Another day sick, Another day browsing.

I came across this exhibition idea I had that I haven't thought about for a while. I shared it in the comments of the (now abandoned) group blog we set up for the MA collaborative project over a year ago now:

I’ve had this fantasy exhibition in mind for a little while now: a small gallery packed with ceramic objects on white plinths – so close together that when viewers come to maneuver through the gallery they can’t help but brush up against, and ultimately knock over, the unstable and highly breakable objects. There would be no security to “prevent” people from touching things, and big bags would be more than welcome within the space. The only problem I can see, though (beyond the fact that people would catch on to the “joke” if the exhibition went on for more than a day), would be with health and safety.

I'm sure there could be a really elaborate rational about boundaries, expectations and the preciousness of art, but I just thought it was funny.

Was going to dump this yesterday but got bored doing it. Finished it today. It was maybe worth the effort.

Dog tunnel gif dumped by AGT528, Sonja gif from the internet.

More found modern art.

http://www.sheetmetal.co.nz/

Wheel Composition

(from http://www.tomcat521.com/tomcat/mxz/nine/72_9.htm)

Broccoli Revisited

Hybrid Moments (2010)

Hybrid Moments by Eilis on Mouse Safari

Home videos of cats as paintings, a comparative visual essay.

Revisiting the "sub-amateur"

Tom Moody made a few comments after my post on the sub-amateur where he gets a bit more into the actual nitty gritty of what it means to introduce and apply a term like "sub-amateur" (and doing so across disciplines, which doesn't always work). The term is indeed somewhat unnecessary — especially with net art where the internet acts not only as inspiration, medium and platform, but also as distributor and equalizer — and, as Moody pointed out, it does confuse (or at least needlessly complicate) the simplification brought about by Duncan Alexander's text.

I have to admit, as someone who floats along the surface, I'm often misinterpreting and getting confused on the topic, which isn't helped by my tendency to re-appropriate ideas and terms in ways that work for me. "Sub-amateur" got me excited because that's where I saw myself - as somebody who isn't an artist and who doesn't want to be taken seriously, but has a bit of a background and just wants to explore, discover and maybe even create.

Basically, net art is my hobby, and I get the impression that this is true for a lot of people (though I'm sure nobody would snub a gallery or group exhibition invite), and though we are not "serious" (chilling for the sake of chilling), we do still engage, develop interesting ideas and, in turn, produce quite a lot of stuff. It could be therefore reasonable to be considered as a "category" (maybe a sub-category of the amateur?) within the net art "scene." Because, although the work might not be produced as "serious work," it is still worth looking at and at times even contemplating seriously. However, because it was never really intended to be a "work of art" per se, you will find a different, perhaps more casual (I'm tempted to say disinterested, but the term is too loaded to throw around so, erm, casually), approach to subject matter. What that different "attitude" or approach is, I have no idea, and maybe I'm needlessly picking at the fly shit, but that's only because I'm in no way qualified to get into it.