Re: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction

[marcus bastos <bastos.marcus@gmail.com>]

hi there,
 
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...
 
best,
marcus
 
 
<Links so far>

Art in the Blogosphere
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_1_93/ai_n8967504/print

Blogosphere
http://rhizome.org/la/blogosphere.php

Eyebeam's fun meta-blog that picks up other blog?s RSS feeds, MTAA?s included.
http://www.eyebeam.org/reblog/ 

Jimpunk visual blog
http://544x378.free.fr/(WebTV)/

MTAA's blog
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR


Neptoticon
http://www.no-org.net/texts.php 


Rocketboom
http://www.rocketboom.com

Swap Meet. 
An exchange of tactical traditions and the politics they represent 
http://www.geuzen.org/swap/

Technorati. TAG: Videoblogs 
http://www.technorati.com/tag/Videoblogs

VLOGDIR.COM: The Videoblog Directory
http://vlogdir.com/

Videoblogs as collective documentary
http://www.infodesign.no/artikler/videoblogs_as_collective_documentary.pdf

Videoblogs.com
http://www.videoblogs.com/

Vogging Theory
http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/vlog/


On 6/2/05, rich white <counterwork@blueyonder.co.uk> 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
> http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/create/README001_originalityi
> ndigitalart.htm.
> 
> rich white
> www.counterwork.co.uk
> 
> 
> *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
> artifact?
> 
> *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
> world(s)?
> 
> *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.
> 
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>