hat tips dvvdpw, jimpunk, cory & jamie arcangel
new media criticism checklist
Does the work help others?
Is it friendly?
Does it have some technical stuff?
Can the work be explained in a paragraph?
If the artist has made unfriendly or unhelpful works in the past, have they been apologized for?
Does the artist work well with others?
Have any major artists vouched for the artist, or this particular work?
Has the artist won a grant or award?
Is the artist physically presentable?
These are meant only as guidelines but if the answer is Yes to all of the above questions you can expect a positive review for your work in the near future.
corny-core variation
Seacrestcheadle destroys the hopes of aspiring self-promoters with this interpretation of Ryder Ripps' interpretation of Adrianne Ho's self-interpretation as a "brand model."
Ripps' Adrianne Ho project was covered here last summer -- it's just now reached the public stage (in the form of a painting show at Postmasters gallery) where it can be denounced by the critics. Artnet's Paddy Johnson made her own predictions about the Postmasters event part of her review -- always a sound critical practice -- but apparently missed that Ripps' "corny-core" tumblr preceded the show by six months, had already been covered, and wasn't just a "custom slideshow" to accompany the exhibit.
Hadn't planned to revisit this but her review inspired a couple of tweets:
what artnet calls ryder ripps' "custom slideshow" explains the Adrianne Ho project much more lucidly and amusingly than the artnet review Jan 31
artnet defends self-objectifying fashion model from artist's touchscreen defacement -- who will be defended next -- how about @McDonalds Feb 1
