<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Post Internet &#187; paintfx</title>
	<atom:link href="http://122909a.com.rhizome.org/?cat=3&#038;feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://122909a.com.rhizome.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2019 11:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title></title>
		<link>https://122909a.com.rhizome.org/?p=11</link>
		<comments>https://122909a.com.rhizome.org/?p=11#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paintfx]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paint fx]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[painting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://122909a.com.rhizome.org/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Painting
1.
Painting is a meme.
What is a meme?
Meme is a term coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene to  refer to units of cultural data which act like genes–replicating,  spreading, and mutating in response to the selective demands of the  culture in which they develop.  Many things count as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p>Painting</p>
<p>1.</p>
<p>Painting is a meme.</p>
<p>What is a meme?</p>
<p><em>Meme</em> is a term coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book <em>The Selfish Gene </em>to  refer to units of cultural data which act like genes–replicating,  spreading, and mutating in response to the selective demands of the  culture in which they develop.  Many things count as memes–political  slogans, film dialogue, emergent philosophical perspectives,  technological breakthroughs, advertising brands, economic principals,  fashion trends, viral YouTube videos, the very idea of a meme itself,   the list could go on.  What matters is that it is an idea which has the  power to replicate itself from one mind to another to another and  sustain itself through a stretch of cultural time.</p>
<p>So, if one is to take the history of painting as a meme spreading  from mind to mind through its history—from cave paintings to Piero della  Francesca to Thomas Gainsborough to Nancy Spero and beyond—each  iteration in the history of the meme mutating itself in response to its  own context—then what would it mean to extend the painting meme into the  context of digital computer networks?  That is, assuming that painting  did not, in fact, die sometime in the early 1980s, what would it mean to  respond to the continually evolving painting meme in the context of  ubiquitous computing in 2010?  How would the painting meme be translated  when a painting is still an object, but an object dispersed through the  network as a mutable digital photograph, as well?  This is not to say  that all relevant painting must take this question of the network into  consideration, but that it could be a pressing and fruitful intellectual  question for at least some painters.</p>
<p>One way to think through an answer to this question is provided in the art historian David Joselit’s recent <em>October </em>essay  “Painting Beside Itself.”  In this essay, Joselit suggests that recent  painters such as Julia Koether, Stephen Prina, and Wade Guyton have  developed practices which allegorize their objects’ own “transitivity”  or continuous in-between-ness as they shuttle from one node of the  network to another—from object, to photograph of object, to source  material for another artist’s appropriation and re-circulation, and back  again, in an ongoing circulation.  Works of art—here—are never situated  in a static context; rather they are situated in continuous state of <em>passage </em>between contexts in a broader network of multiple contexts.</p>
<p>An alternative response to the question of the painting meme’s life  in the network is being developed by young artists working on or around  the Internet.  For these artists:</p>
<p>1. The computer screen is the primary surface on which painting will  be viewed and, because of this, a new suite of phenomenological effects  occuring between painting and viewer are opened for exploration.</p>
<p>2.  The rate of speed at which paintings travel is atrophied when  uploaded directly to computer networks and this increase in speed allows  one to, then, view the flow of painting in time.</p>
<p>In what follows, I’ll say a few more words about the relationship  between painting and the computer, describe a recent trajectory of the  painting meme amongst a group of Internet artists, and, then, focus, in  particular, on the work of the PAINT FX collective.</p>
<p>2.</p>
<p>It’s possible that an “actual” Abstract Expressionist painting  produced in the 1940s and a “fake” Abstract Expressionist painting  created through the application of digital effects in a piece of  software could be effectively indistinguishable when viewed through the  light of the computer screen.  With this in mind, some painters have  shifted their concerns from those native to the paradigm of the white  cube to, instead, those native to the paradigm of the computer  screen.  This shift has repercussions, though.  For example, the  phenomenological effects of painting shift from the materiality of paint  on canvas to the light spilling from a computer screen.  This bias  towards the surface of the screen, then, nudges artists towards  exploring different types of bodily shock effects.  The relationship of  the body to the computer screen after all is different than that of the  body to the physical painting in space–computers are open circuits in  which cybernetic feedback relationships between computer databases and  users allow users to actively shape the mediascape they inhabit.  These  cybernetic relationships create a desire for clicking, scrolling, and  following—dynamic motion premised on sifting through an accumulation of  data rather than gazing for very long at a single pattern of light.  The  Internet painter, then, begins to think in terms of multiplicity, the  aesthetics of the surfeit, and, crucially, a strong temporal element  which transforms painting into a variation on performance art.   Furthermore, jpegs, as digital files, are mutable, meaning that they can  be radically transformed instantaneously at the level of code.  If one  wants to merely touch up a single brush stroke or slap a picture of a  sea shell on the top layer of the painting, the technology is agnostic  in regard to the amount of variation each of these types of alterations  suggests.  This mutability means that once it is part of the network,  other artists and non-artists, as well, are given free reign to  appropriate the image and alter it themselves, re-disseminating the  mutated image through alleyways of the network which the painting’s  original creator could not anticipate.  In other words, paintings here  are a network of versions; a stream of evolving memes.</p>
<p>3.</p>
<p>The meeting of painting and the computer is not new.  MS Paint, for  example, has long been mined for painting effects.  In the context of  the Internet, the artist Tom Moody (a former “actual” painter) has built  an important practice at the interface of painting and the computer  screen which has evolved into making animated gifs and placing them on  his own blog and sites like dump.fm.  This is not meant to be an  authoritative history, though, so I’ll focus on the life of one strain  of the painting meme as I’ve witnessed it over the past two or three  years.</p>
<p>I first began to notice artists working on painting at the tail end  of the surf club phenomenon.  Artists like Will Simpson, Thomas  Galloway, and Travess Smalley on the surf club Loshadka, for example,  were moving away from appropriated content derived from Internet surfing  and towards original content created in painting software programs.</p>
<p>Around this time, the artist Charles Broskoski began increasingly  focusing his work away from conceptual art pieces to a painting practice  premised on volume, performativity, and innovations in presentation  which were native to the computer screen.  The artist Harm van den  Dorpel was working on a similar project, in which he straddled the  borders between a computer model of a work and a work in physical space  and allowed that very tension to become illuminated <em>as</em> the  work.  Along the way, he raised an interesting set of questions  regarding artistic deskilling and the borders between hand-made effects  and automated effects.  In short, the “hand of the artist” was, on the  Internet of all places, becoming an interesting area to explore.  Soon  enough, there seemed to be an internal logic and momentum to this  digital painting meme and the Supercentral II surf club and  Poster  Company by Travess Smalley and Max Pitegoff, pushed it further,  actualizing what was in the air.  A slightly younger generation of  artists working on the tumblr platform and the emergence of a body of  critical reflection by artists such as Ry David Bradley on his PAINTED,  ETC blog continued to sustain the evolution of the meme, polishing  certain presentational elements and building a community of people  interested in these ideas.  Painting in the network was about fast-paced  collective dialogue and mind-bending abstractions.  It was also about <em>painting</em>.   The imagery of these works are often collisions between digital  gestures and painterly gestures, but, generally speaking, the concern is  with the tradition of painting–pre-Internet–as opposed to the animated  gif scene whose roughly concurrent rise (in the net art context) posed  as a nice counterpoint to the painting meme.</p>
<p>If one was watching, one could view the evolution of the meme as it  started in a sort of experimental phase, gained some steam, developed a  community, and achieved some sort of level of self-consciousness about  itself.  The meme here takes on its own form of life which one can watch  live on the Internet.</p>
<p>4.</p>
<p>Recently, the PAINT FX collective composed of Parker Ito, Jon Rafman,  Micah Schippa, Tabor Robak, and John Transue, have developed a new  mutation of the painting meme.  Looking closely at what had been  accomplished in the work mentioned above and also ideas at the  intersection of photography, sculpture, and performance which the  Jogging collective (Brad Troemel and Lauren Christiansen) was working  on, PAINT FX designed an environment to both experiment with  performative voices as painters and develop micro-versions of the  painting meme in one ongoing stream of paintings.</p>
<p>Although the paintings are not explicitly associated with particular  artists (there’s no supplementary text on the site, at all), one can  view unique voices develop as each painter builds a vocabulary of  specific paint effects he’s working with.  One views both the  development of these effects and the exploration of their usage through  these unique voices.  Additionally, one views both the artists engaged  dialogue with the other members of Paint FX collective and the flows of  specific memes threading in and out of the broader image stream.</p>
<p>There are, to date, just under three hundred paintings posted on the  collective’s very lengthy single web page–paintfx.biz.  One can  experience this body of work in multiple ways.  There is this  performative element—a fast paced call and response game in which the  members of PAINT FX evolve memes.  There is also the trace of this  performance which exists as a totally different type of effect.  The  artists chose to not divide their archive up into multiple pages which  one would have to click through, but instead as one very long scroll.   What this choice nudges the viewer to do is consider the flow of images  as an ongoing development—a long poem, say.  This effect, though, is  open to further versioning in relation to the type of device one uses.   So, for instance, scrolling through Paint FX on an iPhone is going to be  a different type of effect than scrolling through it on a flat screen  computer monitor in the comfort of one’s living room.  PAINT FX, though,  has created a platform robust enough to be dynamically experienced in a  multitude of viewing contexts.</p>
<p>There are also other variations in how the work will be experienced  which are dependent on the user’s context.  Let’s say that one chooses  to let the entire page download and start at the earliest painting,  scrolling up to the most recent.  One could, on the one hand, just hold  the scroll button down and watch the paintings zoom by like objects  outside the windows of a moving car.  The style of the paintings and  their sequencing on the page are instantaneously visible enough to  provide an ongoing series of shock effects which increase as one  continues to ride out the scroll (which lasts for several minutes bottom  to top).  By rapidly scrolling through this way, one gets a broad  overview of the way the voices of the artists, the various vocabularies  of painting effects, and various bursts of smaller memes each develop.   On the other hand, though, one could also go through and carefully  consider each painting.  This, too, can be effective as the paintings  are not merely eye candy.  They are generally each labored over and  carefully considered from multiple points of view before they are  uploaded.  Also, oftentimes, the phenomenological effect of looking at a  static image on the site for a more extended point of time can be  powerful.  Through the practical experience of simply looking carefully  and observing their own reaction to consuming images on computers, these  artists have become discriminating in relation to the types of effects  possible through the light of the screen.  In turn, they have developed  unique skills for crafting particularly optically-charged images.</p>
<p>Finally, the project is also a robust space  for painting memes to  accelerate and disseminate in the most efficient possible modes.  On  PAINT FX, the viewer watches the lifeform of memes develop in a sort of  real time.  On the one hand, this is frustrating because one can’t hold  out much hope for an individual painting to maintain a level of  qualitative power after a few days and weeks as it becomes swallowed up  in the flow of the entire project.  On the other hand, if one refocuses  the way they view the project in terms of following this flow, new  categories of aesthetic experience are opened up.</p>
<p>5.</p>
<p>On the Internet, the meme of painting has developed ways in which to  increase the efficiency and acceleration of the dispersal of its own  versions.  Keywords here are “speed” and “immediacy.”  A question which  the Internet hasn’t effectively explored as of yet, though, is related  to the ethics<em> </em>of this acceleration.  Now that one can view  painting in motion, a question and a way to perhaps further evolve the  meme may revolve around where this acceleration is headed and why.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://122909a.com.rhizome.org/?feed=rss2&amp;p=11</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
