0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

The Great Internet Sleepover

by Art Fag City on September 12, 2007 · 74 comments

sleepover.jpg

Photo via: Tom Moody

Timeliness, one of the so called improvements blogging has on the print world, remains amongst the great misnomers of the Internet, since most of us bloggers are so over worked it can take three or more weeks to draft a review. Consider the Great Internet Sleepover one such casualty to an insane work schedule; note I am reporting on it close to a month after its passing.

I’m not sure what I expected from Bennett Williamson’s event, but I suspect I should have anticipated what I got: a party. Perhaps I’m simply falling in line with the rest of the snobbish art world that doesn’t like institutionally supported bashes which aren’t also run with the title “benefit”, but I can’t help but feel a little disappointment with the sleepover as a whole. The public Internet surfing reception was Okay, but the public terminals discourage web browsing when everything you do is projected onto giant Eyebeam walls, except of course, in cases of misdirected self promotion (ie. bad artists setting workstation homepages to their own websites). Also rooted in “Okay,” the panel discussion brought up some interesting points for debate vis a vi the Internet surfing clubs, though it felt incomplete without the participation of founding Nasty Nets members Guthrie Lonergan and John Michael Boling, (Nasty Nets is a group blog dedicated to finding and creating interesting and frequently ugly web crap) . That said, I have a few comments to make, all of which respond to sentiments expressed by artist Michael Bell-Smith (and paraphrased by me):

1. We don’t understand what everything means yet; the practice is still new.

Nobody’s saying New Media artists have to have everything figured out, but statements such as this need to be considered very carefully because it can give a pass to those who are hesitant to discuss about their practice. Nasty Nets, for example, is nearly a year old, and are still without even a 20 word blog description. Double Happiness, and SuperCentral, similar group blogs, the latter claiming more frequent use of text, also go without about pages. Those “in the know” of course, won’t need this, but I can’t help but think that the larger art community might benefit from seeing even a small descriptor on these sites.

2. Internet surfing and net art is a practice you either get or you don’t.

The comment above follows a similar line of thinking, and response to the first. In my experience, while the Fine Art world and New Media Community tend not to mix, the more engaged of those outside the field “get” the basics of net art. It’s not a straight forward call of course – there are a lot of people who don’t understand the practice nor do they want to – but I’m wary of supporting such polarizing statements because they suggest a self sustaining community akin to avant-garde film; insular, and pushed to the outside of the art world.

native1.gif

3. Bracketing your work.

I can’t begin to approximate the words Michael Bell-Smith used to discuss subject of titling and captioning work (since it was more than just a turn of phrase), but I do recall Paul Slocum’s Native, used as an example of why such descriptions work. Not to be a be a captioning kill joy, but I’m not sure how an unattractive website-find running with the description, nice dirtstyle site [bad web 1.0 design], lotsa pages, and a title that reduces the identity of it’s authors to “native” improves our understanding about why it’s been posted. To my mind this post simply underscores the need for surfing communities to develop their critical capacities in parallel with their art production.

UPDATE:

Michael Bell-Smith left a great response in the comments section of this blog, so I am highlighting it in the body of the main post.

Im really glad this conversation has been picked back up – lots of good thoughts.

Since the post is in response to some ideas that have been attributed to me (I think the thoughts about titling and captioning were actually Tom's), I'd like to side step the thread and respond to a couple of Paddy's initial comments for a moment.

First of all, I'd just like to say that in the context of the evening's conversation, these statements weren't nearly as polemical as they seem paraphrased, set in bold and numbered.

With that said”¦

Re: Articulating your practice.

I'm certainly all for artists owning up to their work and being able to talk about what they're doing. At the same time, I don't think there is the same type of onus on this type of work to define itself as there is with, say, art in a gallery or early net.art, simply because it isn't attempting to insert itself into any pre-existing system or discourse. Like much of the world wide web, it's just out there, doing it's thing, you can check it out if you're into it. Sure, this event was hosted at Eyebeam, an institution with a definite reputation in the “New Media Community,” but as you've already noted, most of the participants were more interested in hanging out than discussing or explaining their practice.

Re: Internet surfing and net art is a practice you either get or you don't.

This comment wasn't intended as a justification for a lack of discussion, but simply an observation. I think that “getting” a lot of this stuff requires very specific relationships to certain things: aesthetics, computers, fine art, subcultures, etc. By no means is this elitism – I have no qualms saying I don't get everything on Nasty Nets (I definitely don't get a lot of stuff on Supercentral) – it's simply saying it's not for everyone. Can that gap be bridged, can these things be explained? Sure, but it seems like few people involved with these sites think that's a priority. As I expressed above, were this practice actively attempting to insert itself into a larger art discourse, that might be a problem. Instead, like most of the web, these sites are engaging with small organically created communities.

You state you are wary that this polarization suggests a “community akin to avant-garde film; insular, and pushed to the outside of the art world.” This seems to assume that these websites – and avant-garde filmmakers for that matter – are ultimately interested in having a larger role in the art world, an assumption I don't think would necessarily ring true.

Of course, I can't speak for everyone on any of these points. Being a part of a diffuse community without a defined mission allows for – and perhaps herein lies the greater challenge when discussing these things – a kind of Ouija Board-esque perspective: you feel like both a participant and an observer. As a result, while I'm a member of Nasty Nets, the sentiments I'm expressing are more the observations of an onlooker than my own personal ideologies.

Related:

MSNBC on the Internet Sleepover

Tom Moody

Olia Lialina: Vernacular Web 2


Intro to The Art World: A Beginners Reading List Barbara Bloom, An Artist-Curator at the Jewish Museum Pentagram Ecology: Frieze Art Fair, 2013

Powered by Facebook Comments

← Older Comments
  • http://www.theageofmammals.com guthrie

    hey bennett

    wooops, “youth culture” did not mean Sprite commercials or X-Games

    I meant… think of some kind of local underground music scene, like a bunch of kids in bands playing punk rock shows. culture, subculture, something like that.. to me a lot of art like this becomes “hipster art”, pretty horrible stuff — i dont want surfer art to become hipster art

    and yeh, part of it is also the trendiness and the style, and i feel like paperrad’s style has already largely been absorbed by the mainstream (that beck music video from a couple years ago?), which is something we should be conscious of… i mean, i freaking love default rainbow gradients, but maybe they’ve gained some kind of different meaning by now?

    yeh, it makes sense that we’re all young, coz the internet is so young — but its a little upsetting somehow.. maybe this is why tom moody is so cool :)

  • http://www.theageofmammals.com guthrie

    hey bennett

    wooops, “youth culture” did not mean Sprite commercials or X-Games

    I meant… think of some kind of local underground music scene, like a bunch of kids in bands playing punk rock shows. culture, subculture, something like that.. to me a lot of art like this becomes “hipster art”, pretty horrible stuff — i dont want surfer art to become hipster art

    and yeh, part of it is also the trendiness and the style, and i feel like paperrad’s style has already largely been absorbed by the mainstream (that beck music video from a couple years ago?), which is something we should be conscious of… i mean, i freaking love default rainbow gradients, but maybe they’ve gained some kind of different meaning by now?

    yeh, it makes sense that we’re all young, coz the internet is so young — but its a little upsetting somehow.. maybe this is why tom moody is so cool :)

  • mbs

    Im really glad this conversation has been picked back up – lots of good thoughts.

    Since the post is in response to some ideas that have been attributed to me (I think the thoughts about titling and captioning were actually Tom’s), I’d like to side step the thread and respond to a couple of Paddy’s initial comments for a moment.

    First of all, I’d just like to say that in the context of the evening’s conversation, these statements weren’t nearly as polemical as they seem paraphrased, set in bold and numbered.

    With that said…

    Re: Articulating your practice.

    I’m certainly all for artists owning up to their work and being able to talk about what they’re doing. At the same time, I don’t think there is the same type of onus on this type of work to define itself as there is with, say, art in a gallery or early net.art, simply because it isn’t attempting to insert itself into any pre-existing system or discourse. Like much of the world wide web, it’s just out there, doing it’s thing, you can check it out if you’re into it. Sure, this event was hosted at Eyebeam, an institution with a definite reputation in the “New Media Community,” but as you’ve already noted, most of the participants were more interested in hanging out than discussing or explaining their practice.

    Re: Internet surfing and net art is a practice you either get or you don’t.

    This comment wasn’t intended as a justification for a lack of discussion, but simply an observation. I think that “getting” a lot of this stuff requires very specific relationships to certain things: aesthetics, computers, fine art, subcultures, etc. By no means is this elitism – I have no qualms saying I don’t get everything on Nasty Nets (I definitely don’t get a lot of stuff on Supercentral) – it’s simply saying it’s not for everyone. Can that gap be bridged, can these things be explained? Sure, but it seems like few people involved with these sites think that’s a priority. As I expressed above, were this practice actively attempting to insert itself into a larger art discourse, that might be a problem. Instead, like most of the web, these sites are engaging with small organically created communities.

    You state you are wary that this polarization suggests a “community akin to avant-garde film; insular, and pushed to the outside of the art world.” This seems to assume that these websites – and avant-garde filmmakers for that matter – are ultimately interested in having a larger role in the art world, an assumption I don’t think would necessarily ring true.

    Of course, I can’t speak for everyone on any of these points. Being a part of a diffuse community without a defined mission allows for – and perhaps herein lies the greater challenge when discussing these things – a kind of Ouija Board-esque perspective: you feel like both a participant and an observer. As a result, while I’m a member of Nasty Nets, the sentiments I’m expressing are more the observations of an onlooker than my own personal ideologies.

  • mbs

    Im really glad this conversation has been picked back up – lots of good thoughts.

    Since the post is in response to some ideas that have been attributed to me (I think the thoughts about titling and captioning were actually Tom’s), I’d like to side step the thread and respond to a couple of Paddy’s initial comments for a moment.

    First of all, I’d just like to say that in the context of the evening’s conversation, these statements weren’t nearly as polemical as they seem paraphrased, set in bold and numbered.

    With that said…

    Re: Articulating your practice.

    I’m certainly all for artists owning up to their work and being able to talk about what they’re doing. At the same time, I don’t think there is the same type of onus on this type of work to define itself as there is with, say, art in a gallery or early net.art, simply because it isn’t attempting to insert itself into any pre-existing system or discourse. Like much of the world wide web, it’s just out there, doing it’s thing, you can check it out if you’re into it. Sure, this event was hosted at Eyebeam, an institution with a definite reputation in the “New Media Community,” but as you’ve already noted, most of the participants were more interested in hanging out than discussing or explaining their practice.

    Re: Internet surfing and net art is a practice you either get or you don’t.

    This comment wasn’t intended as a justification for a lack of discussion, but simply an observation. I think that “getting” a lot of this stuff requires very specific relationships to certain things: aesthetics, computers, fine art, subcultures, etc. By no means is this elitism – I have no qualms saying I don’t get everything on Nasty Nets (I definitely don’t get a lot of stuff on Supercentral) – it’s simply saying it’s not for everyone. Can that gap be bridged, can these things be explained? Sure, but it seems like few people involved with these sites think that’s a priority. As I expressed above, were this practice actively attempting to insert itself into a larger art discourse, that might be a problem. Instead, like most of the web, these sites are engaging with small organically created communities.

    You state you are wary that this polarization suggests a “community akin to avant-garde film; insular, and pushed to the outside of the art world.” This seems to assume that these websites – and avant-garde filmmakers for that matter – are ultimately interested in having a larger role in the art world, an assumption I don’t think would necessarily ring true.

    Of course, I can’t speak for everyone on any of these points. Being a part of a diffuse community without a defined mission allows for – and perhaps herein lies the greater challenge when discussing these things – a kind of Ouija Board-esque perspective: you feel like both a participant and an observer. As a result, while I’m a member of Nasty Nets, the sentiments I’m expressing are more the observations of an onlooker than my own personal ideologies.

  • http://tommoody.us tom moody

    I definitely don’t get a lot of stuff on Supercentral. Which is not to say it’s bad. None of them talked to me at the Sleepover, either, except Charles. I figured it was because of my rhymin in our beef.

    As They Might Be Giants sang, “Youth Culture Killed My Dog.”

    And yes, I now remember bringing up captioning and titling in the panel. “Native” happened to be on the screen at the time, so now I’m wedded to it.

  • http://tommoody.us tom moody

    I definitely don’t get a lot of stuff on Supercentral. Which is not to say it’s bad. None of them talked to me at the Sleepover, either, except Charles. I figured it was because of my rhymin in our beef.

    As They Might Be Giants sang, “Youth Culture Killed My Dog.”

    And yes, I now remember bringing up captioning and titling in the panel. “Native” happened to be on the screen at the time, so now I’m wedded to it.

  • Art Fag City

    I’m a little behind on responses here – out of town yesterday, so I’ll address everyone as I can

    Aron: I agree, more specificity is needed here in regards to posting, though I have to admit, I look at Nasty Nets about once or twice a week, Supercentral less than that, and don’t always read through the comments. One of the difficulties in reviewing a blog, is that it’s almost impossible to keep up with the amount of content generated.

    In any case, with the caveat that I will miss some of the finer points of the interplay and “vibing” by simply not commenting on it, currently my favorite posts are the more “nasty” and unnerving ones of Javier. The baby youtube thing, the clown fucking, the cellphone email…these are all recent, but I like that they expose the dirty, grittier side to the normally sanitized 2.0 web.

  • Art Fag City

    I’m a little behind on responses here – out of town yesterday, so I’ll address everyone as I can

    Aron: I agree, more specificity is needed here in regards to posting, though I have to admit, I look at Nasty Nets about once or twice a week, Supercentral less than that, and don’t always read through the comments. One of the difficulties in reviewing a blog, is that it’s almost impossible to keep up with the amount of content generated.

    In any case, with the caveat that I will miss some of the finer points of the interplay and “vibing” by simply not commenting on it, currently my favorite posts are the more “nasty” and unnerving ones of Javier. The baby youtube thing, the clown fucking, the cellphone email…these are all recent, but I like that they expose the dirty, grittier side to the normally sanitized 2.0 web.

  • Art Fag City

    Bennett: Thanks for joining the discussion.

    To answer your question, I’m not referring to “youth culture” as something that represents a commercialized version of growing up, but rather that this culture seems to represent a viable market. There’s nothing wrong with this per say, but it’s not something that interests me because it inevitably means emptying out the original content.

    Also, I have to be honest, and say that it worries me that commentors on this site who have unpopular opinions are dismissed with a Rick Roll, as opposed to a substantive response (such as the one given by Tom Moody.) It smacks of anti-intellectualism, and uses the meaningless one-up-manship of nostalgic pop references, as if to say “watch me care less than you. Here’s an irreverent/irrelevent use of media”

    Finally, I should clarify that my distaste for youth culture doesn’t mean that I dislike 20 year olds, though I did have one question in regards to the statement:

    “I see that process as being somewhat inevitable, but I think that the youth is always coming up with some good ideas, so it doesn’t bother me.”

    This statement has a “the children are our future” feel to it, which of course does sound like a Pepsi commercial. Are you privileging the 20 something crowd to the 40 something crowd?

  • Art Fag City

    Bennett: Thanks for joining the discussion.

    To answer your question, I’m not referring to “youth culture” as something that represents a commercialized version of growing up, but rather that this culture seems to represent a viable market. There’s nothing wrong with this per say, but it’s not something that interests me because it inevitably means emptying out the original content.

    Also, I have to be honest, and say that it worries me that commentors on this site who have unpopular opinions are dismissed with a Rick Roll, as opposed to a substantive response (such as the one given by Tom Moody.) It smacks of anti-intellectualism, and uses the meaningless one-up-manship of nostalgic pop references, as if to say “watch me care less than you. Here’s an irreverent/irrelevent use of media”

    Finally, I should clarify that my distaste for youth culture doesn’t mean that I dislike 20 year olds, though I did have one question in regards to the statement:

    “I see that process as being somewhat inevitable, but I think that the youth is always coming up with some good ideas, so it doesn’t bother me.”

    This statement has a “the children are our future” feel to it, which of course does sound like a Pepsi commercial. Are you privileging the 20 something crowd to the 40 something crowd?

  • http://themiddlemass.blogspot.com jj

    this conversation is still great, but i just have one thing to add:

    seecoy’s Rick Roll was amazing. in my opinion, it fit just fine with the intellectual back and forth (and it was funny.. nothing wrong with a little funny :)

  • http://themiddlemass.blogspot.com jj

    this conversation is still great, but i just have one thing to add:

    seecoy’s Rick Roll was amazing. in my opinion, it fit just fine with the intellectual back and forth (and it was funny.. nothing wrong with a little funny :)

  • Art Fag City

    MBS: Thanks for some great feedback!

    First let me begin by saying that I used some of your comments as a spring board for my own thoughts on the event as a whole, but acknowledge that they were not nearly so polemical, so I have to apologize for making them seem that way. When I create a summary post of all the comments received here I will make that clear.

    Re Re: Articulating your practice.
    I like your points, and largely agree with them, and would add that these group blogs function a lot like sketch books – we don’t ask artists to talk about the stuff in their sketch books – it’s material they collect to work out ideas, but at the same time, we at least identify that that’s what that is. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but my sense is that artists are still figuring out how much of this activity contributes to their art making practice.

    Re re: Internet surfing is a practice you either get or you don’t get.

    I know this comment wasn’t intended as a justification for a lack of discussion, but I guess I have just heard it a few too many times from the net art community to be entirely comfortable with it. Perhaps it’s all in the way you put it, since “it’s not for everyone” is something I can get behind.

    As for the assumption that these websites want to have a larger part in the art world, or at least be positioned as fine art, I think we probably disagree on the extent to which the community takes a side on this issue. I think you’re right to call me out for making it seem as though everyone wants these websites to be considered in a fine art context, (my comments certainly indicate the like) but I don’t think that posting philosophy can be applied across the board. Surely there are members of Nasty Nets who consider this a part of their Fine Art practice.

  • Art Fag City

    MBS: Thanks for some great feedback!

    First let me begin by saying that I used some of your comments as a spring board for my own thoughts on the event as a whole, but acknowledge that they were not nearly so polemical, so I have to apologize for making them seem that way. When I create a summary post of all the comments received here I will make that clear.

    Re Re: Articulating your practice.
    I like your points, and largely agree with them, and would add that these group blogs function a lot like sketch books – we don’t ask artists to talk about the stuff in their sketch books – it’s material they collect to work out ideas, but at the same time, we at least identify that that’s what that is. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but my sense is that artists are still figuring out how much of this activity contributes to their art making practice.

    Re re: Internet surfing is a practice you either get or you don’t get.

    I know this comment wasn’t intended as a justification for a lack of discussion, but I guess I have just heard it a few too many times from the net art community to be entirely comfortable with it. Perhaps it’s all in the way you put it, since “it’s not for everyone” is something I can get behind.

    As for the assumption that these websites want to have a larger part in the art world, or at least be positioned as fine art, I think we probably disagree on the extent to which the community takes a side on this issue. I think you’re right to call me out for making it seem as though everyone wants these websites to be considered in a fine art context, (my comments certainly indicate the like) but I don’t think that posting philosophy can be applied across the board. Surely there are members of Nasty Nets who consider this a part of their Fine Art practice.

  • http://loshadka.org/wp billy

    “professional internet surfing” is a performance. the internet acts as content and canvas. loshadka is a place for me and my friends to roll down the window and pump the jams, whether they’re our own or pilfered from the intertubes.

    i thought the sleepover was going to be a big parking lot for all these fly rides. when i got there though, it was like all these fish were out of the water (don’t get me wrong, i fish all the time and fish out of the water are fuckin sweet). so it wasn’t what i expected, but who cares; it was fun and i got to see all these sweet fish irl. if you were looking for more collaboration or intellectual analysis, then get back in the water or on the streets (depending on the metaphor you like better). This thread has had more constructive conversation than i could have ever hoped for from the sleepover.

    and i stand by c.coy’s rick roll. truly epic.

  • http://loshadka.org/wp billy

    “professional internet surfing” is a performance. the internet acts as content and canvas. loshadka is a place for me and my friends to roll down the window and pump the jams, whether they’re our own or pilfered from the intertubes.

    i thought the sleepover was going to be a big parking lot for all these fly rides. when i got there though, it was like all these fish were out of the water (don’t get me wrong, i fish all the time and fish out of the water are fuckin sweet). so it wasn’t what i expected, but who cares; it was fun and i got to see all these sweet fish irl. if you were looking for more collaboration or intellectual analysis, then get back in the water or on the streets (depending on the metaphor you like better). This thread has had more constructive conversation than i could have ever hoped for from the sleepover.

    and i stand by c.coy’s rick roll. truly epic.

  • http://doublehappiness.ilikenicethings.com Bennett

    No, I don’t mean to simply champion the young over the old. I’m 22, and I cling to the thought that my generation will probably be the last to have the internet as something that our parents and elders (to a degree) don’t understand, but we do.

    The 40-something crowd certainly has the advantage of hindsight and experience of media advancement in general. I’m old enough to remember the advent of the web first as an educational and communication tool, then for entertainment and commercial ventures, and later for socializing and interaction. Most recently, I’ve turned to the net as artistic medium.

    With the pervasiveness of internet use in the home, school, and workplace today, I think that up-and-coming surfers won’t experience the nets in the compartmentalized way that I and those older than myself understand it.
    I find that youth art movements often lack pretension, due in part to not caring (or not really being aware of) what part they might play in the canon of art history, which allows for the output of unchecked creativity.
    My hope is that those growing up now in a net-saturated life will be able to make web artworks that use the medium in unprecedented, absolutely bananas ways that we can’t even imagine, works that somehow “use the whole internet,” as Charles mused during the panel discussion. That is exciting to me.
    And if we work hard I think we might just be able to get close to that ourselves.

    —–> A Note on Rickrolls

  • http://doublehappiness.ilikenicethings.com Bennett

    No, I don’t mean to simply champion the young over the old. I’m 22, and I cling to the thought that my generation will probably be the last to have the internet as something that our parents and elders (to a degree) don’t understand, but we do.

    The 40-something crowd certainly has the advantage of hindsight and experience of media advancement in general. I’m old enough to remember the advent of the web first as an educational and communication tool, then for entertainment and commercial ventures, and later for socializing and interaction. Most recently, I’ve turned to the net as artistic medium.

    With the pervasiveness of internet use in the home, school, and workplace today, I think that up-and-coming surfers won’t experience the nets in the compartmentalized way that I and those older than myself understand it.
    I find that youth art movements often lack pretension, due in part to not caring (or not really being aware of) what part they might play in the canon of art history, which allows for the output of unchecked creativity.
    My hope is that those growing up now in a net-saturated life will be able to make web artworks that use the medium in unprecedented, absolutely bananas ways that we can’t even imagine, works that somehow “use the whole internet,” as Charles mused during the panel discussion. That is exciting to me.
    And if we work hard I think we might just be able to get close to that ourselves.

    —–> A Note on Rickrolls

  • http://doublehappiness.ilikenicethings.com Bennett

    A Note on Rickrolls:

    Seecoy’s Rickroll was well placed, and I think it was not meant to insult anyone or be anti-intellectual.
    While the original rickrolls were related to video game previews, the content of Rick Astley dancing to an awesome song has quickly lost its function as a non-sequitor. The humor and game of it lies in the act of the unexpected trick. Successful Rickrolls now require thinking of more innovative ways to roll your friends, better ways to camouflage the delivery, and unused venues of attack. The Rickroll lurks everywhere, and Seecoy’s use here in a more serious forum of discussion might seem rude at first, but studying his form, attention to detail, and timing shows that it is well considered. He knew that we were taking this extra seriously and therefore our expectations had so much farther to fall.

    He totally rolled all of us, hard, and I commend him for it.

    Here is some more information about how to protect yourself and other from being RickRolld with NARRP (Not A RickRoll, Promise) certification:
    http://www.blog.ni9e.com/archives/2007/08/narrp_not_a_ric.html (narrp)

  • http://doublehappiness.ilikenicethings.com Bennett

    A Note on Rickrolls:

    Seecoy’s Rickroll was well placed, and I think it was not meant to insult anyone or be anti-intellectual.
    While the original rickrolls were related to video game previews, the content of Rick Astley dancing to an awesome song has quickly lost its function as a non-sequitor. The humor and game of it lies in the act of the unexpected trick. Successful Rickrolls now require thinking of more innovative ways to roll your friends, better ways to camouflage the delivery, and unused venues of attack. The Rickroll lurks everywhere, and Seecoy’s use here in a more serious forum of discussion might seem rude at first, but studying his form, attention to detail, and timing shows that it is well considered. He knew that we were taking this extra seriously and therefore our expectations had so much farther to fall.

    He totally rolled all of us, hard, and I commend him for it.

    Here is some more information about how to protect yourself and other from being RickRolld with NARRP (Not A RickRoll, Promise) certification:
    http://www.blog.ni9e.com/archives/2007/08/narrp_not_a_ric.html (narrp)

  • http://www.seecoy.com c. coy

    tom moody’s got a good point on his blog… the rickroll was intended to just be a hiccup in a very good discussion… here’s for b. and afc and tom moody for furthering a discussion that’s important for all (http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2007/09/18/sleepover-comment/)

  • http://www.seecoy.com c. coy

    tom moody’s got a good point on his blog… the rickroll was intended to just be a hiccup in a very good discussion… here’s for b. and afc and tom moody for furthering a discussion that’s important for all (http://www.tommoody.us/archives/2007/09/18/sleepover-comment/)

  • Art Fag City

    Bennett:

    I think the time line of Internet as presented in your comments is a little inaccurate (social networking for example has been around forever and is no means new), but let’s leave this alone in favor of below:

    Et al re: RickRolls

    I want this part of the discussion to end. I don’t need the joke explained to me; I get it, I always did. Even if we were going to evaluate the joke on its humor and (God forbid) “greater cultural significance” it would still get a lousy grade because the trick is so easy.

    If someone wants to return to the discussion about NN posting techniques and the actual sleepover I’m all ears.

    Also as seecoy suggests, you should visit Tom Moody’s blog for more comments on the subject. (see link in c.coy’s post above.)

  • Art Fag City

    Bennett:

    I think the time line of Internet as presented in your comments is a little inaccurate (social networking for example has been around forever and is no means new), but let’s leave this alone in favor of below:

    Et al re: RickRolls

    I want this part of the discussion to end. I don’t need the joke explained to me; I get it, I always did. Even if we were going to evaluate the joke on its humor and (God forbid) “greater cultural significance” it would still get a lousy grade because the trick is so easy.

    If someone wants to return to the discussion about NN posting techniques and the actual sleepover I’m all ears.

    Also as seecoy suggests, you should visit Tom Moody’s blog for more comments on the subject. (see link in c.coy’s post above.)

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: