Re: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction
i am currently preparing a paper on videoblogs. Some of my selected
links already appeared on the list, but anyway I thought that posting
the complete (in progress) list would be of interest...
<Links so far>
Art in the Blogosphere
Eyebeam's fun meta-blog that picks up other blog?s RSS feeds, MTAA?s included.
Jimpunk visual blog
An exchange of tactical traditions and the politics they represent
Technorati. TAG: Videoblogs
VLOGDIR.COM: The Videoblog Directory
Videoblogs as collective documentary
On 6/2/05, rich white <email@example.com> wrote:
> hi chris
> great work and great questions.
> I've been looking at similar questions in my own work. a project I did
> for www.furtherfield.org tried to deal quite specifically with the
> problems of originality in net.art. archive of this work can be seen
> here http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/.
> I'm afraid I am as yet unable to get to the bottom of the question of
> what is the artwork? although I am, currently, leaning heavily towards
> the idea that the work is not complete until viewed, thus making the
> artwork the file that appears on the browser? this opinion may change! I
> am very intrigued by the idea that the web-based work automatically
> makes perfect copies of itself purely through the process of being
> viewed. the exact same code to produce that work duplicating itself
> every time someone clicks on your link and downloads your page. kind of
> schroedingers cat-like, it remains unique as long as nobody looks at it.
> the problems of where the original resides and the validity and value of
> copies made by other people is also tricky. digital copies are identical
> (although techies might be able to tell us something here that might
> help?) there is no room for 'the hand of the artist'. when a forger
> copies a painting he has to replicate the style, method and materials of
> the artist. this same skill is unnecessary when pushing ctrl+c. the mark
> of the net.artists' touch is less apparent (possibly even not apparent
> at all?) a little more can be read here
> rich white
> *What is the art work? The HTML markup? The image that
> the browser makes? The way the image is delivered and
> made by the browser?
> *Is the image temporary, something always being
> completely remade, or is it something static? HTML is instructions to
> the browser; does the image exist without the browser?
> *The image is made by the browser- is it a
> reproduction, an endless, infinite reproducible?
> *Which image is original- the one on my monitor or
> yours? The one in Dreamweaver, pre-browser? Or, is an
> original even possible? Does it matter?
> *The network as a distribution model- is it art
> trucking, and the browser is the loading dock?
> *Who owns the work? Once on the web I really have no
> control over it. Google and archive.org capture
> everything- do I own my own work when I can't control
> it, and does that matter? Does Creative Commons
> actually mean anything?
> *When others take the work as a screenshot and make a
> GIF or JPEG- is that still the work?
> *Is the code the artifact, or is the image the
> *Who would buy this? Is it for sale? How would one
> sell a coded image?
> *Currently in weblog culture, like much of the web,
> content is free. What is the value of free? Is it
> simply a random act of kindness ;-) Is free art
> really art? What is the economy of the web?
> Reputation? Reliablity? Consistency? Generosity?
> How is this related to and different from the art
> *There are a number of ways the drawings are framed.
> There is often framing in the image. There is a kind
> of technologically contextual framing: table; page;
> browser; monitor; OS; network; etc. There is the chronological,
> performative framing of the weblog.
> And there is the weblog as a cultural, medium-specific
> frame (in the sense of George Lakoff's ideas about how
> language frames an issue). Another way of referring
> to all of this is a kind of layering, but I like the
> term "framing" because for me it fits the use of
> images better. I'm interested in all of these
> different kinds of frames, and what they mean to a
> weblog practice.
> That's plenty for now. Good to be here.
> empyre forum
> empyre forum
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and