Fresh Links!

by Art Fag City on June 4, 2008 · 45 comments Fresh Links!

Tom Moody – Net Aesthetics Trial Balloons

Very important: “The Web is a consumer’s medium, not a producer’s, so the artist is inexorably led to consumption as a “practice.” The degree of criticality can only be inferred, not implied.”

{ 45 comments }

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 7:59 pm

I get Tom’s point, but he gets his verbiage exactly backwards.

The web is a producer’s medium. If you sit silently staring at what you come across on the web, you’re not really *participating* in the web. It requires interaction (and not just the button pushing variety). If you’re not actively producing — commenting, blogging, rating, remixing, uploading, twittering, tagging etc, etc — you’re not really taking part in the web.

Simply by re-contextualizing things on one’s own blog or group blog, perhaps Tom would call this ‘consuming’ but that’s an error, it’s filtering, mixing, mashing, juxtaposing etc — it’s creative production. Splogs are passive consumers, VVORK is obviously not.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 2:59 pm

I get Tom’s point, but he gets his verbiage exactly backwards.

The web is a producer’s medium. If you sit silently staring at what you come across on the web, you’re not really *participating* in the web. It requires interaction (and not just the button pushing variety). If you’re not actively producing — commenting, blogging, rating, remixing, uploading, twittering, tagging etc, etc — you’re not really taking part in the web.

Simply by re-contextualizing things on one’s own blog or group blog, perhaps Tom would call this ‘consuming’ but that’s an error, it’s filtering, mixing, mashing, juxtaposing etc — it’s creative production. Splogs are passive consumers, VVORK is obviously not.

Art Fag City June 4, 2008 at 8:10 pm

I think it depends on where you’re sitting. There was a lot of talk at Night School that the web was a medium that encouraged the consumption of images, and that happens very readily on the web. Those commenting, blogging, rating, remixing, uploading, twittering, etc, are one subculture on the web, but not representative of its entirety. For example, I think a lot of people who use the web extensively use it in only two capacities: to check their email, and to get information. Those users aren’t likely to be remixing and twittering, but they are consuming.

Art Fag City June 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I think it depends on where you’re sitting. There was a lot of talk at Night School that the web was a medium that encouraged the consumption of images, and that happens very readily on the web. Those commenting, blogging, rating, remixing, uploading, twittering, etc, are one subculture on the web, but not representative of its entirety. For example, I think a lot of people who use the web extensively use it in only two capacities: to check their email, and to get information. Those users aren’t likely to be remixing and twittering, but they are consuming.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Hey Paddy,

I can’t agree really. I think that most people who use the web actually take part in it. Who just reads email? One has a conversation in email. Plus, even my Mom uploads photos and forwards dumb videos. If my Mom does it I have to assume most people do 🙂

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Hey Paddy,

I can’t agree really. I think that most people who use the web actually take part in it. Who just reads email? One has a conversation in email. Plus, even my Mom uploads photos and forwards dumb videos. If my Mom does it I have to assume most people do 🙂

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 8:39 pm

Hey Paddy,

I can’t agree really. I think that most people who use the web actually take part in it. Who just reads email? One has a conversation in email. Plus, even my Mom uploads photos and forwards dumb videos. If my Mom does it I have to assume most people do 🙂

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Hey Paddy,

I can’t agree really. I think that most people who use the web actually take part in it. Who just reads email? One has a conversation in email. Plus, even my Mom uploads photos and forwards dumb videos. If my Mom does it I have to assume most people do 🙂

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

In the end, what Tom’s saying is that the web is fundamentally different from other mediums that came before. I suppose he would call TV a ‘producers’ medium because one entity creates a final piece of media that then gets fed down the pipe to a consumer that has only two choices: watch or don’t watch.

Whereas the web is created communally by the very consumers that consume it. On the web everyone is both producer and consumer, creators and audience. Hence, lots of Chocolate Rain remixes.

“Consumer’s medium” is a strange phrase that I think takes too much unpacking to get. Most people who think about the web understand it’s fundamental interactive nature and how that is different than mediums that came before. Calling it a “consumer’s medium” makes this distinction unnecessarily complicated or obscure.

It’s an interactive and participatory medium, that verbiage is simpler to understand.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

In the end, what Tom’s saying is that the web is fundamentally different from other mediums that came before. I suppose he would call TV a ‘producers’ medium because one entity creates a final piece of media that then gets fed down the pipe to a consumer that has only two choices: watch or don’t watch.

Whereas the web is created communally by the very consumers that consume it. On the web everyone is both producer and consumer, creators and audience. Hence, lots of Chocolate Rain remixes.

“Consumer’s medium” is a strange phrase that I think takes too much unpacking to get. Most people who think about the web understand it’s fundamental interactive nature and how that is different than mediums that came before. Calling it a “consumer’s medium” makes this distinction unnecessarily complicated or obscure.

It’s an interactive and participatory medium, that verbiage is simpler to understand.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

In the end, what Tom’s saying is that the web is fundamentally different from other mediums that came before. I suppose he would call TV a ‘producers’ medium because one entity creates a final piece of media that then gets fed down the pipe to a consumer that has only two choices: watch or don’t watch.

Whereas the web is created communally by the very consumers that consume it. On the web everyone is both producer and consumer, creators and audience. Hence, lots of Chocolate Rain remixes.

“Consumer’s medium” is a strange phrase that I think takes too much unpacking to get. Most people who think about the web understand it’s fundamental interactive nature and how that is different than mediums that came before. Calling it a “consumer’s medium” makes this distinction unnecessarily complicated or obscure.

It’s an interactive and participatory medium, that verbiage is simpler to understand.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

In the end, what Tom’s saying is that the web is fundamentally different from other mediums that came before. I suppose he would call TV a ‘producers’ medium because one entity creates a final piece of media that then gets fed down the pipe to a consumer that has only two choices: watch or don’t watch.

Whereas the web is created communally by the very consumers that consume it. On the web everyone is both producer and consumer, creators and audience. Hence, lots of Chocolate Rain remixes.

“Consumer’s medium” is a strange phrase that I think takes too much unpacking to get. Most people who think about the web understand it’s fundamental interactive nature and how that is different than mediums that came before. Calling it a “consumer’s medium” makes this distinction unnecessarily complicated or obscure.

It’s an interactive and participatory medium, that verbiage is simpler to understand.

T.Whid June 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm

In the end, what Tom’s saying is that the web is fundamentally different from other mediums that came before. I suppose he would call TV a ‘producers’ medium because one entity creates a final piece of media that then gets fed down the pipe to a consumer that has only two choices: watch or don’t watch.

Whereas the web is created communally by the very consumers that consume it. On the web everyone is both producer and consumer, creators and audience. Hence, lots of Chocolate Rain remixes.

“Consumer’s medium” is a strange phrase that I think takes too much unpacking to get. Most people who think about the web understand it’s fundamental interactive nature and how that is different than mediums that came before. Calling it a “consumer’s medium” makes this distinction unnecessarily complicated or obscure.

It’s an interactive and participatory medium, that verbiage is simpler to understand.

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

VVork is a perfect example of the endless, voracious consumption I’m talking about. A quip about them I haven’t posted yet is “I would like to thank VVork for demonstrating that art is truly universal. If an idea is small enough it is possible for everyone to have one.”

The curators scour the net for examples of conceptual-style art that is readily documentable in photo form. Most of the accompanying, explanatory sentences are lifted off the artists’ sites. They are posting several hundred artworks a year in this fashion. They are consuming and we are watching over their shoulders. They don’t alter anything, they don’t comment on anything, and their comment feature is rarely used.

As “fellow consumers” along with the curators we have to decide if the consumables have value.

I meant to reverse the usual wisdom about net practice, so thanks for getting that.

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

VVork is a perfect example of the endless, voracious consumption I’m talking about. A quip about them I haven’t posted yet is “I would like to thank VVork for demonstrating that art is truly universal. If an idea is small enough it is possible for everyone to have one.”

The curators scour the net for examples of conceptual-style art that is readily documentable in photo form. Most of the accompanying, explanatory sentences are lifted off the artists’ sites. They are posting several hundred artworks a year in this fashion. They are consuming and we are watching over their shoulders. They don’t alter anything, they don’t comment on anything, and their comment feature is rarely used.

As “fellow consumers” along with the curators we have to decide if the consumables have value.

I meant to reverse the usual wisdom about net practice, so thanks for getting that.

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

VVork is a perfect example of the endless, voracious consumption I’m talking about. A quip about them I haven’t posted yet is “I would like to thank VVork for demonstrating that art is truly universal. If an idea is small enough it is possible for everyone to have one.”

The curators scour the net for examples of conceptual-style art that is readily documentable in photo form. Most of the accompanying, explanatory sentences are lifted off the artists’ sites. They are posting several hundred artworks a year in this fashion. They are consuming and we are watching over their shoulders. They don’t alter anything, they don’t comment on anything, and their comment feature is rarely used.

As “fellow consumers” along with the curators we have to decide if the consumables have value.

I meant to reverse the usual wisdom about net practice, so thanks for getting that.

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

VVork is a perfect example of the endless, voracious consumption I’m talking about. A quip about them I haven’t posted yet is “I would like to thank VVork for demonstrating that art is truly universal. If an idea is small enough it is possible for everyone to have one.”

The curators scour the net for examples of conceptual-style art that is readily documentable in photo form. Most of the accompanying, explanatory sentences are lifted off the artists’ sites. They are posting several hundred artworks a year in this fashion. They are consuming and we are watching over their shoulders. They don’t alter anything, they don’t comment on anything, and their comment feature is rarely used.

As “fellow consumers” along with the curators we have to decide if the consumables have value.

I meant to reverse the usual wisdom about net practice, so thanks for getting that.

tom moody June 4, 2008 at 8:00 pm

VVork is a perfect example of the endless, voracious consumption I’m talking about. A quip about them I haven’t posted yet is “I would like to thank VVork for demonstrating that art is truly universal. If an idea is small enough it is possible for everyone to have one.”

The curators scour the net for examples of conceptual-style art that is readily documentable in photo form. Most of the accompanying, explanatory sentences are lifted off the artists’ sites. They are posting several hundred artworks a year in this fashion. They are consuming and we are watching over their shoulders. They don’t alter anything, they don’t comment on anything, and their comment feature is rarely used.

As “fellow consumers” along with the curators we have to decide if the consumables have value.

I meant to reverse the usual wisdom about net practice, so thanks for getting that.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

Tim: I think most people use the net to read email, look up random facts, and to get laid/connect with friends on various social networks. There’s a level of activity involved in uploading pictures to the web and exchanging links sure, but I also believe that shared consumption is implicit in those activities. Production to me suggests a little more work than a link and the text, “I thought you’d like this” from my mother.

Tom: I agree with what you’re saying about VVork and would use Paintersnyc as the painters equivalent (though the comment forms are used there extensively). That said, I still like the blogs and find them useful…it’s like a machine though, which has its pluses and minuses.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

Tim: I think most people use the net to read email, look up random facts, and to get laid/connect with friends on various social networks. There’s a level of activity involved in uploading pictures to the web and exchanging links sure, but I also believe that shared consumption is implicit in those activities. Production to me suggests a little more work than a link and the text, “I thought you’d like this” from my mother.

Tom: I agree with what you’re saying about VVork and would use Paintersnyc as the painters equivalent (though the comment forms are used there extensively). That said, I still like the blogs and find them useful…it’s like a machine though, which has its pluses and minuses.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:23 am

Tim: I think most people use the net to read email, look up random facts, and to get laid/connect with friends on various social networks. There’s a level of activity involved in uploading pictures to the web and exchanging links sure, but I also believe that shared consumption is implicit in those activities. Production to me suggests a little more work than a link and the text, “I thought you’d like this” from my mother.

Tom: I agree with what you’re saying about VVork and would use Paintersnyc as the painters equivalent (though the comment forms are used there extensively). That said, I still like the blogs and find them useful…it’s like a machine though, which has its pluses and minuses.

Art Fag City June 4, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Tim: I think most people use the net to read email, look up random facts, and to get laid/connect with friends on various social networks. There’s a level of activity involved in uploading pictures to the web and exchanging links sure, but I also believe that shared consumption is implicit in those activities. Production to me suggests a little more work than a link and the text, “I thought you’d like this” from my mother.

Tom: I agree with what you’re saying about VVork and would use Paintersnyc as the painters equivalent (though the comment forms are used there extensively). That said, I still like the blogs and find them useful…it’s like a machine though, which has its pluses and minuses.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:37 am

also a quote from this FUCKING SCARY CNN article:

“The essence of the media model is that you want your customers to consume more and more: more pageviews, more shows, more podcasts, more, more,” Jarvis wrote. “TW Cable is making itself the enemy of more.”

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:37 am

also a quote from this FUCKING SCARY CNN article:

“The essence of the media model is that you want your customers to consume more and more: more pageviews, more shows, more podcasts, more, more,” Jarvis wrote. “TW Cable is making itself the enemy of more.”

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:37 am

also a quote from this FUCKING SCARY CNN article:

“The essence of the media model is that you want your customers to consume more and more: more pageviews, more shows, more podcasts, more, more,” Jarvis wrote. “TW Cable is making itself the enemy of more.”

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 1:37 am

also a quote from this FUCKING SCARY CNN article:

“The essence of the media model is that you want your customers to consume more and more: more pageviews, more shows, more podcasts, more, more,” Jarvis wrote. “TW Cable is making itself the enemy of more.”

Art Fag City June 4, 2008 at 8:37 pm

also a quote from this FUCKING SCARY CNN article:

“The essence of the media model is that you want your customers to consume more and more: more pageviews, more shows, more podcasts, more, more,” Jarvis wrote. “TW Cable is making itself the enemy of more.”

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 2:06 am

Hard to tell how ironic Jarvis is being there. Just so I’m not misunderstood too much myself, here is my whole quote:

“Some 20th Century writers complained that reality (in a hypercharged mediated environment) was outstripping their ability to spin fiction.

“Artists, too, have to compete with real world content far more captivating than anything they could come up with, which the Internet effectively gathers all in one place (sneezing Pandas, etc). Two possible responses are (1) to continually rise above it through aesthetic and conceptual framing and posturing or (2) to disappear into it and trust the viewer to ultimately sort out what’s going on. The Web is a consumer’s medium, not a producer’s, so the artist is inexorably led to consumption as a ‘practice.’ The degree of criticality can only be inferred, not implied.”

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 2:06 am

Hard to tell how ironic Jarvis is being there. Just so I’m not misunderstood too much myself, here is my whole quote:

“Some 20th Century writers complained that reality (in a hypercharged mediated environment) was outstripping their ability to spin fiction.

“Artists, too, have to compete with real world content far more captivating than anything they could come up with, which the Internet effectively gathers all in one place (sneezing Pandas, etc). Two possible responses are (1) to continually rise above it through aesthetic and conceptual framing and posturing or (2) to disappear into it and trust the viewer to ultimately sort out what’s going on. The Web is a consumer’s medium, not a producer’s, so the artist is inexorably led to consumption as a ‘practice.’ The degree of criticality can only be inferred, not implied.”

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 2:06 am

Hard to tell how ironic Jarvis is being there. Just so I’m not misunderstood too much myself, here is my whole quote:

“Some 20th Century writers complained that reality (in a hypercharged mediated environment) was outstripping their ability to spin fiction.

“Artists, too, have to compete with real world content far more captivating than anything they could come up with, which the Internet effectively gathers all in one place (sneezing Pandas, etc). Two possible responses are (1) to continually rise above it through aesthetic and conceptual framing and posturing or (2) to disappear into it and trust the viewer to ultimately sort out what’s going on. The Web is a consumer’s medium, not a producer’s, so the artist is inexorably led to consumption as a ‘practice.’ The degree of criticality can only be inferred, not implied.”

tom moody June 4, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Hard to tell how ironic Jarvis is being there. Just so I’m not misunderstood too much myself, here is my whole quote:

“Some 20th Century writers complained that reality (in a hypercharged mediated environment) was outstripping their ability to spin fiction.

“Artists, too, have to compete with real world content far more captivating than anything they could come up with, which the Internet effectively gathers all in one place (sneezing Pandas, etc). Two possible responses are (1) to continually rise above it through aesthetic and conceptual framing and posturing or (2) to disappear into it and trust the viewer to ultimately sort out what’s going on. The Web is a consumer’s medium, not a producer’s, so the artist is inexorably led to consumption as a ‘practice.’ The degree of criticality can only be inferred, not implied.”

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

This isn’t really on topic, but I don’t think he’s being ironic. Here’s the post it came from.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

This isn’t really on topic, but I don’t think he’s being ironic. Here’s the post it came from.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 2:11 am

This isn’t really on topic, but I don’t think he’s being ironic. Here’s the post it came from.

Art Fag City June 4, 2008 at 9:11 pm

This isn’t really on topic, but I don’t think he’s being ironic. Here’s the post it came from.

tom moody June 5, 2008 at 2:33 am

Well, maybe not ironic, but not necessarily endorsing “the media model.” He’s exaggerating “what the media wants” to make “choking it” seem more heinous. Which is not to say we can’t be appalled by his description of the consumption model.

I think it’s on topic. Alex Galloway talks in Protocol about how seductive surfing is. Artists working in the Web’s linked, flowing, “fascinating” (in the Baudrillardian sense) environment should acknowledge the successes of The Man since the dot com era in creating a consumer-friendly experience that is practically overwhelming.

tom moody June 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Well, maybe not ironic, but not necessarily endorsing “the media model.” He’s exaggerating “what the media wants” to make “choking it” seem more heinous. Which is not to say we can’t be appalled by his description of the consumption model.

I think it’s on topic. Alex Galloway talks in Protocol about how seductive surfing is. Artists working in the Web’s linked, flowing, “fascinating” (in the Baudrillardian sense) environment should acknowledge the successes of The Man since the dot com era in creating a consumer-friendly experience that is practically overwhelming.

T.Whid June 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Hey guys,

Tom: I understand you’re point, it’s an interesting spin, but I can’t really buy into the idea. VVORK is curation. But more deeply, I’m not buying the idea that surfing is somehow the essential act of the user on the web. If ‘consuming’ innumerable images flickering by on one’s screen is the essential act, I have to ask, where do these images come from? Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?

But then again, perhaps it’s just semantics and we’re both saying the same thing.

Paddy: Jarvis is talking about bandwidth, I don’t see how it’s relevant. All those pageviews could be people *producing* and *interacting* — not just staring at their screen, no?

T.Whid June 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Hey guys,

Tom: I understand you’re point, it’s an interesting spin, but I can’t really buy into the idea. VVORK is curation. But more deeply, I’m not buying the idea that surfing is somehow the essential act of the user on the web. If ‘consuming’ innumerable images flickering by on one’s screen is the essential act, I have to ask, where do these images come from? Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?

But then again, perhaps it’s just semantics and we’re both saying the same thing.

Paddy: Jarvis is talking about bandwidth, I don’t see how it’s relevant. All those pageviews could be people *producing* and *interacting* — not just staring at their screen, no?

T.Whid June 5, 2008 at 9:42 am

Hey guys,

Tom: I understand you’re point, it’s an interesting spin, but I can’t really buy into the idea. VVORK is curation. But more deeply, I’m not buying the idea that surfing is somehow the essential act of the user on the web. If ‘consuming’ innumerable images flickering by on one’s screen is the essential act, I have to ask, where do these images come from? Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?

But then again, perhaps it’s just semantics and we’re both saying the same thing.

Paddy: Jarvis is talking about bandwidth, I don’t see how it’s relevant. All those pageviews could be people *producing* and *interacting* — not just staring at their screen, no?

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

T.Whid: I initially cited the article because on a fundamental level we’re consuming bandwidth (your point is taken that we have to “do” something for that to happen, but if that includes downloading a movie, I’m inclined to call that consuming). The point of that article was that TW would stymie the consumptive activity, which was characterized as thing most people used the web for, though as Tom notes, there’s a spin to exaggerate the consumer aspect of the web to make a point. I didn’t think the article was on topic because we’re talking about artistic practice not business practice, but given that the net is mostly used by businesses these days it didn’t seem wholly irrelevant to me.

“Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?”

I think this is a really good question – one I’m not sure I have the perfect answer to, but I’ll try nonetheless. You’re right – it’s not a one way street, and people do have to “do” something for images to arrive on the web. There’s also more interaction on the web than, on say, television — but I guess, ultimately, I feel like a lot of this action and participation resembles talking to your friend on the phone while you watch the same show. You have to IM/call the person to talk about whatever it is you’re looking at, but that act is effortless. You upload a few images to share with your friends – it’s so easy to do everyone does it. The increased social activity the web brings has value, but I feel like the participation and interaction we are talking about has a more positive spin than I necessarily want to put on it.

VVORK is a slightly different case in that not everyone can do what they do. I don’t dismiss VVORK’s curation, but I do think their format of choice and subsequent popularity reflects a growing cultural desire to consume art in precisely the way Tom describes.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

T.Whid: I initially cited the article because on a fundamental level we’re consuming bandwidth (your point is taken that we have to “do” something for that to happen, but if that includes downloading a movie, I’m inclined to call that consuming). The point of that article was that TW would stymie the consumptive activity, which was characterized as thing most people used the web for, though as Tom notes, there’s a spin to exaggerate the consumer aspect of the web to make a point. I didn’t think the article was on topic because we’re talking about artistic practice not business practice, but given that the net is mostly used by businesses these days it didn’t seem wholly irrelevant to me.

“Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?”

I think this is a really good question – one I’m not sure I have the perfect answer to, but I’ll try nonetheless. You’re right – it’s not a one way street, and people do have to “do” something for images to arrive on the web. There’s also more interaction on the web than, on say, television — but I guess, ultimately, I feel like a lot of this action and participation resembles talking to your friend on the phone while you watch the same show. You have to IM/call the person to talk about whatever it is you’re looking at, but that act is effortless. You upload a few images to share with your friends – it’s so easy to do everyone does it. The increased social activity the web brings has value, but I feel like the participation and interaction we are talking about has a more positive spin than I necessarily want to put on it.

VVORK is a slightly different case in that not everyone can do what they do. I don’t dismiss VVORK’s curation, but I do think their format of choice and subsequent popularity reflects a growing cultural desire to consume art in precisely the way Tom describes.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

T.Whid: I initially cited the article because on a fundamental level we’re consuming bandwidth (your point is taken that we have to “do” something for that to happen, but if that includes downloading a movie, I’m inclined to call that consuming). The point of that article was that TW would stymie the consumptive activity, which was characterized as thing most people used the web for, though as Tom notes, there’s a spin to exaggerate the consumer aspect of the web to make a point. I didn’t think the article was on topic because we’re talking about artistic practice not business practice, but given that the net is mostly used by businesses these days it didn’t seem wholly irrelevant to me.

“Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?”

I think this is a really good question – one I’m not sure I have the perfect answer to, but I’ll try nonetheless. You’re right – it’s not a one way street, and people do have to “do” something for images to arrive on the web. There’s also more interaction on the web than, on say, television — but I guess, ultimately, I feel like a lot of this action and participation resembles talking to your friend on the phone while you watch the same show. You have to IM/call the person to talk about whatever it is you’re looking at, but that act is effortless. You upload a few images to share with your friends – it’s so easy to do everyone does it. The increased social activity the web brings has value, but I feel like the participation and interaction we are talking about has a more positive spin than I necessarily want to put on it.

VVORK is a slightly different case in that not everyone can do what they do. I don’t dismiss VVORK’s curation, but I do think their format of choice and subsequent popularity reflects a growing cultural desire to consume art in precisely the way Tom describes.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

T.Whid: I initially cited the article because on a fundamental level we’re consuming bandwidth (your point is taken that we have to “do” something for that to happen, but if that includes downloading a movie, I’m inclined to call that consuming). The point of that article was that TW would stymie the consumptive activity, which was characterized as thing most people used the web for, though as Tom notes, there’s a spin to exaggerate the consumer aspect of the web to make a point. I didn’t think the article was on topic because we’re talking about artistic practice not business practice, but given that the net is mostly used by businesses these days it didn’t seem wholly irrelevant to me.

“Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?”

I think this is a really good question – one I’m not sure I have the perfect answer to, but I’ll try nonetheless. You’re right – it’s not a one way street, and people do have to “do” something for images to arrive on the web. There’s also more interaction on the web than, on say, television — but I guess, ultimately, I feel like a lot of this action and participation resembles talking to your friend on the phone while you watch the same show. You have to IM/call the person to talk about whatever it is you’re looking at, but that act is effortless. You upload a few images to share with your friends – it’s so easy to do everyone does it. The increased social activity the web brings has value, but I feel like the participation and interaction we are talking about has a more positive spin than I necessarily want to put on it.

VVORK is a slightly different case in that not everyone can do what they do. I don’t dismiss VVORK’s curation, but I do think their format of choice and subsequent popularity reflects a growing cultural desire to consume art in precisely the way Tom describes.

Art Fag City June 5, 2008 at 10:24 am

T.Whid: I initially cited the article because on a fundamental level we’re consuming bandwidth (your point is taken that we have to “do” something for that to happen, but if that includes downloading a movie, I’m inclined to call that consuming). The point of that article was that TW would stymie the consumptive activity, which was characterized as thing most people used the web for, though as Tom notes, there’s a spin to exaggerate the consumer aspect of the web to make a point. I didn’t think the article was on topic because we’re talking about artistic practice not business practice, but given that the net is mostly used by businesses these days it didn’t seem wholly irrelevant to me.

“Why is the act of participating and interacting (uploading, commenting, tagging, etc) with the web any less essential?”

I think this is a really good question – one I’m not sure I have the perfect answer to, but I’ll try nonetheless. You’re right – it’s not a one way street, and people do have to “do” something for images to arrive on the web. There’s also more interaction on the web than, on say, television — but I guess, ultimately, I feel like a lot of this action and participation resembles talking to your friend on the phone while you watch the same show. You have to IM/call the person to talk about whatever it is you’re looking at, but that act is effortless. You upload a few images to share with your friends – it’s so easy to do everyone does it. The increased social activity the web brings has value, but I feel like the participation and interaction we are talking about has a more positive spin than I necessarily want to put on it.

VVORK is a slightly different case in that not everyone can do what they do. I don’t dismiss VVORK’s curation, but I do think their format of choice and subsequent popularity reflects a growing cultural desire to consume art in precisely the way Tom describes.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: