-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Find below a modded version of part of the discussion raging on an alternate list regarding the "New Aesthetic". Enjoy [or don't].<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>In an effort to keep this manageable [lump me into one of your keeerazzzy glitch/net.art/web-point-<div>
infinity/relational
& new aesthetically-defined "artistic" categories if you will]
here's some [non-random + IMO relevant but not necessarily cohesive]
points:<br>
<br>1. I've only skimmed the Bruce Sterling essays [both of them] and don't
have an in-depth overview of the term "New Aesthetic" [henceforth now to
be known as "Phrase That Will Not Be Named" in an effort to reduce the
ridiculous amount of verification we are bubble-developing around it].
So there.<br>
<br>2. My flickering attention-focus [hullo, continuous partial attn
syndrome] has honed in on this particular attempt at avant-garde
labelling because of how it perpetuates the tradition of "name the new
art phase in order to perform/get x" [whether x = ego
aggrandisement/monetary wealth/extend an individuals prosperity>cred
value]. To employ a relevant phrase: it just smells wrong. And
by smelling wrong I'm in no way referring to Bridle or his content [I have been rss_internalising his tumblr for some time now =
it rawks: though I had no idea of his name until this whole labelling
blerghness blew up] or any other glitch-luvin' practitioners or creative
types. After all, I'm one of them.<br>
<br>3. My seeming lack of attention to research regarding the "Phrase
That Will Not Be Named", or lack of "deep (articulated) thought"
regarding the issue isn't indicative of a negative outlook on "the
glitch". Nor is it due to lack of engagement with the actual
material/pulsing creative output that's [possibly, hopefully]
superseding many flattened contemporary "art scenes" [read: institutions
as opposed to practices]. My lack of focused attention is due to the
fact that *i'm_actually_living_the_aesthetic_in_question* + have
been for years [New? bah!]. The life of a "Phrase That Will Not Be
Named" advocate *requires* continuous partial attention: it *requires* a
profound adherence to deriving substantiated [yet seemingly ephemeral]
meaning from "the now" [ie connective novelty formation, expressive +
anonymous appropriation devoid of ego/exclusive monetisation, the
continuous fact of networked/communication immediacy/recursion, a
burgeoning maker/hacktivist practice-aesthetic, the growing irrelevancy
of standardised content/institutionalised values + associated
comprehension loadings]. Dragging an antiquated, faux-trendoid label and
slapping it over set of practices that have been in operation for as
long as directed digital communication/tech platforms have coalesced =
bad whiff, not to mention downright offensive. It's the problem of
seeking to stuff uncategorised, non-art-defined forms into format [+
vice versa], of assigning crusty paradigms/terms to output [like Bridle +
his tumblr] that's being subsumed into a discourse designed to
pinpoint/catalogue/perpetuate. Drawing a [restrictive labelling] box around a set of expression[s] that
exist as working practices seems like inverse encouragement: this
disappointing need to contextualise>label>scene-create>institutionalise>monetise = sad[panda making. Google "sad panda" if you don't get the reference].<br>
<br>4. Content curation isn't art. The urge to perform it may be similar
to what drives artists to produce: in many cases, content curation is a
ceaseless search for connection through firehosed content
streams/"novelty" verification that may just ellipse the need for
art/culture classifications. Is it possible to conceptualise a world
where the need to frame practice/process/product through cultural or
artistic filters is largely obsolete? [<a href="http://reddit.com/" target="_blank">reddit.com</a> + <a href="http://4chan.org/" target="_blank">4chan.org</a> + <a href="http://9gag.com/" target="_blank">9gag.com</a> + <a href="http://tumblr.com/" target="_blank">tumblr.com</a> = giving it a decent go.]<br>
<br>5. Appropriating + remixing graphic markers/standards from
marginalised or "other-fied" disciplines/decades does not a new genre/paradigm
make, especially when begging to be [or deliberately engineered to be]
monetised by a system and/or individuals determined to emergent-capture
[yes, this includes institutionally sanctioned galleries + alternative
galleries + oldschool curators + newskool aggregators +
conference-merry-go-rounders + theorists + panels + karma-seeking
discourse boffins]. Codify, hipsterise + aggrandise at your leisure,
but be prepared for watered-down, digestible, bastardised versions of
worthwhile social + expressive currencies.<br>
<br>6. And so it goes. <br>
<br>7. This too will pass.<br><br><br>[Mostly-too-large-2-chew]Chunks,<br>Mez/@netwurker<div><div><br></div></div></div>