thejogging:

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seapunking, 2013
☆!!!

thejogging:

The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seapunking, 2013

!!!

Affectionate Girlfriend “Charm” Bracelet, 3D printed stainless steel.
Part of my new project Affectionate Girlfriend. Full details on my website soon. 

Affectionate Girlfriend “Charm” Bracelet, 3D printed stainless steel.

Part of my new project Affectionate Girlfriend. Full details on my website soon. 

thejogging:

Accepted proposal for a Pixar / Wes Anderson collaboration involving a rag-tag group of orphaned / misfit fruits who go on quest to find their families, are bullied out of Hole Foods by a group of Croaka Cola products (for copyright reasons) led by a skull, but realize along the way that they’ve become a family, go on a wild tricycle ride through the streets of the Big Apple, and end up being used by Urs Fischer at his MOMA retrospective, while the skull ends up in a trash bin, and is used by Damien Hirst as a follow up to “For The Love Of God”, this time however the skull is covered in shit instead of diamonds, 2013
Sculpture***

thejogging:

Accepted proposal for a Pixar / Wes Anderson collaboration involving a rag-tag group of orphaned / misfit fruits who go on quest to find their families, are bullied out of Hole Foods by a group of Croaka Cola products (for copyright reasons) led by a skull, but realize along the way that they’ve become a family, go on a wild tricycle ride through the streets of the Big Apple, and end up being used by Urs Fischer at his MOMA retrospective, while the skull ends up in a trash bin, and is used by Damien Hirst as a follow up to “For The Love Of God”, this time however the skull is covered in shit instead of diamonds, 2013

Sculpture

***

An art project by Paolo Woods, Photos of Haitians wearing donated inappropriate American T-Shirts.

"A t-shirt produced for Wal-Mart in the sweatshops of Port au Prince will be sported by a Texan and then returned to the sender, who, at last, will be able to wear it. This back and forth gives us a peek into the workings of the of the textile industry.”

 

Pepe, Paolo Woods

 

thejogging:

the art history canon, 2013
Hieronymus 
£

thejogging:

the art history canon, 2013

Hieronymus 

£

internet-of-dreams:

Remove other tourists with Photoshop. Save your memories as you imagined, better than you experienced. (See also: Louis Daguerre, Boulevard du Temple, Paris, Spring 1839)

internet-of-dreams:

Remove other tourists with Photoshop. Save your memories as you imagined, better than you experienced. (See also: Louis Daguerre, Boulevard du Temple, Paris, Spring 1839)

internet-of-dreams:

Remove other tourists with Photoshop. Save your memories as you imagined, better than you experienced. (See also: Louis Daguerre, Boulevard du Temple, Paris, Spring 1839)

internet-of-dreams:

Remove other tourists with Photoshop. Save your memories as you imagined, better than you experienced. (See also: Louis Daguerre, Boulevard du Temple, Paris, Spring 1839)

thejogging:

vacuum sealed BORIS Groys - ‘going public’ and AMERICAN APPAREL bow tie (purple) (1/4 of the prof theory series), 2013
•º•
BUY IT ON ETSY NOW

thejogging:

vacuum sealed BORIS Groys - ‘going public’ and AMERICAN APPAREL bow tie (purple) (1/4 of the prof theory series), 2013

•º•

BUY IT ON ETSY NOW

Myself and a couple of friends have made a collaborative work thats currently showing at Kings ARI in Melbourne… 

image

Listen to This (Phasing Out)

Collaboration by Hannah Smith, Michael John Joseph, Kristy Milliken, Michaela Züge-Bruton

Listen to this (phasing out) seeks uncertainty. Errors of action, gesture and speech are common interferences between listening and speaking subjects, creating passages where meaning might reside and take repose. For Freud these contingent events are linked to our unconscious desires. In this exhibition the artists Hannah Smith, Michael John Joseph, Kristy Milliken and Michaela Züge-Bruton imagine processes that collude and conspire with misunderstandings. Forging twisted connections between making sense and uttering nonsense. Each artist presents a new video work that explores the psychological aspects of correspondence, as a mediated action, full of misapprehension, asynchronicity and frivolity.

sarahjeanalex:

mimiwao:

Sarah Jean Alexander

hehe

sarahjeanalex:

mimiwao:

Sarah Jean Alexander

hehe

(Source: sarahjeanalex, via popserial)

Claire Bishop - Digital Divide: contemporary art and new media - artforum.com / in print

towerofsleep:

My point is that mainstream contemporary art simultaneously disavows and depends on the digital revolution, even—especially—when this art declines to speak overtly about the conditions of living in and through new media. But why is contemporary art so reluctant to describe our experience of digitized life? After all, photography and film were embraced rapidly and wholeheartedly in the 1920s, as was video in the late 1960s and ’70s. These formats, however, were image-based, and their relevance and challenge to visual art were self-evident. The digital, by contrast, is code, inherently alien to human perception. It is, at base, a linguistic model. Convert any .jpg file to .txt and you will find its ingredients: a garbled recipe of numbers and letters, meaningless to the average viewer. Is there a sense of fear underlying visual art’s disavowal of new media? Faced with the infinite multiplicity of digital files, the uniqueness of the art object needs to be reasserted in the face of its infinite, uncontrollable dissemination via Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. If you borrow an artist’s DVD from a gallery, it usually arrives in a white paper slip, with VIEWING COPY ONLY marked clearly on the label; when a collector buys the same DVD in a limited edition, he or she receives a carefully crafted container, signed and numbered by the artist.

Ironically, Goldsmith refers to contemporary art of the 1980s as one model for poetry when promoting his theory of “uncreative writing,” citing the history of twentieth-century art as a chronicle of thieving and stealing, from Duchamp to Warhol to Levine. In actuality, visual art’s assault on originality only ever goes so far: It is always underpinned by a respect for intellectual property and carefully assigned authorship (Warhol and Levine are hardly anonymous, and their market status is fiercely protected by their galleries).¹¹ Unlike the poetry world, where the flow of capital is meager and where works can circulate freely and virtually on the Web, visual art’s ongoing double attachment to intellectual property and physicality threatens to jeopardize its own relevance in the forthcoming decades. In a hundred years’ time, will visual art have suffered the same fate as theater in the age of cinema?

Goldsmith points out that the linguistic basis of the digital era holds consequences for literature that are as potentially shattering and vitalizing as the arrival of mechanical reproduction was for visual art: “With the rise of the Web, writing has met its photography.”¹² It is telling that two of the works I cited earlier, by Trecartin and Stark, make language central to their aesthetic. It’s possible that literature, and particularly poetry of the kind championed by Goldsmith in Uncreative Writing, might now be taking up the avant-garde baton, finding ways to convey experience in ways adequate to our new technological circumstances. Yet the hybridized solutions that visual art is currently pursuing—analog in appearance, digital in structure—seem always biased toward the former, so favored by the market. If the digital means anything for visual art, it is the need to take stock of this orientation and to question art’s most treasured assumptions. At its most utopian, the digital revolution opens up a new dematerialized, deauthored, and unmarketable reality of collective culture; at its worst, it signals the impending obsolescence of visual art itself.

Oh, great. My PhD project proposal was basically to expand on Claire Bishop’s writing on participation to talk about the internet, archives, and conceptual writing. But (why am I surprised?) she already saw that as the next move and just did it herself. This quoted passage already includes almost everything I was hoping to say on the subject. So I have a lot of catch-up to do if this is the conversation I want to add to.

I think a key thing might be where Bishop talks about how code is alien — for one, I don’t think she’s entirely correct (humans write code, after all), and for another, I think OOO can do great work analysing our relationship to technology in the context of art and aesthetics. So maybe that’s something I can bring to the table.

This response to Bishop by Honor Harger takes her to task for writing off “new media art” as a specialist sphere that only occasionally overlaps with mainstream contemporary art. Harger mentions some artists (Trevor Paglen, Rafae Lozano-Hemmer, etc.) whose work could certainly contribute to Bishop’s argument and shouldn’t be ignored, but in the main, I tend to agree with Bishop that “new media art” is a ghetto, mainly because digital technology isn’t a “medium” in the way that film or photography are. The digitization of culture is, rather, a revolution in the way we use and consume all sorts of existing culture. It changes our interface with reality. So I actually agree with Bishop that the most telling commentary on this shift in our sensibility often comes from artists who may actually be primarily creating physical artifacts and using analog means, even if this commentary is primarily operating in the mode of disavowal or resistance against the impact of digitization.

Also, I have a greater appreciation for artists who self-identify as “post-internet” (or who could conceivably fit that designation) than I do for “new media” artists. I think the former have a better understanding of the expanded nature of the internet’s effects — I think making work about the digital is more interesting than making work with the digital, though obviously the two aren’t mutually exclusive. And, more importantly, most of us will encounter art works primarily through digital means anyway. The distribution networks are more significant than the production-end tools.