[...so much for my short-handed assessment of this....I'm wading in with
both (opinionated) txt_feet now....]
In an effort to keep this reply manageable [lump me into one of your
keeerazzzy glitch/net.art/web-point-infinity/relational & new
aesthetically-defined "artistic" categories if you will] here's some
[non-random + IMO relevant but not necessarily cohesive] points:
1. I've only skimmed the Bruce Sterling essays [both of them], haven't
comprehensively scanned every reply to this thread, 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.
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 idiomatic phrase:
it just smells wrong. And by smelling wrong I'm in no way referring to
Bridle or his content [I, like Honor, 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.
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.This does not seem to encourage what
Honor/Michael state here: "Michael, I think you're right: "The best work
about this has not yet been made" [to quote Honor quoting Michael]. 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].
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? [reddit.com + 4chan.org + 9gag.com + tumblr.com = giving
it a decent go.]
5. Appropriating + remixing graphic markers/standards from marginalised or
"other-fied" disciplines/decades does not a new genre 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 etc]. Codify, hipsterise +
aggrandise at your leisure, but be prepared for watered-down, digestible,
bastardised versions of worthwhile social + expressive currencies.
6. And so it goes.
7. This too will pass.
Synthetic Environment Strategist>
Game[r + ] Theorist.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:24 AM, honor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> Thanks Saul, for your below post, which was - I think - a welcome
> to the conversation thus far.
> I've been following James Bridle's New Aesthetic Tumblr
> (http://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com/) since last year, and I "listened in",
> from a
> distance to the SXSW panel. Like most of you, I have read Bruce
> Sterling's two
> essays on the topic, and many of the other articles and thought-pieces too,
> most of which focus more on what Sterling wants The New Aesthetic to be,
> on Bridle's actual project.