The unifying themes of this blog and the artwork depicted here (mine and others') are stated on my main page. That statement was written in 2001 and has only been tweaked slightly since.
I believe any serious artist these days deals with information technology because that's what makes the world go round (at least till the fuel and food runs out and our society resembles New Orleans post-Katrina). The cult of "painting and sculpting" (and the collectors who support it to the tune of billions) is either about burying heads in the dirt or actively denying this prevalent reality through some imagined return to the medieval.
But tech art also has its cult--futuristic assumptions that drive advertising, design, and consumption. That's why the artwork is low-tech here and why mute molecular forms, synthetic cubism, and '80s-style computer graphics are constant themes--all are utopian forms where the bloom is off the flower (kind of like the DHARMA initiative).
Guthrie Lonergan has identified two types of artists using information tech--hackers and "defaults" artists. I'm in the latter camp, using programs pretty much as they were intended and in ways that "blend in" with the wider Web the way a Pop artist's work blended in with commercial culture. The underlying intent is still art, but doesn't announce itself in the language of academic conceptualism or overt geekspeak.
www.teleferique.org/stations/Cliquet/Default/default.htm
Thanks. I changed "default" back to "defaults" in my post to differentiate it from this movement, which on cursory reading seems more hacker than "putting something up on YouTube."
Dee D Jackson-fault
Eeep!
Would the Artforum Diary call this "demode"?
dunno...never read it
What, you don't care who went to what afterparty?
it is interesting how certain formal stratifications born out of "medieval" art (such as art vs. not art) persist on the web, though I appreciate how net artists are not the ones making these distinctions
Some net artists are. I think the Net Art 1.0 group still wants things specifically framed as conceptual net projects, which makes it easier for the viewer to grasp--as opposed to a 2.0 artist/consumer plowing through the net figuring out what's valuable and what's not (and isolating it or not).
I find it fascinating that formal differences originating in "medieval" art (such as art vs. not art) continue to exist on the internet, while I am glad that net artists are not the ones establishing these distinctions. https://dordle.io
|
The unifying themes of this blog and the artwork depicted here (mine and others') are stated on my main page. That statement was written in 2001 and has only been tweaked slightly since.
I believe any serious artist these days deals with information technology because that's what makes the world go round (at least till the fuel and food runs out and our society resembles New Orleans post-Katrina). The cult of "painting and sculpting" (and the collectors who support it to the tune of billions) is either about burying heads in the dirt or actively denying this prevalent reality through some imagined return to the medieval.
But tech art also has its cult--futuristic assumptions that drive advertising, design, and consumption. That's why the artwork is low-tech here and why mute molecular forms, synthetic cubism, and '80s-style computer graphics are constant themes--all are utopian forms where the bloom is off the flower (kind of like the DHARMA initiative).
Guthrie Lonergan has identified two types of artists using information tech--hackers and "defaults" artists. I'm in the latter camp, using programs pretty much as they were intended and in ways that "blend in" with the wider Web the way a Pop artist's work blended in with commercial culture. The underlying intent is still art, but doesn't announce itself in the language of academic conceptualism or overt geekspeak.
- tom moody 5-24-2007 10:32 pm
www.teleferique.org/stations/Cliquet/Default/default.htm
- p.d. (guest) 5-25-2007 4:38 am
Thanks. I changed "default" back to "defaults" in my post to differentiate it from this movement, which on cursory reading seems more hacker than "putting something up on YouTube."
- tom moody 5-25-2007 4:48 am
Dee D Jackson-fault
- p.d. (guest) 5-25-2007 4:57 am
Eeep!
Would the Artforum Diary call this "demode"?
- tom moody 5-25-2007 5:12 am
dunno...never read it
- p.d. (guest) 5-25-2007 5:40 am
What, you don't care who went to what afterparty?
- tom moody 5-25-2007 5:45 am
it is interesting how certain formal stratifications born out of "medieval" art (such as art vs. not art) persist on the web, though I appreciate how net artists are not the ones making these distinctions
- Jeff S (guest) 5-25-2007 9:21 pm
Some net artists are. I think the Net Art 1.0 group still wants things specifically framed as conceptual net projects, which makes it easier for the viewer to grasp--as opposed to a 2.0 artist/consumer plowing through the net figuring out what's valuable and what's not (and isolating it or not).
- tom moody 5-25-2007 9:34 pm
I find it fascinating that formal differences originating in "medieval" art (such as art vs. not art) continue to exist on the internet, while I am glad that net artists are not the ones establishing these distinctions. https://dordle.io
- arrowveal (guest) 10-11-2023 2:45 am