maxnmherman at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 9 23:38:18 CET 2020
Conversation-worthy links as always!
Regarding the story about Yale changing their intro to art history course, it makes sense to me. There's just no substance left for defending this particular version of flat-earth cosmology, so why bother? Even on its own terms it is dismantling itself and was never meant to become what we've made it into. In fact, what we've made it into by teaching it the way we have, rendering it almost useless by forcing it to do what it was never meant to do, has already been tantamount to abolishing it!
Art history was always meant to be about networks and time but in our myopia we've manufactured it into a lot of marketing gobbledygook. Frankly I think it is long overdue for the academic liberal arts at the intro levels to reframe themselves in the context of Network Studies -- network biology, systems chemistry, network neuroscience, art, philosophy, psychology, physics, economics, computer science, every field. Far from undermining or eroding individual experience, identity, and contribution, these interconnective phenomena exponentially increase individuality in a fine fabric of mutually reinforcing guarantees.
One example of the Yale dilemma is the Mona Lisa. Just look at the inane way it is currently used to funnel massive tourist traffic. Does this help in any way conceivable to distribute the painting's aesthetic or informational content? To the contrary. It makes much more sense on every level, in terms of every discipline implied by the painting or related to it, what Leonardo meant by it and how it can still matter, and in terms of its immediate visual impact, if you view it in context with dancing Shiva and various henges, the I Ching, Adinkra symbols, etc.
The original meaning of the Mona Lisa was to bring in diversity, immediate experience, and the great fabric of art, science, and nature, because prescriptive orthodoxy is stagnant and medically unsound. Why not let the painting continue its work? The value of things is never meant to be exclusive -- that is overspecialization in evolutionary terms -- synergy and symbiosis are always vastly more resilient.
I wonder if the Sadie Plant link on technology (art and science) as weaving might corroborate that those are mapped to ML's garment via the bridge, rivers, cognitive-historical cycles, etc.? According to some traditions clothing was literally the first technology. 🙂
From: NetBehaviour <netbehaviour-bounces at lists.netbehaviour.org> on behalf of Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 2:18 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org>
Subject: [NetBehaviour] Links
"Did Duchamp really steal Elsa’s urinal?" -
"The missing third client: how artists are exploring radical economies" -
"In “Recoding CripTech,” Artists Highlight the Vital Role of Hacking in
Disability Culture" -
"A Lost Cyber Utopia: What Happened to the Soviet Internet?" -
"Deaf VRChat players are inventing their own sign language" -
"How Explaining Copyright Broke the YouTube Copyright System" -
"Can someone copyright every possible melody?" -
Solving the Yeezy problem with tokens -
More complex "crypto art" -
Tokenized poetry -
"Why street art in Miami is being tokenized on Bitcoin" -
"Is art history becoming too woke?" -
"The Age of Instagram Face" -
"On Sadie Plant's Weaving Methodology" -
"Landmark Computer Science Proof Cascades Through Physics and Math" -
"The Crop Software Behind Your Daily Cup of Coffee" -
"To actually feel authentic, you might have to betray your true nature" -
"How to make money on digital art" -
Mortgages for virtual property -
"Devil’s Dictionary of Programming" -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour