VVork and XYZ Art
What follows are some comments from a thread about the blog VVork. The commenters are sort of picking on that blog, including me, but there are defenses of it as well. To the extent problems are being identified with a certain type of conceptual art and a certain type of digital art related to it (particularly as represented on the Internet), VVork is a convenient focal point. I've made all the commenters anonymous since this was a casual discussion and people might not have intended for these remarks to be elevated to "formal" status--the identities are all in the thread, I just want to get at the essence of the discussion. Slightly edited--if any commenter wants to amend what's said here let me know.
* VVork makes 'clever' very unappealing, like some disease that art catches when it gets on the Internet... It's usually: "hey, i did X to Y and now it's Z...get it??!" [T]he perfect example ... is that piece where its a choir singing the NASDAQ stock exchange graph as music... Who cares? Is there anything interesting going on beyond the punchline? (..well, perhaps in the larger context of the artist's other work [which we aren't made aware of]?) VVork's format/context is ideal for one punchline after the other.. It's like Boing Boing for conceptual art. Boing Boing is to real life what VVork is to art.. But why reduce others' art into little nuggets that can be easily thrown around and reblogged and put into other random contexts on the net just like any other Internet garbage (i.e. YouTube vids of cats and sloths)??
* VVork is popular because they show lots and lots of pictures of art from around the world without a bunch of commentary. I love that! It's kind of weird how rare it is. But the structure implies a promise it can't fulfill. Unlike, say, magazine editors, bloggers have neither the resources nor the mandate to represent outside of their own cultural constructs. I think the feeling of sickness comes from the fact that we feel like we are seeing some kind of general trend, but really its just some dudes posting pictures. There are masses and masses of other art options, not to VVork's taste, crowding in the wings. If they wrote on the work, the subjective filter would become explicit, but the unique aspect of the site would be gone. If they took submissions it might get closer to an evolutionary model, but without an editorial mandate it would make no significant difference. Maybe a post-your-own art wiki would do it.
* VVork is provincial in the sense that it conveys the impression, through its sheer relentlessness, that anybody in the world can be a player as long as you're making [the type of work we're discussing]. Getting seen on VVork [might be] an alternative to "moving to New York" (which people still do, in large numbers, sorry) but everything starts looking the same because of the lack of criticality within the vehicle itself. It's a blog, as you say, not the Global Museum of Great Art. Just because they are popular does not mean they are an institution that has a responsibility to anyone. As bloggers we are free to put in our two cents about their program and they are free to listen or not as they see fit.
* Seems to be two thingies going on here, one is vvork's presentation ... the other is the.. "X - Y - Z" style of archetype vvork art. the XYZ thing is, to me, natural to computers...the data comes in, who cares from where/as what, you can do something to it, and then the data goes out - also who cares to where/as what. so you wanna take stock market info [x] and turn it [y] into music [z], or you wanna use your atari joystick [x] to change the color and placement of text [y] on a tv screen [z] or you wanna take your whatever "physical computing" sensor interface [x] and use it to turn [y] lights on an off on a building [z]...it's like every single piece ends up being just an iteration of the same translation exercise. i suppose im describing something as much NYU ITP/MIT style art as vvork art, but regardless it's one of the reasons why i don't pay much attention to any of it...and i dont make that stuff [or any interactive art] cos i dont wanna to get stuck using the rest of my life in an attempt to make the "best" XYZ.
Its funny how you can 'read' things differently. I regularily look at VVork as a) it makes me aware of some work I should make an effort to see and b) it forces me to look at a cross section of artistic practice rather than work that is close to my own focused (or narrow, depending on how you look at it) definition of art.
I have never thought of VVork as weblog writing about art (sort of an online magazine as is We Make Money Not Art) or as a weblog reblogging it, ether of which is to pull in viewers to the weblog. Its simply, one (or is it two) artists using a weblog to do visual research and keep track of the things they see, visual bookmarks if you will. Why no (or little) text about the work, its not because they consciously post "without a bunch of commentary", its a combination of practicality, they being European, English is possibly not their strong point and why write about something that is primarily visual, can be illustrated in the image / video they post and understood across language barriers, it just complicates matters.
At least thats how I read it but then again I rarely blog, I keep weblogs, the mindset between the two can be quite different.
I don't really understand the distinction you're making between a blog and a weblog, or among various types of blogs. It's all a diaristic practice but can be approached at different levels: professional journal or personal diary, public or private, original or appropriated content. It's up to the user (meaning the diarist or content provider).
Anyway, VVork's not just someone's personal notes, and it's not that much of a cross section, it's very much a curated project. I find it educational, as you do, but am also intermittently repulsed by the point of view. Hence all these blog posts. The main topic here is XYZ Art and how it manifests itself on VVork and elsewhere.
Maybe this is short cited but isn't all art some time of XYZ enterprise. While I hate to compare digital of computer art to painting, isnt painting (sculpting, or whatever your want to use) just taking X (paint/canvas/etc), doing Y (painting/splattering/photorealism/etc) and ending up with Z.
Maybe this just becomes that much more clear in new media art where there are more rigidly defined parameters.
A serious painter would cry over what you're suggesting. A good piece could be one step or a hundred but it's never a formula.
I think any good artist regardless of medium / discipline / practice would 'cry' over this suggestion. This XYZ formula for making art doesn't seem to be very realistic, art involves research and research towards any end is a continously recursive process.
mentos + diet coke =...
Looking at vvork right now, I kind of enjoy it because its like "neon week" or something, and it's pretty funny seeing all these neon pieces next to eachother... actually VVork does a good job of finding clones/similar projects (like Tom's Attack of the Clones), often posting them right next to eachother... However, since there is no commentary, I am inclined to assume that they are not being critical of the art they are presenting, that they are hiliting it and putting it on display for their large audience's appreciation. The blog takes a much more authoritative tone than a personal "diary" because it is very impersonal and mute, like a gallery ...
ok one last diss (sorry if im going a bit overboard): vvork is conceptual art turned into graphic design.......
Well said. "The blog takes a much more authoritative tone than a personal 'diary' because it is very impersonal and mute, like a gallery" catches the vibe well.
One of my "clone attacks" (screen burning) was based on a VVork post. Someone there posted the Steven Read and then posted the Cory Arcangel--they were back to back.
I assumed it was subtle criticism but it may very well have been "screen burn week" a la "neon week."
I really don't know--I wish they weren't so mute. They could use Google translator and I'm sure people would cut them some slack.
2 months late on this, but I was reading your archives... and, well, here:
Graphic design suggests a commercial interest here. Which I just don't see? Graphic design also suggests a kind of conceptual vapidity, which I can't conceive---or, in either case, a conceit to serve only a particular but distinct interest (a market, a brand, an ideology). VVORK's design is so minimal that I can't for the life of me imagine how it might resemble contemporary commercial web design. Or even non-commercial popular design (take a look at a default wordpress install, or wikipedia).
VVORK is also run by people who prefer posting zizek youtube videos to ones of sloths or cats (equally hilarious, perhaps, but perhaps not); so, to accuse them of never breaking form doesn't make a lot of sense.
VVORK's muteness, their gallery-esque "authoritative tone" (can someone qualify this?) is a formal play, I would suggest, with what one expects from the kind of instant feedback-response loop blogging and internet publishing have made the status-quo. It's quiet in a way most contemporary blogs aren't. I guess a gallery metaphor may work, but I think there is something more important happening here....
I'm in agreement with you, bxk.
Also for the record, they do write very well in English.
"they do write very well in English."
Then why don't they? Must they be the Harpo Marx of art blogs?
I have a personal bone to pick, I suppose.
They invited me to do some guest writing for them and said I could be tough in my criticism. I was flattered, but said:
"I'm mainly focused on my artwork and music and try to keep critical writing restricted to my own blog, these days.
One suggestion would be to reblog writing you like the same way you post art work--you are welcome to anything on my page."
Their answer in so many words was, oh well, too bad.
It makes no sense to me that they like my tough critiques but not enough to reblog them, since their blog is 100% recycled.
The conclusion I come to is they are very much like a gallery in controlling their content and wanting to control how it's spun.
I mean, I have rules for my blog, too, but they aren't as narrow as Vvork's.
"Graphic design" probably wasn't the right choice of words and I didn't mean to include that in my "well said" comment. Nevertheless the strength of the blog is graphic (it's obviously not literary):
"Conceptual art as an unending string of visual puns" is how I'd describe it at its worst. "Cats or sloths" was a joke, not a serious suggestion, meant to get at the difference between my blog (argumentative, intermittently goofy, questioning its own premises) and theirs ("elegant sculptural installations crafted well from non-precious materials with interesting but tidy content and an unquestioning relationship to art institutions"), to come back to Sally's original comment.
> Then why don't they? Must they be the Harpo Marx of art blogs?
Funny. Discourse is good, always, around art. But I can't blame them for this; they've established themselves with a certain strategic reticence and, frankly, it matters. I guess our disagreement here may be on point of taste, and the way we like to experience mediated art documentation (or net.art). I don't think that writing critically about work implies a kind of revelation of the context from where the author is coming from... I mean, if that was true, why would Brecht matter? And besides, the readers of this blog seem to have no problem seeing something and saying "totally vvork shit!", and neither do I. So I still think that the overwhelming tastes of the vvork kids are pretty obvious as soon as one starts reading them.
And thank you for expanding on the gallery comment; you made sense. Although, I stand behind what I said about the feedback-response loop of endless internet conversation, and I think working against the contemporary grain in this regard is interesting and a worthwhile endeavor. I don't hate them for being taciturn, because although maybe a little criticism reblogging would be awesome, I still think their larger project is interesting enough--and I see them working actively to stay true to that.
And thanks for the personal story... it's actually really good for the points you're making.
I'll add--they were responding to an earlier critique of mine (which was more supportive of the "all image" format) where I talked about the need for a parallel blog of writing about VVork. At that time they seemed open to experimenting with adding text.
But since then they have stuck with the image format. It's possible they haven't liked any writing here or anywhere else enough to blog or reBlog it--it's their absolute right to be picky.
i send VVORK an e-mail a couple times a month with photos of my new work... that says "All my friends are on VVORK, except me."
which is pretty much true. they never respond
more of a fuck you to VVORK at this point.
Jordan, as your spiritual guide I advise you never to write such an email to them again.
youtube
|
VVork and XYZ Art
What follows are some comments from a thread about the blog VVork. The commenters are sort of picking on that blog, including me, but there are defenses of it as well. To the extent problems are being identified with a certain type of conceptual art and a certain type of digital art related to it (particularly as represented on the Internet), VVork is a convenient focal point. I've made all the commenters anonymous since this was a casual discussion and people might not have intended for these remarks to be elevated to "formal" status--the identities are all in the thread, I just want to get at the essence of the discussion. Slightly edited--if any commenter wants to amend what's said here let me know.
- tom moody 4-30-2007 10:35 pm
Its funny how you can 'read' things differently. I regularily look at VVork as a) it makes me aware of some work I should make an effort to see and b) it forces me to look at a cross section of artistic practice rather than work that is close to my own focused (or narrow, depending on how you look at it) definition of art.
I have never thought of VVork as weblog writing about art (sort of an online magazine as is We Make Money Not Art) or as a weblog reblogging it, ether of which is to pull in viewers to the weblog. Its simply, one (or is it two) artists using a weblog to do visual research and keep track of the things they see, visual bookmarks if you will. Why no (or little) text about the work, its not because they consciously post "without a bunch of commentary", its a combination of practicality, they being European, English is possibly not their strong point and why write about something that is primarily visual, can be illustrated in the image / video they post and understood across language barriers, it just complicates matters.
At least thats how I read it but then again I rarely blog, I keep weblogs, the mindset between the two can be quite different.
- Garrett (guest) 5-02-2007 2:13 am
I don't really understand the distinction you're making between a blog and a weblog, or among various types of blogs. It's all a diaristic practice but can be approached at different levels: professional journal or personal diary, public or private, original or appropriated content. It's up to the user (meaning the diarist or content provider).
Anyway, VVork's not just someone's personal notes, and it's not that much of a cross section, it's very much a curated project. I find it educational, as you do, but am also intermittently repulsed by the point of view. Hence all these blog posts. The main topic here is XYZ Art and how it manifests itself on VVork and elsewhere.
- tom moody 5-02-2007 2:55 am
Maybe this is short cited but isn't all art some time of XYZ enterprise. While I hate to compare digital of computer art to painting, isnt painting (sculpting, or whatever your want to use) just taking X (paint/canvas/etc), doing Y (painting/splattering/photorealism/etc) and ending up with Z.
Maybe this just becomes that much more clear in new media art where there are more rigidly defined parameters.
- Matthew Williamson (guest) 5-03-2007 4:12 am
A serious painter would cry over what you're suggesting. A good piece could be one step or a hundred but it's never a formula.
- tom moody 5-03-2007 4:41 am
I think any good artist regardless of medium / discipline / practice would 'cry' over this suggestion. This XYZ formula for making art doesn't seem to be very realistic, art involves research and research towards any end is a continously recursive process.
- Garrett (guest) 5-03-2007 7:11 pm
mentos + diet coke =...
- bill 5-03-2007 8:05 pm
Looking at vvork right now, I kind of enjoy it because its like "neon week" or something, and it's pretty funny seeing all these neon pieces next to eachother... actually VVork does a good job of finding clones/similar projects (like Tom's Attack of the Clones), often posting them right next to eachother... However, since there is no commentary, I am inclined to assume that they are not being critical of the art they are presenting, that they are hiliting it and putting it on display for their large audience's appreciation. The blog takes a much more authoritative tone than a personal "diary" because it is very impersonal and mute, like a gallery ...
ok one last diss (sorry if im going a bit overboard): vvork is conceptual art turned into graphic design.......
- guthrie (guest) 5-04-2007 4:00 am
Well said. "The blog takes a much more authoritative tone than a personal 'diary' because it is very impersonal and mute, like a gallery" catches the vibe well.
One of my "clone attacks" (screen burning) was based on a VVork post. Someone there posted the Steven Read and then posted the Cory Arcangel--they were back to back.
I assumed it was subtle criticism but it may very well have been "screen burn week" a la "neon week."
I really don't know--I wish they weren't so mute. They could use Google translator and I'm sure people would cut them some slack.
- tom moody 5-05-2007 5:15 am
2 months late on this, but I was reading your archives... and, well, here:
Graphic design suggests a commercial interest here. Which I just don't see? Graphic design also suggests a kind of conceptual vapidity, which I can't conceive---or, in either case, a conceit to serve only a particular but distinct interest (a market, a brand, an ideology). VVORK's design is so minimal that I can't for the life of me imagine how it might resemble contemporary commercial web design. Or even non-commercial popular design (take a look at a default wordpress install, or wikipedia).
VVORK is also run by people who prefer posting zizek youtube videos to ones of sloths or cats (equally hilarious, perhaps, but perhaps not); so, to accuse them of never breaking form doesn't make a lot of sense.
VVORK's muteness, their gallery-esque "authoritative tone" (can someone qualify this?) is a formal play, I would suggest, with what one expects from the kind of instant feedback-response loop blogging and internet publishing have made the status-quo. It's quiet in a way most contemporary blogs aren't. I guess a gallery metaphor may work, but I think there is something more important happening here....
- bxk (guest) 6-16-2007 10:37 pm
I'm in agreement with you, bxk.
Also for the record, they do write very well in English.
- L.M. 6-16-2007 10:52 pm
"they do write very well in English."
Then why don't they? Must they be the Harpo Marx of art blogs?
I have a personal bone to pick, I suppose.
They invited me to do some guest writing for them and said I could be tough in my criticism. I was flattered, but said:
"I'm mainly focused on my artwork and music and try to keep critical writing restricted to my own blog, these days.
One suggestion would be to reblog writing you like the same way you post art work--you are welcome to anything on my page."
Their answer in so many words was, oh well, too bad.
It makes no sense to me that they like my tough critiques but not enough to reblog them, since their blog is 100% recycled.
The conclusion I come to is they are very much like a gallery in controlling their content and wanting to control how it's spun.
I mean, I have rules for my blog, too, but they aren't as narrow as Vvork's.
"Graphic design" probably wasn't the right choice of words and I didn't mean to include that in my "well said" comment. Nevertheless the strength of the blog is graphic (it's obviously not literary):
"Conceptual art as an unending string of visual puns" is how I'd describe it at its worst. "Cats or sloths" was a joke, not a serious suggestion, meant to get at the difference between my blog (argumentative, intermittently goofy, questioning its own premises) and theirs ("elegant sculptural installations crafted well from non-precious materials with interesting but tidy content and an unquestioning relationship to art institutions"), to come back to Sally's original comment.
- tom moody 6-16-2007 11:27 pm
> Then why don't they? Must they be the Harpo Marx of art blogs?
Funny. Discourse is good, always, around art. But I can't blame them for this; they've established themselves with a certain strategic reticence and, frankly, it matters. I guess our disagreement here may be on point of taste, and the way we like to experience mediated art documentation (or net.art). I don't think that writing critically about work implies a kind of revelation of the context from where the author is coming from... I mean, if that was true, why would Brecht matter? And besides, the readers of this blog seem to have no problem seeing something and saying "totally vvork shit!", and neither do I. So I still think that the overwhelming tastes of the vvork kids are pretty obvious as soon as one starts reading them.
And thank you for expanding on the gallery comment; you made sense. Although, I stand behind what I said about the feedback-response loop of endless internet conversation, and I think working against the contemporary grain in this regard is interesting and a worthwhile endeavor. I don't hate them for being taciturn, because although maybe a little criticism reblogging would be awesome, I still think their larger project is interesting enough--and I see them working actively to stay true to that.
- bxk (guest) 6-16-2007 11:58 pm
And thanks for the personal story... it's actually really good for the points you're making.
- bxk (guest) 6-17-2007 12:02 am
I'll add--they were responding to an earlier critique of mine (which was more supportive of the "all image" format) where I talked about the need for a parallel blog of writing about VVork. At that time they seemed open to experimenting with adding text.
But since then they have stuck with the image format. It's possible they haven't liked any writing here or anywhere else enough to blog or reBlog it--it's their absolute right to be picky.
- tom moody 6-17-2007 12:23 am
i send VVORK an e-mail a couple times a month with photos of my new work... that says "All my friends are on VVORK, except me."
which is pretty much true. they never respond
more of a fuck you to VVORK at this point.
- jordanrhoat (guest) 6-13-2008 1:38 am
Jordan, as your spiritual guide I advise you never to write such an email to them again.
- tom moody 6-13-2008 3:51 am
youtube
- charles (guest) 9-04-2009 9:42 am