Moma’s Automatic Update website (Left), Screenshot of my computer installing an Automatic Update (right)
I realize that Moma's Automatic Update closed nearly two weeks ago, so I'm not trying to be a dick with above photo comparison, but I nonetheless want to point out the difference between what a computer does when it connects to the Internet to install new software, and what a show does when it claims the same action, builds an entire site around the premise, and then fails to feature any net art (except through an infrequently updated, and poorly followed delicious network.) Nobody questions the purpose of a computer installing necessary updates because the term accurately describes the results, whereas they might easily be confused by a show titled after the same action that largely takes the form of a video series, and a collection of largely pre dot-com like work.
“The exhibition reflects the ecumenical [general] interests of media artists”, Moma curator Barbara London explained to me over the phone when I asked her whether it might not be better to think of this exhibition as a video show. Her response to my queries of course, was dead on, at least in the sense that Automatic Update has no discernible thematic thread but for the fact that it all ended up in the same room for a couple of months. Included in the physical exhibition is Paul Pfeiffer's famous basketball collage video John 3:16, Jennifer and Kevin McKoy's trademark bendy light, moving sculpture-film, Our Second Date, an Ellsworth Kelly like keystone projection by Cory Arcangel, Xu Bing's simple picture graphics story and Raphael Lozano-Hemmer's self described LED installation 33 questions per minute.
Part two to arrive Monday
{ 30 comments }
Uh, maybe she just wanted a catchy title. The screenshot you offer up is for Windows XP, while the show was about old technology.
Sure, it was a small show, but that probably has more to do with the space Barbara was given rather than her intentions or aspirations. In the end, people were able to see a few unique things from MoMA’s collection — why does a show even need a “thread”? People make their own meaning by seeing the work. Curators comments are almost always ridiculous and pretentious and should be routinely ignored.
Uh, maybe she just wanted a catchy title. The screenshot you offer up is for Windows XP, while the show was about old technology.
Sure, it was a small show, but that probably has more to do with the space Barbara was given rather than her intentions or aspirations. In the end, people were able to see a few unique things from MoMA’s collection — why does a show even need a “thread”? People make their own meaning by seeing the work. Curators comments are almost always ridiculous and pretentious and should be routinely ignored.
good review. the most exciting part about the show was looking at the automatic update website before i went and saw anything.
when i made the trip to see the show, i asked four or five museum staff (like the information booth people) where the automatic update show was and not one had even heard of it.
once found, i was a bit disappointed.
look forward to part two.
good review. the most exciting part about the show was looking at the automatic update website before i went and saw anything.
when i made the trip to see the show, i asked four or five museum staff (like the information booth people) where the automatic update show was and not one had even heard of it.
once found, i was a bit disappointed.
look forward to part two.
Meh: The show was actually about “new more mature work” made in the post dot com era. The show doesn’t need a thread if it’s just a recent acquisitons/collections show, but that’s not what it is.
Meh: The show was actually about “new more mature work” made in the post dot com era. The show doesn’t need a thread if it’s just a recent acquisitons/collections show, but that’s not what it is.
Re: Barbara London’s use of the “flat earth” metaphor, here’s what Matt Taibbi said in the NY Press about Thomas Friedman’s book The World Is Flat:
>>The book’s genesis is a conversation Friedman has with Nandan Nilekani, the CEO of Infosys. Nilekani casually mutters to Friedman: “Tom, the playing field is being leveled.” To you and me, an innocent throwaway phrase—the level playing field being, after all, one of the most oft-repeated stock ideas in the history of human interaction. Not to Friedman. Ten minutes after his talk with Nilekani, he is pitching a tent in his company van on the road back from the Infosys campus in Bangalore:
“As I left the Infosys campus that evening along the road back to Bangalore, I kept chewing on that phrase: ‘The playing field is being leveled.’
“What Nandan is saying, I thought, is that the playing field is being flattened… Flattened? Flattened? My God, he’s telling me the world is flat!”
This is like three pages into the book, and already the premise is totally fucked. Nilekani said level, not flat. The two concepts are completely different. Level is a qualitative idea that implies equality and competitive balance; flat is a physical, geographic concept that Friedman, remember, is openly contrasting-—ironically, as it were-—with Columbus’s discovery that the world is round.
Except for one thing. The significance of Columbus’s discovery was that on a round earth, humanity is more interconnected than on a flat one. On a round earth, the two most distant points are closer together than they are on a flat earth. But Friedman is going to spend the next 470 pages turning the “flat world” into a metaphor for global interconnectedness. Furthermore, he is specifically going to use the word round to describe the old, geographically isolated, unconnected world.
“Let me… share with you some of the encounters that led me to conclude that the world is no longer round,” he says. He will literally travel backward in time, against the current of human knowledge.
Re: Barbara London’s use of the “flat earth” metaphor, here’s what Matt Taibbi said in the NY Press about Thomas Friedman’s book The World Is Flat:
>>The book’s genesis is a conversation Friedman has with Nandan Nilekani, the CEO of Infosys. Nilekani casually mutters to Friedman: “Tom, the playing field is being leveled.” To you and me, an innocent throwaway phrase—the level playing field being, after all, one of the most oft-repeated stock ideas in the history of human interaction. Not to Friedman. Ten minutes after his talk with Nilekani, he is pitching a tent in his company van on the road back from the Infosys campus in Bangalore:
“As I left the Infosys campus that evening along the road back to Bangalore, I kept chewing on that phrase: ‘The playing field is being leveled.’
“What Nandan is saying, I thought, is that the playing field is being flattened… Flattened? Flattened? My God, he’s telling me the world is flat!”
This is like three pages into the book, and already the premise is totally fucked. Nilekani said level, not flat. The two concepts are completely different. Level is a qualitative idea that implies equality and competitive balance; flat is a physical, geographic concept that Friedman, remember, is openly contrasting-—ironically, as it were-—with Columbus’s discovery that the world is round.
Except for one thing. The significance of Columbus’s discovery was that on a round earth, humanity is more interconnected than on a flat one. On a round earth, the two most distant points are closer together than they are on a flat earth. But Friedman is going to spend the next 470 pages turning the “flat world” into a metaphor for global interconnectedness. Furthermore, he is specifically going to use the word round to describe the old, geographically isolated, unconnected world.
“Let me… share with you some of the encounters that led me to conclude that the world is no longer round,” he says. He will literally travel backward in time, against the current of human knowledge.
Did you write about Automatic Update before? I feel like I/You/Someone else commented/read/discussed(?) somewhere (maybe Tom Moody’s blog?) about how much a couldn’t stand their web design?
Did you write about Automatic Update before? I feel like I/You/Someone else commented/read/discussed(?) somewhere (maybe Tom Moody’s blog?) about how much a couldn’t stand their web design?
That was this discussion on Nasty Nets.
That was this discussion on Nasty Nets.
…
…
_Meh_ – Windows XP is old technology. It has been sadly replace by Windows Vista.
_Meh_ – Windows XP is old technology. It has been sadly replace by Windows Vista.
True, the show was a little disappointing because it was so small, and though it might not have been a “recent acquisitons/collections show” many of the shows at MoMA tend to be “picks from the collection” with a fancy title. I would never trust any guard or entrance staff at any institution to know what’s actually on display; sadly, few museums have understood that these people should be the most up-to-date on everything about the museum.
Tom, you couldn’t be more right with Friedman. He’s an utter jackass who somehow has gained respectability with the dumber elements of the business and media worlds. Dave Rees nailed it long ago: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/moustache_of_understanding.html
True, the show was a little disappointing because it was so small, and though it might not have been a “recent acquisitons/collections show” many of the shows at MoMA tend to be “picks from the collection” with a fancy title. I would never trust any guard or entrance staff at any institution to know what’s actually on display; sadly, few museums have understood that these people should be the most up-to-date on everything about the museum.
Tom, you couldn’t be more right with Friedman. He’s an utter jackass who somehow has gained respectability with the dumber elements of the business and media worlds. Dave Rees nailed it long ago: http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/moustache_of_understanding.html
I can only say that I’m just kinda pissed because I have been waiting a long long time for the update to this critique (part two of two).
I can only say that I’m just kinda pissed because I have been waiting a long long time for the update to this critique (part two of two).
Sorry Stephen – I had another obligation today that went later than expected.
Sorry Stephen – I had another obligation today that went later than expected.
Jon: You had a conversation about Automatic Update with Tom Moody on Nasty Nets. I can’t remember the exact thread now, but you guys talked about website design there.
Jon: You had a conversation about Automatic Update with Tom Moody on Nasty Nets. I can’t remember the exact thread now, but you guys talked about website design there.
Oh sorry PJ, was just kidding, tried to make a small pun about waiting for ‘updates’…whoops bad pun. Missed the show actually (not live in nyc), so thanks for covering it. Doesn’t also Murakami have his own version of a flatness theory?
Oh sorry PJ, was just kidding, tried to make a small pun about waiting for ‘updates’…whoops bad pun. Missed the show actually (not live in nyc), so thanks for covering it. Doesn’t also Murakami have his own version of a flatness theory?
I posted a link to it above!
I posted a link to it above!
God, I’m an idiot…
God, I’m an idiot…
Comments on this entry are closed.