth of understanding of their work that can be conveyed anecdotally."

My bias is towards invisible artists: one of the great things about the techno music underground of the late '80s/early '90s was the "faceless dj/producer" who created a vibe by means of vinyl record sleeves, posters, and aliases, as opposed to the "cock rock" strutting stage personality under the spotlight. Most attempts by net artists to break the fourth wall and reveal their studio environment are as banal as those environments: webcam feeds, grinning avatars, etc.

I am also an ancient blogger who still remembers the early days of the medium, when critics assumed all blogs were personal diaries full of inconsequential details about feeding pets, quitting smoking, etc. I went overboard to "professionalize" and probably still do--no pictures of me at my laptop cropping a photo of a cardboard box in Photoshop, just the box. (If that can be called professional.)