general

An earlier post on the return of the dotcom era was light on specifics; some have been added in the form of links. (See also below.) And the conclusion was fortified:

Dot Com Two is happening at the same moment as austerity and widespread social misery post-financial-crash. To paper or pixel over the disparity between VC-funded haves and non-VC-funded have nots, you have Silicon Valley types claiming that "apps" will take the place of basic governmental functions to ameliorate social conditions. Naivete the first time around is now just cynicism.

What remains is the harder work of walking the reader through some of the latest mobile-and-Facebook-based ventures in search of useful life experience. This will not be pleasant so it's being put off. You can check the links yourselves: please shoot me an email if, overall, you think you think the latest dotcom boomlet represents a positive social development.

In the meantime, here is a startups guide, a NYC startups guide (if they get the page working will read it in Firefox eventually), and a post about NYC startup fun.
The New Museum is catching the fever with some kind of incubator cube farm for artistes in what is surely the last "rambling, rough-hewn" space on Bowery (hat tip Ryz). And the line about apps taking the place of governmental functions is from a craptastic New Yorker story about Bay Area whizkids (via saranrapjs): "We now expect social entrepreneurs to solve problems that government used to solve."

In the 2008 Net Aesthetics panel at the New Museum no one used the term "post-internet" (with or without hyphen). So it's amusing that in this year's so-called Post Net Aesthetics panel (which, according to Rhizome, "picks up the discussion from [its] Net Aesthetics panels of 2006 and 2008," the subject was whether the term "post-internet" had outlived its usefulness.
With all deference to Gene McHugh, who called his blog "Post Internet," the term was laughable if you ever said it aloud outside a group of seven or so recent graduates of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (one of whom co-organized "Post Net Aesthetics"). Any use of "post-" 100 years after post-impressionism is inherently pompous, and since no "internet artist" was actually leaving the internet, it never made a bit of sense except to this SAIC-based group, who used it repeatedly and reverently (but always with a bit of "yet, is it over?").
Presumably they used "post-" in the art historical sense of "reacting to but incorporating elements of," but since "internet" isn't exactly a narrowly-defined style, it's wildly over-reaching to say you belong to a movement running counter to it. Especially since the only reaction anyone could see was the retro-direction of showing in galleries, or "material engagement" (hideous phrase), while the artist also maintained a net presence.
Thin gruel for a movement, or a panel topic.

Update: Dump chat on this general topic--

cdanger: post internet = non-screen media, gestural + spatial i/o and other sheeeit
tm: that sounds like "non-internet"
cdanger: "non-internet" [...] sounds like "internet of things" if we're going by terms other people made up
tm: "internet of things" sounds awful

For those of us who lived through the Dot Com boom and crash of 1997-2001 it's amusing to watch history repeating itself (minus the crash, so far).
Dot Com Two, a sudden explosion of venture and or seed capital-funded websites and concepts happening in our major cities, owes itself to mobile and Facebook, two factors that didn't exist fifteen years ago. These developments offer the promise of funneling consumers to advertisers in a way the old, diffuse, "democratic" web, with less certain means of tabulating "eyeballs," could never do. Thus investors have renewed confidence to give it a go.

Otherwise the Dot Com Two sites, with their apps that "harness the power of mobile and the social graph" for planning of group foosball sessions or identifying all the car washes within your driving range (and allowing you to pay in advance for the scrub) inspire deja vu with their incomprehensible design, triviality, and/or lack of a clear stated purpose.

A common thread of these sites is hunting for an "about" page telling you what the site is for and who's behind it. You are plunged into colorful fields of Flash or CSS with a profusion of flow diagrams, talking head testimonials, and vague business-speak terminology.

Something like Craigslist or eBay takes off because it fills a need. Many of the new apps seem more about creating niches and hoping a need materializes around them.

Dot Com One was generally a happier time, except for worries of Y2K and watching the media go after Clinton. Dot Com Two is happening at the same moment as austerity and widespread social misery post-financial-crash. To paper or pixel over the disparity between VC-funded haves and non-VC-funded have nots, you have Silicon Valley types claiming that "apps" will take the place of basic governmental functions to ameliorate social conditions. Naivete the first time around is now just cynicism.

Update: Was avoiding specifics for a few reasons but here is a startups guide, a NYC startups guide (if they get the page working I'll read it in Firefox eventually), and a post about NYC startup fun.
The New Museum is catching the fever with some kind of incubator cube farm for artistes in the last "rambling, rough-hewn" space remaining on Bowery.

Udpate 2: And the line about apps taking the place of governmental functions is from a craptastic New Yorker story about Bay Area whizkids (via saranrapjs)

From Art News, after MOMA turned up more, or clearer hand prints of the artist during a recent canvas-cleaning:

Now more than ever, the work evokes the walls of a prehistoric cave, the oldest known mark-making of primitive man.

“He’s declaring his identity free of language in the most elemental way,” Temkin says. “He wanted to bring modern art to that same level of essentialism. He’s harking back to a period when humankind was not far past the ape stage.”

Oogah me painter. (You don't get to call abstract artists stupid -- only art magazines get to do that. Also, this is the latest effort by MOMA to reinvent Pollock as a figurative artist, previously having done it with Pepe Karmel's computer analysis of Hans Namuth photos to show the reassuring human form underlying all that weird chaotic stuff.)

tip of the sabretooth skin hat to bill