Briefly noted, this excellent video/Net DIY collage piece by jimpunk. You need Quicktime 7 to view. The elements of the grid, the composite, and short loops could all be seen in an earlier work, Michael Ensdorf's Momentary Distractions. What jimpunk adds is the ability to mix and match clips, a slew of pop culture and historical references (a pistol-wagging Benicio Del Toro, Flight 93, Jodie Foster panicking), ambitious graphic design in the more psychedelic patterns, snippets of found and/or industrial style music, and an overall sense of anarchic humor. Net Art seems to be evolving here, or perhaps a better metaphor would be morphing into an explosively violent alien entity, like Natasha Henstridge in Species.

- tom moody 1-14-2006 8:13 pm

Thanks for posting this. jimpunk never ceases to impress me with formal innovations like this. He always goes that extra step to allow total viewer interaction. But it is never as simple as Ensdorfs plus or minus, forwards or backwards commands. I once read an essay that sought to distance Net.art from Conceptual art by making the case that Net.art was not based on ideas but rather pure information. With jimpunk's cybercollages the viewer is required to communicate with the program in the language of the information, without truly knowing that language. It is learned intuitively; information goes in, information comes out; and in the process ideas are generated and communicated. Unlike pieces like Ensdorf's where it just washes out and you experience what he has planned.
It seems logical to me that this is the form Net.art should be taking in order to stay true to the nature of the media.
But is it an evolution or has he merely incorporated the gaming aspect you have discussed in earlier posts? I'm just thinking out loud here.
- Robert Huffmann (guest) 1-14-2006 11:14 pm

I think there's another mile to go after just providing user interaction. I'm sorta waiting for the other shoe to drop with this piece. He's put Jitter fileters on TV and we get to select them, but what's it really doing exactly? I guess I feel that the interaction is a diversion rather than an "intervention".

- joester 1-17-2006 9:47 am

It's not just one type of filter, I see a number of different ways to mangle images being used here. When they link together in a screen-filling composite, it's a rasterized version of the abstract sublime a la Newman and Rothko. A lot of people are still waiting for the shoe to drop with those guys too. As for the interactivity, it's interactive in the same way walking around in front of a painting is interactive.

- tom moody 1-17-2006 10:05 am

add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:

Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.