Note: Now I am going to think of way to really put this in practice. I hate galleries, I like the idea of media phreaking as an artist. It’s something I would do not as a gallery professional. Frankly I would take my art anonymous before anything. I think it would work better. I really hate this idea of process process go into gallery process some more. Not subversive enough.
(Galleries do not promote something about anonymous land, nor about the idea that most things you see do have a pornographic element to it. They just put all that back in, by being very pornographic about image and by taking down anonymity of art people.)
Technology is for the LULZ.
By that, I mean the LULZ are part of the essential nature of technology is set up in such a way that its essential problems are often uncovered through a somewhat antagonistic social lens which helps us understand technology. . As we grow away from industrialization as a society, large questions of personal participation and how we interact with others start to involve technology. Consumption, its creation, its participation, and its explanation become the Modus Vivendi to understand technology: It is the starting point for the vast majority of individual uses of technology. By doing so, we can help place technology in a more complete framework about its everyday uses and misuses by everyday people.
Conceptual pop feminist artists like Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer start pointing us in directions to analyze technology. The texts they use (such as Kruger’s
“I shop, therefore I am” and Holzer’s “anything is a legitimate area of investigation”) point to how weak yet how strong the viewer is in relationship to the society s/he inhabits. They poke fun at how there are many actions the viewer can take, yet the structure of society makes such action by an individual, alone, pointless. The individual has yet to encounter the other.
Conceptual web artists take this message further: 0100101110101101.org make art through engaging a wide variety of anonymous users in prankster tricks where only inaction is the inherent point. NO FUN(2010) and Vaticano.org (1998) both point to the inability of the vast majority of users to really act in the face in the face of a disturbance of their functional reality.
Other net.art practitioners such as Jodi.org and Blast Theory are still working within a paradigm in which recreating and guiding the viewer through artificial reality to point out the lack of choice with actions. Jodi chooses tactical meanderings and hidden messages: The individual still encounter alones. It is Jodi’s perspectives on the web, and one has to take apart their work to understand it. Blast Theory chooses to move the web into a constructed reality that encounters real space through GPSs. While innovative in turn, it does not point to the reality constructed here by the vast as of yet.
a new generation of artists, such as Mark Beasley and jonCates of criticalartware, Brian Piana and Jason Sloan have noticed what Henry Jenkins, Manuel Castells, Lev Manovich, and Lawrence Lessig have noted: Within those limits placed upon us by society, the act of recombining other pieces of what we already take part of is potent- that recombining work is inherently critical, even if it is only local. Their work starts to move us away from the act of being “alone” in which we are with “others” vis a vis the data we share.
Netmarenetdreams.net takes this idea to a whole new level by collectivizing the idea of sharing by making a gallery of found and made net objects every year, even if the location is “unreal.” Miltos Manetas repeats this trick for the Venice Biennale, which had an Internet Pavilion for the first time this past year. Art becomes a shared decision of a community through re-combinatory means. Alone, these works mean nothing, once gathered, they have artistic aura again despite that they are infinitely accessible to the public and shareable by that public. Context for links becomes everything- however choice is always factored in through the fact that this is a community of artists.
However, for the vast majority of people on the Internet, what is meant when engaged in sharing is by no means clear. While we share content, and engage in collective activity, most of it is still in accordance to some sort of predetermined path, a passive one oriented towards consumption. In that, we are not much further removed from previous technologies, where we are told what reality is by those far above us who make it. When we recombine it, we generally recombine it on their terms.
Traditionally, crackers for the LULZ, from the likes of 4CHAN, hacked material for the sake of humor about the situation described above, on the unwilling creators and consumers who floated along a given path, seemingly choiceless.
In an odd twist of fate, their darkness, their need to just lash out at consumption for the sake of drama, points to how one can point out the very disruption consumptive technologies cause. Technology and its consumption cause structure to exist in society. It creates inherent drama as we adapt to structure and that structure adapts to us, as we try to find space to be expressive within the choices of more powerful creative entities. When we put data out there, we both reinforce and undermine its power, if we are aware of the oddity of the drama. The LULZ dramatizes, and points to the drama of consumption and creation-it points to the awkwardness of the very existence of consumption and participation, and how there are always alternative choices if one thinks and grabs holds of others. The audience has to encounter and react. One could not cause the drama if it were not inherent to the materiality of technology, which it infinitely bends by many people. By pointing out that it is disruptable and disruptive, one realizes,
Technology is for the LULZ.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Remainders – The Things We Didn’t Post: Coming Right Up Edition [Remainders] (gizmodo.com)
- REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK As memes go mainstream, lols (tech.mit.edu)











On Posting and Life
While techically I am in the middle of reviewing the last NYTM (yes I did see that smashed IPAD, that was great, we should do that again!), I realized it has been a while since I have posted.
Part of the reason, I’ve been moody. Graduating and it’s uncertainity is hard on me. It’s also hard because the way to deal with how I graduated is making it hard to keep to a daily schedule. I’m slowly creating one for myself.
Part of the reason is I probably need to have wordpress attached to me- to capture what I am thinking when I am thinking it.
Part of the reason: I really needed a break. How did I know that: I got sick, with bronchitis, basically from the day of the NYTM (or right before, hard to tell) for another two weeks. My mother got pnemonia at the same time. I don’t think I would have been sick if it wasn’t for feeling worn down.
However, I feel Like I am back. So here is to being back. Now to figuring out how this works into my life. If you have tips, pass it on.