Paddy- No one is talking about it because that conversation occured 6 years ago. When the hype died down, I think most people realized that code is the same as paint or clay. Media that is not object oriented often needs it own catagories, as with film and video. Perhaps code based work will as well. My favorite "new" genre associated with the net and code would be Generative art. What defines a movement is how and for what purpose media is used, not who is associated with it. I may be wrong about that.
I did not mean to use PoMo as a label to define an artists work. I am only saying that the cultural and anthropological theories (as well as their place in the context of art history) that inform our appreciation of painting can and should be used to assess code derived work, because this is where we will find the similarities in how the works function.
"everyone does this"- no they don't. Many young artists have shown a sincere return to "pure" formalism.
Clusterfuck aesthetic is "the most irrelevant movement in history" ! Wow! You are not afraid to go out on a limb. I like the cut of your jib. I don't agree, but I can certainly appreciate a bombastic comment. I do not consider Sarah Sze or Jason Rhoades to be irrelevant. But you are probably NOT implying that.
As to the music industry model, well that just plays into marketing, and I have a knee-jerk reaction against anything as crass as that.
Tom- Thanks for the sequence. I can see were you're coming from now.
I think the artworld has embraced cyber-content, at least on the artist level. I like to think we are the artworld, not the pompus stuff-shirts at Artforum. (Please don't shatter my terrarium, it's comfortable in here)
Paul Chan. I grew up with him. His gallery bio says he was born in Hong Kong and now resides in NYC, but he spent his formative years (from age 5 to 18) in Omaha, NE. Five years ago he came into a gallery I was working at and showed me his "30,000 years..." piece. I didn't like it, it was so conciously derivitive I had to take him to task. His response was, " I worked 3 years on that" !! (I had to show him a painting I spent 2 years on). He actually tried to make a case that Henry Darger (who he had blatantly ripped off, even bragging about it in the title, like it was a flag to signify insider credibility!, but it seems like all Chicago educated kids pimp Dargers legacy) was the first digital artist!! (how convienent, as the work is a digital projection!) This was before he was included in his first group show at Greene Naftali, the one Roberta Smith singled him out from and wrote such a glowing review. I have felt like the guy that didn't sign the Beatles ever since. I wonder if he would have become such a festival juggernaut if Smith hadn't written that article? Good to read an unfavorable criticism of his work, I certainly couldn't get away with it, personal history and all. And yeah, Arcangel stomps him. True genius can accomplish much with very little.
|
I did not mean to use PoMo as a label to define an artists work. I am only saying that the cultural and anthropological theories (as well as their place in the context of art history) that inform our appreciation of painting can and should be used to assess code derived work, because this is where we will find the similarities in how the works function.
"everyone does this"- no they don't. Many young artists have shown a sincere return to "pure" formalism.
Clusterfuck aesthetic is "the most irrelevant movement in history" ! Wow! You are not afraid to go out on a limb. I like the cut of your jib. I don't agree, but I can certainly appreciate a bombastic comment. I do not consider Sarah Sze or Jason Rhoades to be irrelevant. But you are probably NOT implying that.
As to the music industry model, well that just plays into marketing, and I have a knee-jerk reaction against anything as crass as that.
Tom- Thanks for the sequence. I can see were you're coming from now.
I think the artworld has embraced cyber-content, at least on the artist level. I like to think we are the artworld, not the pompus stuff-shirts at Artforum. (Please don't shatter my terrarium, it's comfortable in here)
Paul Chan. I grew up with him. His gallery bio says he was born in Hong Kong and now resides in NYC, but he spent his formative years (from age 5 to 18) in Omaha, NE. Five years ago he came into a gallery I was working at and showed me his "30,000 years..." piece. I didn't like it, it was so conciously derivitive I had to take him to task. His response was, " I worked 3 years on that" !! (I had to show him a painting I spent 2 years on). He actually tried to make a case that Henry Darger (who he had blatantly ripped off, even bragging about it in the title, like it was a flag to signify insider credibility!, but it seems like all Chicago educated kids pimp Dargers legacy) was the first digital artist!! (how convienent, as the work is a digital projection!) This was before he was included in his first group show at Greene Naftali, the one Roberta Smith singled him out from and wrote such a glowing review. I have felt like the guy that didn't sign the Beatles ever since. I wonder if he would have become such a festival juggernaut if Smith hadn't written that article? Good to read an unfavorable criticism of his work, I certainly couldn't get away with it, personal history and all. And yeah, Arcangel stomps him. True genius can accomplish much with very little.
- Robert Huffmann 6-13-2006 10:31 pm