Jesse P. Martin
Since 2010

Discussions (10) Opportunities (0) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Required Reading


Lonergan's MySpace Intros were "originally" collected to be viewed as a YouTube playlist, correct? In that context, I think they'd definitely fit into the "social media art" category ("social media" because that's what MySpace is, "art" because Lonergan is an artist who is working with/within "social media" to collect, present, and create his work). Presenting the intros on video screens definitely makes Lonergan's work more museum-friendly, but it also lobotomizes the work so the museum wouldn't have to deal with people touching things and the messiness of (gasp) allowing people to navigate the playlist in its "native form." I can see how/why a museum and/or curator would make a decision like this, but to do so without an explanatory placard or acknowledgment of how such revisions would fundamentally alter the (experience of the) piece is negligent. Davis' subsequent (mis)categorization of Lonergan's work seems to be a direct result of the museum's reframing/stripping-down of the piece, since I imagine that it was his reliance on their misinformation that led him to his erroneous conclusions.

I think that I'm just summarizing what you've been saying all along, but I'm just trying to make sure that I'm following! In the end, this all seems like a call for museums, critics, artists, etc. to be more mindful of (and, ideally, directly engage with) the contexts in which works are generated, because to not do so can/will lead to wrongheadedness. Especially with net art ("social media art?"), it's probably important for the people who are going to cite specific works to, uh, engage with the work in its indigenous setting (rather than relying solely on an institution's authoritative recalibration/soundbyting of said piece).

That having been said (and apologies for any of my rehashing redundancies), I noticed that many of the intros on Lonergan's list don't link to their subject's/user's MySpace pages. Some do (you have to click on their name - which will lead you to their YouTube channel - and then look on their 'profile' and hope that they've linked to their MySpace somewhere on the page), but most don't. It's possible that many of the MySpace pages have been removed (or that I'm bad at navigating YouTube/MySpace/the internet), but it's interesting that Lonergan's "original" piece also has the potential to negate the contexts of the intros (though Lonergan does mention that they're from MySpace) through his "curatorial" reframing of the works within a YouTube playlist.

DISCUSSION

Required Reading


too boot L.O.L.H.O.O.Q.

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Required Reading


Thanks for the Rrose GIF, Mr. Cloninger. If one is going to liberally contextualize "social media art" (and I agree that the term - and especially Davis's semiotic-squaring of it - is fairly useless and off-base) with pre-internet art practices, the collaging hijinx (mash-ups?) of the dadaists and surrealists clearly offer the seeking, historicizing rhetorician a substantial precedent to tango with. The comparison would even work for those less prone to verbal acrobatics, since truncations, misspellings, nonsense, and general wordplay was as prevalent with them as it is with the text-messaging, OMG, IDK, BFF, LOL factions of today. L.O.L.H.O.O.Q.

Still, despite the playful pamphleteering by the artists of yesteryear, there is something paradigmatically different about how text and image are generated, disseminated, obliterated, reconstituted, etc. on the web (take dump.fm, for instance). This is where even the most astute and well-intentioned comparisons/conflations would fail, because "social media art" involves its own particularities that are simply not analogous to earlier practices.

You can also connect the propensity for people to adopt, conceal, fabricate, and double personae via "social media" in the same manner that Duchamp projected Rrose (though via photographs, etc.). I mean, for all anyone knows, you and Mr. Moody could be the same person (lol jk: but your adversarial discourse has given this nest a much-needed shaking, and I regard anyone with the word 'cloning' in their name with an eyebrow raised). Though I'm still puzzled as to why you claimed that Mr. Moody never addressed you directly, when it was easy to find that he did so on these very pages (though on another topic/thread). How we all so often forget the specifics of our own experiences - and in the short-term, too boot - makes a case for how challenged our ability is to relate even the generalities of things that involved other people from long ago...

I like Duncan's breakdown, too. I especially like how it's full of quotations, lists, links, etc. - it's dynamic in a manner that only "social media" can be, and presented in a way that only someone who has invested more than a cursory, glowering glance (i.e. Davis) into the workings of the web could muster.

DISCUSSION

Required Reading


OMG why not just Google "tom moody curt cloninger" to answer your own question? http://bit.ly/h4IDO
image