it's that you've bounded it - single transformation of something into something that "helps others." - and the comments that you're joking about as shut ups are moving the bounds [painting, art criticism]. when that happens i think XYZ starts to touch on questions more related to the ontology of art...dunno about you but i dont really have time for that kind of stuff.
the single transformation new media work you've focusing on is, like all artworks using a computer, in some sense a materialization of logic...data is always moved around and XYZ is maybe always there at the level of the medium. does that mean that any piece can be described as XYZ [shit!]?? for me the question is whether it's work that seems trapped by that - it's own - medium...like are the XYZs in the artist's brain/process there because they can't escape the underlying mechanics of the computer or network or html or whatever they're using - this is when i think a lot of the work reaches to some sort of opensource-informed morality as a way out... because, to be honest, lots of XYZ [as you define it] pieces, once you look at them as XYZ, become little more than conceptual busywork.
|
the single transformation new media work you've focusing on is, like all artworks using a computer, in some sense a materialization of logic...data is always moved around and XYZ is maybe always there at the level of the medium. does that mean that any piece can be described as XYZ [shit!]?? for me the question is whether it's work that seems trapped by that - it's own - medium...like are the XYZs in the artist's brain/process there because they can't escape the underlying mechanics of the computer or network or html or whatever they're using - this is when i think a lot of the work reaches to some sort of opensource-informed morality as a way out... because, to be honest, lots of XYZ [as you define it] pieces, once you look at them as XYZ, become little more than conceptual busywork.
- p.d. 6-24-2007 10:12 pm