tom moody

This Tumblr collects smarmy announcements from recently-acquired startups to users about to get screwed. The collector, Phil Gyford, explains:

Usually these are "acqui-hires," acquisitions whose only purpose is to employ the start-up's staff...
Because the staff have been hired to be part of Google or Facebook or AOL, they are now part of that company's grander scheme, a scheme that rarely includes whatever website or service the start-up was originally developing.

and concludes:

...there is something fury-inducing and, I would say, morally wrong in start-ups persuading thousands of people to devote their time and energy to using a service that is summarily erased once the owners have been paid off. Yes, the owners may have worked hard, but without those users' efforts they would not have their payday. They may well have had an incredible journey but, time and again, ordinary people are being led up the garden path.

hat tip Jeff Sisson

The remixes and reinterpretations by Earcon (aka John Parker) of my Macintosh SE songs from the '80s and beyond will be featured on a UK internet radio series* during the month of March.

The series is Reuse Aloud, the site is basic.fm, and here is their page about our collaborations. Other artists include DJ Danger Mouse, DJ Food, the Polish Ambassador, Diplo, and many more.

*Will post an update with dates/times. Am not certain what is meant by basic.fm's statement that "on [March 1] 2013 we will take over the radio. For one month we will broadcast across the airwaves." That suggests open-air transmission but I'm not finding any call letters or AM or FM frequency for the station. I think the way it works is our music will be played at selected times on the monthly schedule of "Reuse Aloud" internet radio shows and then will be featured in a marathon performed in a gallery setting. More when I know.

Update: A weekly schedule is up and our tunes will be played:
Monday Mar 4, 2:32 - 2:57 PM (US East coast time)
Thursday Mar 7, 8:20 - 8:48 PM (US East coast time)

Update 2:
Mar 19 12:04 - 12:33 PM (US East coast time)
Mar 29-30 Broadcast Marathon - closing event for the exhibit will include GIFs and video made by John Parker and me collaboratively.

The art world has been stuck in 1993 since 1993 so what we really need is a New Museum show called 1993, featuring art fair mainstays such as Wolfgang Tillmans, Felix Gonzales-Torres, and Jason Rhoades. Morgan Meis describes the essential uselessness of the concept (although it appears his review is positive):

The perfect thing about 1993 is that it has no special significance. In the grand scope of history, 1993 means nothing.

The non-essential nature of the year 1993 is what makes it the proper subject for a time capsule.

Didn't really want to go to this and an attempt yesterday fell flat. The friend I was with tried to get in with a left-at-home press pass but the ticket desk person (who kept us waiting several minutes while conducting some important-sounding business on the phone -- didn't even look up to say "be with you in a minute") wasn't having it: "I need to see your press pass." My friend said he had some older passes in his wallet but was told they must have a date showing that the pass was current as of this year. Relational aesthetics in action: (i) negotiation (ii) followed by unconsummated artistic experience. So very 1993. Will probably try again later.

Let's go back to the questions posed by last week's Brooklyn Meetup event:

Social Media, Art & The "Like" Economy

How do we value art online? In a setting that privileges and rewards content with mass appeal and a meme-ready aesthetic, how does the creative practice of artists working on the internet conform to or defy these rules? In the absence of a true art market for net art, new media art, or art that takes place on social media platforms, does a work's viral potential become an indicator of success or quality?

In this moderated panel discussion we'll hear from artists, curators, and art critics who are looking at the way art functions in the digital gallery of the internet. We'll be exploring whether success online can translate to success offline, and exactly how much stock one should place in the "Like" economy of the web.

Previously we flagged "interesting & cogent discussion" and "institutional recognition" as art's main evaluators on and offline. Money comes later (for some) but it's kind of boring and gauche to talk about that when you're still hashing out what your art even means. The "like economy" is an amateurish idea that sacrifices brains for commerce, or artists pseudo-maybe-ironically being in bed with startups and everyone else wondering how they are going to profit from the web. If, twenty years ago, a gallery panel was convened around the idea of "Gah, how are we gonna make money?" it might have been less well-regarded than say, a panel on how the "neo" movements of the '80s shaded over into early '90s relational aesthetics-style activities. Because it's the web, there is an uneasy mingling of what artists do with what entrepreneurs do.

As for popularity and going viral as a metric, this gets back to the zillion hits vs Henry Darger dichotomy posed by Ryder Ripps. That might have been a more interesting way to frame the discussion than "like economy: love it or hate it" which presumes the like economy already exists outside the grad student imagination.