as far as damon and petra’s performance is concerned… I would much rather have a confident/powerful/inspiring online presence (which both d and p have in spades) [and no duh they were nervous]

as far as damon and petra’s performance is concerned… I would much rather have a confident/powerful/inspiring online presence (which both d and p have in spades) [and no duh they were nervous]

the issue i was proposing was simply the question of at what point does something become a form of documentation, online?

when you say “alive as an archive”, i do have a problem with that. the archive is inherently retrospective and closed (“deathlike in appearance”). i was thinking that maybe this is something that, online, becomes tied to technological progression; that we associate a work with a particular moment in a technical support’s history. i’m uneasy about that though.

i was saying that a blog produces a kind of meaning that is syntactical and relational; that meaning operates in-between the posts as much as it does with individuated posts, and through this perhaps trying to think of how the blog form could be thought of as a ‘daily practice’ that ties into this idea of art/life as a pure activity without an end result. when we look at the archive like this then it becomes something that is maybe prospective or anticipatory as opposed to retrospective?

(i’m using the wiki as a tool that allows me to re-enter works in a way that a blog didn’t and for me this is a very private function, which isn’t to say that it has to be. the other thing i was moving away from was a strict chronological ordering scheme which, again, isn’t to say that one thing or the other is problematic.)

the issue i was proposing was simply the question of at what point does something become a form of documentation, online?

when you say “alive as an archive”, i do have a problem with that. the archive is inherently retrospective and closed (“deathlike in appearance”). i was thinking that maybe this is something that, online, becomes tied to technological progression; that we associate a work with a particular moment in a technical support’s history. i’m uneasy about that though.

i was saying that a blog produces a kind of meaning that is syntactical and relational; that meaning operates in-between the posts as much as it does with individuated posts, and through this perhaps trying to think of how the blog form could be thought of as a ‘daily practice’ that ties into this idea of art/life as a pure activity without an end result. when we look at the archive like this then it becomes something that is maybe prospective or anticipatory as opposed to retrospective?

(i’m using the wiki as a tool that allows me to re-enter works in a way that a blog didn’t and for me this is a very private function, which isn’t to say that it has to be. the other thing i was moving away from was a strict chronological ordering scheme which, again, isn’t to say that one thing or the other is problematic.)

"I think there is a lot of meat in his idea that blogs ‘never end’ since they are in this constant state of publishing, and his switch to using a wiki was in part an urge to make his work into more of a living document."

this doesn’t quite seem to hold up. your idea of a blog post dying is it being relegated (even that is the wrong word) to the second page? it still exists, both live and in the archives (there are two ways to access a post that is not on the front page, right? click "next page" or go to the archives). even though nasty nets is no longer active or receiving new content, it is still existing online. it is still "alive". it was alive as a published blog, and it is alive as an archive.

also, your distinction between something "never ending" versus something "living". i don’t get what you mean? isn’t a wiki page still never ending? i mean, the author has to delete content or edit over it in order for the content to completely disappear, but even then the edits are archived. or am i wrong? i don’t know wikis that well.

also, having missed the panel, somebody please articulate why one of these is preferable to the other and why (is this possible?).

"If surf club blogs are all about a post-by-post articulation of a certain group identity’s aesthetic/style/language, when is there any closure?"

why does there need to be closure? the nature of a blog it seems (it’s predecessor is the diary right?), is to end with the end of the author’s life, or perhaps in this case, the author’s <i>online</i> life.

to me the change from a blog to a wiki doesn’t solve any problem (none have been articulated), nor does it open up to anymore special potential (the kind that you seem to be looking for in damon’s comments). to me, the two prominent wikis to think of here are both closed to public editing. so what is the point? what is the radical act? is it simply that content is constantly refreshed and only the action of editing is archived rather than the content itself? why wouldn’t you want to view archived content?

i will not deny the power of a wiki and it’s communal structure. but to me these wiki’s i’m thinking of (maybe i’m wrong to cite only these???) are closed communities. the are open to public observation, but closed to direct public interaction and intervention.

the wiki is alive either as an open venue or as a closed venue for the dissemination of content.

the blog is alive either as a published medium online (editable after being published), or as an archive online.

supercentral as a wiki open to the public, to me, was pretty radical. as a closed wiki it is interesting and different, but not necessarily radical. not that radicality matter.

(that was long winded)