Hi, if I just started following you and you’re trying to figure out if I’m a bot or not: I’m not. I just use @aristoteliancomplacency for everything other than Artist Stuff™ now and haven’t done any Artist Stuff in a long while. One day.
The Classicist
Data Weave
Kickstarter from @notendo to make high quality woven textile garments with digital abstraction based on digital files:
Data Weave continues work I began in 2001 that reimagines contemporary digital culture through textile arts to create a continuum of traditional and modern art forms and technologies. Applying my process of color encoding binary data to textiles expands fiber art traditions and addresses current preservation challenges faced by digital media.
… Data Weave is a marriage of art forms to the extent that the Jacquard loom’s use of punch cards to weave intricate motifs inspired the use of punch cards for saving and executing programs in early computing. Data Weave extends traditions of embedding symbols in textiles to communicate information by applying my practice of color coding binaries to weaving. This process of encoding data with color produces intricately detailed, cascading motifs that are meant to be woven pixel to stitch. Each pixel represents bits of data showing how weaving can also be understood as pixel art. Furthermore, Data Weave simultaneously illustrates an alternate way of data preservation and a materialization of digital ephemera by tangibly elucidating data structures with color.
(Source: kickstarter.com, via tonystarksanxieties)
…that’s ingenious.
So, Octavia Butler willed her “papers” to the Huntington. But she lived past the time of email correspondence, so the exhibit contained some email printouts. Which made me wonder, these days if a notable person wills their “papers” somewhere, does that include email correspondence and computer drafts of speeches or manuscripts? How is all that stuff retrieved? What about old computers that are no longer in use?
Please, reblog this guys… I want to reach some librarians on this because I’m super curious.
@theclassicistblog any insight or know anyone who would know?
If the estate is willing certain emails would probably be handed over no problem, but this is something that could easily be taken to court if the family of the deceased doesn’t want documents/emails/texts/chats handed over (or Facebook profile posts, even). Platforms like Facebook store chats forever so the content should technically be accessible if the estate allows it.
computer drafts of speeches are probably the thing it would be hardest to argue aren’t comparable to ‘papers’, which as a term generally includes letters, too. But in the past, that wouldn’t include all letters. It wouldn’t include receipts, spam, bills, etc. So the estate might dispute that someone should have access to emails because it contains all of that information as well, and then the issue becomes whether it’s reasonable to expect someone to spend all that time sifting through the junk and emails (password resets, is another one) that you wouldn’t want someone else to be able to access.
Of course, some people do actually delete their receipt and password reset emails, and others delete all their emails after a certain amount of time - though whether they’re truly deleted might depend on the platform, and if they keep them that again would probably lead to legal challenges in court.
If it’s old computers that are no longer in use the biggest question will be whether it’s still possible to access them. They might have the old computer in their attic, or they might have disposed of it.
Personally I’d mean for Skype chats, Evernote documents and other docs on my computer to be handed over, too. But it’s likely that in future people will start being more specific about what documents they intend to be handed over. From a historian perspective this kind of thing both excites me and fills me with dread. There’s gonna be some interacting stuff in there that I’d love to get access to. But oh my god is there going to be so much more shit to sift through.I’ll poke around w/ other people & historians I know and get their opinions on it.
(via inthroughthesunroof)
The city artist is ready. The invitation to color your feelings about your home town is extended to all the citizens.
And yes that is the layout of the Hamina city centre. The famed circular grid with city hall in the middle.
Fragile male artist adds crappy statue of urinating dog to fearless girl, unintentionally giving the best example he could of why Fearless Girl is so important.
Men just can’t cope with a girl encroaching in their space.
Oh, but it’s nothing to do with feminism! Argues white man, as he mansplains feminism to actual feminists. It’s just “corporate nonsense!”
Corporations create index to improve representation of women in their businesses and white male dismisses it as “corporate nonsense”. Curiously doesn’t have a problem with the Raging Bull statue. HOW ODD.
let 2017 be the year we stop trying to force historical societies to conform to modern standards of progressive thought
Sure, as long as that doesn’t look the same as the age-old white male tradition of, “look we all know aristotle was wrong about women so can we just move on and not talk about it anymore.”
Or the age-old white male tradition of “well we’re sexist, and we’re just going to assume all Ancient Greek texts are sexist too, and therefore assume sexist readings of these texts to the exclusion of all others.”
Oh for fucks sake, most of the ancient Greek texts were fucking sexist.
Persephone was a rape victim, get the fuck over it.
…
I mean, I literally teach classes explaining exactly that, carefully going through the Hymn to Demeter with students and discussing how it’s rape, and have argued that repeatedly on tumblr too… but uh? Thanks for randomly bringing Persephone into this and assuming for some reason that i hold the opposite view…
And yes, lots of Ancient Greek texts are sexist. Hesiod is very very sexist. Aristotle is very very sexist. But if you want to dismiss Homer, Aeschylus and Euripides as just sexist end of story, then we’re going to disagree. And Ovid was most definitely more feminist that many of the white male scholars who’ve read him in the past (and some contemporary scholars too, unfortunately).
But you make a compelling argument.
seriously, the guy has a point | gregfallis.com
NO. HE. DOESNT.
The bull had a specific meaning when it was made, but it was foolish to think that that meanings would remain static over time. The times changed, the meaning of the bull changed. And frankly, if he wanted a symbol that represented peace and freedom, and -all- Americans, he really fucked up in his choice. Long before his sculpture, the bull has been associated with masculinity, violence and rape. Maybe he needed to think more carefully about what symbol he was using. But y'know. Male artist. What does he care what a bull might say in a gendered environment? What he’s having a hissy fit about now is not even so much someone changing the meaning of his art, but pointing out THE FLAW IT ALWAYS HAD in not being a very universal symbol. But I guess it’s easier to claim that someone else is changing the meaning of your work to make it sexist, rather than admitting you fucked up.
As a fellow artist, he’s a total fool for thinking he can control the reception of his work. Yes, it sucks for him that it now has a negative meaning, but let’s be honest: it had that before Fearless Girl was installed, and there IS a gross hypocrisy in a man who installed a statue without permission, without caring about how it would interact with the environment around it, now wanting another piece of art removed because he doesn’t like it and no one asked him first.
Secondly, it’s bogus to claim that it’s wrong or problematic for Fearless Girl derives it’s meaning and power only from the bull: it’s called site-specific, and the bull is site-specific too. It’s not a point against FG that it’s a piece that interacts with its environment and another piece of art in it - all art does, whether the artist intends it or not. No art exists in isolation, it all responds to other pieces. Would the bull be anything other than a bull anywhere else? But apparently that’s not a question we should consider for the bull, just for FG. And the fact that the author can’t think of any other context in which the girl would still be “fearless” really shows his bias. Stick her in front of the White House, Trump Tower or Mar-A-Lago and tell me she doesn’t still deserve the title “fearless”.
So all of those arguments against the FG fall down as soon as you remove the bogus premise that the meaning of a piece of art is static and frozen at the moment of its creation.
Thirdly: I really don’t care all that much that it’s sponsored. We criticise companies for not supporting the arts, and then criticise them when they do. Whilst in an ideal world I’d like them all to support the arts, and be free from bigotry and be 100% ethical and socially responsible, realistically I’m not going to demand that artists only take money from companies who are spotless: especially if the artist is going to use the money to address social issues in the world. The fact that a company commissioned the piece doesn’t make that company magically immune from the criticism the piece represents (and might actually make them particularly vulnerable to it).
Is the fact that it uses “SHE” rather than “she” interesting? Yes. Is it problematic? Perhaps. Frankly, most people -don’t- remember who sponsored the piece, or care or know what SHE is, and secondly, the capitalisation of the word doesn’t magically rule out the meaning of “her”. (And er, SHE is a gender diversity tracking index, why does the author think they picked that specific acronym???). Frankly, the fact that the author of the piece keeps trying to strip the meaning from the word ‘she’ by referring to it only as a logo is way more problematic, imo.
Also, praising an artist for being so subversive and guerrilla and not capitalist when he apparently had the money and means to invest in all the material to make the bull himself, and have it installed, and has happily let it be a symbol of Wall Street for years, despite its toxic masculinity, despite the massive corruption and the recent financial crisis that fucked over so many people, but especially those marginalised people subversive art is supposed to represent… idk, i think he needs to find himself a new hero to idolise.
But hey, male artist defending male artist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Every time I try to think about making art with a political message, all I can think of is a performance piece: me, standing in the middle of an empty gallery, screaming in rage.
Somebody just sent this to me and I have never felt so dragged in my LIFE
(I came out to have a good time and I honestly feel so attacked right now.)
😂😂😂
Accurate.
It true.
(via thecraftyliciouscrafter)