general

ICANN, the internet domain-name-minting entity, has announced a list of ten "finalists" for the .art gTLD (generic top level domain) including deviantart.com (commercial art/illustration) and e-Flux (fine art). ArtFCity reports on a supposed mutual support pledge between these two, issued in hopes of snagging .art. They aren't proposing to share the domain -- each still wants to be the winner -- but instead are promising ICANN that whoever wins will set up a "policy board of arts professionals to implement standards for the domain’s use," to be jointly managed by the two applicants. This is pretty weak, as the loser will not have much incentive to staff and manage such a board after the domain is awarded, and for the winner "an independent board" is just window dressing for the centralized control it hopes to gain. Besides, who said we needed another board dispensing standards?

The gTLDs have been called a scam or shakedown by ICANN, which is charging $185,000 just to apply for these domains. Nevertheless ArtFCity writer Corinna Kirsch mentions "initial fears" that e-Flux or deviant would be "curating" the domains, linking to earlier AFC discussions yours truly participated in. Those fears weren't really "initial" so much as ongoing, and they aren't really "fears" so much as disgust at the attempted power-grab. Of course the applicants will be curating (or gatekeeping, whatever you want to call it) and plan to make money off of the domain or they wouldn't be coughing up so much dough and making such a fuss trying to rouse artists to their quests.

Discussing the mutual application support pledge without clarifying the larger issues is "horse race" reporting, similar to what we get in political campaigns from the mainstream media. Here's a comment I posted:

The larger questions here are (i) should ICANN be doing this? (No) (ii) will these top level domains create new gatekeeper powers on the web? (Maybe) (iii) is it gatekeeping to have a "policy board of arts professionals to implement standards for the domain’s use"? (Yes) (iv) is curating the same thing as gatekeeping? (Yes) (v) are the applicants for these domains seeking to win for commercial reasons? (Yes)
Corinna, you mentioned that there were "initial fears" about deviantart or eflux "curating" the domain. Fear might be too strong a word but having either of these two competitors deciding what is or isn't art is a source of ongoing concern. If one of the other eight applicants wins, this entire issue goes away. Far more damage can be done by well-intentioned sounding but basically dishonest appeals to a community than will be done by organizations that have no communities to begin with. It would be good if ArtFCity would take a position rather than just reporting.

An addition to our feed reader list: bloglovin'

Yes, blogs still get love, goddamit, even though the rest of y'all have your little "Facebook walls."
Here's the bloglovin' layout for tommoody.us.
Was just thinking today how Wikipedia and legacy blogs are the last traces of the volunteer web, before we all decided we were Ayn Rand (and let some bigger Ayn Rand make all the money off our rugged individualism). So it's interesting that startup types still have an interest in scraping legacy content at this late stage. However, it's like my page is "tumblr-ized," removing the few (minimal) personal touches. And since it's RSS I'm getting "potential exposure" but no kickback for my content magic. (FYI, I didn't sign up to create that page -- bloglovin' found the feed on a list somewhere.)

A few hours after this dismal assessment of the new media community's permanent decampment to Facebook, Rhizome.org posted about its plans for a Facebook scraper to address "the increasing importance of the art-related discourse that takes place" there. This exchange then occurred in the comments:

Randall Packer | Fri, May 30th, 2014 8:43 a.m.
Since Facebook is simply not designed for archival purposes, the larger question becomes, why not use a content management system such as WordPress for purposes of recording and indexing dialogue? It is also possible to integrate Facebook into WordPress comments, and I wonder if this might resolve the issue if Facebook needs to be used.
In sum: there are such powerful tools for discussion forums, but they are underutilized. I have seen Facebook used for serious online discussion, particularly in group pages, but it is horribly inadequate for this purpose.

Tom Moody | Fri, May 30th, 2014 9:20 a.m.
Or, it is horribly adequate if you want to vent to a few friends and not have a permanent searchable archive of your comments. (Assuming Facebook doesn't then blow another set of privacy seals, as it has been known to do.)
The decision to move new media discussion, announcements, etc to Facebook has already happened. The larger question is what does the "public sphere" mean when so many people have elected to use a system of Byzantine complexity with complex code and constantly shifting rules and allegiances. Is Rhizome the public sphere, attempting to collect this material, or is Facebook, where the discussion is happening in real time?

Then later, on twitter, kelani nichole said a particular project taking place in Zuck-world should be screenshotted for "@tommoody and, you know for posterity's sake." Prompting the passive-aggressive reply-tweet that is the title of the present post. Artists are on Facebook, among other reasons, to avoid yours truly and the awesome burden of standing behind your words and ideas for all eternity.

Let's float a new definition for "post-internet" or po-net, as it jokingly called.

"New Media artists who use Facebook as a primary location for work, discussion, news, and/or self-promotion"

Referring back to an earlier confab, one definition of the "post-" moment (Gene McHugh's) was the web's transition from its early geeky/amateur days, roughly Geocities through Blogspot, to the time it become everyday reality for most folks (the arrival of social media, meaning Facebook). That is to say, widespread use of a "mini-internet" -- a database, not really a "net" -- that mimicked the web's multiplicity and sprawl but was all owned by one company. Whereas in 2005 you might use a search engine to find Jane Doe Artist on the web, by 2011 you'd check Facebook to see if she had a page.
Challenged by the success of this model, Google, which was once somewhat neutral in its search regimen, began treating the sprawl like a database it controlled. Formerly boutique-y shops such as Twitter gradually aspired to be Walmart.
But let's stick to Facebook. Even with everything we know about its egregious commercial practices and ties to the surveillance sector, it's still the go-to place for artists. Not necessarily for content but as a phone directory, a place to announce shows, and a hub for critical discussion.
After Rhizome.org's recent fundraiser, both that organization and the ArtFCity site lamented that comment culture had "moved on" from independent blogs to social media, meaning Facebook. When Marisa Olson wanted to post a statement protesting a cancelled show by a commercial gallery, she did it on Facebook. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the majority of participants in the new media biennale "The Wrong" actively used their Facebook accounts for announcements and chat about the event.
A handful of creative types have bailed on Zuck, or never signed up. Perhaps clinging to ideals of a web larger than a single dominant business. Geeks, perhaps -- but it's not like it takes much smarts or money to set up a website and let search engines find you.
Everyone else, then, is a post-internet artist.

Update: Once again the magic 8 ball told me Rhizome was about to post on a topic. This appeared a few hours after the above was written.

Ranting head "Maddox" explains with great clarity and particularity why he hates BuzzFeed. [YouTube] (hat tip reneabythe)

If you watch to the end, there is a post-credits blast re: GIF mispronunciation: "I'm not gonna call it JIF. You invented the Graphics Interchange Format, you didn't invent the way letters are pronounced."

Paddy Johnson weighs in on New York magazine's adoration of Buzzfeed (thanks for the link). She spots a moment of wavering commitment where New York questions whether BuzzFeed's advertising model is "really selling anything."

My own contribution to human understanding of BuzzFeed was tweeting that it's "like a slightly zanier version of the comcast xfinity homepage." In a reply to Johnson's post, I questioned whether Jonah Peretti had any art world bona fides: "Blackpeopleloveus.com was obnoxious and not all that funny, and that New Museum installation was dreadful, 'wall installation 101.' This was a man destined to be an Ad Man, not an artist. (In fairness, the "dirt style" HTML design page he did with Cory Arcangel was amusing.)"

In another post (thanks for the other link) Johnson writes that new media gallery Bitforms seems to have cancelled "Postfeminism Postbinary Feminism, a show that was slated to open three weeks from now and was curated [by] artist and curator Marisa Olson. Irate about the cancellation, Olson took her complaints to Facebook." The Facebook post seems to have disappeared, or perhaps it's blocked to us non-Zucks. I asked Paddy in a comment to tell us what she knows about this cancellation. Update: Johnson rescued Olson's text from the Zuckerbowels; I'll probably repost to the "public internet" after I've digested it some more. One statement leaps out, that Olson considers Bitforms to be "one of the most important new media galleries in the world." It's certainly one of the most long-lived (14 years, I think) and in the infinitesimal field of new media galleries, that's something, but am not sure "important" is the right word.