Internet
Non-Internet
Awesome!
sick gif////
this is a fun dualism you are doing. Makes the point nicely that this is the intended medium for the gifs, whereas the pictures you post of paper works are mere documentation.
Thanks, Sally. I wasn't wild about my first foray into converting animated GIFs to DVD, so I can participate in that all-important fucking gallery legitimation process. What a friend helped me create looked good on a Sony small screen and not so good projected, where all the "bicubic mush" artifacts were blown up, and not in a good way.
Paul Slocum is burning some DVDs straight off the Web using the S-Video "out" from a computer for the show we're doing in Dallas, and I'm looking forward to getting the result in the mail this week. They'll be shown on TVs. He's including all the surrounding web page details from the screen like "[add a comment]," so they're like bootleg DVDs that people shoot in movie theatres with camcorders. A cool idea.
But based on my discussions with Paul and other artists faced with this problem, the problem is DVDs are a "second best," one-step removed technology, never as slick as the original GIFs.
I could show them on computers in a gallery, but I dread the inevitable middle of the show repair calls. I just don't want to be a gearhead artist.
So I started thinking about a meat space, "hang it and walk away" way of dealing with this subject matter, and this is what I came up with.
Now, to be a complete purist and follow the logic of this work to its ultimate conclusion, I would ONLY show the paper work in a gallery. No little Mini-screen on the wall next to it with the moving GIF.
The title of the piece would be the URL for the GIF, and the viewer would have to...write it down...and get on the goddam Internet to see the work in its native environment. At home, sitting in a comfy chair. Or at the office, on the clock.
A more cogent recipe for the UTTER FAILURE of a "gallery artist" career probably cannot be conceived.
(Sorry for the capitals again.)
Hey, Tom! Are these printed on archival paper with lightfast inks and... er, nevermind[1].
But really, what about those pushpins- are they custom fabricated pushpins, or are those regular pushpins that you can buy, like, just about anywhere?
Actually, what you describe seems like a good solution to better situating your work in a context that makes more explicit the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, exhibiting online vs. "meat space", high and low, "artist material" vs. consumer materials.
Also, I am guessing that these eight stills are saved directly from the drawing program rather than screen captures, but it's a guess, so I'm asking: are these screen captures? Because what you have here make makes me wonder if these eight images are animation cells (from the drawing program) or are they movie stills (captured from the animation as it plays)? There's a difference.
For kicks, I just tried eight successive screen captures of the animation, and surprisingly, it's difficult to get much variety; see:
http://chrisashley.net/resources/images/2006Jan/www.digitalmediatree.com-tommoody-3478.jpg
There must be some explanation for this that I don't know, something about how an image is held in memory and the way a screen capture works with that memory.
So, would the correct label for your eight works on paper be "animation cells"?
[1] http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/comment/34677/
hey chris, i just noticed you are displaying your paintings in a studio context. as always they look great. really great. big fan. but how do you get the lighting so even? are they taken with film or a digital camera?
Hi, Chris,
If one saw the works on paper in a gallery space, one might ask "Are these supposed to be animated?" and "I wonder if they're any good on the internet?"
And if one saw them displayed on the internet one might say, "Are these the original frames or screen captures?" and "I wonder if they're any good in person?"
Under my current theory of working, no one gets an answer; everyone must live with doubt.
Re: the pushpins, they're map pins, little white ones, purchased at a map store.
Also, Chris, what's with this "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, [etc]" ?
To go all 60s conceptualist/fascist on you:
1. I am "after" no "dialogue."
2.
The GIFs are what they are, "cool" things that screw with your eyes and head on the computer, and help one while away the hours at the Dilbert job.
3. The drawings are what they are, studies of frozen motion where the mind supplies links or transitions from one image to the next, meant to be experienced in a gallery environment where no one works a Dilbert job, or pretends not to.
4. I am showing them together, but there is no dialogue. The gap is unbridgeable, not that one should ever aspire to bridge the gap.
Hate to go all 2006 on you Tom and Chris but i just caught all that on this flat screen because i am finally connected to the dimensions of internet at home.
I like things that move and things that don't.
Likely, things that move would give the sense that you the viewer were stationary. And when the things that move move that sense of stationary then they have succeeded in moving the the station through a sense somewhere between the still and the move. The still or stationary moves one, the viewer, or participator, we are very much participating now, via a stillness. It's true the stiller you are, or the stiller something appears, you, drawing yourself closer to this stillness, the faster you are able to travel, or the faster the travel is. It's not rocket science but is when you think about it.
Thanks, Bill. The images at the link you refer to are all in HTML- that whole page is nothing but HTML, and those images were a little attempt to to make a shallow, room-like space, as if one of these images were actually hanging on a wall. So there's no photography there at all. Or are you asking about something else?
Tom wrote:
> Re: the pushpins, they're map pins, little white ones, purchased at a map store.
Yeah, I knew that. I was kidding. I guess I was just poking fun at some of the recent questions about your stuff on paper, maybe just to see if I could make you crack: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
Dammit- I just had a huge long answer to Tom's thing about dialogue and the browser just closed and I lost it.
I hate it when that happens. Re: the map pins, I thought you might be kidding but it is the classic thing people talk about in studios to avoid substantive issues so I answered it. Not because I'm avoiding substantive issues but because I figure someone else will at some point.
I can't recreate the post I lost just about when it was finished, but here's an attempt at some of it. I thought the first one was long and pretty good. This one is shorter and faster and less eloquent. This time I typed it in Notepad and hit Save a lot.
==
Tom wrote:
Also, Chris, what's with this "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, [etc]" ?
I reply:
Yeah, well, maybe I'm just trying to sound smart and artsy critical-like. You caught me red-handed.
Or perhaps I'm trying to say something more. Perhaps it's presumptuous of me to say you're after a dialogue. But based on things you've said about your work, and how you've talked about it in the past and rather recently, I thought it was safe to assume that you think about your work in a greater context, and how it is situated relative to other kinds of art. You've talked a fair amount, I think, about the problem of how the work on paper is received or not received. And the animations complicate that. Put the two together, presented as the work by a single artist- it's natural to think about how and if they do and don't relate to each other, and to try to see what your greater project(s) as an artist might be. Whether you like it or not, as a viewer that's a dialogue I and others engage in.
Any reasonably thoughtful viewer is going to engage in some kind of dialogue with your work. Just to begin with, they're going to wonder: what this is and what it isn't; what's it made of and what isn't it made of; how is it presented and how is this like or unlike similar things? And then they're going to ask questions about your imagery, and eventually get into questions about possible meanings. And I'm sure you know that as an artist you try to anticipate that, and to make closures and openings where you can to guide and enable that process.
==
Two more quotes of yours:
[1] If one saw the works on paper in a gallery space, one might ask "Are these supposed to be animated?" and "I wonder if they're any good on the internet?"
[2] And if one saw them displayed on the internet one might say, "Are these the original frames or screen captures?" and "I wonder if they're any good in person?"
It's interesting that what your pose here aren't statements, but are questions that lead to a dialogue about charactersistics, qualities, quantities. Isn't that a dialogue about your work?
==
You say: "I am showing them together, but there is no dialogue. The gap is unbridgeable, not that one should ever aspire to bridge the gap."
The presence of these two kinds of work and that gap is the dialogue. Not all dialogues result in resolution. A dialogue in art should probably remain open-ended or unresolved, anyway. I don't mean to sound, what... I can't think of the word- vague, opaque, supercilious, flaky, idiotic- but the gap between your different pieces of work, and the gap between your work and the work of others, as well as the expectations caused by "standards of the art industry" and how you do and don't meet them, is where that dialogue happens.
==
You say, "The GIFs are what they are, "cool" things that screw with your eyes and head on the computer, and help one while away the hours at the Dilbert job." I know what you're saying, and think I understand, but I'm surprised you leave it at that.
Certainly, this is part of the work, but it doesn't end there. There is a whole lot more going on. The animations touch on cheap science fiction, low budget gross-out horror, loops and cycles, science and nature and the artificial, growth and decay, creation and destruction, regeneration, video and phone games, the lowest threshold for seamless animation. They ask questions about old technology- animated gifs are so 1995- and the handmade. There's a way that you're dealing in artifacts- something old, passe, funky, over and done with- but recasting it and elevating it to art. You take all of these crummy pieces and put them together into something new and better.
I think your work on paper deals with all of this stuff in a much tougher way. It's got more going against it.
A computer animation- well, that's just what it is- it can migrate from the web to a projector to a DVD. You can print stills of it. It's understandable that you need a computer to make it.
But the stuff on paper is going against bigger odds. You draw it with a low-res old paint program, you print it out, you cut these pieces up and assemble something else out of these pieces with tape. At first it looks like your hand is removed, that somehow all of this stuff is manufactured. But your eye and hand- and I'm going to say it, your heart and breathe- is deeply in this work.
At first, I think you're up against the odds of the viewer getting hung up on how they're made- is it a drawing, a painting, a collage, a paper quilt, a photo mural. Is that cheap paper? Oh, a printer made it- it's easy to assume that the computer somehow makes the work for you. I wonder if it's so easy to get caught up in that aspect of the dialogue of looking at your work that for someone not truly into visual imagery they never get to how rich and complex and beautifully composed your work is.
When I visited your studio in May it took me a little time to settle in, to get past the material (all the while still keeping the material present in the viewing experience), and to work down into seeing the work as a whole, and then to start seeing all the visual components- the rich imagery and the associations I make to those images (mandala, video game, pinball, cartoons, animation, science, space, pop, the technology of print, for starters), the use of scale, how you used edge (the cut edges of sections, the edges of printed and repeat-printed images, the relationship of the compostion to the edge of the piece). The work is strongly composed- it shows a visual sensitivity and hard work and experience. It's beautiful and intricate and delicate and complex. But it's also odd- it's pieced together, made with relatively common materials, its making is pretty plainly visible. But that fools you. It's all handmade and unique- it's made with the computer but not by the computer.
I can't remember if I said it to you, but I remember that in my mind I wanted to elevate your work by saying that it operated in the realm of painting, because for me that's a high compliment. What I mean is that the stuff on paper deals many of the same issues of painting except you're not using paint and canvas, you're using printed paper. Aside from that you're operating in a complex visual mode. There's nothing slapdash here- you've got craft of the highest order, a responsibility to the materials. And you've got imagery coming out of the past and present that feels like it's pushing forward.
So, this is what I meant by "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after." I mean all of the possible conversations from all the many angles that goes into looking at and experiencing the work. Regarding the works on paper, and many of your animations, these are not just some throwaway things you knocked out. They go further than that.
==
Although "they" say "never apologize" I'm sorry I lost that previous post- compared to the lost post this one is kind of crappy and doesn't make my argument very well. But I have to stop typing- I'm having problems lately with my right arm related to too much computer, too much guitar, and a very strong dog pulling me along by her leash.
I appreciate the supportive comments. I'm being a bit facetious with the Dilbert reference.
The debate that interests me is over values: what is good and bad about the tools we use every day.
They are changing the workplace and politics, almost every aspect of our lives, and it concerns me that the art world is some kind of medieval refuge or "slow zone" which is not affected by these changes.
My use of certain tools was through the workplace, which is not a refuge from anything. And it's through an interest in gear that is marketed to all of us as consumers--good printers, "cool" programs, new and old.
I make things the way I know to make them, borrowing from all my experiences. I want to make something I haven't seen before.
The price in the short run is few know w.t.f. I'm doing. I'm still gobsmacked by how esoteric this seems to be.
The GIFs are partly just to get work "out there" in the near term.
This sounds like a whine but even when I was painting it was considered "difficult" or just "bad." I create my own problems, to a large extent.
And I appreciate that you took the time to come to the studio and your thoughtful explanation of what's going on in the work, much of which can't be seen on the web.
When I said I'm not after dialogue you seem to have taken it that I don't want to talk about the work. I'm not just being a typical artist butt challenging people to compliment me.
I'm talking about the narrow issue of the unbridgeable gap of trying to represent art on the internet.
No one will ever completely, should ever completely trust words or pictures--you have to see the work. This is why
"art blogging" is doomed as a way of uniting art scenes from different cities, whereas music blogging or new media blogging truly have global potential.
This is the most successful of your animated GIFs, in terms of the ability to mesmerize the viewer.
|
Internet
Non-Internet
- tom moody 1-21-2006 1:59 am
Awesome!
- Thor Johnson 1-21-2006 3:01 am
sick gif////
- Borndal 1-21-2006 8:10 am
this is a fun dualism you are doing. Makes the point nicely that this is the intended medium for the gifs, whereas the pictures you post of paper works are mere documentation.
- sally mckay 1-21-2006 2:20 pm
Thanks, Sally. I wasn't wild about my first foray into converting animated GIFs to DVD, so I can participate in that all-important fucking gallery legitimation process. What a friend helped me create looked good on a Sony small screen and not so good projected, where all the "bicubic mush" artifacts were blown up, and not in a good way.
Paul Slocum is burning some DVDs straight off the Web using the S-Video "out" from a computer for the show we're doing in Dallas, and I'm looking forward to getting the result in the mail this week. They'll be shown on TVs. He's including all the surrounding web page details from the screen like "[add a comment]," so they're like bootleg DVDs that people shoot in movie theatres with camcorders. A cool idea.
But based on my discussions with Paul and other artists faced with this problem, the problem is DVDs are a "second best," one-step removed technology, never as slick as the original GIFs.
I could show them on computers in a gallery, but I dread the inevitable middle of the show repair calls. I just don't want to be a gearhead artist.
So I started thinking about a meat space, "hang it and walk away" way of dealing with this subject matter, and this is what I came up with.
Now, to be a complete purist and follow the logic of this work to its ultimate conclusion, I would ONLY show the paper work in a gallery. No little Mini-screen on the wall next to it with the moving GIF.
The title of the piece would be the URL for the GIF, and the viewer would have to...write it down...and get on the goddam Internet to see the work in its native environment. At home, sitting in a comfy chair. Or at the office, on the clock.
A more cogent recipe for the UTTER FAILURE of a "gallery artist" career probably cannot be conceived.
(Sorry for the capitals again.)
- tom moody 1-21-2006 9:36 pm
Hey, Tom! Are these printed on archival paper with lightfast inks and... er, nevermind[1].
But really, what about those pushpins- are they custom fabricated pushpins, or are those regular pushpins that you can buy, like, just about anywhere?
Actually, what you describe seems like a good solution to better situating your work in a context that makes more explicit the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, exhibiting online vs. "meat space", high and low, "artist material" vs. consumer materials.
Also, I am guessing that these eight stills are saved directly from the drawing program rather than screen captures, but it's a guess, so I'm asking: are these screen captures? Because what you have here make makes me wonder if these eight images are animation cells (from the drawing program) or are they movie stills (captured from the animation as it plays)? There's a difference.
For kicks, I just tried eight successive screen captures of the animation, and surprisingly, it's difficult to get much variety; see: http://chrisashley.net/resources/images/2006Jan/www.digitalmediatree.com-tommoody-3478.jpg
There must be some explanation for this that I don't know, something about how an image is held in memory and the way a screen capture works with that memory.
So, would the correct label for your eight works on paper be "animation cells"?
[1] http://www.digitalmediatree.com/tommoody/comment/34677/
- chrissashley 1-21-2006 11:20 pm
hey chris, i just noticed you are displaying your paintings in a studio context. as always they look great. really great. big fan. but how do you get the lighting so even? are they taken with film or a digital camera?
- bill 1-21-2006 11:31 pm
Hi, Chris,
If one saw the works on paper in a gallery space, one might ask "Are these supposed to be animated?" and "I wonder if they're any good on the internet?"
And if one saw them displayed on the internet one might say, "Are these the original frames or screen captures?" and "I wonder if they're any good in person?"
Under my current theory of working, no one gets an answer; everyone must live with doubt.
Re: the pushpins, they're map pins, little white ones, purchased at a map store.
- tom moody 1-22-2006 2:03 am
Also, Chris, what's with this "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, [etc]" ?
To go all 60s conceptualist/fascist on you:
- tom moody 1-22-2006 2:31 am
Hate to go all 2006 on you Tom and Chris but i just caught all that on this flat screen because i am finally connected to the dimensions of internet at home.
I like things that move and things that don't.
Likely, things that move would give the sense that you the viewer were stationary. And when the things that move move that sense of stationary then they have succeeded in moving the the station through a sense somewhere between the still and the move. The still or stationary moves one, the viewer, or participator, we are very much participating now, via a stillness. It's true the stiller you are, or the stiller something appears, you, drawing yourself closer to this stillness, the faster you are able to travel, or the faster the travel is. It's not rocket science but is when you think about it.
- brenthallard (guest) 1-22-2006 3:45 am
Thanks, Bill. The images at the link you refer to are all in HTML- that whole page is nothing but HTML, and those images were a little attempt to to make a shallow, room-like space, as if one of these images were actually hanging on a wall. So there's no photography there at all. Or are you asking about something else?
- chrissashley 1-22-2006 9:33 pm
Tom wrote:
> Re: the pushpins, they're map pins, little white ones, purchased at a map store.
Yeah, I knew that. I was kidding. I guess I was just poking fun at some of the recent questions about your stuff on paper, maybe just to see if I could make you crack: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
- chrissashley 1-22-2006 9:35 pm
Dammit- I just had a huge long answer to Tom's thing about dialogue and the browser just closed and I lost it.
- chrissashley 1-22-2006 10:24 pm
I hate it when that happens. Re: the map pins, I thought you might be kidding but it is the classic thing people talk about in studios to avoid substantive issues so I answered it. Not because I'm avoiding substantive issues but because I figure someone else will at some point.
- tom moody 1-22-2006 10:36 pm
I can't recreate the post I lost just about when it was finished, but here's an attempt at some of it. I thought the first one was long and pretty good. This one is shorter and faster and less eloquent. This time I typed it in Notepad and hit Save a lot.
==
Tom wrote:
Also, Chris, what's with this "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after about digital vs. non-digital, [etc]" ?
I reply:
Yeah, well, maybe I'm just trying to sound smart and artsy critical-like. You caught me red-handed.
Or perhaps I'm trying to say something more. Perhaps it's presumptuous of me to say you're after a dialogue. But based on things you've said about your work, and how you've talked about it in the past and rather recently, I thought it was safe to assume that you think about your work in a greater context, and how it is situated relative to other kinds of art. You've talked a fair amount, I think, about the problem of how the work on paper is received or not received. And the animations complicate that. Put the two together, presented as the work by a single artist- it's natural to think about how and if they do and don't relate to each other, and to try to see what your greater project(s) as an artist might be. Whether you like it or not, as a viewer that's a dialogue I and others engage in.
Any reasonably thoughtful viewer is going to engage in some kind of dialogue with your work. Just to begin with, they're going to wonder: what this is and what it isn't; what's it made of and what isn't it made of; how is it presented and how is this like or unlike similar things? And then they're going to ask questions about your imagery, and eventually get into questions about possible meanings. And I'm sure you know that as an artist you try to anticipate that, and to make closures and openings where you can to guide and enable that process.
==
Two more quotes of yours:
[1] If one saw the works on paper in a gallery space, one might ask "Are these supposed to be animated?" and "I wonder if they're any good on the internet?"
[2] And if one saw them displayed on the internet one might say, "Are these the original frames or screen captures?" and "I wonder if they're any good in person?"
It's interesting that what your pose here aren't statements, but are questions that lead to a dialogue about charactersistics, qualities, quantities. Isn't that a dialogue about your work?
==
You say: "I am showing them together, but there is no dialogue. The gap is unbridgeable, not that one should ever aspire to bridge the gap."
The presence of these two kinds of work and that gap is the dialogue. Not all dialogues result in resolution. A dialogue in art should probably remain open-ended or unresolved, anyway. I don't mean to sound, what... I can't think of the word- vague, opaque, supercilious, flaky, idiotic- but the gap between your different pieces of work, and the gap between your work and the work of others, as well as the expectations caused by "standards of the art industry" and how you do and don't meet them, is where that dialogue happens.
==
You say, "The GIFs are what they are, "cool" things that screw with your eyes and head on the computer, and help one while away the hours at the Dilbert job." I know what you're saying, and think I understand, but I'm surprised you leave it at that.
Certainly, this is part of the work, but it doesn't end there. There is a whole lot more going on. The animations touch on cheap science fiction, low budget gross-out horror, loops and cycles, science and nature and the artificial, growth and decay, creation and destruction, regeneration, video and phone games, the lowest threshold for seamless animation. They ask questions about old technology- animated gifs are so 1995- and the handmade. There's a way that you're dealing in artifacts- something old, passe, funky, over and done with- but recasting it and elevating it to art. You take all of these crummy pieces and put them together into something new and better.
I think your work on paper deals with all of this stuff in a much tougher way. It's got more going against it.
A computer animation- well, that's just what it is- it can migrate from the web to a projector to a DVD. You can print stills of it. It's understandable that you need a computer to make it.
But the stuff on paper is going against bigger odds. You draw it with a low-res old paint program, you print it out, you cut these pieces up and assemble something else out of these pieces with tape. At first it looks like your hand is removed, that somehow all of this stuff is manufactured. But your eye and hand- and I'm going to say it, your heart and breathe- is deeply in this work.
At first, I think you're up against the odds of the viewer getting hung up on how they're made- is it a drawing, a painting, a collage, a paper quilt, a photo mural. Is that cheap paper? Oh, a printer made it- it's easy to assume that the computer somehow makes the work for you. I wonder if it's so easy to get caught up in that aspect of the dialogue of looking at your work that for someone not truly into visual imagery they never get to how rich and complex and beautifully composed your work is.
When I visited your studio in May it took me a little time to settle in, to get past the material (all the while still keeping the material present in the viewing experience), and to work down into seeing the work as a whole, and then to start seeing all the visual components- the rich imagery and the associations I make to those images (mandala, video game, pinball, cartoons, animation, science, space, pop, the technology of print, for starters), the use of scale, how you used edge (the cut edges of sections, the edges of printed and repeat-printed images, the relationship of the compostion to the edge of the piece). The work is strongly composed- it shows a visual sensitivity and hard work and experience. It's beautiful and intricate and delicate and complex. But it's also odd- it's pieced together, made with relatively common materials, its making is pretty plainly visible. But that fools you. It's all handmade and unique- it's made with the computer but not by the computer.
I can't remember if I said it to you, but I remember that in my mind I wanted to elevate your work by saying that it operated in the realm of painting, because for me that's a high compliment. What I mean is that the stuff on paper deals many of the same issues of painting except you're not using paint and canvas, you're using printed paper. Aside from that you're operating in a complex visual mode. There's nothing slapdash here- you've got craft of the highest order, a responsibility to the materials. And you've got imagery coming out of the past and present that feels like it's pushing forward.
So, this is what I meant by "the kind of dialogue I imagine you're after." I mean all of the possible conversations from all the many angles that goes into looking at and experiencing the work. Regarding the works on paper, and many of your animations, these are not just some throwaway things you knocked out. They go further than that.
==
Although "they" say "never apologize" I'm sorry I lost that previous post- compared to the lost post this one is kind of crappy and doesn't make my argument very well. But I have to stop typing- I'm having problems lately with my right arm related to too much computer, too much guitar, and a very strong dog pulling me along by her leash.
- chrissashley 1-22-2006 11:53 pm
I appreciate the supportive comments. I'm being a bit facetious with the Dilbert reference.
The debate that interests me is over values: what is good and bad about the tools we use every day.
They are changing the workplace and politics, almost every aspect of our lives, and it concerns me that the art world is some kind of medieval refuge or "slow zone" which is not affected by these changes.
My use of certain tools was through the workplace, which is not a refuge from anything. And it's through an interest in gear that is marketed to all of us as consumers--good printers, "cool" programs, new and old.
I make things the way I know to make them, borrowing from all my experiences. I want to make something I haven't seen before.
The price in the short run is few know w.t.f. I'm doing. I'm still gobsmacked by how esoteric this seems to be.
The GIFs are partly just to get work "out there" in the near term.
This sounds like a whine but even when I was painting it was considered "difficult" or just "bad." I create my own problems, to a large extent.
- tom moody 1-23-2006 1:53 am
And I appreciate that you took the time to come to the studio and your thoughtful explanation of what's going on in the work, much of which can't be seen on the web.
When I said I'm not after dialogue you seem to have taken it that I don't want to talk about the work. I'm not just being a typical artist butt challenging people to compliment me.
I'm talking about the narrow issue of the unbridgeable gap of trying to represent art on the internet.
No one will ever completely, should ever completely trust words or pictures--you have to see the work. This is why
"art blogging" is doomed as a way of uniting art scenes from different cities, whereas music blogging or new media blogging truly have global potential.
- tom moody 1-23-2006 5:31 am
This is the most successful of your animated GIFs, in terms of the ability to mesmerize the viewer.
- adrien 1-24-2006 8:03 pm