A clip of a woman either auto-eroticizing or taken out of context to look like she was made the dump rounds a few days ago. I took a version by thengb and pasted it into my sketch_j4 GIF for a modern take on Frances Bacon, or something.
Addendum: GucciSoFlosy made the original ecstatic woman screenshot -- it came from YouTube -- a "Dutch girl band" that, quote, "gets orgasms while singing." 10,000,000+ views.
Instructions on how to take screenshots using various platforms, via Cosmic's Pinboard.
Now you, too, can take people's utterances out of context and/or "repeat them back in a dumbass voice," as Goatmilk once characterized the dark art of screenshotting.
animated GIF from the Tumblr codecartooning, by John Pound (via ptato0)
Pound's caption for the above is
#061, “NO MYSTERIES HERE”, a randomly generated animated landscape drawn purely in JavaScript and HTML5 Canvas, then converted to GIF.
The conversion to GIF is still a necessary step because (i) it makes the animation readable in any browser and (ii) for me at least, it adds a slight tinge of frame-lagged imperfection that I might not get from say, one of those sucky Google search page illustrations. Pound has posted his own pros & cons of drawing with code:
Cons:
Learning curve
Less direct or intuitive
Slower than using a pencil
Bigger effort for a single drawing
No original art
Uses electricityPros:
Precision
Randomness
Repetition
Reuseable code parts
Many varied drawings from one source
Easy reproduction
Makes animations
Luminous screen
Vector art scales to any size
Source code can be shared
Free code = free tools
Am not terribly interested in learning the Javascript/CSS method [so-called HTML5] myself. My own "pros" of not drawing with code are, liking the control, discipline, and individual quirky result of drawing frame by frame using hand-drawn lines, curves and shading [tablet and/or drawing program], seeing what happens when the frames come together, and then revising -- much the way I might work on a painting. Revisions and uncertainty that you can see or feel in the result are a necessary part of art, for me. "Using electricity" is going to be an ultimate downer once our unsustainable culture burns itself out, but that's also one reason I kind of want to use these tools while we have them, to be part of the current moment, rather than keeping a candle going for historical working methods.
Joshua Decter didn't so much reply on Rhizome to my post, joshua decter: gallery art critic as new media artist, as attempt to pummel me into submission: his response is more than twice as long as what I originally wrote, and filled with high dudgeon about supposed errors, misrepresentations, and willful misunderstandings. "Doth protest too much" comes to mind. Anyway there was one mistake; here's what I wrote in response:
Mr. Decter points out a factual error in my post -- I wrote that in his "Screen" show he "placed TV cameras in the room to film the works." I updated the post to describe more accurately how video images of the works appeared in the gallery.* Apologies for the error.
Otherwise, I think we mostly have differences of opinion, not fact. Mr. Decter's sense is that virtual curator and virtual artist displays aren't (or weren't) common in museum programming; my sense is that they are (or were). Who did them first doesn't really matter if they are unhelpful, as in overly reductive, ideas. My point in mentioning Google Sketch-Up wasn't to say it was around in 1999. Clearly it wasn't. It was to make a connection between what Mr. Decter was doing with then-current 3D software and what artists are still doing with virtual "white cube"-placed objects ("[reducing the slow] process of artistic thought and individuation of ... physical collections to simplified mix and match objects," I wrote in the post). Yesterday's unfortunate idea is today's unfortunate trend.
I haven't read Mr. Decter's book, the release of which roughly coincided with this Rhizome post. Here's hoping he'll be joining the conversation on the vagaries of post-internet art, or po-net, as some are calling it! These issues are too important to leave to Hollywood collectors.
*Decter explained that he "took photographs of the installation of artworks, digitized these images, and worked with an editor on an AVID system at a professional studio to generate a video catalogue of the exhibition. This video catalogue was distributed as the only catalogue of the show, and was also played on video monitors within the gallery during the run of the show." I saw the show in 1996 and assumed he had cameras in the room -- you would indeed have had to read the press release to learn about this much more cumbersome process.
