Thursday, November 11, 2010
An Internet Product for the Art Market
http://www.businessinsider.com/artsy-funding-2010-11
As far as I understand it, this is a product for the art market. Looks like it could be cool. But I don't think it approaches the realm of making art of and for the Internet.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Musings on the Fourth Quadrant - Open Collaboration
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/business/31every.html?_r=1&hpw
Did the majority of the most important innovations originate in open and collaborative systems? This is a very interesting article about progress that dodges left or right political alignment. It also brings to light the importance of informal, distributed, efforts that the internet promotes and embodies.
Images Skipping Websites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/technology/11photo.html?_r=1&hpw
As we consider the fate of images in a post-website internet, take note of the future of image sharing.
As we consider the fate of images in a post-website internet, take note of the future of image sharing.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
It's a Masterpiece, Whatever that Means... (LA TIMES)
Cool article discussing the loaded term "masterpiece." It starts by detailing the inaugural exhibition at the new Centre Pompidou-Metz, but the cool part is the second half of the article where SoCal art world folks address the idea of the term "masterpiece."
Not really Art 2.0 stuff... though apparently the show itself "grapples with notions of uniqueness in an age of endless reproductions" which is very cool.
A quote from the article:
"The concept of the masterpiece travels uncomfortably to more contemporary and experimental arenas, and it is certainly a last resort to describe and legitimize today's meaningful art production."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-masterpieces-20100905,0,4027735.story?page=1
Not really Art 2.0 stuff... though apparently the show itself "grapples with notions of uniqueness in an age of endless reproductions" which is very cool.
A quote from the article:
"The concept of the masterpiece travels uncomfortably to more contemporary and experimental arenas, and it is certainly a last resort to describe and legitimize today's meaningful art production."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-ca-masterpieces-20100905,0,4027735.story?page=1
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Interesting Series
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/04/opinion/20100905_Windows-copy.html
A series in which writers from around the world describe the view from their windows.
A series in which writers from around the world describe the view from their windows.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Web Changing the Art Conversation?
This NYT article is about the effect the web is having on the peer-review publishing standard in academia. Here's a quote:
"In some respects scientists and economists who have created online repositories for unpublished working papers, like repec.org, have more quickly adapted to digital life. Just this month, mathematicians used blogs and wikis to evaluate a supposed mathematical proof in the space of a week — the scholarly equivalent of warp speed."
This is like the elite model of what happens on Wikipedia everyday and it is incredibly exciting. Obviously there are huge obstacles in the way of a process like this working in the art world (first, most art created today exists in the physical world and one must be in its presence to witness it correctly). But, with the emergence of digital art, things like this will contribute to the decentralizing of the art world and hopefully play a huge role in the grand art conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
"In some respects scientists and economists who have created online repositories for unpublished working papers, like repec.org, have more quickly adapted to digital life. Just this month, mathematicians used blogs and wikis to evaluate a supposed mathematical proof in the space of a week — the scholarly equivalent of warp speed."
This is like the elite model of what happens on Wikipedia everyday and it is incredibly exciting. Obviously there are huge obstacles in the way of a process like this working in the art world (first, most art created today exists in the physical world and one must be in its presence to witness it correctly). But, with the emergence of digital art, things like this will contribute to the decentralizing of the art world and hopefully play a huge role in the grand art conversation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
Make Your Own QR-Codes! (Mashable)
This could be an awesome tool for artists... QR Codes. Make your own! (Via Mashable)
http://mashable.com/2010/08/23/how-to-create-qr-codes/
http://mashable.com/2010/08/23/how-to-create-qr-codes/
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Interview with Founder of deviantART.com (TechCrunch)
This interview isn't really about art per se, but it's interesting nonetheless to hear this guy talk about creating the most popular internet art space ever and what it took. "Don't be weak" (via TechCrunch)
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/22/stop-being-weak-an-interview-with-angelo-sotira-ceo-of-deviantart-com-tctv/
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/22/stop-being-weak-an-interview-with-angelo-sotira-ceo-of-deviantart-com-tctv/
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Google Makes It Easier to Put Cool Fonts on Your Website
via Mashable:
http://mashable.com/2010/07/29/google-font-previewer/
Google has once again given an excellent new tool to designers and developers (and even CSS-savvy “common folk”) who long for better, more diverse typefaces on the web: a cool Font Previewer that makes adding a new font to your site as simple as copy/pasting a few lines of code.
http://mashable.com/2010/07/29/google-font-previewer/
Google has once again given an excellent new tool to designers and developers (and even CSS-savvy “common folk”) who long for better, more diverse typefaces on the web: a cool Font Previewer that makes adding a new font to your site as simple as copy/pasting a few lines of code.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
My Thoughts: Art with Broad Impact
**Disclaimer: because I view this blog as a sketchbook, many of my thoughts are half-baked at best (I believe this is true of most blogs anyway). Nonetheless, beyond my meager writing skills and Swiss cheese arguments, I’d like to think there are kernels of truth worth discussing.
To try and make this short and concise, here’s the thought: Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be political in nature be judged to some degree on its ability to incite political interest in the public... outside the walls of the “art world” garden? Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be religious be successful in inspiring spiritual awakening in people who don’t frequent museums of contemporary art? Shouldn't art that claims to have relevance in the real world engage it? Shouldn’t its success be evaluated on its impact outside the vacuum of the institution, the gallery, the world of professional theory and criticism?
Certainly not all (not most?) art today means to discuss the plight, the motivations, the faith of everyman/woman. Good artists know that their conversation is often just about art or the plight, the motivations, the faith of the artist and his/her peers. This art is about small ideas that do just fine being confined to the “art world.” And small ideas are good. They only intend to impact a small group of people.
But then there are delusional artists who think they are making art that engages humanity on a large scale and it doesn’t. The conceptual aspect of an artwork only works if it’s intended audience receives the intended message of the artist. Millions and millions of people witnessing your artwork doesn’t mean it reached/engaged/impacted those people.
Now I’m speaking of art in a very strict sense here. I mean art that serves no function but to be art. Mainstream movies, books, and music are extremely successful at engaging lots of people (and I consider them art), but delivering a message in the artistic sense is not normally their primary function (entertain/make money).
Beyond that, precedents set by artistic movements like Relational Aesthetics and much interactive installation realize the success of an artwork only when the audience is moved to the point of participation. Artists must now consider their responsibility to curate an experience. They must consider that the engagement and directly inspired actions of their viewer as extensions of the artwork and a contributing factor to its success. Are these actions of the audience realizing the conceptual intent? Now I’m not talking about propaganda, where the work’s main function is to inspire a movement in one direction or another. I’m just pointing out that if an artist intends to make art for the public at large, their related actions are part of the piece... and if there is no action, is the artwork successful? If the audience is not acting, maybe the work is reaching them, but still not successful.
Artists must be held responsible for their delusions. Just because the “art world” understands an artwork and even acts on its behalf, doesn’t mean the work is successful. Too often the work is pretending to have a conversation with the real world, only the real world isn’t listening. And worse, the piece is considered successful because the only people that are listening, the “art world,” are the determining opinion in arts success. This is short-sighted and naive.
Worse than making art that is delusional is just ignoring the public because it’s too hard to make successful work that includes them. An artist might complain that they lack the resources to engage the real world like mainstream movies, books, and music do... they can’t get an audience beyond the institution (read: “art world”). It’s possible. It’s even easier now with the Internet. Reaching the public is a noble cause for art, but we need to raise the standards of success in order to really make art with broad impact.
To try and make this short and concise, here’s the thought: Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be political in nature be judged to some degree on its ability to incite political interest in the public... outside the walls of the “art world” garden? Shouldn’t art that the artist intends to be religious be successful in inspiring spiritual awakening in people who don’t frequent museums of contemporary art? Shouldn't art that claims to have relevance in the real world engage it? Shouldn’t its success be evaluated on its impact outside the vacuum of the institution, the gallery, the world of professional theory and criticism?
Certainly not all (not most?) art today means to discuss the plight, the motivations, the faith of everyman/woman. Good artists know that their conversation is often just about art or the plight, the motivations, the faith of the artist and his/her peers. This art is about small ideas that do just fine being confined to the “art world.” And small ideas are good. They only intend to impact a small group of people.
But then there are delusional artists who think they are making art that engages humanity on a large scale and it doesn’t. The conceptual aspect of an artwork only works if it’s intended audience receives the intended message of the artist. Millions and millions of people witnessing your artwork doesn’t mean it reached/engaged/impacted those people.
Now I’m speaking of art in a very strict sense here. I mean art that serves no function but to be art. Mainstream movies, books, and music are extremely successful at engaging lots of people (and I consider them art), but delivering a message in the artistic sense is not normally their primary function (entertain/make money).
Beyond that, precedents set by artistic movements like Relational Aesthetics and much interactive installation realize the success of an artwork only when the audience is moved to the point of participation. Artists must now consider their responsibility to curate an experience. They must consider that the engagement and directly inspired actions of their viewer as extensions of the artwork and a contributing factor to its success. Are these actions of the audience realizing the conceptual intent? Now I’m not talking about propaganda, where the work’s main function is to inspire a movement in one direction or another. I’m just pointing out that if an artist intends to make art for the public at large, their related actions are part of the piece... and if there is no action, is the artwork successful? If the audience is not acting, maybe the work is reaching them, but still not successful.
Artists must be held responsible for their delusions. Just because the “art world” understands an artwork and even acts on its behalf, doesn’t mean the work is successful. Too often the work is pretending to have a conversation with the real world, only the real world isn’t listening. And worse, the piece is considered successful because the only people that are listening, the “art world,” are the determining opinion in arts success. This is short-sighted and naive.
Worse than making art that is delusional is just ignoring the public because it’s too hard to make successful work that includes them. An artist might complain that they lack the resources to engage the real world like mainstream movies, books, and music do... they can’t get an audience beyond the institution (read: “art world”). It’s possible. It’s even easier now with the Internet. Reaching the public is a noble cause for art, but we need to raise the standards of success in order to really make art with broad impact.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
My Thoughts: The Internet is about Context
**Disclaimer: because I view this blog as a sketchbook, many of my thoughts are half-baked at best (I believe this is true of most blogs anyway). Nonetheless, beyond my meager writing skills and Swiss cheese arguments, I’d like to think there are kernels of truth worth discussing.
The Internet is about Context
The Internet is about context. Contribution of content is necessary, but the vast majority of Internet users have traditionally contributed very little content of their own. It is true that, as social media grows, more and more people are contributing their own content (pictures, status updates, blogs, etc.) but the context of that content is growing in importance even more substantially.
The Internet is used interchangeably with the Web. As the term Web infers, it is a collection of content that is connected based on relational hyperlinks. In fact these days, with the exception of a few of the most visited sites, most web pages are only visited because they relate (are linked to) another web page. “I link, therefore I am.” Google ranks the websites that it indexes based on how many other sites link to it (the more linked to, the higher the rank). A web page’s importance is based on where it is situated contextually with other web pages.
But it’s not just importance of web pages that is based on context. The ease of distribution of content on the Internet has made it a hotbed for sharing. As I said before, very few people contribute their own original content, but many more share preexisting content. In this way content “travels” around the Internet propelled by users. While this is true of physical media as well, it is much truer of digital content (because it is even easier to share and doesn’t degrade as quickly) and even defines its very existence. Content on the Internet lives a life that is determined by the journey it takes as it is shared. It’s context(s) give it value.
Also, as I alluded to above, the rise of social media has only heightened the relevancy of context on the Internet. Where a person situates their profile (in relation to friends, interests, organizations, etc.) is what drives their digital experience. Tagging friends in pictures and commenting on a connected person’s content drives the interest of most social media users. The context websites like Facebook arrange us in is what gives social media value.
As artists, we can focus way too much on the original content we contribute... caring about what it looks like and what it means. But the Internet is about context and if we’re making art for the Internet or art of the Internet, maybe we should be focusing more on curating a context for the content we contribute instead of tripping up over the initial form of it.
The Internet is about Context
The Internet is about context. Contribution of content is necessary, but the vast majority of Internet users have traditionally contributed very little content of their own. It is true that, as social media grows, more and more people are contributing their own content (pictures, status updates, blogs, etc.) but the context of that content is growing in importance even more substantially.
The Internet is used interchangeably with the Web. As the term Web infers, it is a collection of content that is connected based on relational hyperlinks. In fact these days, with the exception of a few of the most visited sites, most web pages are only visited because they relate (are linked to) another web page. “I link, therefore I am.” Google ranks the websites that it indexes based on how many other sites link to it (the more linked to, the higher the rank). A web page’s importance is based on where it is situated contextually with other web pages.
But it’s not just importance of web pages that is based on context. The ease of distribution of content on the Internet has made it a hotbed for sharing. As I said before, very few people contribute their own original content, but many more share preexisting content. In this way content “travels” around the Internet propelled by users. While this is true of physical media as well, it is much truer of digital content (because it is even easier to share and doesn’t degrade as quickly) and even defines its very existence. Content on the Internet lives a life that is determined by the journey it takes as it is shared. It’s context(s) give it value.
Also, as I alluded to above, the rise of social media has only heightened the relevancy of context on the Internet. Where a person situates their profile (in relation to friends, interests, organizations, etc.) is what drives their digital experience. Tagging friends in pictures and commenting on a connected person’s content drives the interest of most social media users. The context websites like Facebook arrange us in is what gives social media value.
As artists, we can focus way too much on the original content we contribute... caring about what it looks like and what it means. But the Internet is about context and if we’re making art for the Internet or art of the Internet, maybe we should be focusing more on curating a context for the content we contribute instead of tripping up over the initial form of it.
Some Google Help for Artists
Google introduces an easy way to make your own Android Apps!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Want Your Art to Last at Least as Long as this Country Exists?
Mashable interviewed Abbie Grotke, a digital media project specialist on the Library of Congress’s web archiving team, to better understand what Internet content the Library of Congress is indexing and saving for future generations...
"Painting" on the iPad
Via Silicon Alley Insider...
More "art" uses for the iPad. I'm pretty sure I'd still prefer using a stylus to using my finger... but this is well done.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
New Project: The Internet Traveler visits Art2point0!
Internet Traveler tumblr: http://internettraveler.tumblr.com/
The project consists of a tumblr blog that is hosting the above image. The goal is for people to help the Internet Traveler visit new spaces on the internet by posting the image to their Facebook profile pages, blogs, or websites they have the ability to alter. These enablers of the Internet Traveler can then post a screenshot (and a link) to the tumblr of the new place Internet Traveler has visited.
If Internet Traveler can find his way to high-traffic websites like online newspapers or popular blogs, the hope is that others who are unaware of the project will catch on and they too will help send Internet Traveler to new internet lands.
Enablers are free to crop or alter Internet Traveler to suit their purposes.
My end mission is to track Internet Traveler's progress from a known point of origin (the tumblr) on to all his adventures in cyberspace. Please help the cause!
Google wins one for the artists?
Take note: Google's victory over Viacom and its implications on artists...
From NYT Article:
Google and groups supporting Internet companies hailed the decision, saying it would protect not only YouTube but also other sites that host user-generated content.
“This is a victory for the Internet and for the people who use it,” said Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, in an interview. “The decision will let a whole new generation of creators and artists share their work online.”
Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?hpw
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
How to Make a Meme
Have you ever considered creating a meme to function as an art piece? I know I have. Here is some advice on creating one (via Mashable)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)