NEWSgrist - where spin is art

@pourmecoffee: I Do Not Argue on the Internet (the fine print)

Image Via

 

Dear NEWSgrist readers,

I am an amused diehard follower of @POURMECOFFEE on twitter [also to be found on posterous].

I am re-blogging these fine print points for your dire amusement; also, it represents the sentiments of NEWSgrist to the letter. Even if *do* get tempted sometimes :-)

first posted on may 19, 2009 by pourmecoffee:

Fine Print / Canned Responses for @pourmecoffee

Below is the @pourmecoffee fine print and master inventory of canned responses for online dispute resolution. Numbers are for reference only.

1. It is solely your responsibility to find the hilarity. No humor explanations.
2. Please tell me more about how I might use my time and talent to perfectly match your unique sensibilities!
3. I accept my (moral) (intellectual) (physical) inferiority.
4. I acknowledge your (clever) (devastating) (hilarious) insult.
5. I applaud your attempt to improve upon my original idea (from an opposing ideological view) (with a slightly different twist).
6. I stipulate that you are a very big deal online.
7. I acknowledge your more (nuanced) (intellectually rigorous) (fancy-sounding) take on my short, humorous tweet.
8. I understand you are going to (block) (unfollow) (block/unfollow) me for righteous reasons.
9. I recognize the unfathomable injustice of my insignificant voice drowning out the singular wisdom of yours.
10. Thank you for praying for me.
11. I accept that my (candidate) (idea) (team) lost a contested outcome which you now assert as complete vindication of your superiority over me.
12. Thank you for the correction of a trivial (spelling) (grammatical) (typing) (semantic) error.
13. I ackowledge your extrapolation of what you personally find humorous into a blanket judgment of objective comedic value.
14. I confess to the exaggeration you identified. This technique is sometimes used in humor.
15. I acknowledge that you tweeted/blogged the same or similar thing before me. Time constraints make it difficult for me to double-check the entire Internet before publishing. I don't knowingly steal stuff ever, period. 
16. I accept your (delcaration of victory) (accusation of cowardice) over my refusal to (engage) (debate) (argue) with you.
17. I block based on @replies I don't like. It's not that I care who reads my tweets; I just have no patience for conflict junkies or vulgar/annoying messages polluting my stream. It's purely selfish: I don't like to be insulted. This is a personal account. You're not paying for it. Shocking: I don't like to get hassled, and block to avoid getting trolled. I'm not the guy to satisfy your need for epic battles or flame wars. There are plenty of people itching for a fight, just not me.
18. I don't reply a lot, but I only have so much Twitter time and believe the best contribution I can make is to attempt some smart, funny and/or interesting original content -- so that's what I try to do. I appreciate all retweets and mentions, but If you are into keeping score, demanding interaction, insisting on help for your cause, negotiating mentions and such -- this is probably not the feed for you. I want to focus my energy on trying to do something well: creating an original funny and/or interesting feed while being highly disciplined about the uncompensated time I spend online. If you don't like that, unfollow. I don't want to defend or discuss it. 
19. I sense my writing displeases you. I suggest not reading it.

RULE #1:

What to do if you are still unsatisfied: http://j.mp/pmcbye.

This post is merely an inventory of boilerplate conflict responses. Writing @pourmecoffee is fun.

 

SOPA: Where We're At (via @Techdirt)

Via Techdirt, 1/12/2012:

SOPA/PIPA: How Far We've Come; How Far We Need To Go

from the not-over-yet dept

On October 26th, I was flying from San Francisco to Washington DC to meet with folks in the House of Representatives to explain why they should be careful about making the same mistakes as the Senate with its anti-piracy bill, PROTECT IP (PIPA). We had been assured by Rep. Bob Goodlatte that Congress had heard the myriad complaints about PIPA and that the House version would take them into account. Instead, as the plane I was on flew over the Rocky Mountains, I started getting a flood of emails from people sending me the first release of the House's version of the bill, now known as SOPA (originally, the E-PARASITE bill, a name they dropped immediately when everyone started mocking it). Thanks to the wonderful innovation of WiFi-in-the-sky, I was able to sit in my cramped seat, read the bill, and write up my horrified post explaining just how much worse SOPA was than PIPA (an already disastrous bill).

The next day, October 27th, a small group of entrepreneurs, investors, innovators and creators spent the day meeting with members of Congress to express our concerns about the bill (which we'd just seen the afternoon before), as well as the whole approach to the crafting of both bills. The one thing we heard over and over again that day: "well this is the first time we've heard anything about this from the internet community."

I think it's safe to say that's no longer the case.

As I type this, I'm taking that same flight, preparing for my debate tomorrow over these bills against an MPAA representative and a US Chamber of Commerce representative, I'm sitting in that same cramped seat (actually, I think I'm on the opposite side of the plane), and thinking just how far we've come in just three and a half months.

Make no mistake: when the Senate introduced PIPA in May, it was widely assumed that this bill, and any companion bill would sail through Congress easily. Sure, some "tech-friendly" officials may express some concerns, but, as one lobbyist told me directly, "no one takes you people seriously anyway." It was this kind of hubris that we saw throughout the year with these bills. We were told repeatedly to shut up and take it, because the bills were going to pass, Obama would sign them, and piracy would magically disappear.

Instead, a funny thing happened on the way to the death of the internet: the internet woke up. While folks online may be political, it's not often that they truly get activated over internet-related issues. But in an era of bottom-up movements facilitated online, the timing was absolutely right for the massive groundswell of support from all corners of the internet to suddenly speak out in near unison to say of these bills: DO NOT WANT.

Still more to do:

At this point, it's impossible to deny that we, as a group, have had an impact. Contrary to the claims of some of the bill's supporters, we showed that this isn't just a "Google" issue. This is an internet issue. And we care about the internet and we care about innovation, and we're not going to take it lightly when elected officials, who admit they don't understand the technology, come along to say they're going to mess with it, just because their biggest campaign donors don't want to adapt to these wonderful new innovations.

But, not everyone in Congress has an understanding of what's happening online. Even with Reps. and Senators backing away from the bills, and asking leadership to slow things down... and even with Rep. Smith and Senator Leahy trying to "delay" the DNS implementation in order to get the bills passed... some in Congress still think that the outcry is minor or limited or that it's all Google.

That's why Harry Reid intends to move forward with the bill, pretending that the complaints only come from Google and Facebook... and that they're minor and easily fixed with a couple of amendments. I believe he's misjudged the internet, just as many others in Congress have misjudged the internet over the last few months. The people speaking out are not just "Google and Facebook," and they're not just speaking out for the hell of it. They're seriously pissed off at Congress for even thinking of going down this path in the first place, and simply killing the bills is unlikely to get the people online back on their side.

But there's a bigger point in the "more to do" section of this post. This isn't about one bill. This isn't about one issue. This is about an entire process. This is about the public -- not the big corporations -- finally saying "enough is enough" and making Congress recognize that crony capitalism, where subsidies and protectionism are doled out willy nilly to favorite campaign contributors, is not acceptable to the people they're supposed to represent.

This is about recognizing that the internet and the massive amount new innovation and services -- and the worldwide ability to communicate with others -- is a game changing innovation for everyone. And we're going to work damn hard to make sure that it remains open and free.

But, to do that right, this is going to take much more than stopping one bill. This is going to take prolonged effort. This is going to take an ongoing effort to make it clear that no elected official can ever again feel comfortable bragging that they don't understand the internet, as they seek to regulate it. This is about making it 100% crystal clear to those who seek to clamp down on the true engine of free expression -- the internet -- that we, the people, aren't going to be fooled with bogus claims and bogus stats in an effort to limit this wonderful platform.

This isn't over yet -- not by a long shot. But just look at how far we've come in just three and a half months, and think what we'll do in the next few months -- and years -- ahead. These bills tried to kill the "internet as we know it." But, in some ways, these bills helped birth a new kind of internet: one that doesn't let Congress screw it up without taking action.

Stop SOPA Infographic

Via:

http://sopacountdown.com/

It's out! The 25th anniversary edition of M/E/A/N/I/N/G!

This summer, painters Mira Schor and Susan Bee invited me to contribute an essay to the 25th anniversary edition of M/E/A/N/I/N/G: A Journal of Contemporary Art Issues. Contributors were asked to choose between two themes, and to include images with our short texts. My piece, Analogue Natives, considers that dwindling group of people born before the advent of digital culture, who embrace it while remaining attached to older technologies....

From the subscription flyer for issue No. 1.

 

M/E/A/N/I/N/G
25th Anniversary Edition

The editors of M/E/A/N/I/N/G are proud to announce the 25th anniversary issue of our journal. This issue is available online and as a PDF.

http://writing.upenn.edu/epc/meaning/05/


This is an unusual moment of global economic crisis, failure of capitalism and of progressive political movements, a moment of political impasse, and of generational shift, following upon a series of traumatic political events and a decade of war. Methods of communication have changed since we began our project 25 years ago and concepts of privacy and individuality seem to be in a process of radical transformation.
 
Our 25th anniversary issue centers around two themes: the impact of public trauma on art and art critical practice, and the nature of privacy for the artist or critic working in the age of social networking and global spectacle.

The first issue of M/E/A/N/I/N/G: A Journal of Contemporary Art Issues, was published in December 1986. We published 20 issues biannually over ten years. In 2000, M/E/A/N/I/N/G: An Anthology of Artists’ Writings, Theory, and Criticism was published by Duke University Press. In 2002 we began to publish M/E/A/N/I/N/G Online and have published four previous online issues. The M/E/A/N/I/N/G archive from 1986 to 2002 is in the collection of the Beinecke Library at Yale University.
 
To address our themes in this online issue, we invited a wide spectrum of artists, art historians, and poets, some who had written for our journal before and many new artists and writers whose work we have encountered in recent years. We are proud to continue our commitment to maintaining an open, non-profit space for independent writing about art.
 
We are honored to publish the responses we have received, people really wrote what they wanted, what they felt, each very individually, many clearly inspired and energized by the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began September 17th in Lower Manhattan and has rapidly sent a wave of optimism around the world.
 
 
Susan Bee and Mira Schor
New York City, November 18 2011

 

The contributors list is formidable--here are links to their individual essays, which also include images of their art work (Thanks to Sharon Butler for the formatting!):

Suzanne Anker

Eleanor Antin

Susan Bee

Bill Berkson

Charles Bernstein

Nayland Blake

Anney Bonney

Jackie Brookner

Joyce Burstein

Sharon L. Butler

Tom Butter

Anna Chave

Daryl Chin

Jennifer Coates

Maureen Connor

Patricia Cronin

Jennifer Dalton

G. Roger Denson

Dubravka Djurić

Bailey Doogan

Johanna Drucker

Noah Fischer

Hermine Ford

Joe Fyfe

Joy Garnett

Andrea Geyer

Vanalyne Green

Mimi Gross

Julie Harrison

Eleanor Heartney

Susanna Heller

David Humphrey

Julia Jacquette

Amelia Jones

Shirley Kaneda

Vincent Katz

Joyce Kozloff

Rachel Levitsky

Ellen K. Levy

Ligorano/Reese

Greg Lindquist

Judith Linhares

Mary Lucier

Lenore Malen

Ann McCoy

Ann Messner

Robin Mitchell

Erik Moskowitz and Amanda Trager

Beverly Naidus

Joseph Nechvatal

Craig Olson

Our Literal Speed

Alix Pearlstein

Sheila Pepe

Dushko Petrovich

Nick Piombino

William Powhida

Nancy Princenthal

Melissa Ragona and Abigail Child

Hilary Robinson

Kara L. Rooney

Bradley Rubenstein

Raphael Rubinstein

Caitlin Rueter and Suzanne Stroebe

Carolee Schneemann

Mira Schor

Francie Shaw

Alexandria Smith

Buzz Spector

Misko Šuvaković

Jeremy Sigler

Anne Swartz

Aldrin Valdez

Marjorie Vecchio

Roger White

Daniel Wiener

Faith Wilding

Tom Winchester

NOTE: The 2000 anthology published by Duke University Press is now available in Kindle and other e-book formats.

Lost Library in 'Bibliomania' @ the Visual Arts Center of NJ

Image: Joy Garnett: Lost Library (2011)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bibliomania

Curated by: Mary Birmingham

Visual Arts Center of New Jersey
68 Elm Street
Summit, NJ 07901 MAP

October 7th - December 11th

Opening reception: 
October 14th 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

ARTISTS
Richard Baker
Brandon Lattu
Thomas Broadbent
Björn Meyer-Ebrecht
Ryan Brown
Abelardo Morell
Joy Garnett
Mickey Smith
Nina Katchadourian
Jude Tallichet

Bibliomania examines the myriad ways contemporary artists feature books as the subject of their art.  A “book” used to be defined as a number of printed or written pages bound together along one edge, protected by covers.  Today, the concept of the book continues to evolve and expand, most notably in the direction of digital media. 

Interestingly, many contemporary artists are making art about books—photographing them, arranging them, drawing and painting them, dissecting them and making sculptural facsimiles of them—always finding various ways to address the book as subject matter for their work.   Ironically, while the content of books becomes increasingly more accessible with the advent of electronic readers e-books and digitized books, artists seem to be paying more attention to the book as an object.

Why, at this moment in time, are some artists focusing their attention on the good-old-fashioned bound volume?  Does this stem from a growing anxiety over the possible obsolescence of books?  Are books becoming cultural artifacts, and are artists treating them as relics, and perhaps even fetishizing them?  Whatever the motivation, many artists are making provocative works that challenge viewers to consider the roles and meaning of the book in the digital age.