Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
engines,
algorithms,
user
reviews
and
all
kinds
of
other
ways
to
discover
the
arts,
including
just
going
online
and
listening
or
seeing
for
yourself.
So
where
does
that
leave
criticism?
Some
people
argue,
as
they
have
argued
for
years,
that
criticism
is
no
longer
relevant,
that
in
an
age
where
discovery
is
so
accessible,
so-called
gatekeepers
are
an
anachronism.
For
those
who
have
only
ever
reviewed
criticism
as
a
consumer
report
to
guide
their
listening
or
viewing
habits
and
find
they
have
a
higher
rate
of
success
when
looking
to
these
other
avenues,
there
might
for
once
be
a
very
faint
ring
of
truth
to
that.
Still,
the
popularity
of
sites
like
Rotten
Tomatoes
and
Metacritic,
which
aggregate
critical
consensus,
would
seem
to
counter
that
idea.
And
Pitchfork
itself
has
seen
continual
growth
to
its
review
section
year
after
year
and
more
time
spent
by
readers
on
those
pages.
So
the
demand
is
clearly
and
quantifiably
there.
So
with
more
media
being
made
and
released
than
ever
before,
and
virtually
all
of
it
accessible
online,
the
question
readers
are
hoping
to
have
answered
is
not
so
much
How
should
I
spend
my
money?
but
How
should
I
spend
spend
my
time?
And
of
course,
criticism
is
much
more
than
a
consumer
guide.
I
read
it
to
learn,
not
just
about
the
subject
at
hand,
but
to
gain
insights
that
confirm
or
challenge
my
own,
to
grasp
the
ideologies
between
different
scenes
and
movements,
and
to
better
and
more
capably
argue
my
positions
as
a
fan.
As
often
as
I
disagree
with
reviews,
even
sometimes
those
published
on
my
own
website,
Im
nonetheless
educated
by
them.
At
their
best,
they
lead
me
to
reexamine
my
enthusiasm
or
distaste
for
certain
artists
and
albums
by
offering
an
intelligent
counterpoint.
And
like
any
other
genre
of
writing,
criticism
is
an
art
form
unto
itself.
The
greatest
critics,
Roger
Ebert,
Lester
Bangs,
Pauline
Kael,
Richard
Meltzer,
are
wonderfully
entertaining,
educational,
and
thought-provoking
and
their
work
remains
as
relevant
today
as
it
was
in
their
own
time.
And
yet
reviews,
especially
negative
ones,
are
increasingly
falling
out
of
favor
with
editors
and
publishers.
Over
the
last
decade,
several
major
music
magazines
have
shrunk
theirs
to
single
paragraphs
or
tiny
capsules.
Some
have
ceased
reviews
altogether.
Many
of
the
newer
music
publications
launched
without
them
in
the
first
place.
And
why
shouldnt
they?
Negative
reviews
are
often
unpopular,
not
necessarily
by
metrics
but
by
the
reactions.
They
cause
all
kinds
of
trouble.
They
can
break
important
editorial
relationships,
incite
fans
to
essentially
riot
on
social
media
against
writersthey
upset
people.
Pitchfork
has
succeeded,
not
just
because
our
critics
have
distinctive
tastes
and
insights,
but
because
were
willing
to
assume
the
weight
of
these
consequences.
This
doesnt
always
make
us
well
loved,
but
it
does
create
an
active
discourse
around
the
music
we
cover.
Because
passionate
music
fans
hold
their
own
convictions
about
the
artists
and
albums
with
which
they
engage,
and
the
differences
between
those
convictions
are
often
the
basis
of
engaging
and
lightening
discussions.
Theres
a
cliche
that
critics
use
about
the
dialoguethat
the
opinions
they
express
are
essentially
conversation
starters,
or
jump-off
points,
for
a
larger
productive
conversation,
right?
Well,
thats
pretty
true.
We
understand
our
pieces
figure
into
a
larger
critical
framework,
and
that
readers
and
writers
may
identify
with
any
number
of
critical
resources
with
broadly
varying
takes.
We
throw
ourselves
into
our
work
and
attempt
to
ensure
that
ours
will
be
the
definitive
piece
on
the
subject,
but
we
also
acknowledge
that
our
taste
is
somewhat
subjective.
But
our
insights,
our
knowledge
of
our
subjects
and
our
recommendations,
gradually
built
trust
with
our
readers
that
translated
to
influence,
and
we
dont
take
it
for
granted.
Today
Pitchfork
is
among
the
largest
and
most
comprehensive
music
publications
online.
Our
site
sees
7.5
million
unique
visitors
per
month,
we
have
a
staff
of
50
people
spread
between
offices
in
New
York,
Chicago,
and
Los
Angeles,
annual
music
festivals
in
Chicago
and
Paris,
a
quarterly
print
journal
called
The
Pitchfork
Review,
our
sister
site,
The
Dissolve,
which
is
dedicated
to
film,
and
our
video
arm,
Pitchfork
TV.
So,
in
an
era
where
so
many
avenues
exist
for
recommendation
discovery,
where
you
can
listen
to
complete
albums
with
the
click
of
a
button,
or
simply
rely
on
the
taste
of
friends
or
algorithms,
our
readers
continue
to
turn
to
us
to
help
them
parse
musics
ever-expanding
world.
And
our
work
is
for
them,
its
not
for
the
artists,
the
managers,
or
the
industry.
We
do
it
because
we
love
music
deeply
and
care
intensely
about
its
future.
So,
thanks
again
to
Minneapolis
for
helping
me
find
my
niche
and
to
the
Walker
for
having
me
here
today.
Its
an
honor
to
be
here.
Orit
Gat,
Rhizome,
WdW
Review
Ive
been
making
the
same
joke
for
the
past
like
few
weeks,
I
think:
Im
so
happy
to
be
here,
because
this
conference
is
exactly
everything
Im
interested
in,
and
if
they
didnt
invite
me,
I
would
have
had
to
pay
to
come
here.
That
said,
Im
going
to
use
this
time
to
actually
ask
if
the
Internet
has
affected
or
changed
art
criticism
at
all.
I
figured
Ill
use
this
time
to
work
through
ideas
with
all
of
you.
And
yeah,
Im
gonna
ask
has
and
now
how.
I
think
whats
really
interesting
about
this
particular
panel
is
that
we
have
people
from
different
industries,
and
Im
using
the
word
industry
really
carefully,
but
not
so
much,
because
Im
going
to
talk
about
advertising
and
money
and
financial
structures,
so
industry
seems
kind
of
fitting
and
see
what
will
happen
to
art
criticism.
So,
Im
going
to
talk
about
the
structures
of
the
Internet
and
how
they
changed
music
and
literature,
because
those
are
the
two
other
disciplines
that
we
have
here.
And
in
case
youre
really
nodding
off
here,
Im
going
to
tell
you
that
my
answer
to
Has
the
Internet
changed
art
criticism?
is
Not
yet,
but
it
definitely
will.
So,
when
Im
asking
about
the
Internet
effect
theres
two
facets
to
it.
The
first
is
in
publishing
and
circulation,
the
second
is
the
way
it
shapes
and
affects
the
discipline
and
the
discourse
around
it.
Music
and
literature
experience
a
digital
shift
in
a
much
more
extreme
way
than
contemporary
art
has
thus
far.
As
far
as
I
see
it,
they
experienced
this
digital
shift
and
it
began
with
circulation,
the
adjustment
from
an
object,
as
in
a
CD
to
vinyl
to
MP3,
and
from
the
independent
bookstore
or
even
the
mega
chain
bookstore,
because
now
we
have
to
start
caring
about
Barnes
and
Noble,
too,
to
Amazon.
But
then
it
continued
with
an
altered
discourse
that
poses
really
valid
questions
about
the
function
of
criticism.
Im
going
to
call
this
service
criticism.
In
a
nutshell,
what
I
define
as
service
criticism
is
criticism
thats
discovery
orientedcriticism
that
assumes
the
reader
is
looking
for
recommendations,
for
a
way
of
making
sense
of
it
all.
Take
Pitchfork,
for
example,
I
remember
the
first
time
I
heard
about
Pitchfork.
I
was
a
teenager
in
Paris
and
I
had
a
friend
who
would
read
every
review
on
Pitchfork
and
then
he
would
download,
and
Im
going
to
say
this
even
though
I
guess
this
is
not
a
panel
about
law
and
copyrights,
he
would
download
everything
he
read
about
to
see
what
hes
going
to
be
actually
interested
in.
Thats
a
really
amazing
way
of
discovering
things,
and
its
also
a
way
of
contrasting
the
sense
of
overproduction
that
the
Internet
seems
to
do.
So,
just
to
clarify
this,
the
use
of
a
word
like
service
does
not
indicate
a
value
judgment
at
all.
Im
not
making
that.
Im
not
making
it,
because
I
dont
write
in
an
industry
that
could
produce
a
service
criticism.
Yet.
When
I
write
about
an
exhibition,
I
often
write
for
print
publications,
so
it
means
that
the
exhibition
closed
months
ago.
Im
always
writing
in
the
past
tense,
and
I
also
know
that
whoever
my
audience
is,
and
I
know
its
small,
almost
none
of
them
are
art
collectors
that
are
reading
the
reviews
as
a
way
of
assessing
the
artists
worth.
Its
kind
of
similar
to
the
way
I
read
food
reviews.
I
dont
go
to
fancy
restaurants,
but
I
always
make
the
joke
that
I
really
love
living
in
New
York,
in
a
city
where
reviews
like
this
makes
sense:
Once
in
a
while,
this
restaurant
still
gets
a
case
of
the
blahs.
The
dressing
on
the
wax
bean
salad,
allegedly
a
tahini-soy
vinaigrette,
made
no
impression,
and
curls
of
raw
hamachi
with
diced
apples
didnt
rise
above
routine.
This
is
from
the
New
York
Times
review
of
a
restaurant
called
Montmarte,
or
some
French
restaurant
in
Chelsea.
Just
saying
curls
of
raw
hamachi
is
routine
to
some
people
amazing
to
me.
Im
never
going
to
go
to
this
place,
just
the
chicken
costs
$26,
and
this
is
the
kind
of
research
I
do
when
I
write.
So
why
do
I
care
about
it?
Because
I
think
food
criticism
talks
about
a
culture
that
Im
interested
in
and
I
think
that
focus
on
ephemeral
in
experience
is
actually
really
similar
to
you
do
when
you
write
about
art
exhibits
exhibitions.
And,
of
course,
the
discovery
oriented,
or
service
review
do
the
same
thing,
but
we
really
cant
ignore
the
fact
that
in
the
popular
imagination,
they
have
a
much
more
specific
role.
They
act
as
a
vehicle
for
recognition,
as
recommendations.
Should
I
see
Mad
Max?
Let
me
see
what
the
paper
said
about
this.
Have
you
seen
that
review
of
10:04?
I
really
want
to
read
it.
And
this
is
like
the
main
point
that
Im
going
to
make
here,
is
that
search
habits
have
only
enhanced
this
sentiment.
Im
going
to
go
back
to
my
example
of
Ben
Lerners
10:04.
I
Googled
it
yesterday.
The
first
response
on
Google
is
Amazon,
buy
the
book,
the
next
nine
are
all
reviews.
Its
the
New
York
Times,
its
the
Guardian,
everything,
the
New
Republic,
Bookforum,
etc.
The
next
page
on
Google
is
the
Wikipedia
site.
And
you
know
that
99%
of
Google
searchers
dont
actually
go
to
the
second
page
of
Google.
So,
this
explains
my
claim
that
digital
circulation
has
changed
the
discourse.
And
Im
going
to
go
back
for
a
second
to
my
not
a
judgment
sentiment.
I
think
the
service
review
comes
with
an
immense
sense
of
responsibility
to
analyze
the
market,
to
give
context
to
what
is
popular
beyond
just
bestseller
lists,
even
though
I
totally
acknowledge
and
recognize
the
Internets
feelings
about
lists,
and
we
all
love
them.
I
also
think
that
a
sense
of
responsibility
is
what
leads
this
discourse
around
positive
and
negative
criticism.
Im
sure
well
get
back
to
this
later.
When
a
publication
decides
to
focus
on
positive
reviews,
in
order
not
to
waste
paper,
a
line
on
negative
reviews,
a
huge
part
of
the
reason
for
that
is
the
presumption
that
people
look
to
reviews
as
recommendations.
My
only
problem
with
that
is
that
it
really
neglects
what
I
consider
a
really
important
role
of
criticism,
which
is
to
keep
the
market
in
check.
Im
going
to
talk
about
Jerry
Saltz
here,
which
Ive
never
done
as
an
art
critic.
But
this
is
why
the
zombie
formalism
thing
is
so
important.
He
coined
the
term
that
actually
discusses
what
the
market
is
doing
right
now,
focusing
on
a
certain
generation
of
New
York
painters
who
do
abstract
process
work.
I
think
his
argument
was
really
weak,
because
he
talks
about
sameness
and
not
about
financial
structures,
but
I
think
its
really
decisive
that
he
did
that,
because
he
recognizes
that
criticism
generates
cultural
capital,
which
in
turns
generates
capital,
so
actually
keeping
that
market
in
check
is
really
important.
And
the
fact
that
it
will
be
the
same
in
every
kind
of
publication.
Like
if
you
publish
negative
reviews
on
a
book
review
site,
there
will
be
a
much
lower
click
rate
through
to
Amazon.
And
if
you
publish
negative
reviews
on
a
music
site,
less
people
will
stream
it.
So
I
wonder,
though,
if
this
instinct
to
only
publish
positive
reviews
actually
goes
against
the
nature
of
the
Internet.
Mainly
because
I
think
negative
reviews
travel
infinitely
better.
Have
you
ever
seen
a
positive
review
that
went
viral?
No.
But
I
did
bring
my
favorite
negative
review
that
went
viral
for
you
guys.
It
is
also
from
the
New
York
Times.
It
is
also
Pete
Wells,
because
he
is
the
star
of
viral
content.
So,
this
is
a
review
of
Guy
Fierris
restaurant
in
Times
Square,
which
is
written
as
aI
love
that
youre
laughingits
written
as
a
list
of
questions,
and
it
starts
with,
Guy
Fierri,
have
you
ever
eaten
at
your
new
restaurant
in
Times
Square?
Have
you
pulled
up
one
of
the
five
hundred
seat
at
Guys
American
Kitchen
&
Bar
and
ordered
a
meal?
Did
you
eat
the
food?
Did
it
live
up
to
your
expectations?
And
why
did
the
toasted
marshmallows
taste
like
fish?
It
ends
with
Thanks,
by
the
way.
One
of
the
most
amazing
things
about
this
review,
apart
from
the
fact
that
it
made
everyone
talk
about
criticism
for
a
while,
is
that
it
sparked
a
conversation
about
the
nature
of
negative
reviews.
The
New
York
Times
opinionated
blog
ran
bunch
of
op-eds
about
the
state
of
negative
criticism.
The
public
editor
blog
brought
in
the
cultural
editor
to
discuss
negative
criticism.
I
think
this
is
all
really,
really
valuable,
but
Im
not
gonna
be
naive.
I
also
know
that
sharing
means
participating
in
the
economy
of
scale
that
is
the
Internet.
Funny
enough,
even
though
the
Internet
should
have
been
something
for
small
scale
operations,
because
you
could
all
do
that,
this
myth
that
audiences
will
self-
organize
online
really
doesnt
exist.
Theres
no
If
you
publish
it,
they
will
come.
What
actually
happens
is
that
most
of
your
audience
congregates
around
like
10
websites,
and
theyre
all
underwritten
by
enormous
corporations.
The
result
is
that
we
see
a
similar
kind
of
mingling
together
in
the
culture
sphere,
too.
Ive
been
really
interested
in
this
literary
site
called
LitHub
recently.
Im
gonna
read
you
their
About
page:
Literary
Hub
is
an
organizing
principle
in
the
service
of
literary
culture,
a
single,
trusted,
daily
source
for
all
the
news,
ideas
and
richness
of
contemporary
literary
life.
There
is
more
great
literary
content
online
than
ever
before,
but
it
is
scattered,
easily
lost.
With
the
help
of
its
partners
publishers
big
and
small,
journals,
bookstores
and
non-profitsLiterary
Hub
will
be
a
place
where
readers
can
return
each
day
for
smart,
engaged,
and
entertaining
writing
about
all
things
books.
I
guess
the
assumption
is
that
all
these
magazines
and
publications
are
stronger
together,
but
it
just
seems
to
me,
you
can
imagine
more
generalized,
more
popular,
more
eyeballs.
Thats
why
aggregators
like
Rotten
Tomatoes
become
so
influentialthey
centralize
the
discourse.
So,
what
does
more
eyeballs
actually
do?
It
means
more
sharing,
but
is
sharing
actual
participation,
and
what
does
it
mean
to
go
viral?
Im
just
going
to
remind
you
about
the
terms
of
engagement
before
we
talk
about
sharing
and
participation.
Every
tweet,
reblog
and
like
means
another
moment
when
the
cash
register
makes
that
beautiful
little
bell
sound
for
a
number
of
companies,
too,
the
social
media
platform,
the
publisher,
the
advertising
agency,
the
actual
retailer
that
is
selling
you
something.
When
the
way
we
interact
online
is
already
so
fraught
in
monetary
terms,
for
something
to
just
go
viral
means
to
activate
the
system
time
and
again.
But
all
in
all,
much
of
what
we
do
online
is
to
participate
and
its
parceled
into
two,
that
personal
feedback,
so
the
fav,
the
like,
whatever,
and
the
quote-unquote
useful
feedback.
I
think
its
really
telling
that
on
Yelp
when
you
create
a
review,
it
asks
you
was
this
review
cool,
useful,
or
funny?
Theres
nothing
ever
negative
in
that.
But
Im
really
interested
in
the
use
value
of
crowdsourced
criticism,
because
its
one
of
the
very
few
new
forms
that
developed
online,
except
for
blogging
basically.
So,
while
crowdsourced
interaction
is
really
easily
monetizable,
unremunerated
labor,
it
also
messes
with
predetermined
economic
structures,
especially
in
the
art
contextin
the
art
context
thats
specifically
scarcity.
I
think
when
you
publish
criticism
in
general,
the
actual
strongest
claim
you
make
be
it
negative
positive
or
whatever,
is
what
you
wrote
about.
Thats
it.
After
that,
all
you
can
do
is
a
shopping
list
of
whats
in
the
exhibition,
because
you
wrote
about
this,
and
thats
what
matters.
For
every
exhibition
I
write
about,
I
neglect,
what,
the
other
600
galleries
in
New
York?
So
it
becomes
this
place
where
the
subject
is
the
real
criticism.
I
think
this
is
a
really
valid
conversation
to
have
right
now,
because
the
New
York
Times,
this
week,
announced
that
theyre
not
going
to
review
every
film
that
opens
in
New
York.
Which
is
going
to
make
the
film
criticism
scene
very
different,
but
I
know
nothing
about
this.
So
not
having
a
space
to
cover
everything
is
definitely
one
of
the
virtues
of
magazines,
its
selective.
Whereas
Yelp
could
include
every
storefront
in
New
York
City.
How
do
the
economics
of
criticism
change
when
something
thats
traditionally
scarce
becomes
so
abundant?
It
means
that
reviews
turn
symbolic
capital,
which
is
attention,
into
monetary
capital.
Thats
where
the
brilliance
of
Amazons
introduction
of
user-generated
reviews
is
that
the
company
can
monetize
something
that
it
doesnt
need
to
take
any
responsibility
for.
While
the
integrity
of
many
of
the
reviews,
maybe
even
most
of
them,
can
be
questioned,
the
effect
of
having
original
or
semi-original
content
on
the
site
means
that
it
sells
more.
Its
kind
of
amazing,
crowdsourced
criticism
enhances
and
plays
on
both
monetary
systems
that
are
predominant
in
the
digital
economyscale
and
participation.
So
is
this
where
art
criticism
is
going?
I
started
this
talk
talking
about
circulation
and
how
the
digital
culture
has
modified
circulation
of
music,
literature,
film.
The
main
reason
contemporary
art
has
not
been
as
impacted
by
the
digital
turn,
is
that
the
art
object
is
notsometimes,
but
not
alwaysinfinitely
reproducible
as
a
digital
film
like
an
.mp3,
.mov,
or
.epub.
Except
for
those
artists
who
play
with
that.
To
me
thats
one
of
the
most
interesting
things
that
artists
can
do
right
now.
And
I
follow
people
who
do
that
and
find
it
really
fascinating,
but
thats
not
what
you
see
in
most
galleries
in
Chelsea.
What
you
see
in
most
galleries
in
Chelsea
is
zombie
formalism.
Its
this
one
object.
So
the
way
to
deal
with
this
one
object,
I
think,
is
also
to
put
it
online.
The
result
of
that,
though,
is
that
I
feel
like
the
Internet
promotes
this
behind
kind
of
service-oriented
criticism.
So
even
though
were
talking
about
stuff
thats
online,
what
you
see
online
is
only
that.
So
look
at
artform.com,
for
example,
while
Artforum
publishes
a
great
review
section,
many
of
my
friends
write
for
it,
online
all
they
publish
is
positive
reviews.
Its
only
meant
to
basically
give
you
an
analysis
of
whats
up
and
send
you
there.
I
dont
know
how
thats
going
to
change
when
we
start
viewing
more
and
more
art
online.
So
like
right
now
were
seeing
this
amazing
proliferation
of
organizations,
both
for
profit
and
not
for
profit,
that
are
really
grappling
with
the
presentation
of
work
online
on
different
levels
of
complexity,
especially
moving-image
work.
London
Gallery,
Carroll/Fletcher
initiated
Carroll/
Fletcher
Onscreen,
which
displays
different
video
works
for
two
weeks
at
a
time.
The
same
system
fuels
Vdrome,
which
is
organized
by
Mousse
Magazine.
They
also
commissioned
a
new
essay
on
each
video
they
show
on
the
site.
Another
London-based
organization
called
Opening
Times
Digital
Art
Commissions
supports
new
work
online,
so
they
commission
your
work,
they
give
you
all
the
support
in
the
world,
its
kind
of
amazing.
And
a
number
of
museums,
like
the
museum
in
Tate
Modern,
have
begun
experimenting
with
the
presentation
the
work
on
their
websites
beyond
just
the
collection
tour.
And
on
top
of
that,
there
are
all
these
sites
that
are
trying
to
sell
you
art
online.
I
spend
so
much
time
grappling
with
what
the
financial
model
is
for
Artsy
or
Paddle8
or
anything
like
that
but
theres
the
sense
that
theres
money
online,
and
the
first
company
to
monetize
the
online
art
marketplace
will
win
it.
Christies
invested
$50
million
in
building
a
custom
built
e-commerce
business.
Sothebys
has
partnered
with
Ebay
to
make
premium
art
and
collectibles
accessible
to
buyers
everywhere.
This
is
from
the
press
release.
Theres
this
basic
assumption
that
theres
a
market
for
this
and
that
market
is
only
going
to
grow.
I
saw
in
the
New
York
Times
article
about
the
Christies
online
initiative.
Josh
Auerbach,
who
is
the
manager
of
it,
and
by
the
way
came
from
Gilt
Groupe,
the
luxury
sales
company,
said
that
their
research
shows
that
about
53%
of
those
who
registered
to
bid
online
are
under
the
age
of
45.
As
for
the
most
popular
categories
of
the
online
auctions,
get
this,
post-war
and
contemporary
art,
fashion,
followed
by
wine
and
cheese.
I
think
its
really
telling.
I
think
its
really
telling,
also,
that
a
major
art
fair
didnt
step
into
this.
Just
think
about
Art
Basel
online
sales,
if
there
was
a
lot
of
money
to
be
made
there,
Art
Basel
would
have
made
it
already.
That
said,
I
probably
dont
know
anything
about
money,
because
if
I
did,
I
wouldnt
have
been
an
art
critic.
I
cant
tell
you
if
theyll
succeed,
but
I
can
tell
you
that
theres
this
huge
leap
that
needs
to
be
made
for
art
sales
online
to
become
the
kind
of
game
changer
that
Amazon
was.
Because
youre
dealing
with
a
singular
or
almost
singular
object.
Artsy
and
Art
Space
seem
to
think
that
the
solution
is
producing
editorial
content.
This
editorial
ambition
reminds
me
of
the
early
days
of
Amazon
in
the
90s
when
the
company,
before
reintroduced
user
reviews,
actually
hired
maybe
30
editors
and
they
would
publish
reviews,
previews,
interviews,
forthcoming
books.
A
lot
of
the
language
around
companies
like
Artsy
or
Paddle8
and
Art
Store
revolves
around
discovery,
again,
so
what
were
seeing
is
these
service
reviews
being
pushed
to
that
kind
of
editorial
content.
But
to
be
honest,
if
discovery
is
the
way
artsy
imagines
it,
like
the
art
genome
project
that
maps
similar
works,
as
in
People
who
bought
this,
also
bought
this
but
its
based
on
school
and
subject
and
methodology.
In
that
world,
I
kind
of
prefer
the
service
criticism.
But
really,
if
were
talking
in
terms
of
the
discovery
of
new
art,
how
come
we
dont
have
a
Pitchfork
for
contemporary
art?
Id
really
much
prefer
that
to
Artsy.
So
as
presentation
of
art
online
changes
in
a
way
that
I
find
really
curatorially
fascinating,
and
that
will
be
a
huge
promoter
of
digitally
engaged
work,
were
going
to
have
to
develop
these
new
ways,
or
at
least
new
outlets,
to
analyze
it.
I
for
example
have
a
lot
of
hope
for
the
mailing
list
as
of
a
forum
that
we
havent
exhausted
at
all.
Even
though
e-flux
might
have
a
little
bit.
I
think
its
a
really
promising
model,
mainly
because
its
a
way
of
surpassing
the
digital
advertising
revenue
as
we
know
it,
by
which
I
mean
selling
your
data
bundled
to
a
bunch
of
websites.
But
yeah,
Im
looking
for
these
new
models.
Most
of
these
structures
that
I
discussed
today
relate
to
an
ad
revenue
based
Internet.
I
really
hope
things
will
change.
I
think
there
is
no
bigger
disappointment
on
the
Internet
than
free
culture.
If
the
user
wont
pay,
the
advertiser
will,
the
result
of
this
is
a
digital
economy
where
websites
that
are
all
aggregating
and
packaging
the
same
material
are
hoping
to
attract
as
many
eyeballs
as
possible
and
with
the
eyeballs
come
advertising
revenue.
Its
kind
of
weird
that
in
my
attempt
to
close
on
an
optimistic
note
Im
basically
telling
you
youre
all
going
to
have
to
pull
out
your
credit
card
or
Paypal
account
or
Google
Wallet
or
whatever
digital
wallet
were
going
to
use.
But
I
think
that
this
will
lead
us
to
the
kind
of
criticism
that
we
deserve.
The
more
the
Internet
veers
toward
paid
models,
the
better
off
well
be,
I
dont
know
if
art
criticism
will
catch
up
with
this
before
or
after.
I
think
you
can
imagine
what
Im
crossing
my
fingers
for.
Thank
you.
Christopher
Knight,
Los
Angeles
Times
The
redoubtable
American
writer
Mark
Twain
once
said
that,
An
expert
is
just
some
guy
from
out
of
town.
Im
from
out
of
town.
I
imagine
that
my
expertise,
such
as
it
is,
has
been
requested
because
of
all
the
symposium
panelists,
I
pretty
much
represent
the
guy
down
at
the
boatyard
where
the
ship
is
sailing.
Hes
got
one
foot
on
the
dock,
and
one
foot
on
the
boat,
and
watery
doom
is
yawning
wider
and
wider
between
slowly
spreading
legs.
The
dock
in
this
instance
is
print.
Newspapers,
old
media,
dead
trees,
or
the
term
that
I
prefer,
legacy
media.
The
boat,
of
course,
is
digital.
The
Internet
and
its
proliferating
social
media
formats.
Now,
we
could
talk
about
the
differences
between
print
and
digital,
starting
with
the
limited
size
of
a
news
hole
on
a
piece
of
paper,
versus
the
limitless
space
on
the
web,
plus
a
lot
more,
but
at
this
late
date
more
than
a
generation
into
the
revolution,
we
pretty
much
know
what
most
of
those
differences
are.
For
me,
the
most
interesting
and
perhaps
the
most
puzzling
one
has
always
been
the
audience.
Who
is
the
audience
for
print?
Whos
the
audience
for
digital?
Are
they
the
same
person?
Do
they
read
the
same
way?
How
do
they
come
upon
the
writing
that
is
before
them
in
print
or
in
the
ether?
In
these
kinds
of
discussions,
the
reader
is
often
what
Franklin
Roosevelt
once
called,
the
forgotten
man.
The
one
being
indifferently
squashed
down
at
the
bottom
of
the
pyramid.
I
think
that
one
primary
difference
between
most
print
publication
and
most
digital
publication
has
to
do
with
the
question
of
the
forgotten
reader.
Although
the
situation
is
changing,
every
writer
knows
that
before
something
appears
in
print,
it
will
be
read
by
an
editor.
An
editor
is
every
print
writers
first
reader.
In
digital
publishing,
this
may
or
may
not
be
the
case.
There
may
or
may
not
be
an
editor.
The
span
ranges
from
online
journals,
which
probably
will
have
an
editor,
to
social
media
platforms
like
Facebook
and
Twitter,
which
almost
never
do.
Social
media
is
home
to
societys
raging
id.
And
readers,
including
editors,
are
its
restraining
super
ego.
I
write
art
criticism
for
one
primary
reason.
I
write
art
criticism
in
order
to
find
out
what
it
is
I
think.
And
my
job
as
a
professional
art
critic
is
to
find
ways
to
bring
a
reader
into
that
process.
Criticism
is
writing.
If
I
knew
what
I
thought
before
I
sat
down
to
write,
I
would
not
be
writing,
I
would
just
be
typing.
Id
be
taking
dictation
from
my
memory
and
transferring
it
through
a
keyboard.
Now,
it
will
probably
come
as
no
surprise
to
you
that
no
one
is
going
to
pay
you
a
salary
just
to
allow
you
to
find
out
what
it
is
you
think.
For
a
professional
art
critic,
thats
where
the
professional
part
comes
in.
The
very
first
question
posed
by
the
folks
at
Superscript
in
putting
together
this
symposium
is
this
one:
What
is
the
role
of
the
professional
art
critic?
For
me,
theres
no
question
thats
likely
to
come
up
today
that
is
more
easily
answered
than
that
one.
My
role
as
a
professional
art
critic
at
the
Los
Angeles
Times
is
to
sell
newspapers.
My
role
as
a
professional
art
critic
at
the
Los
Angeles
Times
is
to
generate
traffic
at
our
website.
I
say
this
not
to
be
sensationalistic
or
crass,
although
I
suspect
some
institution
somewhere
will
likely
pull
the
quote
and
misrepresent
my
position.
I
say
it
instead
simply
for
the
sake
of
clarity.
It
was
in
fact
the
first
lesson
that
I
learned
when
I
became
a
journalist
35
years
ago.
Like
most
professional
art
critics
I
know,
I
became
one
pretty
much
by
accident.
I
had
left
my
prior
profession
of
art
museum
curator,
which
I
discovered
I
didnt
have
the
temperament
for,
when
one
day
the
telephone
rang.
It
was
an
editor
at
the
old
Los
Angeles
Herald
Examiner,
the
afternoon
newspaper
in
town.
He
told
me
they
were
looking
for
a
freelance
art
writer
and
someone
had
given
them
my
name.
Would
I
be
interested?
I
said,
Sure,
but
I
dont
know
anything
about
journalism.
And
he
said,
Dont
worry,
we
do.
So
I
became
a
newspaper
art
critic,
and
I
learned
on
the
job.
This
was
in
the
summer
of
1980.
And
although
the
Herald
had
been
publishing
since
1903,
it
had
never
had
a
staff
art
critic
before
then.
But
it
needed
one
now.
A
group
of
prominent
and
influential
citizens
had
prevailed
upon
the
mayor,
Tom
Bradley,
to
support
the
launch
of
a
museum
of
contemporary
art
as
part
of
a
massive
downtown
redevelopment
plan.
In
the
face
of
this
challenge,
the
old
guard
in
town
had
gotten
a
bit
nervous,
so
they
launched
a
campaign
of
their
own
to
build
a
big
modern
art
wing
at
the
Los
Angeles
County
Museum
of
Art.
And
most
important
of
all,
recently
a
dead
mans
will
had
emerged
from
a
lengthy
probate,
and
suddenly
the
little
J.
Paul
Getty
museum
at
the
edge
of
Malibu
was
the
richest
art
museum
in
the
nation.
As
an
afternoon
newspaper,
the
Herald
had
been
struggling
against
the
changing
environment
of
television
news
and
it
was
determined
that
one
final
push
would
be
made
for
stability
and
success.
So
they
did
what
most
businesses
do,
they
commissioned
a
marketing
survey
to
analyze
the
competition.
The
LA
Times.
What
areas
of
coverage
did
readers
of
the
Times
find
to
be
deficient?
It
turned
out
that
there
were
four
areas
that
readers
found
to
be
wanting:
local
news,
sports,
Hollywood,
and
cultural
affairs.
So
thats
where
the
Herald
decided
it
would
direct
all
of
its
assets
and
it
began
hiring
a
roster
of
critics
to
fill
the
cultural
affairs
part.
It
made
for
a
somewhat
schizy
newspaper,
but
thats
how
I
got
a
new
profession.
You
may
have
noticed
that
the
generative
impulse
for
bringing
art
criticism
to
the
newspaper
did
not
come
from
some
high-minded
regard
for
these
spiritual,
emotional,
intellectual,
or
otherwise
tonic
qualities
of
art.
This
is
America
were
talking
about,
and
in
America,
art
has
always
been
a
minority
interest.
It
came
instead
from
witnessing
the
movement
of
power.
Institutional
power,
political
power,
and
social
power
within
the
city.
It
came
from
recognizing
that
engagement
with
power
is
a
primary
function
of
the
power
of
journalism.
And
before
Im
an
art
critic,
I
am
a
journalist.
There
are
lots
of
different
kinds
of
art
criticism.
But
as
a
journalistic
art
critic,
my
aim
is
to
enfold
the
power
of
art
within
the
larger
dynamic
of
power
relationships
in
society.
I
relate
all
of
this
personal
back
story,
because
I
think
it
illustrates
something
important.
If
you
ask
what
is
the
role
of
the
professional
art
critic
and
the
context
that
comes
to
mind
for
that
role
is
limited
to
art,
then
the
answer
is,
there
really
isnt
one.
Art
criticism
has
no
essential
role.
Art
can
get
along
just
fine
without
it.
Artists
will
do
what
artists
do.
In
the
body
of
art,
art
criticism
is
the
appendix.
Surgical
removal
of
the
appendix
causes
no
observable
health
problems.
The
idea
that
professional
art
criticism
has
an
inherent
role
to
play
in
art
is
a
fiction,
and
fiction
is
what
art
criticisms
write.
Its
a
form
of
literary
prose
in
which
the
writers
imagination,
experiences
and
engages
with
the
work
of
art,
and
it
invites
the
reader
along.
In
other
words,
art
criticism
is
social
media.
It
always
has
been.
Ever
since
Giorgio
Vasari
was
making
up
stuff
about
Giotto
and
Piero
della
Francesca
in
the
16th
century.
Today
its
potential
reach
and
interactivity
are
bigger,
faster,
and
its
sources
theoretically
endless,
but
I
would
submit
that
its
moral
and
ethical
conundrums
are
not
much
different
than
theyve
ever
been.
If
my
digital
job
as
as
a
professional
art
critic
is
to
generate
traffic
to
the
LA
Times
website,
I
just
have
to
decide
whether
thats
best
achieved
by
a
nonstop
diet
of
listicles
and
cat
videos
which
would
probably
do
the
trick.
Or
by
something
else
entirely.
Thanks.
Isaac
Fitzgerald,
BuzzFeed
Books
Thank
you
so
much
for
coming.
And
thank
you
to
the
Walker
Art
Center
for
having
us.
I
think
its
really
important,
and
Im
really
happy
to
be
here.
So
Im
just
going
to
get
into
it.
Im
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
myself,
and
why
I
came
to
be
up
here
before
you
today.
And
then
Im
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
on
the
subject
of
the
discussion
that
were
here
to
have.
From
the
very
beginning,
Im
a
book
lover.
Ive
always
been
a
book
lover.
I
grew
up
loving
books.
I
grew
up
in
the
south
end
of
Boston
in
the
1980s,
before
it
got
as
ritzy
as
it
is
today.
And
then
from
there
I
actually
moved
to
north
central
Massachusetts,
which
is
kind
of
like
the
Kid
Rock
of
Massachusetts.
Its
a
lot
of
trailers
and
beer
and
guns
and
thats
what
we
did
with
our
time.
When
I
could
sneak
away
from
the
beer
and
the
guns
and
the
trucks,
I
would
always
grab
a
book.
Books
were
kind
of
my
escape,
both
in
in
the
city
and
in
the
country.
From
there
I
got
lucky.
I
got
a
scholarship.
I
got
to
go
to
a
boarding
school.
A
place
where
education
was
taken
seriously.
And
that
meant
the
world
to
me.
From
there
I
got
to
go
to
college,
which
I
actually
wasnt
planning
on
doing
before
that.
And
I
didnt
know
what
to
do
with
myself.
The
whole
time,
though,
I
was
reading.
Sitting
in
the
back
of
the
class,
I
had
a
book
under
a
desk,
in
between
classes,
after
nights
out,
waking
up,
not
wanting
to
moveId
always
be
reading.
So
for
me,
I
mean
again
for
me,
books
were
just,
they
were
constantly
there
and
they
were
always
there.
But
I
had
no
idea
how
they
got
made.
So
going
to
college
I
said
hey,
you
know
what
I
should
do
is
political
science,
because
that
makes
sense,
because
thats
where
I
am.
I
dont
feel
strongly
about
politics,
I
never
carried
politics
with
me
throughout
my
life,
but
that
seemed
like
the
right
decision
to
do.
So
I
graduated,
I
went
into
politics,
I
helped
get
a
guy
into
Congress,
I
realized
I
hated
politics,
and
that
Id
made
a
terrible
decision
and
just
wasted
a
ton
of
my
life,
education
and
time.
From
there
I
moved
to
New
Hampshire,
where
I
painted
houses
for
a
little
while,
and
from
there
I
met
a
girl
who
went
to
San
Francisco,
and
like
all
of
us
who
dont
know
what
to
do
with
our
lives,
I
followed
a
relationship.
I
moved
to
San
Francisco,
and
I
worked
at
a
wonderful
place
called
Buca
di
Beppo.
Its
like
the
Olive
Garden
but
worse,
for
those
of
you
who
dont
know
what
it
is.
But
at
the
time
I
probably
made
more
money
than
Id
ever
made
to
date,
if
you
take
it
as
an
hourly
rate,
and
thats
the
truth.
That
freed
up
20
hours,
so
I
basically
only
had
to
work
20
hours
a
week.
With
20
hours
a
week
and
nothing
to
do,
the
person
that
Id
moved
out
there
for
grew
sick
of
me
quickly
and
tried
to
find
me
something
to
do.
Look,
she
says,
theres
this
place
called
thats
called
826
Valencia.
It
says
it
has
storytelling
workshops,
you
love
telling
stories,
because
you
wouldnt
shut
up,
why
dont
you
go
to
that.
So,
I
went
to
this
place
called
826
Valencia,
and
five
minutes
into
the
training
session
there,
I
realized
that
we
were
talking
about
working
with
kids,
it
was
not
storytelling
and
book
making
for
adults,
but
you
cant
really
get
you
up
out
of
that
meeting
and
walk
away,
because
then
you
look
like
a
big
jerk
who
doesnt
care
about
kids.
So
that
what
I
started
to
do,
I
started
to
volunteer
my
time
there,
and
I
started
to
work
there,
and
I
started
to
work
with
these
kids
and
watched
reading
affect
their
lives
and
affect
the
way
that
they
saw
the
world.
And
at
the
same
time
I
noticed
around
the
center,
this
is
a
creative
writing
center
for
youth
and
its
in
many
different
cities
now,
and
it
was
started
by
Dave
Eggers
and
McSweeneys,
and
around
the
walls
I
saw
these
manuscripts,
these
pages
from
these
manuscripts,
and
they
had
this
scribbling
all
over
them.
And
I
realized
that
these
were
manuscript
pages
from
very
famous,
famous
people.
Books
that
I
have
read,
that
I
had
grown
up
with.
What
are
these?
Whats
this
scribbling?
Well,
thats
to
show
the
kids,
the
person
in
the
training
center
said,
thats
to
show
the
kids
that
writing
is
a
collaborative
process,
thats
to
show
them
that
no
book
is
created
by
some
person
in
a
magical
cave
who
sits
down
by
a
typewriter
and
just
writes
and
prints
it
out
perfectly
and
sends
it
out
to
a
publisher
and
then
its
a
book.
Thats
to
show
them
that
its
an
art
form,
that
its
a
struggle,
that
theres
so
many
different
voices
that
takes
part
in
its
creation.
And
I
was
so
glad
that
they
were
teaching
8-year-olds
that
because
at
the
age
of
23,
I
finally
found
out
where
books
came
from.
I
finally
realized
that
they
werent
made-because
thats
how
I
thought
books
worked.
And
I
came
to
it
very
late.
So
from
there,
I
got
involved
a
lot
in
the
literary
community
in
San
Francisco,
and
I
got
to
work
on
this
small
website
called
The
Rumpus,
which
is
an
online
culture
magazine.
Now
this
was
the
mid
2000s,
people
have
mentioned
it
here
before,
but
what
was
happening
in
the
mid
2000s
is
that
everybody
was
convinced
that
publishing
was
dying,
so
why
start
an
online
arts
and
culture
magazine
in
the
middle
of
the
sky
is
falling
falling
mentality
of
the
mid
2000s?
Well,
we
didnt
have
a
lot
of
money,
and
for
the
record
Id
actually
ended
up
working
at
a
political
website,
and
I
wanted
to,
yet
again,
get
out
of
politics.
So,
Stephen
Elliott,
the
author
who
started
The
Rumpus,
came
to
me
and
said,
do
you
want
to
take
50%
less
pay
and
no
health
care
and
come
work
on
this
books
website?
And
I
said,
absolutely,
because
that
what
you
can
do
when
youre
young
and
youre
dumb
and
youre
living
in
San
Francisco
in
a
one
bedroom
with
three
different
people.
I
didnt
think
it
would
work.
I
definitely
didnt
think
it
would
work
for
as
long
as
it
did,
and
still
continues
to
after
I
left.
But
those
years
were
fundamental
to
me
because
I
got
to
work
with
some
incredible
writers,
Roxane
Gaye,
Cheryl
Strayed,
writers
who
I
cared
deeply
about,
and
I
realized
that
there
was
this
whole
world
of
people,
and
not
just
in
the
San
Francisco
literary
scene,
but
out
there
online,
all
across
the
country,
all
over
the
world
who
really
cared
about
books
and
cared
about
the
discussion
of
books
and
cared
about
getting
attention
for
books,
the
books
that
maybe
werent
on
the
New
York
Times
bestseller.
And
I
got
to
be
a
part
of
that,
and
that
was
beautiful
for
me.
At
the
same
time,
everyone
like
I
said
was
saying
that
publishing
is
dying,
I
started
to
realize
that
publishing
wasnt
dying,
it
was
definitely
transitioning,
the
same
thing
that
had
happened
to
music
in
the
90s,
happened
to
publishing
in
the
2000s
is
probably
happening
to
movies
right
nowthe
Internet
was
just
changing
the
landscape.
I
feel
like
back
in
the
day
when
like
the
printing
press
was
invented,
a
bunch
of
monks
were
like,
well,
those
new
printing
press
books,
those
are
not
real
books.
These
hand-drawn,
hand-lettered
books,
now,
these,
mwah,
these
are
the
books,
this
is
the
stuff.
Because
thats
what
the
publishing
industry
is.
Weve
always
been
obsessed
with
our
own
demise.
Like
its
crazy.
If
you
take
a
group
of
neurotic
people
who
care
about
art
and
some
of
the
darker
things
in
life
and
what
it
means
to
be
a
human
beingso
weird
that
we
end
up
this
concept
of
morbid
mortality,
no,
it
makes
sense.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
The
publishing
industry
has
always
been
worried
about
itself.
Thats
always
the
been
case
and
its
always
been
changing.
The
Internet
is
one
of
these
new
changes.
But
theres
always
been
these
different
parts
of
it,
these
different
things.
Its
a
marketplace,
its
capitalism,
like
Christopher
was
saying,
its
about
getting
attention
for
books-I
mean
it
is.
Its
all
part
of
it.
So,
after
four
years
at
The
Rumpus,
McSweeneys
actually
needed
a
director
of
publicity,
and
after
four
years
of
championing
books,
I
decided
to
actually
start
working
on
helping
promote
them,
and
at
McSweeneys
I
had
the
distinct
pleasure
of
working
on
a
book
by
Hilton
Als
called
White
Girls.
And
I
bring
it
up
because
not
only
is
it
a
fantastic
book,
and
like
I
said,
I
love
to
champion
books,
and
if
you
havent
read
it,
and
I
think
especially
this
audience
its
an
important
book
for
you
to
read,
its
this
incredible
mixture
of
memoir
and
criticism
and
its
beautiful,
and
I
got
to
work
on
that
book,
and
it
meant
a
lot
to
me,
and
to
be
honest
Id
always
read
book
reviews
that
Id
definitely
come
to
approach
it
more
from
the
you
know,
help
me
figure
out
what
I
need
to
buy
approach
that
was
being
talked
about
earlier.
But
to
see
cultural
criticism
on
that
level,
to
see
that
it
itself
can
be
this
art
form
was
inspiring
and
incredible,
and
my
job,
though,
was
just
to
make
sure
that
it
got
as
much
attention
as
it
possibly
could.
And
working
in
publicity
was
an
eye-opening
experience,
because
I
realized
how
hard
it
is
out
there.
This
is
a
roomful
of
critics,
not
a
room
full
of
publicists.
But
I
think
its
a
room
full
of
critics,
and
all
of
us
are
probably
guilty
of
ignoring
a
lot
of
emails
from
a
lot
of
publicists.
And
thats
fine,
because
if
you
were
to
answer
every
single
one
of
them
that
would
be
insane,
but
it
did
show
me
the
other
side
of
things,
to
have
a
little
more
empathy.
But
I
did.
What
I
missed
was
talking
about
books
online.
What
I
missed
was
getting
in
the
mix
and
thats
when
the
book
section
at
BuzzFeed
was
announced,
that
they
were
going
to
have
an
editor,
and
so
many
friends
wrote
to
me
about
the
job
description
and
they
said,
you
have
to
take
it.
You
have
to
try
for
it.
Itsyou
miss
talking
about
books
online,
and
thats
absolutely
true.
And
thats
what
I
did.
So
I
said
a
couple
of
dumb
things
when
I
was
hired.
I
hadnt
actually
started
working.
I
hadnt
actually
built
anything,
but
like
we
like
to
do,
we
wanted
to
talk
about
it
first.
So
there
was
a
big
discussion
about
it,
and
Im
going
to
open
it
up
in
this
room.
Something
that
I
usually
only
tell
in
private.
But
it
was
hard
being
at
the
center
of
that,
there
was
a
day
when
I
turned
off
all
my
lights
in
my
bathroom
and
I
crawled
into
my
bathtub
fully
clothed.
I
didnt
turn
on
the
water.
It
wasnt
as
dramatic
as
all
that.
But
I
laid
there
for
a
little
while,
because
it
was
hard.
There
were
people
that
I
loved,
respected,
and
read
on
the
regular
telling
me
that,
just
because
I
said
that
I
wanted
to
be
nice
about
books,
that
I
was
full
of
shit.
And
when
people
you
care
about
and
respect
say
that
about
it,
you
it
can
be
very
difficult.
So
I
decided
to
step
away
from
it,
which
I
think
is
a
good
approach
sometimes
on
the
Internet.
Not
always.
Sometimes
youve
got
to
fight
for
it.
But
I
realized
I
hadnt
even
done
anything
yet.
So
I
stepped
away
from
the
fray,
and
I
started
working
on
it.
So
that
was
almost
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
and
BuzzFeed
Books
now
getsI
mean
I
dont
want
to
talk
exact
traffic
numbers,
but
gets
a
huge
amount
of
eye,
so
much
more
Im
allowed
to
do
for
books
than
I
was
doing
at
The
Rumpus.
We
have
a
mix
of
different
things
that
all
of
which
Im
very
proud
of.
One
is
quizzes.
One
is
recommendation
lists.
Another
way
that
we
try
to
draw
attention
to
books
is
a
if
theres
a
book
coming
out,
and
theres
an
author
Im
really
excited
for,
and
I
think
the
book
is
really
great,
Ill
approach
them
and
ask
them
to
write
something
for
the
site,
not
about
their
book,
not
so
its
a
commercial,
just
something
that
is
beautiful
and
unique,
so
that
I
can
take
this
author
whose
work
I
think
is
really
meaningful,
I
can
put
it
in
front
of
our
massive
audience,
if
they
write
something
really
good,
it
will
do
well
on
its
own.
I
do
believe
that
some
of
the
cream
does
rise
to
the
top.
And
there
at
the
end
of
the
piece
is
an
announcement
that
their
next
book
is
coming
out.
So
if
one
person
who
doesnt
know
about
this
writer
gets
to
read
this
wonderful
piece
that
moves
them,
then
they
discover
that
book
at
the
bottom,
they
buy
that,
they
read
this,
maybe
they
discover
this
personall
their
work.
That
means
the
world
to
me.
So
thats
another
way
we
do
it,
how
we
get
out
there.
Another
thing
we
do
is
6-Second
Book
Reviews.
I
was
told,
play
around
with
Vine,
Im
like
how
can
I
play
around
with
Vine
for
book
reviews?
That
seems
insane.
So
as
a
joke
I
started
yelling
at
the
camera
about
how
great
Kelly
Links
new
short
story
collection
Get
in
Trouble
is.
People
actually
really
liked
it.
And
thats
how
I
view
these
things.
Those
things
are
a
launching
off
point.
If
somebody
hears
something,
as
I
say
a
couple
of
quick
sentences
about
a
book,
if
it
sparks
their
interest
then
maybe
they
go
and
they
look
up
a
review.
Then
maybe
they
go
to
their
friends
and
ask,
hey
have
you
read
this
Kelly
Link
stuff.
Talk
about
it.
And
thats
what
I
want
to
be
doing,
sparking
interest.
Now,
the
lists,
recommendations,
the
quizzes,
the
books
entertainment
as
it
were,
a
lot
of
people
say
oh,
its
a
two-pronged
attack.
You
have
this
high-minded
stuff
and
you
have
this
which
Bronte
sister
are
you
stuff,
and
that
supplements
that,
right?
No,
it
doesnt.
For
me
its
all
part
of
the
mix.
Its
all
part
of
what
makes
that
little
site
work.
Its
all
part
of
my
little
slice
of
the
Internet,
which
is
going
to
get
to
our
discussion
now,
today.
I
really
view
this
all,
what
we
all
do,
as
a
giant
garden
party.
And
I
think
a
while
ago,
especially
before
the
Internet,
that
it
was
a
pretty
exclusive
garden
party,
and
there
was
champagne
and
people
dressed
certain
way
and
had
to
be
really,
really
nice
and
there
were
certain
things
talked
about
and
things
that
are
not.
And
what
the
Internet
did
was
this
still
exists
and
its
still
incredibly,
incredibly
important,
the
champagne
partthat
still
exists.
Its
not
about
storming
the
gates
of
that
and
tearing
it
apart.
Its
about
building
around
that
party,
so
that
more
and
more
voices
can
be
heard.
And
so
while
that
can
exist
over
here,
Im
going
to
be
playing
frisbee
over
there,
maybe
some
people
are
playing
beer
pong
over,
theres
some
fried
chicken
in
the
back,
theres
a
fish
fry
going
on
over
here,
its
all
a
giant
mix.
The
more
people
that
can
be
brought
into
the
discussion
of
this,
the
better.
Theres
talk
of,
again,
in
the
mid
2000s
was
that
books
were
dying.
Then
there
was
indie
bookstores
were
dying.
Barnes
&
Noble
is
all
the
sudden
something
we
need
to
care
about.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
though
now
indie
bookstores
are
on
the
rocks.
E-books
were
going
to
kill
books.
Well,
actually
e-
books
have
plateaued
off
and
book
sales
are
actually
doing
well.
That
kind
of
shakeup
has
happened
and
there
will
be
another
shakeup
that
happens
next.
But
books
arent
dying.
Books
criticism
isnt
gonna
die.
Because
thats
what
we
do,
thats
what
we
love
and
Im
coming
from
a
literary
standpoint,
but
I
think
it
could
be
said
of
all
art,
because
if
were
in
here
its
because
we
care
about
it,
its
because
we
love
it.
And
so
this
party
is
open
for
everyone
now.
And
if
there
are
people
in
the
audience
here,
if
youre
students,
all
I
can
say
is
I
have
to
encourage
you
to
start
something.
It
was
mentioned
earlier
the
Pitchfork
of
fine
arts.
Somebody
wishes
that
that
exists,
so
do
it.
Make
something
like
that
happen.
The
Rumpus
was
slowly,
slowly
built
over
four
years,
but
to
see
the
people
that
have
come
out
of
it
and
to
see
whats
happened
with
their
careers
has
just
been
invigorating.
So
if
you
dont
see,
if
theres
part
of
the
party
that
you
dont
like
or
if
theres
a
part
of
the
party
that
you
wish
was
there,
you
yourself
should
reach
out
and
should
do
it.
Because
thats
why
were
all
here,
right?
Negative
reviews,
positive
reviews,
were
all
here
because
we
care
about
it.
Were
all
here
because
either
we
grew
up
loving
books
or
we
grew
up
loving
art
or
we
grew
up
loving
some
different
aspect
of
it.
Whether
we
love
recommendation
lists,
or
whether
we
really
live
for
criticism
as
stand-alone
art,
were
all
here
because
we
really,
really
believe
in
it,
and
we
want
to
keep
talking
about
it,
and
I
think
the
fact
that
this
conference
even
exists
is
a
sign
that
everything
is
actually
going
really,
really
well.
Because
people
still
really,
really
care.
So
thank
you
so
much.
PANEL DISCUSSION:
Credibility, Criticism, Collusion
Orit
Gat:
So
Im
going
to
go
ahead
and
start.
Im
going
to
start
with
the
first
thing
that
I
deleted
from
my
essay,
which
was
I
thought
that
I
would
come
here
and
like
everyone
will
talk
about
the
death
of
criticism,
and
I
was
like
Im
going
to
start
by
saying
that
criticism
is
alive,
and
then
I
figured,
maybe
all
of
this
conversation
about
the
death
of
criticism
is
also
related
to
online
publishing
somehow
and
to
the
proliferation
of
new
voices
online.
And
I
wanted
to
see
what
you
guys
think
about
that
and
what
the
connection
between
that
conversation
and
the
rise
of
online
publishing
is.
Christopher
Knight:
True.
I
mean
you
know,
several
years
ago
when
there
was
this
whole
brouhaha
about,
you
know,
is
criticism
in
crisis
and
all
of
that.
I
thought
it
was
really
beside
the
point.
Criticism
was
never
in
crisis.
Publishing
was
in
crisis
and
theyre
not
the
same
thing.
And
because
the
platforms
were
changing
and
fluid
and
unknown,
and
all
of
that,
things
I
think
sort
of
got
misplaced,
and
one
of
the
primary
differences
betweenfor
me
at
any
rate,
between
digital
and
print
is
that
in
digital,
theres
much
more
opportunity
for
the
kind
of
chitchat
off
the
top
of
the
headas
someone
said,
I
think
it
was
Isaac,
but
you
know,
its
like
being
at
a
garden
party.
Where
people
are
talking,
and
usually
you
only
hear
that
face
to
face,
or
if
youre
eavesdropping
at
the
people
in
the
next
group,
but
now
its
online,
now
its
in
print,
now
billions
of
people
can
see
it.
So
the
wholethat
whole
layer
of
conversation
has
gone
public.
It
used
to
be
private.
Now
its
gone
public.
For
good
and
for
ill,
I
think
its
created
a
lot
of
confusion
about
criticism.
Isaac
Fitzgerald:
Yeah.
I
would
agree.
One
of
the
things
that
Im
most
excited
about,
one
of
the
positives
that
I
think
is
coming
out
of
it,
that
I
meant
to
get
to,
but
I
didnt,
but
is
the
rise
of
diverse
voices,
and
I
think
that
thats
so
important,
not
just
that
we
have
art
being
made
by
diverse
artists,
which
I
think
of
course
is
incredibly
important,
but
I
think
were
starting
to
almostits
almost
trickling
up.
Like
I
think
were
seeing
more
and
more
artists
of
color
creating
work,
and
then
talking
about
that
work,
but
were
now
also
getting
to
see
criticism
coming
from
all
these
different
avenues
where
there
didnt
exist
a
place
for
that
and
I
think
online
has
been
really,
really
great
for
this
kind
of
rise
in
not
just
the
diversity
of
the
art
or
the
diversity
of
the
artists,
but
the
diversity
of
the
people
that
get
to
have
the
conversations
around
the
art
that
we
talk
about,
which
I
think
is
just
so
incredibly
important,
to
all
these
conversations,
like
anything,
anything
gets
improved
through
diversity,
through
having
more
and
more
voices
and
I
just
think
that
thatthats
one
of
the
things
that
makes
me
so
excited
to
be
part
of
this
time,
I
guess,
is
the
ability
to
have
these
diverse
conversation.
Its
one
of
the
things
Im
really
proud
of
BuzzFeed
actually,
they
really
do
reach
out
and
try
to
work
with
so
many
different
types
of
people
from
so
many
different
types
of
backgrounds
to
make
sure
theres
this
inclusive
group.
Because
look
at
this
panel
right
here,
diversity
is
something
that
always
needs,
there
needs
to
be
more,
like
weve
got
one
woman,
and
I
dont
want
to
assume
peoples
backgrounds,
but
Im
a
white
boy
from
Boston.
And
so
I
justI
feel
like
to
have
the
more
diversity,
the
better,
and
I
think
thats
something
that
weve
seen
grow
both
with
this
online
publishing
art
thats
being
made
and
also
the
online
conversation
around
art.
Ryan
Schreiber:
Yeah,
when
Pitchfork
started
there
were
not
a
lot
of
other
music
publications
out
there
and
as
weve
grown,
all
of
a
sudden
there
are
now
all
these
music
publication,
music
blogs,
so
many
different
opinions
coming
out
about
all
these
different
records.
I
mean
there
aretheres
just
a
tremendous
number
of
voices
and
Pitchfork
staff
has
grown,
as
well,
so
we
have
now
like
you
know,
somewhere
in
the
range
of
120
contributors
or
freelancers,
so
its
really
interesting
to
see
how
people
engage
with
things
differently
and
how
peoples
backgrounds
play
into
it
Gat:
Im
going
to
move
from
the
death
of
criticism
to
the
death
of
the
critic,
the
appendix
in
the
art
world.
Knight:
Dont
look
at
me.
Gat:
This
isI
like
all
of
you
so
muchthis
is
my
first
point
of
contention.
I
think
criticism
is
still
really
important.
I
never
shy
away
from
telling
artists,
like
I
have
dinner
theres
a
bunch
of
artists
at
the
table,
they
ask
me
what
I
do,
I
respond
Im
an
art
critic.
I
think
its
really
important.
I
find
myself
as
a
completely
equal
within
the
arts
scene
to
them
basically
I
think
my
role
is
to
have
the
exact
same
conversation
at
the
exact
same
level
of
rigor
as
them,
and
I
dont
think
they
give
that
up,
maybe
some
of
them
would,
well,
especially
some
that
Ive
written
about,
but
I
dont
think
they
want
to
give
that
up.
I
think
thats
a
really
important
thing
to
discuss,
especially
with,
as
you
say,
more
and
more
criticism
happening
online,
it
seems
crazy
to
think
that
thats
not
just
as
important
as
the
rest
of
cultural
production.
Knight:
An
artist
once
said
to
me,
you
know,
without
me,
you
wouldnt
have
a
job,
you
wouldnt
have
anything
to
write
about,
and
I
said
that
is
not
true,
if
there
were
no
artists,
I
could
write
endlessly
about
why
not.
Fitzgerald:
Also,
I
just
feel
like
also
without
you,
you
know,
there
arehow
does
their
art
get
discovered?
And
I
felt
like
your
talk
was
just
absolutely
incredible
and
the
honesty
of
it
and
what
it
means
to
work
for
a
publication
and
to
try
and
attract
people
to
your
readership
and
basically
someone
thats
been
in
the
game
for
as
long
as
you
have,
and
had
such
an
established
career,
but
you
have
your
own
fan
base
and
we
were
talking
about
this
a
little
bit
earlier
but
this
dependability,
people
know
that
they
can
turn
to
you
and
that
youre
going
to
have
an
opinion
about
it,
and
I
feel
like
what
the
critic
does,
and
even
if
it
is
scathing,
it
still
is
drawing
attention
to
the
artist
and
the
artists
work,
so
without
them
you
would
definitely
have
something
to
talk
about,
but
without
you,
they
maybe
wouldnt
have
people
talking
about
their
stuff.
Knight:
Yes
and
no.
I
mean,
I
thinkhow
can
I
put
this?
I
think
artists,
as
I
said
in
my
talk,
artists
are
going
to
do
what
theyre
going
to
do,
and
if
Im
not
around
to
you
know,
direct
attention
towards
them,
theyre
going
to
find
ways
to
make
whatever
they
need
to
happen,
happen.
Theyre
really
good
at
that
and,
you
know,
its
much
more,
its
much
more
of
back
and
forth,
I
think,
as
Orit
was
saying,
than
me
directing
people
to
them.
I
mean
theyre
directing
me
to
them,
the
artists
are.
At
any
rate.
And
working
for
a
newspaper,
I
also
feel
a
certain
obligation
to
principally
write
about
art
that
a
readership
can
see,
so
Im
not
in
the
business
of
discovering
people
who
havent
had,
you
know,
an
exhibition
or
in
an
exhibition
somewhere
so
its
a
little
more
of
a
balanced
situation,
I
think.
And
also
art
is
going
to
be
more
and
more
a
discursive
thing.
So
many
artists
right
now
theyre
expected
to
be
able
to
talk
about
their
work,
that
even
puts
them
on
a
more
equal
level.
Do
you
feel
the
same
way
about
music?
I
dont
see
as
many
musicians
talking
about
their
work
analytically.
Schreiber:
No,
I
think
thats
true.
I
think
music,
its
almost
automatic.
Like
I
make
music
for
myself.
I
sit
down
and
play
and
I
think
that
release,
its
not,
you
its
notyou
know,
its
more
physical
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
you
know,
I
think
obviously
it
depends
on
the
artist.
There
are
some
obviously
brilliant
artists
who
do
think
extremely
intellectually
about
it,
but
I
think
one
of
the
rules
to
critics
is
kind
of,
you
know,
distinguishing
where
within
the
canon
or
where
within
an
artists
discography
certain
releases
fall
and
telling
the
story
overall
and
how
thats
shaped.
So
I
think
thats
an
interesting
thing.
Gat:
OK,
now
Im
going
to
warn
you
in
advance
Im
going
to
move
to
the
positive
and
negative
thing.
Why
dont
we
start
with
the
Bambi
rule
and
what
did
you
actually
think
about
that.
Knight:
What
were
you
thinking
about
in
the
bathtub?
Fitzgerald:
You
should
write
your
speeches
beforehand.
I
did
not
expect
for
that
to
spill
out
of
my
mouth.
I
feel
like
I
made
eye
contact
with
one
person
in
here,
and
you
looked
really
empathetic,
and
I
was
like,
all
right,
man,
Im
going
to
tell
a
bunch
of
strangers
about
the
half
a
day
I
spent
in
the
bathtub
in
the
dark.
This
is
a
story
Iand
again,
like
I
said,
I
kind
of
just
walked
away
from
it
and
tried
to
disengage
so
Im
talking
about
it
kind
of
for
the
first
time.
But
it
was
an
interview
that
I
gave
at
6
a.m.
If
you
read
the
whole
entire
thing,
like
you
were
talking
about
having
a
little
segment
taken
out
and
then
blown
up,
it
was
kind
of
a
very
offhand
comment.
Just
trying
to
answer
somebodys
question.
It
was
born
in
The
Rumpus,
I
wont
lie
about
that.
The
Rumpus,
we
had
a
very
hard
and
strict
rule,
do
not
review
your
friends
books,
I
think
were
talking
credibility
here,
right?
Like
you
definitely
should
not
do
that.
Thats
very
basic.
But
the
other
thing
we
wanted
to
do
was,
there
are
so
many
other
places
that
are
there
and
stand
ready
to
protect
the
readership.
If
somebody
who
has
a
giant
name
and
theyre
coming
out
with
a
book,
and
that
book
is
bad,
that
is
somebodys
job
to
point
that
out
to
say,
you
know
what,
this
is
maybe
that
persons
not
their
best
work.
But
at
The
Rumpus,
we
decided
were
going
to
stay
out
of
that
not
because
we
dont
think
its
important,
but
because
there
are
so
many
places
that
already
do
it,
and
I
kind
of
carried
that
into
it.
And
literally
it
came
to
me
growing
up
like
Bambi
was
the
first
movie
Id
ever
seen,
and
it
has
a
place
in
my
heart,
and
I
have
these
McDonalds
figurines
that
I
got
with
my
mom,
and
its
all
very
precious.
Its
not
actually
Bambi.
Its
Thumper.
Knight:
Thumper.
Its
the
Thumper
Rule.
Gat:
Should
we
have
this
panel
about
Disney,
actually?
Fitzgerald:
But
if
you
dont
have
anything
nice
to
say,
dont
say
anything
at
all.
What
I
meant
is
thats
how
Im
going
to
run
my
little
area.
Gat:
Isnt
that
throwing
responsibility
away?
Other
people
will
do
that,
Im
not
going
to
do
that,
but
it
is
remunerating
to
do
that
because
negative
reviews
travel
really
well
but
it
also
means
that
youre
escaping
something
thats
going
to
be
hard
to
do.
Something
that
means
that
youre
going
to
run
into
the
street
and
someone
is
going
to
say,
you
published
that
thing
about
me.
Fitzgerald:
I
dont
go
a
lot.
So
I
wouldnt
have
thatno,
its
a
responsibility
that
I
personally
dont
feel
like
Ive
ever
picked
up
that
banner,
so
I
dont
actually
feel
like
Im
letting
go.
Thats
what
Im
trying
to
to,
Im
trying
to
be
very
straightforward.
Like
I
didnt
want
to
hide
it.
I
wanted
to
be
very
straightforward
about
thats
my
approach
to
it
but
again
thats
my
approach.
Im
not
trying
to
be
the
best
critic.
Im
again,
Boston,
I
hope
Americas
best
critic,
I
hope
Americas
best
critic
doesnt
come
fromThats
not
what
Im
setting
out
to
do.
And
thats
kind
of
why
I
feel
OK
with
it.
The
guy
that
you
mentioned,
the
New
York
Times
writer
who
wrote
that
incredible
Gat:
Pete
Wells.
Fitzgerald:
He
just
had
another
one.
Which
was
fabulous.
If
you
think
I
didnt
read
that
and
think
mmmm
this
is
delicious.
Like
of
course,
absolutely,
I
loved
it
but
just
like
I
wouldnt
start
reviewing
food.
What
I
know
is
my
love
of
books.
I
promised
I
would
never
leave
San
Francisco
and
I
left
San
Francisco.
So
what
I
really
what
I
took
away
from
it
was
never
make
hard,
fast
statements.
But
Im
open
to
discussing
it
here
if
you
guys
want
to
talk
about
it.
Knight:
I
have
as
a
general
rule
of
thumb
in
terms
of
negativity:
only
punch
up,
never
punch
down.
If
an
artist
is,
you
know,
having
their
first
show
in
a
gallery
and
I
hate
it,
I
dont
review
it.
It
doesnt
matter.
If
its
a
major
artist
having
yet
another
show
that
I
dislike,
Im
more
than
happy
to
write
about
it.
Schreiber:
Yeah,
I
think
its
actually
really
essential,
because
in
a
lot
of
cases
artists
can
happen
overnight.
They
can
come
out
of
nowhere
and
be
suddenly
relevant
to
the
conversation
and
I
think
even
with
an
established
artist
its
worth
pointing
out.
You
know,
these
artists
can
become
more
relevant,
they
can
start
evolving.
Theres
a
lot
of
amazing
artists
whose
initial
records
are
not
their
best
work
and
maybe
are
their
worst
work,
and
within
the
greater
conversation,
for
us,
we
want
to
have
a
complete
catalog
of
that
artists
work.
So
if
they
start
off
on
something
and
then
they
kind
of
evolve
and
become
more
relevant,
become
more
significant,
their
art
becomes
better,
it
becomes
brighter,
I
think
having
that
initial
review
is
really
essential
to,
you
know,
parsing
their
work
as
a
whole.
Gat:
Yeah,
and
Im
going
to
bring
money
back
into
it,
because
apparently
thats
my
role
here.
We
all
work
in
industries
that
make
a
lot
of
money,
it
seems
really
important
do
you
have
to
keep
the
market
in
check.
I
have
written
about
artists
who
were
younger
than
me
who
had
their
first
solo
show
ever
and
wrote
really
negative
reviews
about
them
because
they
sell.
And
this
is
selling
because
its
pretty
and
it
looks
digital,
but
it
is
not
good
work,
point
blank.
I
know
thats
a
matter
of
taste
and
opinion
and
etc.
and
etc.,
and
taste
is
something
you
should
get
over,
but
it
seems
like
a
really
crucial
word.
But
I
also
in
my
research
about
this
positive
and
negative
thing,
which
all
sparked
by
Isaac
actually.
I
found
this
amazing
quite
from
Susan
Sontag
that
says,
I
dont
ultimately
care
for
handing
out
grades
for
a
work
of
art,
which
is
why
I
avoided
the
opportunity
of
writing
about
things
I
didnt
admire.
Im
also
interested
in
the
grading
thing.
Schreiber:
Yeah,
I
think
ratings
are,
well,
when
I
wasbefore
I
started
doing
Pitchfork,
I
read
a
ton
of
music
criticism
and
I
read
a
lot
of
books
you
know,
guide
books
essentially,
you
know,
and
I
think
thatI
think
just
having
an
at
a
glance
kind
of
ait
sets
the
tone
sort
of
for
what
the
review
is
about
to
say
and
I
think
its
also
good,
like
Im
sort
of
a
populist
type
of
person,
and
I
also
really
like
the
ability
to
kind
oflike
it
kind
of
opens
it
up
to
a
little
bit
of
a
broader
audience,
like
theres
a
lot
of
people
who
just
arent
that
interested
in
criticism,
as
well,
so
having
something
there
and
having
something
that
kind
of
grabs
their
attention
like
OK,
I
kind
of
know
what
youre
saying,
Ill
read
a
bit
of
it
but
I
alsoI
think
that
the
ratings
are
really,
again,
for
setting
framework
of
the
artists
discography.
Theyre
actually
really
tricky
because
Pitchforks
scale
seems
to
be
so
scientific
like
7.9,
these
really
granular
kind
of
ratings,
and
thats
sort
of
somewhat
of
a
gut
theres
not
really
a
lot
of
science
to
it,
its
just
this
is
where
we
kind
of
feel,
and
I
think
that
our
readers
kind
of
know
the
difference
what
the
difference
is
between
an
8.1
and
an
8.8,
that
there
is
actually
a
vast
difference.
When
youre
reviewing
five
records
a
day
and
you
have
a
catalog
of
thousands
upon
thousands
of
reviews,
these
distinctions,
you
know,
make
a
littlemake
sense.
But
I
do
think
that,
yeah,
that
ratings
aretheyre
a
form
of
populism,
but
also
I
think,
you
know,
just
placing
things
in
context.
Gat:
So
do
you
think
ratings
has
to
do
with
online
attention?
Do
people
expect
that
more
online?
Schreiber:
I
think
so,
yeah.
I
think
everything
is
really,
pretty
quickly
on
the
Internet.
Its
easy
to
be
distracted,
and
I
think
having
that
there,
I
think
its
a
nice
balance
because
our
reviews
are
often
quite
long,
and
I
think
thats
unusual.
It
allows
the
writer
to
go
very
in
depth
and
gives
the
reader
a
lot
to
chew
on
and
really
back
up
their
argument.
And
so,
yeah,
I
think
thatbut
attention
isit
isI
think
the
rating
does
play
into
that
a
lot.
Fitzgerald:
I
mean
I
just
want
to
think
like
as
a
fan,
it
works,
yeah.
Like
you
were
talking
about
remembering,
looking
at
Pitchfork
for
the
first
time,
we
were
talking
about
this
a
little
built
before,
but
I
was
raised
on
two
tapes
like
Les
Miserables
and
Billy
Joel
and
that
was
my
musical
education.
And
I
remember
discovering
Pitchfork.
As
somebody
who
didnt
know
music
background,
didnt
know
theory,
didnt
really
know
a
lot,
it
became
such
an
easy
place
to
discover
things
for
me
anded
that
rating
system,
because
thats
exactly
who
I
was,
I
wasnt
going
to
read
a
bunch
of
different
reviews,
is
oh,
heres
this
band,
they
obviously
think
very
highly
of
this
or
like
oh,
its
really
rough
but
thats
what
brought
me
in,
its
what
engaged
me,
because
like
you
said
its
this
framework
that
I
knew.
I
know
what
a
grading
system
is.
Gat:
Would
you
introduce
grading
system
in
BuzzFeed?
Fitzgerald:
No.
Gat:
Why
not?
Fitzgerald:
I
did
that
thing,
you
made
me
say
something
hard
and
fast.
Again,
because
I
would
do
with
Pitchfork
does.
The
way
I
view
my
role
is
Id
like
to
think
of
myself
as
like
your
friend
whos
just
like,
this
is
the
book
youve
got
to
check
out.
Im
nottheres
not
going
to
be
like
a
rating
of
how
much
I
think
this
like
thing
is.
These,
the
books
that
I
tend
to
talk
about,
the
authors
I
tend
to
talk
about,
are
people
that
I
really
think
other
people
should
be
discovering.
So
a
rating
system
in
the
context
in
how
I
talk
about
books
really
wouldnt
make
sense,
but
I
really
appreciate
that
Pitchfork
does
it.
Gat:
Would
a
rating
system
make
sense
in
arts?
Knight:
Every
now
and
then
theres
been
discussions
at
the
papershould
we
go
to
a
multi-star
review,
five
star,
four
star,
and
weve
always
resisted
it,
I
think
for
a
good
reason.
Whereas
youre
suggesting
that
it
can
help
bring
people
to
it,
I
think
it
pushes
people
away.
Oh,
its
only
got
three
stars,
Im
not
going
to
read
that,
and
if
the
writer
cantif
the
writer
cant
bring
the
reader
through
the
piece,
then
get
a
new
writer.
My
primary
goal
in
writing
a
review
is
that
once
a
reader
reads
the
first
paragraph,
I
consider
it
a
success
if
they
get
all
the
way
to
the
end,
and
if
they
dont
get
all
the
way
to
the
end,
then
the
review
is
a
flop.
Whether
they
go
see
the
show
or
something,
you
know,
Im
really
happy
if
it
inspires
people
to
go
see
a
show
or
something
like
that,
but
mostly
I
just
want
them
to
read
the
whole
thing,
and
you
know,
putting
stars
at
the
top
would
affect
that,
I
think,
in
a
negative
way.
Schreiber:
See,
I
would
think
thatI
think
maybe
from
kind
of
an
intuitive
place,
that
that
seems
like
it
makes
sense,
but
in
our
case
really
we
find
a
lot,
we
find
that
people,
at
least
from
the
metrics,
will
spend
an
average
of
3
to
4
minutes
on
our
review
pages.
Which
is
a
lot.
Some
people
are
spending
7
or
8
minutes
on
the
review
pages.
So
I
think
thats
something
that
like
early
on,
pitch
people
would
say
about
Pitchfork
and
oh,
Im
going
to
look
at
the
ratings
or
whatever,
and
that
says
something
about
you.
That
the
ratings
are
a
hook.
Its
interesting
knowing
going
into
something,
you
know,
how
good
or
how
bad
do
you
think
this
is,
and
that
to
me
is
always
sort
of
an
engaging
starting
point.
It
just
gives
you
like
a
little
reference
and
from
there
you
may
be
interested
in
reading
something
that
you
didnt
know
you
were
interested
in
reading.
You
know,
if
Iwithout
any
kind
of
rating
system
or
without
a
best
new
music
or
whatever,
I
think
that
Pitchfork
would
not
be
what
it
is,
I
think
that
these
types
of
things
kind
of
allow,
are
a
way
of
kind
of
just
hooking
somebody
and
getting
them
a
little
bit
more
interested.
There
are
five
reviews
a
day,
so
if
Im
supposed
to
sit
and
read
five
2,000-word
reviews,
you
know,
in
a
day,
thats
a
lot
of
expectation
to
place
on
readers,
because
we
want
to
be
comprehensive.
We
really
want
to
be
thorough,
and
I
think
that
just
giving
people
a
place
to
start,
its
like,
oh,
wow,
this
Mumford
and
Sons
record
is
a
2
or
is
a
1.9,
what
does
that
mean?
You
know,
I
think
getting
into
that
islike,
I
think
thats
a
fun
place
to
start,
you
know.
Oh,
I
really
have
to
read
what
they
said
about
this.
Gat:
I
wonder,
too,
because
having
a
rating
system
means
that
you
have
this
recognizable
structure
that
I
know
from
food
criticism,
which
I
clearly
read
all
the
time,
does
that
help
people
assert
their
authority?
That
seems
important
online.
You
work
with
young
critics,
you
work
with
young
critics,
how
do
people
assert
authority
online
over
Yelp
if
Yelp
is
considered
something
that
is
not
as
valuable?
Schreiber:
I
think
through,
how
do
they
assert
authority?
I
think
really
just
through
like
through
the
strength
of
their
opinions,
you
know,
its
like
any
other
critic,
in
a
lot
of
ways.
I
think
that
people
who
are
experienced
critics
or
experienced
Yelp
reviewers,
in
some
case
you
can
kind
of
tell.
But
yeah,
theyre
writing
the
review,
just
the
practice
of
reviewing
is
asserting
authority.
Gat:
Could
you
assert
authority
if
youre
only
writing
positive
reviews?
How
do
you
develop
a
long-
lasting
voice
if
youre
only
positive.
Schreiber:
I
think
that
would
be
really,
really
difficult.
I
think
asserting
authority,
really
at
that
point
it
just
comes
down
to
the
taste
of
coverage,
right?
Like
is
somebody
writing
about,
and
what
is
kind
of
new
and
whats
coming
to
the
surface,
and
Im
listening
for
myself,
and
do
I
like
it?
Its
a
very
different
kind
of
practice,
so
I
find
that
to
beits
one
way
of
doing
it,
but
I
think
that
asserting
authority,
I
think
the
negative
really,
negativity
lends
weight
to
the
positivity,
you
know,
without
one,
theres
just,
theres
not
this
balance,
theres
varying
degrees
or
varying
shades
of
positive.
And
yeah,
I
think
that
you
need
tothat
the
negative
reallyI
think
that
whenlike,
for
example,
Pitchfork
is
verywe
kind
of
have
a
reputation
as
being
tough
critics
or
difficult
to
please,
and
I
think
because
of
that,
it
does
lend
more
weight
to
when
we
think
something
is
really
exceptional,
I
think
it
creates
a
little
bit
more
interest.
Fitzgerald:
And
not
to
keep
hitting
a
dead
horse,
I
will
say
that
that
works
perfectly
for
him.
To
answer
your
question,
though,
for
me
its
dependability.
Its
do
the
recommendations
that
I
make
please
my
readership?
So
our
newsletter
that
we
have,
it
goes
out
twice
a
week
and
once
a
week
we
have
a
small
review,
just
a
paragraph
long,
its
just
art,
its
the
new
book
to
recommend
that
we
recommend
that
people
read
that
week.
And
obviously
not
everyone
reads
each
book
each
week,
it
all
depends
on
how
much
time
you
have,
etc.,
etc.,
but
that
newsletter
has
over
150,000
subscribers,
that
means
that
those
people
find
our
recommendations,
that
they
like
them
enough
to
keep
getting,
I
mean
email
is
time,
and
so
for
me
its
about
being
a
dependable
person.
Im
not
walking
around
giving
gold
stars
to
everything.
I
really
take
a
lot
of
time,
and
I
read
a
lot
of
books,
and
I
get
pitched
a
lot
of
essays
that
I
do
not
publish
that
I
tend
not
to
talk
about,
so
for
me
its
about
dependability
and
really
having
the
strength
of
having
good
taste.
And
again,
Chris,
this
is
something
I
feel
like
you
have,
in
spades
in
both,
the
negative
and
the
positive.
People,
you
have
a
fan
base
that
depends
on
you,
and
really
enjoys,
and
sometimes
probably
disagree
with
you,
but
definitely
enjoys
hearing
your
thoughts.
Knight:
Yeah,
I
was
thinking
whats
the
opposite
of
a
fan
base?
A
loathing
base
or
something?
Because
I
have
one
of
those,
too.
In
terms
of
credibility,
I
think,
you
know,
maybe
just
because
I
work
for
legacy
media,
there
is
a
kind
of
built-in
institutional
weight
that
comes
along
with
that.
For
good
and
for
ill.
I
mean
when
I
started
writing
in
the
1980s,
probably
journalistically
speaking,
the
most
powerful
journalistic
art
critic
in
America
was
Hilton
Kramer
at
the
New
York
Times,
and
since
I
didnt
know
anything
about
journalism,
I
read
him
religiously,
even
though
I
find
him
to
be
a
loathsome,
reprehensible,
hideous
human
being.
Hes
dead
now,
so
But
I
also
at
the
same
time
regard
him
as
absolutely
brilliant
as
a
journalist.
He
knew
how
to
push
those
buttons
that
a
newspaper
has
in
a
way
that
very
few
other
journalistic
critics
knew
how
to
do.
He
was
really,
really
good
at
it
which
is
part
of
the
reason
that
he
developed,
you
know,
whatever
clout
he
had.
So
I
wouldI
would
read
him
for
that
purpose,
to
learn
how
toto
learn
how
to
use
journalism
in
certain
ways,
and
he
often
had
all
of
the
right
reasons
for
coming
to
the
wrong
conclusion.
So
Id
take
the
reasons
and
rewrite
them.
So
the
credibility
thing
can,
speaking
of
negativity,
can
be
useful
in
that
way,
too.
Fitzgerald:
I
want
to
say
one
thing,
just
to
jump
back
a
little
bit.
You
also
said
that
a
lot
of
this
conversation
sparked
from
those
comments
that
I
made.
And
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
folks
see
things
in
like
a
broader
sense.
Thethis
is
notits
not
a
new
conversation,
like
I
want
to
make
that
very
clear.
Like
that
blew
up
around
that
time
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
but
before
that,
when
believer
magazine
came
out,
it
blew
up.
This
positive-negative
thing
is
a
conversation
thats
always
been
a
part
of
criticism
and
talking
about
people
of
loving
or
clothing
and
fights
between
critics,
the
Renata
Adler,
and
who
did
she
go
after?
The
name
is
slipping
from
me,
say
it
louder.
Pauline
Kael.
There
it
is,
like
again
it
is
fascinating
and
it
gives
people
things
to
talk
about
but
these
are
all
kinds
of
the
conversations
weve
had
about
criticism
for
decades,
if
not
longer.
Gat:
Im
going
to
take
that
back
and
say
that
my
research
has
come
out
of
the
links,
it
has
been
going
on
forever.
I
have
been
interested
in
it
forever.
Now
to
a
really
great
came
that
came
from
the
audience,
I
feel
like
Im
a
radio
show
host
or
something.
This
is
from
Luke
Finsaas
whos
asking
if
critics
have
a
role
of
guiding
artists
or
the
scene
or
the
industry
somehow?
And
that
seems
really
important
in
this
context,
I
know
that
you
think
you
have
a
role,
I
can
see
that
in
your
eyes.
Schreiber:
Yeah,
I
think
we
do
have
a
role.
I
think
that
it
isI
think
we
have
a
role
really
for
our
readers,
all
different
critics
have
different
perspectives,
different
vantage
points,
different
tastes
and
I
think
they
resonate
with
their
audiences
in
different
ways
and
a
lot
of
different
publications,
even
covering
the
same
type
of
art
or
same
medium,
you
know,
have
different
kind
of
a
different
perspective
that
theyve
built
a
trust
with
their
readership
that
they
turn
to.
So
I
mean
its
not
really
in
shaping
like
the
industry,
its
really
in
shaping
our
own
kind
of
perspective
on
music.
Gat:
Do
you
ever
get
feedback
from
musicians
one-on-one?
Schreiber:
Yeah,
well,
I
mean
I
do
to
an
extent.
When
prompted,
I
would
say.
You
know,
I
dont
usually
just
go
up
and
say,
you
know
what,
that
show
was
really
good,
but
have
you
considered
like
an
in-ear
monitor
or
something
in
its
not
I
dont
usually
do
that
kind
of
thing.
Like
for
the
most
part,
I
dont
know,
I
generally
am
more
interested
in
artists
kind
of
perspective.
Ill
usually
ask
them
questions
about
their
art
and
how
they
make
it,
Im
really
interested
in
gear,
for
example,
and
Im
always
interested
in
the
actual
process
of
that,
so
Ill
ask
them
a
lot
of
those
types
of
questions,
but
you
know,
when
Im
asked
about
it,
you
know,
Ill
beIll
be
pretty
candid,
but
you
know,
its
a
little
bit
of
a
different
discussion
when
its
one-on-one.
You
know,
Im
not
trying
to
be
cruel,
you
know.
Soyeah,
it
varies
a
little
bit.
Gat:
What
about
your
role?
Do
you
Fitzgerald:
Um,
yeah,
I
mean
I
think
itsthings
affect
other
things.
I
think
its
like
physics
or
something
some
scientist
would
understand.
But
everything
you
do
kind
of
affects,
and
so
for
me,
its
really
about
like
what
we
share,
which
again
gets
into
the
philosophy.
Im
just
talking
about
BuzzFeed
Books
here,
but
BuzzFeed
kind
of
as
a
whole,
like
what
is
something
that
is
so
good
that
you
want
to
share
it,
this
kind
of
gets
into
the
idea
of
like
click
bait,
right?
There
was
a
time
in
the
mid
2000s,
that
I
worked
another
website
like
how
to
get
a
click.
If
you
get
a
click
and
the
person
doesnt
like
what
they
see,
theyre
not
going
to
take
the
next
step
to
share,
so
for
me
what
we
all
share,
what
we
all
talk
about,
of
course
its
going
to
influence
what
art
gets
created
and
what
people
are
interested
in
things,
because
none
of
us
live
in
a
bubble.
And
thatsand
I
think
thats
a
very
good
thing.
So
art,
much
like
music
to
be
honest,
is
something
that
I
really
enjoy
now,
but
Im
not
very
well
versed
in
it
so
I
just
went
to
the
Brooklyn
art
museum
recently,
and
I
had
a
very
big
fear
moment
which
ties
into
music
as
well.
I
didnt
want
to
be
the
person
at
the
show
that
holds
up
the
camera
and
periscopes
the
whole,
like,
those
people
are
really
annoying,
somebodys
got
a
selfie
stick
up
for
two
hours
and
thats
really
annoying.
When
I
wanted
to
take
pictures
at
Brooklyn
art,
they
said
no,
we
really
encourage
that,
because
it
allowed
maybe
that
somebody
doesnt
get
to
go
to
the
Brooklyn
art
museum
to
take
a
time
with
that
and
enjoy
that
and
I
do
think
that
movement
its
a
type
of
fandom,
to
be
honest,
but
theres
no
way
that
doesnt
influence
it.
Its
all
part
of
the
conversation.
Gat:
Theres
also
a
feedback
loop
thats
built
into
being
an
author,
you
have
a
relationship
with
your
editor
which
you
discussed.
Artists
dont
get
that
after
art
school.
Do
you
do
studio
visits,
for
example,
do
you
consider
that
as
part
of
your
role
as
a
critic?
Knight:
I
dont
often
do
studio
visits
anymore,
but
its
mostly
just
a
practical
consideration,
like
who
has
time?
I
love
being
in
artists
studios,
you
find
out
all
kinds
of
things,
but
I
typically,
I
will
typically
do
that
at
my
request,
not
there
is,
because
I
dont
know
how
to
prioritize
things.
And
in
aI
dont
mean
to
completely
change
the
topic
and
maybe
Im
not,
but
I
was
thinking
about
in
terms
of
criticism,
negativity
and
so
on,
what
one
of
the
virtues
that
I
think
of
newspapers
is
my
column
is
not
supported
by
advertising.
There
is
some,
you
know,
art-related
advertising
in
a
newspaper,
but
its
like
the
onlythe
only
newspaper
where
its
significant
is
the
New
York
Times.
So
I
find
it
a
huge
amount
of
freedom
in
that
fact.
And
I
get
a
lot
of
editorial
support
because
I
dont
think
itI
mean
they
recognize
it
doesnt
impact
that
way
and
its
the
reason
that
I
stopped
writing
for
trade
magazines
in
1996.
The
Museum
of
Modern
Art
was
doing
a
Jasper
Johns
retrospective
and
at
that
time
Artforum
when
they
commissioned
a
cover
story,
they
would
commission
two
so
there
would
be
two
different
voices
because,
god
forbid,
Artforum
should
have
a
point
of
view
because
it
had
advertisers
to
serve.
So
they
asked
Rosalind
Krauss
and
me
to
write
pieces
about
Johns,
and
as
I
was
really
excited
to
do
it,
because
his
work
had
been
extremely
important
to
me,
just
in
the
way
I
think
about
art,
and
I
developed
thinking
about
art,
but
his
work
from
the
early
90s
and
late
80,
I
didnt
like
at
all
and
I
never
had
a
chance
to
think
through
why,
and
I
can
quote
the
opening
line
of
the
review
which
is
I
dont
like
not
liking
Jasper
Johns
recent
work.
Because
what
I
wanted
to
do
in
the
piece
was
parse
out
why.
And
they
went
ballistic
at
Artforum,
you
cant
say
that
about
Jasper
John,
and
what?
And
we
had
a
real
knock-down,
drag-out
and
they
basically
sent
a
rewritten
review
which
started
out
elsewhere
in
the
review
and
I
sent
it
back
and
no,
no,
no,
and
by
that
point
I
had
been
used
to
newspaper
writing
where
I
could
basically
take
a
position
which
I
think
is
an
important
thing
to
do.
And
we
eventually
came
to
terms
and
were
I
think
both
satisfied
with
the
piece
that
ran.
But
I
decided
at
that
point
Im
not
going
to
do
that
anymore.
Fitzgerald:
You
got
to
keep
that
line?
You
got
to
keep
that
open
line?
Gat:
I
have
never
had
that
problem
with
trade
publication,
I
that
seems
like
a
really
important
thing
to
discuss,
actually
and
the
ethics
of
it,
too,
what
does
that
mean
to
write,
but
I
also
wonder
about
whether
or
not
multiplicity
of
voices
cancels
that
out
so
you
say
Artforum
god
forbid
would
have
a
statement
or
anything.
Would
covering
everything
releases
you
from
that?
You
talk
a
lot
about
the
comprehensiveness.
I
talk
a
lot
about
selectiveness,
because
as
far
as
Im
concerned
what
Im
covering,
the
fact
that
I
covered
it
that
it
appears
in
the
pages
of
whatever
magazine,
already
means
more
than
anything
I
wrote
and
I
see
that,
too.
This
week
a
museum
shared
a
really
negative
review
that
I
wrote
all
over
Facebook
and
Twitter.
Orit
Gat
has
some
really
interesting
ideas
about
the
show
and
my
interesting
ideas
about
the
show
is
terrible.
They
dont
care.
Schreiber:
Yeah,
I
think
actually
what
you
were
talking
about,
I
think
Ive
seen
that
happen,
I
know
writers
talk
about
it,
and
have
talked
about
it
happening
to
them
at
other
publications.
In
fact,
we
had
a
handful
of
writers
come
to
work
for
us,
because
at
a
former
publication
they
found
they
were
being
stifled
by
the
publisher
saying
we
need
to
be
a
little
more
positive
or
diplomatic
because
we
have
advertising
and
Im
sure
the
conversation
wasnt
that
direct,
Im
sure
it
was
a
little
bit
more
couched.
But
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
a
number
of
publications
do
have
dollars
that
actually
have
an
impact
on
what
is
and
can
be
said.
For
us,
the
editors,
the
Editor
in
Chief
are
not
privy
at
all
to
what
ads
are
going
to
run
on
the
site,
so
they
cant
know.
Its
something
we
want
them
to
be
to
be
oblivious
of.
And
its
also
you
know
something
that
isthat
really
you
just
cant
have
these
two
opposing
forces,
you
know,
you
know,
weve
had
many
instances
where
a
negative
review
ran
on
the
site,
and
it
was
plastered
around
the
adds
for
the
album
was
plastered
around
this
review.
Its
such
a
strange,
you
know,
feeling
or
a
strange
look,
but
its
really
necessary,
and
I
always
kind
of
revel
in
that
and
kind
of
take
pride
in
it,
because
it
shows.
Its
right
out
there
in
front
of
everybody.
Look,
you
can
see
for
yourself,
these
things
do
not
coincide.
And
I
think
thats
really
crucial
and
also
interesting
that
I
kind
of
increasingly
Pitchfork
some
of
the
ads
are
less
supported
by
labels
and
things
like
that
now,
as
well.
But
thats
not
necessarily
as
by
design,
but
it
isbut
it
is
sort
of
the
reality
of
things.
Gat:
I
actually
really
believe
in
advertising
that
doesnt
come
from
your
own
industry.
If
all
art
magazines
were
supported
by
fashion
labels
for
example
it
would
release
you
so
much,
you
could
write
anything
you
want.
When
I
was
an
editor,
I
was
told
dont
cover
certain
things,
thats
an
advertiser,
thats
the
biggest
gallery
in
the
city.
Schreiber:
No,
you
have
to
be
willing
to
risk
those
relationships,
because
also
people
change
at
these
companies
all
the
time,
an
old
person
will
leave,
a
new
person
will
come
in
and
these
relationships
they
can
be
repaired.
Whats
really
important
is
that,
you
know,
we
stand
for
our
opinion,
and
that
our
opinion
is
not
affected
by
that.
I
think
its
just
like
101
journalism.
And
like
you
said,
its
something
that
you
hear
all
the
time,
people
arepublishers
always
want,
you
know,
that
they
are
planning
playing
a
very
difficult
game
of
balancing
both
sides
of
this
thing,
trying
to
make
everybody
happy
but
you
just
cant.
Fitzgerald:
And
it
gets
to
the
credibility.
The
fact
that
journalism,
criticism,
whatever,
right,
what
are
we
all
grasping
at
right?
Life
in
general
is
grasping
at
truth.
And
if
you
start
ignoring
that.
Gat:
So
many
questions
from
the
audience.
I
want
to
like
stay
on
the
money
thing,
obviously.
And
talk
about
payments
for
writers,
too,
because
that
seems
like
a
part
of
the
an
ethics
of
a
website.
Youre
going
to
be
writers
for
a
long
time.
Fitzgerald:
At
The
Rumpus,
let
us
be
clear.
Gat:
Sorry,
sorry,
I
dont
believe
in
writing
for
exposure.
I
think
its
really
important
as
a
woman
to
say
that,
because
people
will
assume
that
Ill
be
supported
somehow
in
some
mystery
way.
Fitzgerald:
So
to
be
honest,
I
agree
wholeheartedly.
It
is
actually
part
of
the
reason
why
I
felt
that
I
wanted
to
move
on
past
The
Rumpus.
I
was
really
proud
of
my
time
there.
I
was
really
proud
of
the
work
that
was
done
there,
and
I
still
actually
do
believe
that
its
help
a
lot
of
peoples
careers
and
a
lot
of
time
I
have
to
have
faith
in
the
writer
that
they
are
adult
enough
to
make
that
call,
if
they
want
to
work
for
free,
that
really
is
on
them.
Working
for
The
Rumpus,
it
came
out
of
my
first
year
I
can
say
this,
I
made
$12,000
in
San
Francisco.
Gat:
I
hear
that
goes
a
long
way
in
San
Francisco.
Fitzgerald:
Yeah.
It
does
not.
So
I
was
working
for
nothing
because
I
really
believed
in
it
so
I
dont
want
to
say
that
those
publications
like
if
youre
trying
to
make
something
happen,
whether
its
build
a
community
or
cover
a
certain
thing
that
you
think
there
needs
to
be
coverage
out
there
and
theres
just
no
money
and
its
a
labor
of
love,
I
think
thats
important
and
that
that
place
exists
and
thats
wonderful.
I
will
say
that
one
of
my
favorite
things
about
being
at
BuzzFeed
books
is
that
I
get
to
pay
my
writers,
because
I
also
do
think,
especially
in
this
day
and
age,
it
becomes
more
and
more
important.
In
the
mid-2000s,
there
was
the
shakeup,
what
are
we
gonna
do?
Build
the
airplane,
figure
it
out
when
were
in
the
sky.
Great,
what
have
we
done?
Beautiful
editorial,
anybody
know
anything
about
business?
Shit!
And
thats
really
a
problem.
But
what
we
have
now,
you
see
it
more
and
more
whether
its
been
around
for
20
years
or
new
websites,
I
think
a
lot
of
more
attention
to
how,
no
pun
intended
but
how
you
pay
your
writers,
and
not
only
how
you
keep
the
company
afloat,
but
also
that
youre
treating
your
writers,
your
critics,
whoever
is
creating
the
content
for
you
as
human
beings
and
I
think
especially
if
theres
any
way
to
make
it
work
and
in
this
day
and
age
theres
so
many
tools
to
make
it
work.
If
you
work
on
a
wonderful
website
and
you
have
no
money,
start
a
Kickstarter.
If
you
have
built
up
the
fan
base
theres
different
ways
to
monetize
so
that
you
can
even
just
a
little
bit
pay
the
folks
and
then
its
their
call
whether
they
want
to
write
for
x
amount
of
money
but
I
think
its
a
very
important
part.
Gat:
I
also
wonder
about
that
connection
between
a
salary
and
the
kind
of
writing
you
get
to
do.
Im
blanking
on
his
name
right
now,
the
other
art
critic
for
the
LA
Times.
Knight:
Current?
Recent?
Gat:
Current.
He
was
amazing
at
a
panel.
Someone
asked
him
what
the
value
of
criticism
was
and
his
response
was
a
dollar
a
word.
Knight:
It
was
David
Pagel.
Gat:
Yeah.
But
having
a
position,
being
paid
allows
you
to
write
very
particular
things.
What
do
you
think
is
going
to
happen
now
that
clearly
Im
not
going
to
get
your
job
one
day,
never
gonna
happen.
There
arent
any
art
critics
anymore.
Knight:
Well
thats
good,
because
Ive
got
a
mortgage.
Well,
one
of
the
other
good
things
about
legacy
media
is
that
they
willthey
will
support
me
to
do
things
like
this.
They
will
underwrite
my
being
at
something
like
this.
Im
doing
this
for
free.
Im
not
being
paid
to
be
here
by
the
Walker
because
its
not
a
good
idea
for
the
chief
art
critic
at
the
Los
Angeles
Times
to
be
cashing
a
check
issued
by
a
major
art
museum
that
is,
you
know,
potentially
part
of
coverage.
So
the
newspaper
allows
me
to
be
able
to
do
something
like
that.
In
terms
of
monetizing
criticism,
thats
beyond
my
pay
grade.
Thats
the
business
side
and
I
dont
know
anything
about
how
that
works.
I
dont
know
how
they
do
it.
Its
a
mystery
to
me.
Gat:
Im
going
to
stick
with
that,
theres
also
a
really
good
question
from
the
audience
about
ethics.
This
from
Anna
Searle
Jones
whos
asking
what
about
the
boundaries
between
the
critic,
the
journalist,
and
the
publicist.
I
also
think
its
really
interesting
that
Superscript
is
about
art
journalism
and
criticism,
whereas
I
differentiate
myself
from
journalism
because
that
is
what
happens
online
in
the
art
world.
Its
just
journalism.
What
are
these
boundaries?
How
important
are
they?
Knight:
Boundaries
between?
Gat:
Between
journalism,
criticism,
and
publicist.
Knight:
I
consider
myself
a
critic.
There
are
places
where
they
converge
and
there
are
places
where
its
clearly
separate.
My
byline
says
critic
so
the
reader
is
included
in
that
what
youre
about
to
read
is
opinion.
And
if
thats
not
on
the
by
line
what
youre
about
to
read
is
theoretically
fact.
May
or
may
not
be
depending
on
situation.
But
there
is
generally
a
separation
between
the
two
that
is
clearly
clear
in
the
way
newspapers
are
laid
out.
Gat:
I
think
this
is
muddled
a
little
bit
online.
Though,
that
separation
that
I
consider
really
important.
I
think
people
look
at
an
art
website
and
say
this
is
criticism,
this
is
critical
analysis
and
I
think
its
reporting.
Knight:
Do
you
consider
yourself
journalists,
as
well
as
critics?
Schreiber:
No.
Fitzgerald:
I
dont
have
the
memory,
I
dont
have
the
facts.
And
thats
what
I
respect
about
journalism.
Thats
what
makes
itthats
what
makes
it
what
it
is,
and
like
I
feel
like
the
boundaries
are
actually
just
in
the
definitions
of
the
words,
you
know,
and
then
as
far
as
to
bring
publicity
into
it,
like
thats
totally
different.
That
is,
somebody
gets
paid
to
promote
something.
Thats
what
publicity
is,
and
from
the
place
that
either
published
it
or
the
art
institute
that
is
throwing
the
show.
Knight:
You
know,
at
the
risk
of
getting
too
philosophical
here,
the
First
Amendment
to
the
constitution
has
our
understanding
of
what
the
press
is
has
really
been
negatively
impacted
in
the
last
50
or
60
years
when
we
generally
seem
to
think
that
freedom
of
the
press
means
that
the
press
will
not
be
constrained
by
government.
That
thats
what
the
constitutionthats
what
the
First
Amendment
is
for.
And
its
true.
But
its
also
only
half
the
equation.
The
reason
that
the
free
press
is
in
the
First
Amendment
is
an
assertion
that
citizens
have
a
right
to
information
in
order
to
make
the
democracy
work.
And
thats
the
half
of
the
equation
that
has
disappeared
in
the
last
50
years.
The
idea
that
citizenry
has
a
right
to
information
is
gone.
Nobody
thinks
about
that
at
all.
So
the
whole
idea
of
monetizing
journalism
becomes
a
bigger
issue
than
it
really
ought
to
be.
Initially
when,
you
know,
after
the
constitution
was
written
and
the
country
was
being
founded,
the
government
subsidized
journalism.
Because
it
was
important.
You
paid
less
to
send
newspapers
through
the
mail,
than
you
know,
business
contracts,
things
like
that,
because
it
was
important
to
do.
And
whether
or
not
there
is
a
way
in
which
to
make
that
half
of
the
equation
more
prominent
at
a
time
when
were
all
drowning
in
seas
of
billionaires
money
I
think
its
arguable
that
thats
not
going
to
happen
too
soon
which
is
too
bad.
Gat:
Should
we
take
questions
from
the
audience?
Why
dont
we
start
with
you
and
then
well
go
to
you,
OK?
Audience
Member:
Hi,
Im
Patricia
Maloney
from
Art
Practical
and
Daily
Serving,
and
I
need
to
go
back
Isaac
to
the
end
of
your
presentation
and
just
sort
of
call
you
to
task
on
imploring
people
to
start
their
own
initiatives,
because
I
think
this
is
a
room
full
of
people
who
have
either
started
their
own
initiatives
or
are
like
deeply
invested
in
contributing
to
independent
publications,
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
for
this
group.
And
then
as
someone
who
is
really
invested
in
an
independent
publication
that
is
also
invested
in
locality,
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
that
idea
of
the
positive
and
negative,
I
think
is
much
more
nuanced
when
you
think
about
the
ways
in
which
so
much
of
what
we
do
is
trying
to
represent
the
values
of
our
cultural
communities.
Gat:
I
think
thats
a
self-canceling
thing
immediately.
It
means
that
because
youre
committed
to
a
scene
youre
only
going
to
write
about
it
positively.
Audience
Member:
No.
No.
No,
I
think
I
mean
I
think
its
just
like
bringing
into
the
conversation
that,
you
know,
like
what
you
are
calling
to
task,
or
like
holding
up
as
representative
of
the
community,
has
to
be
invested
in
like
what
thatan
acknowledgement
of
what
that
community
values
and
like
that
positive
and
negativity
has
to
include
like
presenting
what
that
community
revolves
around
and
what
and
what
it
values.
And
I
think,
you
know,
that
happens
much
more
at
an
independent
level
than
you
know,
perhaps
you
know
at
amajor
media
outlets.
Fitzgerald:
So
Im
confused,
though,
because
you
started
by
saying
you
wanted
to
call
me
to
task?
Audience
Member:
Oh,
just
about
that
last.
Fitzgerald:
But
I
feel
like
what
I
was
doing
was
trying
to
encourage
people
to
start.
Audience
Member:
But
I
think
youre
speaking
to,
you
know,
the
converted
here,
you
know,
like
how
many
people
in
this
room,
like
have
started
their
own
initiatives?
Fitzgerald:
Yeah,
no,
no,
so,
yeah,
I
mean
I
justits
something
that
I
believe
strongly
with.
I
guess
I
dont
get
the
task
Im
being
called
to.
Not
that
we
should
get
into
this
quagmire,
but
to
speak
to
this
other
point
that
yes,
of
course
it
is
something
that
you
have
done
and
you
have
built
and
its
independent
and
its
location-based
which
I
love
this.
Im
in
Brooklyn
theres
like
numerous
local
blogs
that
I
love
to
read,
some
independently
owned,
I
think
most
independently
owned
probably
and
of
course
it
reflects
the
community
and
I
think
thats
a
wonderful
thing.
Thats
something
thats
very
much
come
from
the
Internet.
Instead
of
having
this
massive
coverage
of
trying
to
speak
to
as
many
people
as
possible
because
youre
trying
to
get
your
circulation
up,
you
can
actually
have
a
place
like
youre
talking
about
exclusivity
thats
very,
very
small
thats
power
is
drawn
from
the
fact
that
it
talks
about
the
area,
like
either
whether
its
a
small
online
culture
or
an
actual
physical
area.
I
think
that
thats
something
that
should
definitely
be
applied.
Gat:
I
think
that
the
Internet
would
have
been
a
great
place.
I
didnt
use
the
word
exclusive,
did
I?
Small
scale
operation.
Selectivity.
But
it
actually
isnt.
Thats
one
of
the
biggest
problems
with
the
Internet
is
that
it
creates
this
platform,
these
possibilities,
and
then
the
ten
most
visited
websites,
the
only
one
that
is
in
control
of
a
fortune
500
company
is
Wikipedia.
Just
saying.
Fitzgerald:
So
thats
the
top
10.
I
mean
the
top
10
TV
companies,
I
mean
yes,
you
go
to
the
top
10
its
going
to
be
conglomerate,
absolutely,
but
that
doesnt
mean
that
we
should
be
disheartened
by
the
fact
that
there
are
all
these
other
ways
to
go
to.
Gat:
We
need
to
find
new
ways
to
do
so,
though,
because
the
economy
of
scale
is
really
depressing.
Should
we
move
to
you?
Audience
Member:
Yes,
getting
maybe
more
to
the
nuance
of
the
relationship
with
the
critic
to
the
community,
I
justI
had
left
graduate
school,
a
degree
with
painting
and
was
given
a
grant
in
the
late
1970s
from
the
center
for
arts
criticism
which
is
based
here
in
St.
Paul
to
write
art
criticism,
and
I
was
cool,
you
know,
I
was
living
in
a
loft
and
everybody
I
knew
was
artists
and
everybody
I
knew
loved
me
and
I
loved
them
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
I
got
a
grant
to
be
an
art
critic
and
everybody
hated
me.
And
I
would
go
to
the
bar
and
people
would
say
who
do
you
think
you
are
Clement
Greenberg
or
Barnett
Newman?
And
then
suddenly
it
became
antagonistic,
and
I
felt
like
Sam
Kinison.
Im
just
a
kid.
Leave
me
alone.
I
didnt
have
the
power
to
do
anything
with
that,
Id
just
write.
But
I
think
historically
theres
a
sort
of
antagonism
between
the
critic
and
the
community
sometimes
and
the
artists
and
I
see
this
in
institutions,
locally,
where
people,
you
know,
who
put
on
plays
or
whatever
they
dont
want
to,
you
know,
talk
to
the
critic
or
the
critic
is
antagonistic
or
they
want
to
like
correct
them
or
whatever.
And
I
just
wonder
if
you
feel
there
is
historical
antipathy,
and
if
that
has
a
function
in
terms
of
collusion,
credibility,
all
that
sort
of
stuff
that
the
antipathy,
youre
not
just
building
people
up,
I
mean
youre
writingI
like
the
definition,
youre
just
writing
your
own
thoughts
and
youre
using
writing
to
discover
that.
Gat:
And
if
that
antipathy
is
historical
how
does
the
Internet
change
that
in
the
comments
section
in
the
way
you
can
see
with
your
audience?
Schreiber:
I
think,
yeah,
I
think
there
is
oftentimes
a
sense
that
journalists
are
writing
negative
reviews
out
of
a
place
of
insecurity
or
just
a
vindictiveness
or
various
other
reasons
and
artists
make
this
claim,
sometimes
fans
who
hold
music
really
closely
as
part
of
their
identity
when
something
that
they
love
gets
you
know,
kind
of
torn
down
or
just
not
fully
supported
in
the
way
that
they
think
it
should
be.
You
know,
they
always
make
these
types
of
claims.
And
I
think
that
really
you
know,
you
write
negative
reviews,
really
because
you
care.
You
care
about
your
subject.
I
mean
we
care
about
music
really
a
lot,
and
its
really,
really
deep
for
all
of
us
but
I
think
that
its
just
an
absolutely
necessary
thing
and
I
think
in
a
lot
of
cases
youre
speaking
whats
on
a
lot
of
peoples
minds.
In
some
cases
youre
just
making
the
claim
or
you
have
a
completely
independent
point
of
view.
Youre
willing
to
put
yourself
out
there
on
the
line
and
risk
that
kind
of
backlash,
but
yeah,
I
think
that
kind
ofits
always
interesting,
I
think
that
its
just
the
kind
of
go-to
response
for
people
who,
you
know,
who
disagree
with
criticism
and
I
think
there
was
that
great
piece
on
Gawker
almost
a
year
ago
on
smarm,
right,
and
that
piece
talked
about
the
differences
between
snark
and
smarm
and
that
kind
of
oh,
youre
just
insecure,
youre
vindictive,
youre
nasty,
criticism
comes
from
a
nasty
place
in
people
and
its
this
defensiveness,
is
that
then
what
is
categorized
as
smarm?
I
think
that,
you
know,
people
dont
really
have
a
real
reason
for
it.
Its
like,
wow,
you
know,
its
really
mysterious
why
you
would
have
to
put
this
out
there,
but
its
really
a
central
part
of
the
conversation.
Knight:
If
youre
in
criticism
to
make
friends,
youre
in
the
wrong
business.
The
fundamental
thing
that
a
writer
has
to
do
in
addressing
a
work
of
art
is
take
it
seriously.
You
know,
theres
got
to
be
a
level
of
respect
involved,
and
short-term,
people
might
be
upset,
long-term,
I
think
people
understand
that.
Gat:
What
about
the
comments
section?
That
is
something
that
I
consider
really
important
and
am
always
really
disappointed
by.
Knight:
My
solution
for
that
is
I
dont
read
them.
Fitzgerald:
I
want
to
jump
in
here
because
that
actually,
that
one
used
to
be
myI
think
I
thought
getting
it
tattooed
on
my
chest.
Never
read
the
comments,
and
for
a
long
time
that
was
a
driving
philosophy
for
me,
but
I
think
this
ties
into
a
couple
of
things
to
your
question
that
I
kind
of
want
to
talk
about.
One,
I
agree,
I
was
going
to
say
the
same
thing,
not
here
to
make
friends
I
think
is
very
important
and
I
think
again
my
view
of
this
is
that
its
all
of
larger
conversation.
I
think
trying
to
break
it
down,
is
negative
or
positive
right
or
wrong?
Like
of
course
its
both
right.
I
cant
believe
that
thats
a
question.
Like
it
is
all
important
and
it
is
all
part
of
the
conversation.
I
want
to
talk
about
I
love
that
this
comes
up
around
the
Internet
is
that
the
inter
net
was
a
very
negative
place,
like
super
negative
and
I
think
it
still
is.
You
only
have
to
take
a
look,
if
youre
a
guy,
get
a
friend
whos
opinionated
and
she
talks
on
Twitter
and
look
at
her
mentions
just
to
realize
that
the
Internet
is
can
be
a
very
harsh
and
terrible
place.
So
that
there
is
a
lot
of
negativity.
Negativity
is
not
going
extinct.
Like
negativity
is
fine
because
its
important
for
some
of
it
and
some
of
it
is
people
fucking
harassing
your
friends,
which
is
a
horrifying
talk.
That
said
Im
glad
I
didnt
get
never
read
the
comments
tattooed
on
my
chest
because
Ive
actually
switched
roles
and
I
really
like
defending
the
comments
now.
I
mean
dont
get
me
wrong,
if
somebody
comes
into
a
comment
section
and
just
like
spews
racist
shit,
then
yes
of
course,
delete
it:
fuck
them!
But
sometimes
the
comments
is
where
these
things
that
were
all
talking
about
actually
bump
into
each
other.
People
have
super
smart
and
on
the
other
side
of
the
fence
feelings
about
something,
and
in
the
comments
section
is
where
some
of
that
it
come
out.
But
thats
where
Id
like
to
say
that
the
comment
section
is
very
much
about
the
Internet
as
a
role.
Whether
negative
or
whether
positive.
You
can
find
them
and
theyre
gold
and
yes,
sometimes
theyre
surrounded
by
garbage.
Sometimes
theyre
surrounded
by
even
lovelier
conversations
or
more
negative
conversations
but
theyre
still
important.
But
thats
what
it
is.
Its
humans
bumping
into
each
other
all
given
a
voice,
all
given
a
space.
So
actually
I
am
here
fordont
get
me
wrong,
not
unregulated,
Im
notalthough
maybe
theres
a
space
for
that,
as
well,
but.
Gat:
I
think
thats
one
of
the
roles
of
the
editor
is
to
lead
those.
My
editor
at
Rhizome
responds
to
every
comment
on
the
site,
which
is
kind
of
easy,
because
you
dont
get
every
comment
but
theres
also
a
really
smart
thing
there
that
that
youre
keeping
your
readers
talking.
Youre
keeping
your
readers
discussing
what
youre
writing
on
the
site,
not
on
Facebook.
It
mean
Mark
Zuckerberg
is
not
making
money
on
your
intellectual
property.
Which
also
leads
me
to
another
question
from
the
Internet.
This
one
is
from
Katie
[unintelligible]
whos
asking
if
what
we
share
affects
what
gets
made,
and
that
seems
like
maybe
the
two
of
you
will
have
a
lot
of
opinions
about
that.
Fitzgerald:
Im
going
to
jump
in
and
just
say
to
an
extent
of
course.
But
I
also
believe
what
Christopher
says,
just
about
writing
in
general,
whether
it
be
criticism
or
whether
it
be
art
creation,
right?
People
are
going
to
make
art.
People
are
going
to
tell
stories,
from
the
literary
world,
this
is
like
one
of
the
things
that
the
human
race
has
not
dropped
the
ball
on
basically
since
the
beginning.
So
like
its
always
going
to
happen.
Now,
what
will
what
gets
talked
about
force
things,
like
the
memoir
blew
up
and
had
this
other
resurgence
again
in
the
late
90s
and
you
saw
a
lot
of
memoirs,
but
I
also
think
that
art
is
a
little
self-correcting,
and
I
believe
people
are
going
to
express
themselves
how
they
want
to
express
themselves.
I
feel
if
somebody
feels
very
passionate
about
something
theyre
going
to
make
it
in
spite
of
Gat:
Regardless
of
you.
Fitzgerald:
Regardless
of
any
of
us.
Schreiber:
Yeah,
I
think
thats
true
and
I
guess
I
feel
like
it,
I
dont
know,
that
it
doesntits
not
necessarily,
well,
isnt
it
kind
of
better
to
kind
of
take
a
back
seat
to
that
role?
It
says
here
you
are
paying
attention
and
seeing
what
gets
made
and
how
people
make
it,
I
guess
I
feel
like
its
not
necessarily
there.
Criticism
is
not
necessarily
there
to
affect
or
influence.
Its
not
really
its
role,
its
not
really
our
job,
you
know,
if
it
happens,
its
kind
of
a
byproduct.
Ideally
in
negative
reviews,
as
long
as
its
not,
you
know,
if
its
something
thats
not
completely
harsh,
completely
totally
negative,
ideally,
there
is
a
form
of
constructive
criticism
there
that
an
artist
can
kind
of
take
to
heart.
But,
yeah,
I
think
its
notits
really
not
our
place.
Its
something
that
I
think
can
affect
it
and
ideally
it
can
affect
it
positively
because
we
have
different
opinions
about
it,
but
at
the
same
time
it
kind
of
lets
nature
take
its
course.
Gat:
Lets
take
one
more.
Audience
Member:
Im
Skye
Goodden.
I
founded
a
site
promoting
art
criticism
last
October.
Im
paying
my
writers,
and
Im
paying
myself
a
decent
wage,
as
well.
I
had
a
question
from
an
advertiser
of
mine
this
morning,
wanting
to
jump
in,
and
saying,
though,
that
he
was
worried,
online
advertising
was
a
bit
moot
because
of
ad
blocks
that
a
lot
of
us
employ
on
our
computers,
so
my
question
was
to
Orit.
You
mentioned
in
your
short
lecture
there
that
you
thought
we
should
return
to
pay
walls
or
a
similar
structure.
I
thought
that
didnt
work
out.
Im
pretty
sure
it
didnt
work
out,
so
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
speak
to
that
at
a
bit
more
lengths
and
talk
about
why
you
think
it
still
has
a
possibility
as
a
model
for
us.
Gat:
Thats
a
really
good
question.
I
think
it
will
work
out,
because
I
think
that
presumption
that
everything
online
will
always
be
free
makes
no
sense
whatsoever.
Advertising
has
never
supported
any
industry
that
much.
Journalism
that
happened
there,
and
we
all
knew
that
that
was
not
a
great
idea,
actually,
I
mean
the
idea
of
like
newspapers
with
like
champagne
in
the
rooms
and
that
happened.
That
wasnt
the
like
high
time
of
journalism.
I
think
that
people
really
believe
in
what
they
read.
Theyre
interested
in
that.
They
will
pay
for
that.
Its
a
really,
really
difficult
move
to
do.
Im
not
jealous
of
the
first
ones
to
do
that.
A
lot
of
art
magazines
have
introduced
pay
walls
on
their
site.
A
lot
of
people
are
doing
it
really
smartly
like
frieze
that
closes
the
entire
issue
and
then
their
entire
archive
is
open.
But
yeah,
your
readers
should
support
what
you
do,
point
blank,
they
should
also
prefer
that,
they
should
prefer
to
pay
whatever
they
pay
so
as
to
not
get
advertising
that
takes
advantage
of
them.
Knight:
I
think
it
also
helps
clarifyI
mean
one
of
the
things
that
I
run
into
a
lot
is
the
assumption
that
social
media
is
public
space.
And
its
not.
Its
private
space.
You
know,
its
corporately
owned
private
space,
in
which
labor
is
given
for
free.
I
mean
basically.
And
doing
some
version
of
a
pay
wall
thing
helps
to
clarify
the
situation
in
which
youre
engaged.
Gat:
Another
question
from
the
audience?
Where
is
the
microphone?
I
guess
right
there.
Yeah,
OK,
go
for
it.
Audience
Member:
Hi.
A
lot
of
the
criticism
has
been
discussed
is
in
terms
of
someone
sort
of
on
high
discussing
individual
projects
by
a
maker
of
some
sort.
Whether
its
art
or
a
book
or
whatever.
What
do
you
think
the
value
is
of
a
critic
in
the
sense
of
speaking
to
analyzing
what
cultural
institutions
for
presenters
are
doing?
Do
you
think
the
value
of
negative
criticism
changes
within
that
context?
And
I
dont
know,
Im
just
interested
in
hearing
you
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
more
in
terms
of
the
broad
scope
of
criticism
and
who
it
can
be
directed
towards.
Gat:
Anyone
want
to
take
that
first
or
should
I?
Im
really
into
it.
Fitzgerald:
Go
for
it.
Gat:
I
actually
think
its
easier
to
criticize
institutions
than
individuals.
That
said
its
terrifying
because
institutions
are
usually
more
powerful
than
the
freelance
critic.
I
have
long
dreamed
of
a
blog
or
something
that
criticizes
art
magazines.
I
would
never
make
a
living
if
I
did
that.
Every
magazine
would
hate
me,
so
I
did
that
publicly
with
other
people
and
its
the
most
engaging
conversation
Ive
ever
had,
and
I
think
museums
should
do
that,
too.
I
think
we
should
have
critical
groups
coming
into
to
discuss
what
they
do
as
an
institution,
because
otherwise,
all
they
get
is
basically
pat
themselves
on
the
back,
were
so
great,
we
do
research
and
R&D.
Oh,
my
gosh,
I
shouldnt
say
this
at
a
museum.
Fitzgerald:
Keep
going.
You
got
it.
Its
already
out!
Youve
gotta
be
brave
about
it
now.
Weve
got
your
back.
Gat:
So
I
saw
a
curator
at
a
major
museum
speak
at
a
panel,
she
was
amazing,
she
was
great,
but
she
also
talked
about
the
museum
as
an
R&D
lab
and
no
one
asked
any
questions
about
that,
any
questions
about
how
you
translate
financial
models
from
Silicon
Valley
to
cultural
production.
Nobody
really
talked
about
that
as
something
that
needs
to
be
critically
discussed,
and
this
was
on
stage
at
another
museum,
and
I
think
those
discussions
should
be
easier
and
I
think
theres
a
lot
of
room
for
them.
Fitzgerald:
I
think
its
important,
because
thats
how
change
happens,
right?
Calling
out
institutions,
if
we
wanted
things
to
stay
the
same,
I
think
thats
incredibly
important,
you
know,
thats
how
you
fight
if
youve
got
a
local
museum
or
a
publishing
house
that
you
love,
if
theres
somebody
and
you
want
to
see
change
in
those
directions
of
course
youre
going
to
have
to
stand
up
and
have
those
conversations
and
like
its
just
important,
right?
Like
I
feel
like
that
is
likeI
feel
like
thats
being
a
good
citizen,
like
thats
not
just
being
a
critic.
Thats
being
like
I
think
all
of
us
as
Americans
or
as
human
beings,
thats
what
we
should
be
doing
all
the
time,
because
thats
usually
the
things
that
we
care
about,
and
thats
what
you
want
to
see
reflected
in
the
institutions
around
you.
Sometimesa
lot
of
good
can
come
from
getting
punched
on
the
nose.
I
would
not
be
here
if
I
didnt
get
punched
in
the
nose.
But
I
think.
Not
to
get
too
philosophical,
were
getting
to
a
much
broader
conversation.
But
were
seeing
that
from
our
actual
government
right
now,
right?
And
I
think
thats
important
as
citizens
to
do
that.
Gat:
First
Amendment
in
everything.
As
Americans.
Knight:
Especially
at
art
institutions.
I
mean,
socially
and
politically
the
whole
big
trend
since
the
1980s
has
been
to
privatize,
privatize
public
space,
everything
public
has
been
privatized
and
privatized
and
privatized.
Well,
an
institution,
whether
its
the
Walker
or
the
Metropolitan
or
whatever
public
institution,
I
subsidize
them
with
my
taxes,
as
does
everybody
else,
and
the
degree
to
which
theyre
handed
over
to
money
can
become
a
real
problem.
The
commercialization
of
American
museums
thats
going
on
now
is
really
disturbing
to
me.
This
is
on
the
top
of
my
mind
because
Im
in
the
midst
of
writing
a
sort
of
long
piece
about
this.
Its
getting
to
a
point
where
its
so
pervasive,
the
commercialization
of
museums
is
so
pervasive
that
people
dont
pay
attention
to
it
anymore.
Its
becoming
the
new
norm.
Its
like:
of
course,
its
that
way.
Well,
it
doesnt
have
to
be
that
way
and
I
need
to
use
my
institutional
clout,
as
I
said
in
my
talk,
I
need
to
use
my
power
against
their
power
and
let
them
do
with
it
what
they
want,
you
know.
Thats
not
up
to
me.
Its
just
up
to
me
to,
as
a
journalist,
to
say
this
is
what
I
see
going
on,
and
this
is
why
I
think
its
screwy.
Thats
all.
Gat:
I
think,
well,
thatsOK.
I
any
last
words?
Fitzgerald:
I
feel
like
this
is
why
its
screwy
is
a
perfect
way
to
end.
PANEL PRESENTATIONS:
Sustainability, Growth, & Ethics
Veken
Gueyikian,
Hyperallergic
Thank
you
so
much
for
inviting
me
to
speak
today
about
Hyperallergic.
Im
typically
behind
the
scenes
doing
day
to
day
work
of
building
the
business,
but
Im
glad
to
be
out
here
telling
you
a
little
bit
about
how
we
started
and
what
we
are
working
to
build.
So
I
wanted
to
begin
by
providing
a
little
bit
of
background
on
how
and
why
we
started.
In
2009,
when
we
were
first
making
plans
to
start
Hyperallergic,
newspaper
revenues
were
in
free
fall
and
it
seemed
like
new
independent
blogs
were
being
started
daily
while
the
number
of
major
newspapers
in
the
US
was
decreasing
rapidly
into
the
single
digits
and
there
was
an
absolute
panic
in
the
media
world
that
professional
journalism
may
not
survive.
And
around
the
same
time,
it
seemed
like
the
established
art
media
wasnt
interested
in
digital
publishing
at
all.
The
art
magazines
were
funded
primarily
by
gallery
ads
that
didnt
translate
well
onto
the
web
and
most
were
still
only
interested
in
reaching
an
older,
wealthier
collector
audience
who
were
still
not
really
online.
And
most
of
them
had
websites
that
just
repurposed
print
articles
and
displayed
small
logos
in
their
side
bars.
And
on
the
web
the
new
digital
media
model
promised
exposure
to
their
audience
but
without
any
payment
for
their
work.
Theres
still
a
lot
of
discussion
about
how
much
critics
and
journalists
should
be
paid
or
even
if
they
should
expect
to
get
paid
at
all.
So
back
in
2009,
my
husband,
Hrag,
had
been
experimenting
with
a
personal
blog
that
I
had
set
up
for
him.
And
almost
as
soon
as
he
started
publishing
online
he
fell
in
love
with
the
idea
of
online
writing.
Blogging
offered
him
a
new
way
of
writing,
of
organizing
thoughts,
communicating
ideas
and
making
connections.
When
he
had
previously
written
articles
for
print,
there
was
never
any
response,
no
feed
back
or
dialogue,
and
very
little
ongoing
conversation.
So
it
was
the
middle
of
the
recession,
and
both
of
us
were
frustrated
by
our
current
jobs.
I
was
working
at
a
corporate
ad
agency
and
itching
to
start
something
on
my
own
and
Hrag
was
ready
to
move
on
from
his
communications
job
and
was
frustrated
by
all
the
non-paying
writing
opportunities
that
were
around
and
not
really
interested
in
writing
a
traditional
800-word
review
for
market
focused
art
magazines,
and
so
we
just
decided
to
build
a
new
site
that
we
could
use
as
a
laboratory
to
explore
our
ideas.
Him
with
new
forms
of
writing
online
and
me
to
build
a
business
to
support
art
writing.
So
like
the
tech
and
business
blogs
had
done
in
the
previous
decade,
we
out
our
idea
of
what
an
arts
publication
could
be.
And
with
a
few
thousand
dollars
with
a
WordPress
designer
we
built
the
first
version
of
the
site
with
the
name
Hyperallergic
and
the
tag
line
sensitive
to
art
and
its
discontents.
We
described
it
as
a
forum
for
serious,
playful,
and
radical
thinking
about
art
in
the
world
today.
We
shied
away
from
the
predominant
academic
tone
of
art
writing
and
expressed
strong,
clear
opinions
to
create
something
that
we
would
want
to
read
ourselves.
And
it
was
important
for
us
to
be
independent
and
challenge
existing
ideas,
experiment
with
new
forms
of
writing
and
ways
to
activate
communities
and
for
me
in
particular,
new
ways
to
create
a
sustainable
business
model
for
art
writing.
This
is
what
the
site
looks
like
today.
We
strive
to
champion
the
voices
of
the
powerless
and
push
for
social
and
economic
justice
with
a
multicultural
world
view.
We
champion
visual
storytelling.
And
we
integrate
social
media
and
understand
that
it
is
an
important
place
to
share,
communicate
and
offer
insights
into
ideas.
We
publish
breaking
news
and
always
integrating
an
arts
perspective.
Which
is
many
times
then
picked
up
by
other
media
outlets.
We
publish
reviews
both
experimental
and
traditional
reviews
that
go
in
depth.
And
influential
opinions
that
lead
art
world
discussions
on
current
topics.
When
we
started
to
build
our
audience,
we
organized
events
where
we
could
meet
our
readers
and
where
they
could
meet
each
other
in
real
life.
In
the
beginning
when
they
were
smaller,
we
had
them
in
our
office
in
Brooklyn,
as
you
can
see
here,
and
as
they
grew
bigger,
we
moved
to
other
spaces
like
this
one
from
last
year
that
drew
800
people
to
a
factory
in
Queens.
And
we
also
partnered
with
museums
and
other
arts
organizations
to
co-host
events
in
their
spaces.
So
how
did
we
make
all
this
happen?
We
started
Hyperallergic
with
the
goal
of
trying
to
build
a
sustainable
platform
that
could
support
high
quality
writing
about
art
and
culture
and
push
the
boundaries
of
what
that
could
be.
So
having
the
flexibility,
independence
and
control
over
every
aspect
of
the
project
were
really
important
to
everything
that
we
did.
We
wanted
the
autonomy
to
challenge
the
status
quo
and
to
resist
the
influence
of
power
and
money
in
the
art
world
and
to
create
a
publication
that
was
committed
to
paying
writers
for
their
work,
that
valued
writing
as
creative
act
as
much
as
the
other
forms
of
art
that
we
were
writing
about,
and
we
knew
that
all
these
things
would
require
revenue.
And
while
many
people
in
the
art
world
have
been
saying
for
years
that
theres
no
money
in
online
publishing,
I
was
married
to
a
writer
so
I
had
a
lot
of
motivation
to
figure
it
out.
So
what
does
it
mean
to
be
sustainable?
During
the
first
year
of
the
company,
we
looked
at
all
sorts
of
revenue
streams
and
were
excited
to
experiment
with
all
of
them.
We
knew
advertising
would
be
a
part
of
the
mix,
but
we
were
also
interested
in
exploring
subscriptions,
events,
books,
apps
and
many
other
ideas
that
we
were
throwing
around
at
the
time.
One
thing,
though,
we
were
never
really
interested
in
was
trying
to
make
money
directly
by
selling
artwork,
or
by
taking
an
investment
that
would
inevitably
steer
us
towards
the
market
where
most
of
the
money
in
the
art
world
is
made
and
we
chose
a
for-profit
model
because
we
felt
it
aligned
best
with
our
goals
of
being
an
independent
sustainable
company
that
could
earn
revenue
directly
from
our
audience
instead
of
what
we
did
or
did
not
publish.
And
to
be
sustainable,
we
knew
we
needed
to
continue
growing
by
earning
the
loyalty
and
satisfaction
of
our
readers,
our
sponsors
and
all
of
our
partners.
So
we
started
with
advertising
and
which
seems
like
the
easiest
to
experiment
with.
And
soon
we
added
other
types
of
revenue
as
we
went
along.
When
we
started
we
really
thought
a
lot
about
what
it
meant
to
be
an
ad-supported
publication,
specifically
in
visual
art.
Could
we
make
online
advertising
more
transparent
and
work
for
both
readers
and
art
organizations?
How
could
we
insulate
our
editorial
from
sponsor
influence?
Could
we
use
advertising
to
create
positive
change
in
the
art
community
or
support
organizations
we
believed
in?
And
could
we
work
with
sponsors
that
shared
or
mission
to
grow
the
audience
for
art?
At
the
same
time,
we
also
knew
that
expecting
charity
from
sponsors
who
would
buy
ads
merely
to
support
writing
was
never
going
to
be
sustainable,
nor
would
it
be
scalable.
And
this
approach
to
advertising
was
very
difficult
at
first.
Most
of
the
arts
organizations
that
we
were
working
with
at
the
time
in
2010
had
never
advertised
online
before.
I
had
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
educating
and
talking
through
them
about
the
process,
teaching
them
about
impressions
and
CPMs
and
click-through
rates.
And
how
to
create
campaign
packages
with
fixed
budgets
that
ran
on
a
monthly
schedule
so
it
would
match
up
with
their
print
magazine,
both
the
concept
of
what
an
ad
is
an
their
budgets.
But
it
seemed
to
work
and
more
and
more
sponsors
began
to
move
their
advertising
online.
Online
advertising
can
often
be
ugly,
annoying,
and
sometimes
even
offensive.
Its
often
considered
an
interruption.
So
we
thought
we
could
do
better
and
we
thought
we
would
need
to
do
better
if
we
were
going
to
avoid
the
race
to
the
bottom
that
plagued
online
advertising
at
the
time.
So
we
try
our
best
to
serve
as
a
space
that
is
relevant,
respectful
and
beautiful.
We
want
advertisers
to
find
their
ads.
We
avoid
ads
that
target
only
the
wealthiest
part
of
the
art
world
and
we
work
with
art
sponsors
to
run
campaigns
that
address
their
marketing
goals.
We
really
try
and
understand
what
they
need
and
how
we
can
help
by
reaching
out
and
interacting
and
engaging
with
our
audience.
We
work
with
museums
and
nonprofits
to
increase
awareness
and
engagement
of
an
exhibition,
a
performance,
an
event,
or
a
conference.
We
rally
support
for
nonprofits
that
are
looking
to
raise
their
profile.
We
inform
artists,
writers,
or
creators
about
opportunities
like
residencies,
exhibitions,
contests,
or
grants,
and
motivate
them
to
improve
their
skills
or
expand
their
horizons
through
education.
And
also
help
professional
services
build
their
audiences
and
reach
potential
clients.
And
even
work
with
major
brands
looking
specifically
to
reach
our
audience
and
raise
awareness
of
an
art
focused
project.
At
the
same
time
when
we
were
building
a
community
with
sponsors,
we
really
felt
it
was
important
to
build
a
community,
a
broader
community
ofsorry,
in
addition
to
building
a
community
of
readers
and
sponsors,
we
wanted
to
extend
our
reach
by
supporting
a
broader
community
of
independent
voices
in
the
arts
and
so
about
a
year
after
we
started
Hyperallergic,
we
joined
forces
with
like-minded
sites
like
Rhizome
and
art
F
city.
We
provide
sales
support
to
smaller
publishers
who
typically
couldnt
afford
to
do
it
on
their
own
and
we
help
contribute
to
their
funding
of
other
operations.
So
this
is
what
we
did.
So
we
work
with
building
four
different
communities
and
how
it
works
is
we
knew
we
had
to
provide
value
to
each
individual
community
individually,
and
together.
For
the
system
to
work.
We
started
with
one
writer
and
a
small
audience
and
sold
our
first
ads
for
$300
a
week.
We
reinvested
that
money
into
more
writers,
continued
to
grow
our
audience
which
in
turn
created
more
demand
from
sponsors
who
wanted
to
reach
audience
and
more
funding
for
writers.
And
weve
been
working
through
this
cycle
for
the
last
five
years,
slowly
but
surely
constantly
growing.
And
its
working.
This
year
we
have
9
full-time
employees
of
Hyperallergic,
6
of
them
are
writers
and
editors
and
we
are,
working
with
11
art
publishers
who
reach
over
4
million
people
per
month
and
many
more
on
social
media.
We
have
published
over
500
writers
on
Hyperallergic
since
we
started
and
continue
to
increase
our
freelance
rates
every
year.
Weve
built
a
community
of
over
500
sponsors
that
readers
welcome
and
love
to
hear
from
but
that
has
no
influence
over
our
editorial.
And
as
one
of
the
most
important
ways
that
we
measure
our
success,
in
the
last
year
weve
paid
out
to
almost
$300,000
to
Nectar
Ads,
affiliated
publications,
and
$75,000
to
freelance
writers
and
hope
to
support
them
even
more
as
we
continue
to
grow.
As
you
can
see
here,
its
been
a
long,
steady
climb
over
the
first
five
years,
but
we
are
confident
and
excited
that
this
trend
will
continue
and
will
keep
working
every
day
to
build
a
stronger
and
stronger
company
that
can
be
a
home
to
readers,
writers,
publishers
and
sponsors.
Thank
you.
Eugenia
Bell,
Design
Observer
Hi.
A
lot
of
you
may
not
know
Design
Observer
or
read
it
religiously,
so
Im
going
to
give
a
little
bit
of
history
about
how
we
came
about
and
who
we
are
and
what
we
do
before
I
kind
of
get
into
the
meat
of
the
conversation.
In
2003,
Michael
Bierut,
Bill
Drenttel,
Jessica
Helfand,
and
Rick
Poyner
launched
a
blog
at
designobserver.com.
They
were
interested
in
creating
a
space
for
independent,
provocative,
and
serious
conversation
about
design
and
the
larger
world
and
to
bring
that
conversation
to
an
audience
that
reached
beyond
the
design
community.
By
conversation,
led
by
four
prominent
graphic
designers
was
open
to
everybody.
Experienced
professionals,
curious
students,
sophisticated
readers
everywhere.
We
had
a
rich
comment
section
that
no
doubt
was
visited
by
the
worst
tendency
of
the
commenting
world,
but
was
also
a
legitimate
and
rich
conversation
in
itself.
Design
Observer
quickly
earned
and
has
sustained
a
reputation
as
the
leading
online
magazine
covering
design.
Its
writers
include
Jessica
and
Michael,
the
prolific
Steven
Heller,
Adrian
Shaughnessy,
Eric
Spiekermann,
Rob
Walker
(who
many
of
you
probably
know
for
his
work
from
Slate
or
Medium)
writes
for
us
from
Savannah.
Paola
Antonelli,
the
poet
Megan
ORourke,
the
sound
architect
Nick
Sowers,
and
the
filmmakers
Errol
Morris
have
all
written
for
Design
Observer.
Despite,
or
as
a
direct
result
of
the
success
of
this
inclusionary
approach
over
the
course
of
the
decade
Design
Observer
expanded
to
broader
topics.
Ranging
from
citizen
journalism
to
global
healthcare,
which
was
of
special
interest
to
our
late
founder,
Bill
Drenttel.
A
grant
in
2009
from
the
Rockefeller
Foundation
allowed
us
to
spend
two
years
covering
social
impact
and
design
industry.
More
recently,
very
recently,
Ive
only
been
with
Design
Observer
for
about
nine
months,
we
enter
add
two-year
publishing
initiative
with
the
online
platform
Blurb,
which
some
of
you
may
know
about
and
may
even
use.
Weve
launched
a
publishing
in
print
called
Observer
Additions,
which
will
collect
essays
from
the
website
and
also
generate
new
content.
We
have
established
an
online
platform
for
international
BFA
and
MFA,
called
the
Thesis
Book
Project,
and
we
hosted
our
inaugural
conference
last
February
on
design
and
sound,
this
is
an
endeavor
we
hope
will
become
an
annual
event.
To
a
certain
extent
Design
Observers
original
mission
has
been
completely
fulfilled
and
to
go
by
social
media
numbers
if
people
care
that
audience
has
been
widely
reached.
We
have
800,000
Twitter
followers,
over
500,000
Facebook
followers
and
a
million
subscribers
to
our
podcast
on
Soundcloud.
Weve
been
nominated
numerous
times
for
Webby
Awards
and
with
a
core
staff
of
five
people,
only
4
of
us
are
part-time.
Only
one
full-time
person,
I
think
its
fair
to
say
weve
accomplished
a
great
deal
and
continue
to
do
so.
Yet,
unlike
the
cultural
climate
that
characterized
Design
Observer
in
the
early
years,
design
coverage
is
now
everywhere.
Conversation
about
design
has
emerged
from
its
insular
bubble
to
become
a
central
concern
and
how
we
talk
about
culture,
education,
technology,
business,
let
alone
the
lifestyle,
shelter,
and
food
coverage
that
has
always
lived
at
the
margins
of
increasingly
24-hour
design
news
cycle
can
be
full
of
highly
visual
pieces
that
are
free
of
commentary
and
ideas.
In
this
new
environment
of
abundance,
12
years
after
its
initial
launch,
Design
Observer
is
still
dedicated
to
its
original
initiatives
of
inclusion,
while
amplifying
designs,
critical
signals
in
a
noisy
world.
We
are
elevating
the
conversation
about
design
on
and
off
the
Internet
now.
From
traditional
publishing
ventures
like
the
books
I
just
mentioned
and
also
a
magazine
that
we
will
be
launching
this
summer,
to
alternative
projects
like
our
podcast
that
we
already
do,
and
videos.
And
some
face
to
face
encounters
like
seminars,
our
conference
and
salons
like
the
ones
that
well
be
doing
at
AIGA
national
conference
this
fall.
We
are
not
afraid
to
ask
tough
questions.
Why
do
you
only
like
an
announcement
of
a
friend
or
family
member
on
Facebook?
Nor
do
we
shy
away
from
typical
topics,
like
is
Lululemon
inherently
antifeminist
and
why
do
cities
reject
the
homeless?
Were
eager
to
debate
and
disagree
and
we
think
theres
a
role
for
humor,
inquiry,
scrutiny,
for
art,
commerce,
politics,
and
film.
As
design
becomes
not
only
a
common
cultural
currency,
but
a
truly
international
language,
were
committed
to
extending
our
reach
even
more
broadly
than
we
already
have.
While
sticking
to
our
core
competencies
as
educators,
and
practitioners
and
editors,
and
most
importantly
as
global
ambassadors
for
design,
Design
Observer
is
positioned
at
the
nexus
of
the
cultural
and
the
critical,
the
social
and
the
commercial,
like
many
of
the
publications
and
websites
present
here
today
probably.
So
this
might
be
a
natural
lead-in
into
talking
a
little
bit
about
financial
stuff.
Ill
keep
it
brief
because
I
think
weve
agreed
that
a
lot
of
the
meat
of
this
discussion
is
really
going
to
happen
in
our
panel
discussion
and
from
questions
from
you
guys.
But
I
will
tell
you
what
I
can
here.
Its
probably
a
bit
of
a
stretch
to
suggest
that
Design
Observer
operates
on
a
really
sophisticated
financial
or
business
model
because
we
dont
and
we
never
have.
We
are
kind
of
in
this
foggy
middle
ground
where
were
not
a
for-profit,
we
wish
we
were,
but
were
not
a
501(c)(3),
either,
though
we
have
a
component
of
the
Design
Observer
group
which
is
a
foundation
that
has
a
writing
award.
For
some
time
early
on,
the
site
relied
on
really
goodwill,
and
the
urgent
desire
of
contributors
and
our
founding
editors
to
expose
and
expand
the
dialogue
around
design
and
that
often
meant
not
paying
people,
including
me
in
the
early
days.
In
the
first
few
years
Design
Observer
has
this
modest
stipend
from
the
school
of
visual
arts
from
New
York
and
it
helped
cover
some
operating
costs
and
computers,
and
programming,
and
a
little
bit
of
contributors
fees.
That
wasnt
contingent
on
much,
but
wed
already
had
an
established
relationship
with
the
school
of
visual
arts
because
a
lot
of
our
contributors
taught
there
or
lectured
there
and
it
made
is
sense
to
work
with
SVA
as
like
educational
partners
and
the
educational
component
was
a
big
part
of
our
mission.
The
programs
were
broad
around
progressive
and
Sympatico
with
Design
Observers
mission
and
you
know,
mere
inches
of
subtle
ad
space
from
a
school
didnt
and
still
doesnt
feel
like
a
principle-breaking
act,
so
we
happily
partnered
with
them.
But
since
those
early
years
weve
attempted
other
things.
We
have
an
active
job
board,
it
generates
about
$15,000
a
year
for
us.
That
doesnt
sound
like
a
lot
of
money,
it
isnt.
But
it
goes
a
long
way
in
helping
pay
contributors
and
our
occasional
interns.
Occasional
grants
of
short-up
special
projects
and
topical
coverage
like
the
Rockefeller
Grant
from
a
few
years
ago
and
more
recently
weve
been
taking
sponsorships
from
companies
like
MailChimp
who
underwrote
ourone
of
our
blogs,
the
observatory
that
Michael
and
Jessica
do.
The
printing
company
Moo
and
blurb
as
mentioned
earlier
who
will
be
printing
our
magazine
this
summer.
You
know,
its
kind
of
a
more
commercial
take
on
the
public
radio
model,
I
guess,
you
know,
in
having
these
sponsors
for
discrete
areas
of
the
site.
Podcasts
in
particular,
because
we
have
to
hire
producers
and
you
know,
people
to
really
help
on
those,
and
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
us.
Especially
after
our
redesign
last
July,
going
after
this
kind
of
medium-sized
funding
support
for
the
special
projects
and
podcasts,
to
help
build
support,
and
staff
that
those
initiatives
require.
It
also
means
Im
happy
to
say
that
I
get
to
pay
every
single
one
of
my
writers.
And
the
occasional
intern.
By
web
standards
we
pay
pretty
generously,
though,
unlike
Veken,
we
only
publish
two
or
three
times
a
day
so
its
a
slightly
simpler
model,
but
you
know,
I
come
from
print,
Design
Observer
is
the
first
website
Ive
ever
worked
at.
By
print
standards,
web
pay
is
horrific.
So
when
I
first
joined
observer
and
I
was
sort
of
given
our
rates
for
writers,
I
was
totally
scandalized
and
there
were
people
that
I
thought
I
couldnt
approach
because
I
thought
those
rates
were
so
low,
and
then
three
months
into
my
tenure
at
Design
Observer,
I
was
talking
to
somebody
who
had
worked
at
the
newyorker.com
who
told
me
what
their
rate
was
and
it
matched
ours
and
all
of
a
sudden
I
felt
completely
legitimized
and
I
could
go
to
people
and
say
we
pay
what
the
New
Yorker
pays
and
it
felt
incredibly
edifying.
So
were
currently
testing
the
waters
about
new
funding
possibilities.
The
most
important
thing
for
us
is
to
find
ways
of
combining
our
principled
approach
which
models
that
complement
our
mission.
Or
its
earlier
paid
subscription,
you
know,
really
resonates
with
me,
because
its
something
thats
come
up
a
lot
at
Design
Observer
and
we
want
to
believe
in
it,
but
you
know,
Design
Observer
is
12
years
old
and
walking
back
something
thats
been
free
for
12
years
and
that
has
an
incredibly
deep
archive
that
people
use,
you
know,
we
get
emails
from
instructors
and
professors
who
are
making
course
packets
out
of
our
archives
which
is
fantastic
and
thats
probably
something
we
should
be
helping
them
do
and
you
know,
charging
for,
but
you
know,
itsyou
know,
like
Orit,
Im
not
envious
of
the
first
person
whos
going
to
do
that,
because
its
going
to
be
complicated.
Some
conversations
that
we
have
internally
involve
not
just
embracing
new
topics
and
the
revenue
generating
possibilities
that
those
things
might
imply.
But
methods
of
distribution,
as
well,
you
know,
is
the
web,
one
question
we
always
have,
is
the
web,
for
a
site
like
ours,
which
you
know,
that
publishes
original
writing
and
excerpts
from
new
books,
is
the
web
a
place
of
origin
still
or
is
it
just
a
place
of
dissemination?
So
these
distribution
models
also
come
into
our
mind
and
you
know,
especially
what
it
means
to
be
publishing
serious
design
observations
on
the
web
anymore.
We
dont
have
the
answer
and
I
dont
think
were
going
to
answer
it
this
weekend,
but
Im
really
grateful
to
Susannah
[Schouweiler]
and
Paul
[Schmelzer]
for
organizing
this,
and
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
it.
Im
also
grateful
to
Andrew
[Blauvelt]
for
inviting
Design
Observer
to
the
conference
and
me
back
to
the
Walker.
Thanks,
and
I
hope
we
have
an
active
conversation
about
this
in
the
panel.
And
the
question
and
answers.
Thank
you.
Carolina
Miranda,
Los
Angeles
Times
I
know
we
are
here
to
talk
about
models
of
art
writing.
I
feel
a
little
bit
like
a
fraud
in
this
area
because
I
have
not
come
up
with
any
models
Im
simply
a
writer.
I
dont
run
a
publication,
I
havent
launched
a
platform
and
I
work
at
a
newspaper,
which
is,
you
know,
definitely
a
legacy
media
throwback.
I
do
have
a
unique
position
at
the
Los
Angeles
Times
in
that
I
have
a
new
type
of
role
which
is
considered
digital
first,
so
I
can
do
bloggy
items,
I
do
full
feature
stories,
I
do
Q&As,
I
do
photo
essays,
and
then
whatever
the
paper
is
interested
in,
they
pick
it
up
from
my
blog,
so
its
more
about
sort
of
being
online
and
being
a
digital
journalist
and
then
sort
of,
by
osmosis,
I
end
up
in
the
paper.
So
the
way
I
work
is
a
little
bit
different
than
the
way
Christopher
works,
but
Im
still
a
throwback
to
legacy
media
but
Im
really
here
to
talk
about
sort
of
my
time
as
a
freelancer.
I
just
did
this
story
where
I
illustrated
the
entire
Marina
Abramovic/Jay-Z
fight
using
media
from
the
Getty
and
Im
really
into
it,
I
think
we
should
illustrate
all
stories
with
artwork
from
museum
collections
and
I
think
this
is
more
interesting
than
any
photos
of
my
website
which
you
can
go
and
see
at
any
time.
Thats
St.
Matthew,
by
the
way.
So
before
I
joined
the
Times
I
was
a
freelancer
for
almost
8
years,
I
wrote
for
Art
News,
Time
magazine,
Architect
a
lot
of
work
for
public
radio.
And
I
managed
to
make
a
career
out
of
writing
about
art
and
culture,
which
is
why
Im
here,
but
before
I
get
into
the
mechanics
of
that,
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
background
on
my
professional
trajectory.
Peoplethats
St.
Lazarus,
by
the
way,
from
the
16th
century.
People
come
to
art
writing
in
so
many
ways.
There
are
curators
who
create
records
of
their
shows,
academics
who
publish
their
research,
there
are
essayists
who
want
to
add
to
the
body
of
knowledge
and
the
economic
models
are
all
different
its
not
a
one
size
fits
all
profession,
so
I
really
think
its
important
to
acknowledge
where
we
all
come
from
in
this
and
I
come
to
it
through
journalism.
I
am
not
an
art
historian,
I
didnt
major
in
art.
I
didnt
take
a
single
course
in
art
history
class
in
college
so
Im
a
complete
and
total
fraud.
I
dont
teach
and
I
dont
do
curatorial
work.
I
really
approach
this
as
a
journalist.
And
actually
as
a
storyteller
so
sort
of
the
art
and
architecture
and
culture
are
where
I
happen
to
tell
my
stories
and
it
was
reallyI
got
into
it
in
my
30s
when
I
was
a
reporter
at
Time
magazine,
I
was
a
general
assignment
reporter
where
one
week
you
might
be
writing
about
Al
Qaeda
and
the
next
week
about
FEMA
and
the
next
week
its
Scarlett
Johansson
so
its
kind
of
all
over
the
place.
And
my
first
art
architecture
assignmentall
this
kind
of
happened
by
accident,
Id
been
very
happy
at
a
general
assignment
reporter.
I
thought
it
was
very
interesting
to
be
able
to
write
about
all
these
different
and
weird
things.
Id
always
been
an
aficionado
of
culture,
a
big
reader,
a
big
museum
goer,
I
always
loved
going
to
galleries,
I
read
books
about
artists
but
it
wasnt
something
I
had
considered
writing
about
professionally
a
lot
and
then
one
day
at
Time
magazine
Im
walking
down
the
hallway
going
to
get
a
Coke
and
I
happened
to
walk
in
front
of
an
editors
office
right
as
he
debating
who
to
assign
this
architecture
story
to
and
so
I
happened
to
step
in
front
of
his
office
and
he
saw
me
and
he
gave
me
the
assignment.
It
was
kind
of
that
sophisticated
was
the
assignment
process
at
Time
magazine
sometimes.
But
it
was
a
story,
it
was
a
story
about
architecture
and
skyscrapers
and
how
architecture
pedagogy
is
changing
because
of
skyscrapers
and
architecture
itself.
That
really
got
me
into
the
idea
of
writing
about
these
topics
for
a
mass
audience.
I
was
really
interested
in
this
idea
that
it
could
go
beyond
the
sinecure
of
the
art
world.
So
it
was
really
Time
that
fed
this
bug.
The
idea
of
Time
magazine
was
that
grandma
in
Peoria
has
to
be
able
to
read
it
and
I
really
loved
the
idea
of
doing
that
for
culture
stories.
So
when
I
left
Time,
I
really
got
seriously
into
culture
writing.
At
the
time
there
wasnt
always
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
do
it.
And
thats
when
I
started
freelancing
about
art
and
architecture,
but
also
other
topics
that
I
had
been
familiar
with,
travel,
food,
the
occasional
opinion
piece,
and
bizarrely,
neurological
development
stories,
because
that
was
something
I
had
covered
at
Time
magazine.
So
during
this
time
that
Im
just
starting
out
as
a
freelancer,
I
also
started
a
blog
called
C-Monster.
There
we
go.
I
dont
know
if
theyre
sea
monsters,
but
they
kind
of
look
like
it.
These
are
from
the
15th
century.
I
did
this
blog
for
almost
seven
years,
it
was
not
designed
as
a
platform,
it
did
not
generate
a
lick
of
revenue,
I
didnt
make
a
dime
from
it.
It
really
was
a
place
for
me
as
a
writer
to
go
and
be
able
to
play.
And
not
have
to
have
an
institutional
voice,
not
be
writing
for
an
editor,
not
be
writing
for
a
giant
publication,
not
have
multiple
layers
of
editing,
so
it
was
where
I
could
really
sort
of
work
out
my
own
voice
as
a
writer
and
in
the
process,
it
ended
up
being
this
great
sort
of
piece
of
visibility
for
me.
I
didnt
make
any
money
off
of
it,
but
I
think
a
lot
ofI
know
many
of
you,
through
that
site,
but
because
I
didnt
make
a
dime
from
it,
it
means
that
its
always
been
really
important
to
me
to
make
a
living
as
a
journalist
and
which
means
that
any
writing
that
was
not
on
c
monster,
it
was
really,
really
important
for
me
to
make
money
on
it.
Now,
I
come
from
a
relatively
privileged
position
in
all
of
this,
in
that
when
I
started
working
as
a
freelancer,
I
was
already
an
experienced
journalist,
I
could
already
sort
of
command
a
certain
level
of
payment.
It
wasnt
payment
that
I
was
getting
rich
from
but
it
allowed
me
to
survive
as
an
arts
writer,
and
because
I
was
a
general
assignment
reporter,
it
also
allowed
me
to
occasionally
write
stories
about
things
outside
art.
So
if
things
in
art
were
a
little
slow,
I
could
do
a
travel
story,
I
could
do
a
neurological
story
and
I
think
thats
generally
good
for
writers,
have
other
things
that
you
can
write
about,
too,
because
this
is
a
shaky
business.
So
Ive
had
the
good
fortune
of
finding
a
steady
stream
of
paid
work
both
inside
and
outside
the
world
of
culture
that
allowed
me
to
work
as
a
freelance
writer
for
almost
8
years,
but
in
my
time
as
a
writer
in
those
8
years,
Ive
seen
the
landscape
change.
You
know,
Ive
seen
pay
rates
decline,
Ive
seen
magazines
close,
Ive
been
asked
to
write
for
free
more
times
than
I
can
count,
you
know,
and
Ive
been
offered
fees
that
once
I
sort
of
factor
in
the
amount
of
time
that
goes
to
producing
the
work,
they
probably
violate
all
kinds
of
minimum
wage
laws,
and
so
thats
something
that
I
wanted
to
address
here
today,
because
I
think
questions
of
payment
and
more
specifically
nonpayment,
and
how
to
get
by
in
this
economy,
are
really
important.
You
know,
so
often
I
feel
like
the
writers
contribution
its
treated
as
so
expendable.
So
I
think
my
main
advice
for
folks
who
are
trying
to
get
paid
to
write
is
to
not
give
it
away.
Now,
by
not
giving
it
away,
I
dont
necessarily
mean
immediately
reject
all
unpaid
work,
tell
that
editor
to
stick
it
where
the
sun
dont
shine,
thats
not
what
I
mean,
I
mean
in
an
ideal
world
wed
all
get
paid
for
everything
we
write
and
that
minimum
rate
would
be
a
dollar
a
word,
because
that
is
a
liveable
wage
for
a
writer
as
we
talk
about
liveable
minimum
wage,
a
dollar
a
word
is
a
liveable
wage
for
a
writer.
But
we
all
face
situations
in
which
we
choose
to
work
for
free
or
for
little
pay
and
I
want
to
highlight
the
word
choose
here
because
I
really
think
it
should
be
choice.
When
I
get
these
offers
part
of
the
exercise
that
I
go
through
in
order
to
determine
whether
this
is
something
I
really
want
to
or
need
to
be
doing
is
I
ask
myself
three
questions:
And
so
the
first
question
I
ask
myself
is,
somebodys
offeredyou
know,
asked
me
to
do
something
for
free,
the
first
question
is
how
can
I
improve
the
terms
of
this?
So
you
know,
if
the
pay
is
zero,
can
they
give
me
50
bucks?
If
the
pay
is
50
bucks,
can
they
give
me
100.
If
theres
no
money
for
a
writers
fee,
can
they
purchase
a
couple
of
books
for
me
to
do
my
research
that
I
can
then
retain
in
my
library?
Does
the
sponsoring
organization
have
access
to
databases
that
maybe
me
as
an
independent
journalist
does
not
have?
Can
they
give
me
access
to
those
databases?
I
feel
like
so
often
this
is
approached
as
a
one-way
relationship
as
you
know,
an
organization
coming
to
you
the
writer
and
asking
you
to
write
for
free,
but
its
a
negotiation,
its
a
collaboration
and
we
are
allowed
to
ask
for
things
back
and
we
might
not
get
money
but
we
might
get
other
things
and
I
think
its
important
to
ask
for
them
so
that
this
becomes
more
of
a
relationship
of
barter
than
one
of
unpaid
labor.
So
question
No.
2.
That
I
ask
myself
is,
what
does
the
publication
and
its
staff
look
like?
So
is
this
a
commercial
site
that
makes
a
profit?
Does
the
publisher
get
paid?
Does
the
editor
get
paid?
Do
the
marketing
people
get
paid?
Does
everyone
except
the
writer
get
paid?
Or
are
they
paid
25
bucks
for
a
thoughtful,
well
reported
thousand-word
blog
post?
You
know,
if
thats
the
case,
then
the
writer
is
subsidizing
that
enterprise,
and
its
unsustainable
and
usually
in
those
cases
the
answer
to
myself
is
no,
that
thats
not
a
piece
I
want
to
do.
However,
if
the
publication
is
a
nonprofit
with
tiny
budgets
or
a
project
supported
by
a
passionate
group
of
people
who
are
volunteering
their
time,
if
its
a
forward
Ive
been
asked
to
do
by
an
artist
for
their
book
and
Im
really
passionate
about
their
work
but
I
know
that
the
budget
to
produce
the
book
is
microscopic,
Ill
set
aside
the
concerns
about
money
because
there
are
stories
I
want
to
tell.
So
in
those
kinds
of
questions
I
ask
myself,
am
I
the
collaborator?
Is
this
part
of
a
creative
endeavor
or
again,
am
I
simply
functioning
as
unpaid
labor?
I
think
if
Im
going
to
be
doing
something
for
free,
I
want
to
feel
that
Im
a
collaborator.
The
third
question
I
ask
myself
is
how
much
of
a
burning
desire
do
I
have
to
write
about
this
topic?
There
are
times
I
have
written
for
free
or
for
low
pay
because
I
felt
a
sense
of
urgency
about
the
subject,
because
I
was
really
moved
by
an
artists
show
and
I
just
wanted
desperately
to
get
the
word
out
about
it
or
there
was
an
idea
that
I
really
wanted
to
express
and
that
particular
platform,
even
though
it
might
not
have
been
ideal
in
other
ways
in
terms
of
pay
or
structure
it
was
the
most
appropriate
place
to
tell
that
story
so
in
that
case
Im
willing
to
do
it
because
Im
not
just
a
paid
writer,
I
feel
like
Im
also
somebody
who
traffics
in
ideas
and
sometimes
you
know,
ideas
just
arent
about
money.
So
I
think
thats
such
an
important
question
of
if
youre
going
to
write
something
for
free
and
youre
not
going
to
be
100%
enamored
by
it,
it
might
not
be
worth
doing
it.
Now,
for
writers
who
are
new
to
the
field,
who
are
trying
to
make
a
go
as
a
freelancer,
free
or
low-
paid
work
is
probably
going
to
be
part
of
the
deal
initially.
Thats
a
little
different
than
how
I
started
out.
But
I
think
again,
think
critically
about
what
youre
going
to
be
getting
out
of
it.
Does
this
job
give
you
a
portfolio
of
worthwhile
clips?
Is
it
improving
your
reporting
skills
are
you
getting
good
editing
so
that
youre
improving
your
writing?
Are
you
getting
something
that
you
wouldnt
get
just
by
writing
your
own
blog?
So
I
think
those
are
important
questions
to
ask
if
youre
starting
out.
But
I
think
at
the
same
time
its
important
to
set
limits
on
sort
of
how
much
and
for
how
long
youre
willing
to
do
that,
because
by
having
everybody
write
for
free,
it
devalues
what
we
all
do
to
some
degree,
but
I
also
recognize
that
writing
is
an
art
and
its
not
any
one
thing
and
so
people
are
going
to
do
it
for
different
reasons.
Now,
to
finish
out,
I
wanted
to
bring
up
a
question
of
sustainability
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
money,
but
more
about
the
way
we
communicate.
We
live
in
a
society
where
art
seems
to
hold
little
cultural
capital.
According
to
the
national
center
for
education
statistics,
only
half
of
American
high
schools
require
any
kind
of
arts
coursework
for
graduation,
we
are
not
a
culture
that
calls
on
artists
or
architects
or
philosophers
or
playwrights
to
understand
the
world
around
us.
When
I
watch
TV
on
Latin
America
Im
always
kind
of
wowed,
there
will
be
like
a
policy
maker
and
a
poet
describing
like
the
weeks
news,
because
in
Latin
America
what
a
poet
has
to
say
about
something
is
important
and
I
agree.
Here
in
the
US
when
art
does
make
it
into
mass
media
it
so
often
has
to
do
with
auctions
or
scandals
or
you
know,
the
San
Diego
professor
whoever
wants
his
class
to
get
naked
so
it
turns
into
that,
which
is
a
little
bit
about
I
want
to
talk
about
asking
ourselves
who
we
write
for
and
why.
So
do
we
write
for
the
caravan
of
people
who
jet
from
a
fair
to
fair,
biennial
to
biennial?
Is
it
for
the
people
who
buy
the
150
million-dollar
paintings?
Is
it
the
fellow
egg-heads
who
like
to
use
words
like
recontextualizing
and
hybridity?
Every
choice,
every
choice
we
make
as
a
writer
of
the
subjects
we
choose
to
cover
and
the
language
we
use
to
cover
it
and
the
publication
we
choose
to
disseminate
it
can
narrow
or
expand
our
audience.
And
I
think
the
art
world
canit
can
be
such
an
echo
chamber
and
sometimes
a
very
small
one
at
that
and
so
I
think
its
important
given
the
state
of
art
in
this
country
for
every
writer
to
find
ways
to
get
outside
of
that
world,
at
least
some
of
the
time.
To
cover
stories
that
arent
arent
fairs
and
biennials
to
do
essays
that
arent
all
jargon.
To
explore
topics
that
take
us
into
the
myriad
areas
of
daily
life.
In
whatever
we
write,
I
think
its
important
to
keep
ideas
concise
and
language
simple,
to
invite
people
in
rather
than
keep
them
out,
to
continuously
make
the
case
to
the
broadest
possible
audience
that
art
is
a
rich
part
of
life
and
not
just
something
for
the
rich.
Its
a
really
big
world
out
there,
so
lets
write
for
all
of
it.
Thank
you.
James
McAnally,
Temporary
Art
Review
I
appreciate
this
panel
in
general.
I
think
the
conversation
after
will
be
really
good
because
were
all
coming
from
very
different
places.
So
on
my
end,
I
thought
it
would
be
important
first
to
define
terms.
Were
not
interested
in
growing
an
industry,
were
interested
in
growing
a
field.
An
art
world
obsessed
with
money,
we
want
to
understand
how
to
surpass
it.
If
we
cant
imagine
new
models
as
critics
or
publishers,
were
perpetually
subservient
to
models
we
claim
to
oppose.
Temporary
Art
Review
is
an
anti-profit
publication,
founded
in
St.
Louis
in
2011
by
Sarrita
Hunn
and
I,
in
order
to
connect
disparate
communities
particularly
those
outside
of
traditional
art
centers
to
document,
assess
and
advocate
for
artist
run
and
alternative
practices
throughout
the
United
States
and
increasingly
abroad.
We
have
many
starts
and
resets
and
restarts.
We
talk
a
lot
about
models,
I
think
its
because
weve
always
been
an
experiment
in
how
an
alternative
publication
today
may
operate
as
much
as
how
it
has
existed
as
a
publication
itself.
Its
form
as
always
applied
back
to
its
language.
Our
decision,
finances,
and
design
moving
towards
a
collapsing
center.
To
talk
about
alternative
spaces
we
needed
to
enact
or
embody
an
alternative
form.
To
forefront
questions
of
the
artist
run,
we
needed
to
be
artist-run
ourselves
and
to
discuss
inequities
in
the
art
world,
or
problematic
platforms,
we
needed
to
create
a
sustainable
equitable
financial
model,
a
platform
we
can
live
with
and
grow
through.
Its
simple:
We
needed
to
connect
the
discourse
with
the
work
we
were
doing,
the
artist,
activist,
organizer
considered
inseparable
from
the
critic,
editor,
publisher.
We
carry
our
conscience
and
out
political
consciousness
forward
through
our
forum,
ethics,
growth
and
sustainability
are
considered
inseparable.
That
which
we
cover
typically
hovers
in
this
border
as
well.
Non-nonprofits,
unprofitable
for-profits,
conflicted
curators,
conflicted
critics,
artist-run,
artist
centric,
alternative
experimental,
ephemeral,
and
ekphrastic.
The
models
we
seek
havent
yet
been
found
or
theyre
found
in
the
passage
between
forms
and
its
our
role
to
consider
their
emergence
when
they
appear.
We
were
interested
in
creating
a
publication
that
is
an
example
of
the
form
we
celebrate.
It
advances
the
forms
we
see
succeeding
and
that
creates
meaning
that
circumscribes
ignores
or
pushes
past
the
art
world
as
we
now
know
it.
To
me,
the
most
interesting
models
come
out
of
extreme
dissatisfaction,
displacement.
Temporary
initially
reacted
to
the
failure
of
art
criticism
and
its
extremities.
In
the
smaller
off-center
cities
and
smaller
artist
centric
spaces.
Founding
the
site
in
St.
Louis
in
2011
and
in
most
cities
throughout
the
country
the
limitations
of
dominant
model
was
clear
from
the
out
set.
We
knew
we
could
not
sustain
ourselves
on
ads
or
grants,
subsisting
on
existing
models,
we
werent
going
to
found
a
new
legacy
platform.
We
had
to
start
from
that
place,
post
recession,
uncertain
support
structures,
collapsing
industry,
we
emerged
alongside
what
we
felt
was
the
defining
element
of
our
time.
The
return
of
alternative
space.
In
the
wake
of
economic
shifts,
the
protest
of
shutters
in
place
of
context,
the
conditions
of
scarcity
itself
catalyzing
new
models.
Entering
this
landscape
as
a
national
site
with
an
emphasis
on
communities
without
an
active
critical
dialogue
only
punctuated
this.
The
models
werent
working,
so
the
work
wasnt
happening.
So
much
of
our
work
went
undocumented,
undiscussed.
Putting
in
a
broader
context
of
art
criticism
publishing,
a
point
that
persists
not
only
are
critical
institutions
and
traditional
media
outlets
faltering,
but
there
continues
to
be
a
startling
lack
of
meaningful
expansions
of
models.
Not
just
bloggers,
part-timers
and
casual
critics
that
fill
in
the
gaps
our
media
outlets
have
always
missed
but
emerging
models
of
publishing
more
broadly.
We
can
agree
that
criticism
is
in
continual
crisis.
The
crisis
in
audience
and
readership,
The
crisis
in
advertising
and
gazes
time
and
attention,
the
crisis
of
platform
and
pay.
Round
tables,
presentations
and
panels
like
this
one
often
hang
there,
circling
around
a
point
without
ever
transcending
it.
The
possibilities
of
emerging
platforms
should
lead
to
an
expansion
of
agency.
New
critical
voices
should
be
emerging
as
we
understand
there
no
gatekeepers
and
no
gates
to
keep.
New
models
should
be
taking
root,
yet
this
persistent
should
continues
to
haunt
the
field.
Our
industry
is
not
going
to
return
in
the
same
form.
Its
our
obligation
to
make
sure
our
field
is
documented,
discussed,
distributed,
contended
with
publicly.
I
think
this
echoes
a
lot
of
what
Carolina
was
saying,
as
well.
Can
we
not
advance
alternate
means
of
address,
of
criticality,
of
sustainability.
In
times
of
crisis,
sometimes
its
sufficient
to
state
the
issue
then
experiment
with
whatever
is
in
your
control.
Perhaps
in
this
experimentation,
well
stumble
on
the
new
forms
of
publishing,
perhaps
the
form
becomes
a
model.
Because
repairing
crumbling
models
isnt
sufficient
to
address
the
contours
of
the
contemporary
and
this
moment
of
experimentation
is
an
opportunity
to
reshape
our
work
into
something
that
addresses
the
breadth
of
art
as
it
is.
Decentered,
multiple,
malleable.
There
have
to
be
more
models
than
grants
ads,
sponsored
content,
pay
wall,
our
models
to
consider
what
he
we
can
build
outside
of
these
patterns.
What
a
community
can
create
for
itself.
We
founded
the
site
for
$1.99.
Operated
with
essentially
no
budget
until
recently,
publishing
over
400
articles
from
a
scattered
community
of
150
artists,
artist
writers,
curator
critics
from
around
the
world.
Through
this
act,
we
became
increasingly
interested
in
the
possibility
of
creating
radical
sustainable
and
alternate
forms
of
organizing,
of
publishing,
of
being.
An
emergence
of
a
radical
conscience
not
limited
to
locality.
In
many
ways
this
is
what
we
were
doing
all
along
but
it
was
inarticulate
until
we
relaunched
the
site
last
year
as
an
anti-profit
publication
with
the
formulation
our
vision
was
to
make
it
public
or
at
least
attempt
to.
This
making
of
a
public,
connecting
together
as
a
community
was
itself
a
goal.
We
didnt
feel
like
there
was
a
place
for
ideas
to
gather
that
was
open,
equitable,
accessible,
diverse,
intelligent.
A
place
to
prepare
that
was
neither
for
nor
nonprofit
but
was
other.
Opposed,
experimental,
and
not
just
in
language
but
in
form.
Not
just
by
content,
but
by
finances.
There
was
a
form
itself
that
acted
out
our
oppositional
radical
stance
as
being
alternate
to,
yet
intersecting
with
the
art
world
we
engage.
We
decided
to
distribute
what
we
had
this
public
embarking
on
ad
shares,
mutual
support,
cooperative
models
and
attempt
to
build
out
a
structure
we
could
live
with
and
in.
It
is
still
very
much
an
open
ended
experiment,
one
that
works
at
certain
moments
and
of
course
feels
restrictive
at
times,
but
nonetheless
keeps
the
space
of
the
site
open
and
undetermined.
Temporary
exists
in
a
complex
position
which
I
feel
is
essential
to
make
transparent,
we
are
an
anti-
profit
experiment
in
mutualism
and
connectivity.
Primarily
managed
by
two
people
and
published
in
proximity
to
The
Luminary,
a
nonprofit
which
I
also
helped
found.
It
doesnt
exist
entirely
outside
of
these
systems
we
critique,
but
at
angles
with
it.
We
do
sell
a
small
number
of
ads,
mostly
from
friends
and
partners,
we
receive
some
grant
money
through
the
Warhol
Foundation,
through
The
Luminary,
in
order
to
have
create
a
fund
for
writers
and
guest
editors,
something
like
95%
of
what
we
publish
had
been
bartered,
donated,
given
to
the
public
as
a
way
to
advance
this
discourse.
Its
a
collectively
developed
platform
for
a
quickly
growing
number
of
contributors
and
readers.
Anti-profit
for
us
is
a
transparent
reflection
of
our
finances.
More
properly,
that
we
operate
without
finances
at
the
center
of
our
enterprise.
We
may
make
money,
but
when
we
do,
its
equally
shared
as
one
form
of
payment
among
others.
So
we
dont
exist
due
to
a
financial
model.
Nor
are
we
dependent
on
one.
We
found
both
for
ourselves
and
for
many
of
our
contributors
that
finances
arent
the
primary
concerned
when
youre
openly
aligned
along
a
similar
vision.
The
removing
money
from
the
center
of
the
conversation
doesnt
collapse,
but
actually
expands
it.
As
a
case
study
just
to
get
practical,
Cassie
Thornton,
an
artist
in
the
Bay
Area,
wrote
a
piece
for
Temporary
called
Save
the
System
in
which
she
advocated
for
death
strikes
in
the
context
of
increasing
costs
for
MFA
programs.
In
exchange
she
was
given
an
ad
space
to
do
with
whatever
she
wished,
she
could
sell
it,
barter
it
further,
advertise
a
project,
whatever.
She
ended
up
putting
up
a
gold
and
black
ad
saying
Bad
Credit
does
not
Equal
Bad
Person,
which
led
to
a
site
in
which
she
would
offer
alternative
credit
scores
through
her
feminist
economics
department.
This
microcosm
of
the
site
connects
as
an
idea
outward.
Merging
an
alternative
proposition
in
one
field,
puts
the
structure
of
a
publication
in
another.
Positing
a
valid
alternative
economics
in
a
succinct
act.
For
us
an
emerging
community
is
the
concern.
In
a
broader
sense
of
a
radical
alternative
that
does
not
just
critique,
but
builds.
Its
important
that
Temporary
is
just
one
model
among
many
advancing
these
ideas,
a
publication
echoing
the
ways
that
artists
are
working.
The
metaphor
weve
productively
applied
to
our
work,
but
also
the
larger
landscape
of
that
of
the
artist-run
ethos,
is
that
of
wild
building
its
a
practice
in
which
families
and
small
communities
create
a
settlement
on
border
territory
that
drains
off
resources
from
the
grid
in
order
to
sustain
it.
Whats
interesting
about
these
structures,
theyre
built
along
a
particular
logic,
the
family
builds
the
first
floor
out
fully,
finishing
it
as
a
living
space
and
moving
in.
However,
the
second
and
third
floors
and
so
on
are
framed
and
left
unfinished
waiting
for
future
generations
to
inhabit
and
expand
it.
Its
a
radical
form,
open
ended
and
anticipatory,
the
act
of
foretelling,
waiting,
preparation,
paired
for
us
with
documenting,
describing,
assessing,
anticipates
the
sustainable
structure
in
a
migratory
border.
An
un-termed
territory.
Were
interested
in
building
towards
this
future
space,
creating
a
ground
floor
that
is
inhabitable,
living
here
and
inching
upward
floor
by
floor,
we
wish
to
make
a
public,
or
at
least
to
attempt
to.
Thank
you.
PANEL DISCUSSION:
Sustainability, Growth, & Ethics
Susannah
Schouweiler:
I
was
thinking
about
this,
and
as
I
followed
all
of
our
panelists
really
closely,
and
as
I
think
about
sort
of
the
economies
of
this
work,
of
writing
and
responding
to
culture
as
a
professional,
whatever
professional
means,
or
as
an
artist
engaging
that
conversation,
it
strikes
me
that
cash
might
not
be
the
central
question,
but
compensation
might
be
and
that
could
be
professional
compensation,
that
could
be
intellectual
compensation,
a
sense
of
collaboration
that
Carolina
was
talking
about,
but
I
think
even
with
that,
I
think
we
have
to
start
with
the
question
of
pay.
Pay
for
writers,
before
we
get
into
publishing
models.
And
I
really
cant
think
of
a
better
way
to
start
than
Yasmin
Nairs
essay
Scabs,
Academics,
and
Others
Who
Write
for
Free.
This
little
nugget
is
really
striking.
The
system
of
free
writing
has
created
a
caste
system,
she
says,
with
those
who
can
afford
to
work
for
free
doing
so,
while
those
who
cant
struggle
to
pay
the
bills
and
often
give
up.
As
with
unpaid
interns,
those
who
cant
afford
to
write
nothing,
inevitably
make
it
into
networks
of
influence,
which
allow
them
to
continue
on
to
actual
paying
gigs.
She
goes
on,
if
you
write
for
free,
you
are
making
it
possible
for
publishers
to
refuse
to
pay
professional
writers
what
theyre
worth.
Youre
contributing
to
what
she
calls
the
adjunctification
of
writing.
Her
solutions
are
really
blunt.
If
youre
any
kind
of
writer,
demand
pay
and
good
pay,
even
and
especially
because
you
dont
need
it
to
survive.
If
youre
a
would
be
publisher
who
wants
to
provide
a
space
for
radical
feminists,
whatever
but
dont
know
how
to
do
it
with
your
pay
rate
starting
in
the
hundreds
and
not
the
measly
tens,
dont
publish.
Its
as
simple
that.
Do
you
think
people
who
cant
pay
should
just
north
publish?
Carolina
Miranda:
Well,
I
have
some
problems
with
that
essay,
I
dont
like
to
write
for
free
and
I
think
writers
should
get
paid
for
their
work,
but
it
completelytheres
no
nuance
in
who
or
what
a
writer
is.
People
write
for
lot
of
reasons.
People
write
as
part
of
another
process.
If
theyre
an
investigator
research
the
written
result
is
sort
of
an
ancillary
part
of
their
research
work
or
for
an
academic
to
publish
findings
and
so
theres
a
lot
of
reasons
that
people
write
and
I
think
to
put
this
blanket
statement
that
if
youre
writing
for
free,
youre
a
scab.
Theres
something
really
ooga
booga
about
it.
I
also
feel
like
writing
is
a
form
of
communication.
After
talking
its
one
of
the
oldest
forms
of
communication
and
no,
people
havent
always
gotten
paid
to
do
it
because
sometimes
what
youre
expressing,
you
know,
is
not
necessarily
for
a
paying
audience
or
things
like
that.
Veken
Gueyikian:
I
have
a
problem
with
it,
too,
when
we
started,
we
started
paying
very
little.
I
mean
what
we
could
afford.
Both
me
and
Hrag
had
full-time
jobs
but
we
knew
that
we
had
to
start
somewhere
so
that
we
could
start
paying
writers
and
increasing
over
time
and
really
grow.
Because
growing
from
is
probably
impossible
but
growing
from
$20
to
50
to
75
to
100
seems
like
something
that
we
could
all
build
together
as
a
community.
So
our
writers,
as
a
community,
our
sponsors
and
our
publishers
and
us
building
it
together
to
get
to
this
point
so
I
disagree
that
we
shouldnt
start,
because
we
need
to
start
something.
And
thats
what
were
trying
to
do.
Eugenia
Bell:
I
have
feelings
about
it,
as
well,
I
think
the
human
in
me
wants
to
agree
with
the
idea
that,
you
know,
we
should
as
writers
should
be
demanding
pay
for
our
work,
and
that
writers
and
the
work
that
we
do
absolutely
be
valued
the
same
way
that
the
work
that
doctors
do
or
anybody
else
is
valued
and
certainly
monetized.
On
the
other
hand,
as
the
editor
of
a
website
and
as
a
book
editor
in
the
past,
you
know,
and
somebody
who
is
lucky
enough
to
be
able
to
pay
their
writers,
Iyou
know,
I
likeI
really
liked
your
point
about
the
different,
you
know,
and
its
not
something
I
think
about
very
often,
but
the
different
models
that
paying
your
writers
can
take,
and
this
idea
of
barter
is
a
very
good
one.
I
know
we
spoke
a
little
bit
at
dinner
last
night
about
sort
of
back
and
forth
that
a
writer
can
have
with
a
really
good
and
involved
editor
and
the
work
that
an
editor
puts
into
improving
a
writers
writing
and
thinking
process.
You
know,
hugely
valuable,
and
thats
something
Ive
had
with
my
own
editors
at
Frieze
and
Artforum
and
on
books,
so
I
recognize
that
that
is
one
characteristic
of
payment
or
at
least
compensation.
You
know,
on
the
other
hand,
wemany
art
writers
live
in
cities
like
London
and
San
Francisco,
Los
Angeles
and
New
York,
and
cash
pay
is
utterly
important.
Its
vital.
Literally.
So,
yeah,
I
mean,
you
know,
the
idealist
in
me
wants
to
side
with
her
but
the
realist
in
me
understands
that
demanding
some
kind
of
compensation,
whether
that
is
intellectual
or
cash,
is
utterly
important,
necessary,
and
I
just,
you
know,
and
I
am
really
glad
you
made
that
point.
It
wasnt
something
that
I
really
thought
about
though
we
had
touched
upon
it
and
you
made
it
very
strong,
convincing.
James
McAnally:
I
think
one
thing,
that
quote
it
sort
of
assumes
a
top-down
industry.
It
assumes
that
existing
infrastructure
that
is
able
to
pay
and
I
think
its
something
we
have
talked
a
lot
about
in
this.
There
are
a
lot
of
predatory
publications
out
there
I
think
that
they
kind
of
subsist
in
their
infrastructure
and
they
pay
some
people
and
not
others,
which
came
up
in
several
different
panels
and
I
think
the
think
that
what
we
were
reacting
to
is
if
you
set
out
that
model,
then
a
lot
of
things
are
not
talked
about.
So
if
you
do
separate
this
conversation
from
industry
to
field,
what
are
you
doing?
What
is
the
work?
You
know,
something
that
we
considered
starting
in
a
place
like
St.
Louis,
but
also
in
a
lot
of
cities
is
it
just
wouldnt
happen.
If
you
set
out
these
kind
of
ways
of
formalized
structure
and
what
were
going
to
see
is
the
art
critic
from
the
newspaper
gets
fired
and
then
you
go
five
years
and
theres
nothing,
you
know,
and
thats
kind
of
not
good
for
anyone.
Its
not
good
for
artists,
its
not
good
for
writers
in
those
areas,
so
you
really
have
to
consider
what
can
you
make
happen
otherwise.
Sometimes,
you
know,
that
can
exist
in
a
paid
writing
position,
sometimes
it
can
be
a
nonprofit
publication,
whatever,
but
I
think
that
there
are
always
other
approaches,
I
think,
to
make
sure
that
its
happening.
Schouweiler:
James,
when
you
guys
founded
Temporary,
who
were
you
serving?
Who
were
you
writing
for?
Who
were
you
accountable
to?
McAnally:
I
mean
I
think
we
were
accountable
to
ourselves.
We
go
back
to
the
beginning,
it
was
really
an
artist-run
space.
I
mean
we
think
about
that
in
terms
of
spaces
or
galleries,
but
not
really
about
publications
but
its
increasingly
common.
That
it
was
sort
of
artists
and
I
mean
I
also
run
a
space
that
has
exhibitions
that
would
just
not
get
covered
and
so
there
was
kind
of
an
accountability
to
ourselves
that
we
sort
of
looked
around
St.
Louis,
but
also
we
started
out
immediately
kind
of
a
national
conversation,
and
the
idea
was
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
artist-run
spaces,
alternative
spaces,
projects
that
were
ephemeral
and
were
likely
not
going
to
be
covered
and
so
there
was
no
archive
around
it.
So
we
felt
accountable
to
a
way
of
working
I
think
and
actually
documenting
it,
taking
it
seriously
being
critical
about
it,
as
well,
so
not
just
kind
of
boostering,
that
way
of
working,
but
actually
what
is
criticism
that
is
more
directed
and
intentional,
you
know,
the
underlying
value
was,
we
felt
like
that
was
a
really
important
moment
in
time,
we
started
in
2011
but
really
form
2009
on
you
see
this
resurgence
of
the
artist-run
space
and
we
felt
that
that
conversation
wasnt
happening
and
that
we
werent
really
willing
to
wait
for
it
to
happen,
either
that
at
a
certain
point
you
have
to
take
responsibility
for
it
yourself.
Schouweiler:
Im
thinking
about
conflict
of
interest
because
I
know
Veken
spoke
really
well
I
think
from
the
idea
that
from
the
very
beginning,
if
youre
approaching
especially
arts
writing
as
journalism,
youre
thinking
about
who
youre
accountable
to
and
how
you
can
keep
the
editorial,
you
know,
church
and
state
how
you
keep
them
separate
so
that
the
source
of
your
funding
doesnt
unduly
affect
the
kinds
of
stories
you
feel
free
to
tell
and
Im
wondering
Carolina
and
Eugenia,
youve
worked
as
freelancers,
and
you
know,
with
this
creative
entrepreneur
model,
this
go
it
alone
freelancer
whos
kind
of
a
hired
gun
for
a
lot
of
publications,
are
you
finding
yourself
when
youre
in
that
role,
you
have
to
create
your
own
kind
of
ethical
super
structure
for
determining
your
own
sort
of
comfort
level
with
conflicts
of
interest
or
is
that
still
dictated
by
the
publisher
that
youre
writing
for?
Because
to
me
those
lines
feel
a
lot
more
fluid
with
these
sort
of
artist-driven
and
freelance-
driven
enterprises.
Miranda:
I
mean
it
depends
on
who
you
work
for.
I
did
a
lot
of
public
radio
work,
and
public
radio
has,
and
especially
NPR
in
Washington,
not
necessarily
local
affiliates,
has
very
strong
conflict
of
interest
rules
and
when
you
sign
on
to
be
a
freelancer,
even
though
youre
not
staff,
youre
still
governed
by
conflict
of
interest
rules.
So
I
couldnt
make
any
money
from
any
person
I
might
be
in
the
position
of
covering
in
the
future,
so
it
meant
I
couldnt
really
do
catalog
essays
for
galleries,
I
couldnt
do
projects
for
museums,
I
couldnt
do
any
of
those
things
and
that
sort
of
governed
the
ethics
I
obviously
applied
to
all
of
my
work
and
it
governs
what
certainly
what
I
do
at
the
LA
Times
right
now,
we
have
very
strict,
you
know,
like
Christopher
I
cant
be
paid
to
be
here.
Very
strict
rules.
Bell:
I
mostly
freelance
edit
books
for
publishers
and
museums
and
galleries,
and
thatsyou
know,
the
primary
source
of
my
freelance
work,
so
you
know,
I
think
there
are
self-imposed,
you
know,
an
ethos
that
you
are
driven
by,
and
thats
kind
of
how
I
operate.
There
arent
really
conflict
of
issues
except
in
the
case
of
when
I
was
working
at
Frieze,
if
I
was
working
onI
wouldnt
be,
working
on
the
book
of
someone
I
was
writing
about
in
the
magazine
or
someone
Id
commissioned
someone
you
know,
to
write
an
article
about
an
artist
or
a
designer
or
a
musician
or
something.
I
wouldnt
be
working
for
that
person
in
another
capacity.
But
I
mean
that
doesnt
feel
very
fluid
to
me
that
feels
quite
obvious
frankly,
but
you
know,
as
far
as
book
editing
goes,
I
think
you
know
you
dont
have
quite
the
same
commercial
or
advertising
interests
you
know,
that
would
bring
those
questions
up,
so
in
my
case
I
feel
a
little
bit
free
from
that
thankfully.
Schouweiler:
Are
there
self-determined
lines
that
youre
drawing
or
is
that
expressed?
Is
that
made
explicit?
Bell:
Oh,
no,
definitely
self-imposed.
You
know,
there
are
kinds
of
books
I
wont
do,
or
you
know,
certain,
you
know,
topics
that
I
wont
edit
on
because
its
not
an
area
of
expertise,
you
know,
Im
not
going
to
edit
a
book
on
neuroscience,
you
know,
like
theyre
self-imposed,
theyre
common
sense
quite
frankly.
Schouweiler:
What
about
you
James?
If
part
of
this
is
filling
a
gap,
a
sort
of
a
documentation
gap
and
were
going
to
do
this
for
ourselves
to
provide
a
critical
discourse
thats
missing
outside
in
these
in-
between
cultural
zones
that
dont
have
the
kind
of
publishing
they
used
to,
how
do
you
avoid
people
playing
fast
and
loose
with
the
barter
system?
McAnally:
I
think
thats
something
we
have
to
be
aware
of
as
editors
of
people
sort
of
wanting,you
know,
if
you
want
to
cover
what
youre
doing,
then
maybe
this
is
an
opportunity
that
youd
see.
I
mean
I
think
weve
experimented
with
different
ways.
One
thing
that
weve
been
doing
more
recently
is
kind
of
throwing
that
question
out
the
window,
conflict
of
interest.
We
started
doing
for
kind
of
longer
duration
I
guess
publishing,
we
have
been
doing
things
we
call
social
responses.
It
actually
starts
with
the
the
curator
stating
what
they
intended
to
see
happen
so
it
goes
from
there
and
bringing
it
into
the
body
of
review
and
making
it
explicit.
So
I
think
thats
one
way
is
making
it
really
clear
who
the
person
is
thats
writing,
who
the
critic
is,
what
their
connections
to
all
these
things
are,
but
I
mean
its
something
that
isnt
reallyfor
usI
mean
conflict
of
interest
isnt
really
a
financial
question.
I
think
thats
come
up
in
a
lot
of
conversations
of
you
know,
are
you
beholden
to
your
advertisers
and
that
is
a
who
whole
other
conversation
thats
really
problematic
and
I
think
for
us,
our
duty
is
to
make
sure
that
something
is
documented
and
talked
about
and
that
we
self-select,
we
dont
write
about
art
fairs,
we
dont
write
about
commercial
galleries
for
the
most
part.
Even
museums,
so
theres
kind
of
a
self-selecting
thing.
People
have
to
enter
that
conversation
and
be
willing
to
risk
relationship.
I
think
thats
the
think
that
we
find
is
everyone
in
these
fields
are
very
tied
together
and
you
just
have
to
kind
of
embody
that
and
you
know,
I
think
people
have
a
hard
time
doing
that,
but
its
kind
of
coaxes
it
out
and
the
editorial
process
helps
with
it,
as
well.
Schouweiler:
Thats
certainly
something
I
run
into,
we
have
a
lot
of
artists
in
our
stable
of
contributors
and
I
think
its
been
trickier
than
even
they
would
have
anticipated
much
less
than
what
we
would
have
anticipated
where
they
have
to
switch
gears
and
wear
a
critics
hat
what
does
it
mean
to
give
critical
feedback
to
your
peers
and
does
that
criticism
look
like
you
know,
criticism
thats
published
by
a
newspaper
or
by
a
magazine
or
by
Hyperallergic,
it
seems
like
maybe
they
need
different
terms
because
theyre
kind
of
not
functioning
in
the
same
way.
Bell:
Are
they?
Do
you
set
them
out?
Schouweiler:
I
dont
set
them
out
but
I
find
that
theyre
writing
more
strict
reviews.
Because
Im
really
interested
foregrounding
the
artists
who
work
within
a
particular
practice,
I
found
almost
by
happenstance
really
that
some
of
the
most
interesting
critical
analysis,
if
you
get
away
from
the
consumer
guide
model
of
reviews,
right,
the
most
interesting
analysis
is
coming
from
people
who
really
understand
and
have
a
deep
investment
in
the
practice,
so
I
wouldnt
want
to
discount
that,
but
I
think
there
is
then
this
push-pull,
because
its
a
different
kind
of
critique
and
it
kind
of
functions
differently.
Its
really
deeply
interpersonal.
And
it
has
come
up
for
people
who
are
writing
about
folks
that
they
know
well
and
its
troublesome,
I
think.
Veken,
youve
spoken
well
to
the
idea
that
you
specifically
dont
sell
advertisers
on
the
idea
that
theyre
supporting
the
writing.
Gueyikian:
Right.
Schouweiler:
How
are
you
making
that
case?
Are
you
selling
them
on
the
reader?
Gueyikian:
Yes,
so
we
approach
them
and
try
to
sell
the
access
to
the
audience,
so
we
engage
our
audience,
we
can
educate
or
inform
our
audience
about
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed
so
we
address
their
marketing
goals
and
not
their
PR
goals,
so
we
dont
think
about
how
this
campaign
will
influence
the
writing.
Its
completely
separate,
and
I
think
that
weve
been
able
to
grow
the
audience
big
enough
and
through
the
network
have
reached
into
the
many
different
audiences
together
that
we
can
really
provide
value
there
for
advertisers
when
they
keep
coming
back
and
coming
back
and
buying
bigger
and
bigger
campaigns
to
reach
our
audience
and
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
editorial
and
we
have
500
sponsors
versus
10
big
sponsors
so
if
we
lose
one
its
not
a
big
deal,
we
can
keep
going
and
we
work
with
a
lot
of
nonprofits
and
art
institutions
and
art
schools
that
we
dont
necessarily
write
about
anyway.
Their
mission
or
their
goal
is
aligned
with
ours
of
reaching
and
growing
the
audience
for
art
and
so
theyre
not
looking
to
influence
editorial.
The
ones
that
are
usually
call
me,
ask
for
a
review,
I
say
I
cant
help
them,
and
then
I
hang
up.
Or
if
they
buy
an
ad
hoping
for
some
kind
of
editorial,
dont
get
it,
they
dont
come
back.
Schouweiler:
You
guys
are
doing
really
well
now,
Jillian
just
got
an
award,
youve
got
a
lot
of
traffic,
you
have
500
sponsors,
what
did
you
do
years
1,
2,
and
3
when
you
didnt
have
that
kind
of
clout
and
you
couldnt
make
the
case?
Were
you
just
doing
the
hustle?
Schouweiler:
OK,
so
in
digital
media
if
you
think
about
sort
of
the
way
publishing
works,
I
hit
publish
but
thats
not
the
end,
thats
a
the
beginning
of
a
reader
response
and
sort
of
ongoing
conversation
and
long-tail
click-through
and
ideally
as
an
editor
I
would
really
love
for
my
contributors
to
be
thinking
about
that
article
as
a
living
thing,
especially
if
theres
reader
conversation
happening
around
it.
But
it
feels
like
a
hell
of
a
lot
to
ask
a
contributor
thats
getting
150
bucks
for
a
thousand
words
to
moderate
the
conversation
around
it
and
so
Im
wondering
what
do
you
think
is
reasonable
to
expect
on
the
part
of
editors
and
publishers
to
expect
that
sense
of
stake
in
the
ownership?
Where
does
that
sense
of
shared
ownership
come
from?
Miranda:
Thats
a
tricky
one
because
I
think
it
is
something,
especially
when
you
are
really
busy
doing
a
lot
of
stories,
the
onus
of
sort
of
maintaining
a
sort
of
a
social
media
presence
after
a
story
is
done,
there
is
an
expectation
that
youre
going
to
do
that
as
a
writer
these
days.
I
tend
to
have
the
point
of
view
of
like,
I
treat
my
stories
equally
regardless
of
where
they
are
published.
I
feel
like
a
story
no
matter
what
story
I
do,
it
has
my
name
on
it
and
that
hopefully
that
name
means
something
so
just
because
a
site
paid
me
$100
to
write
the
piece
instead
of
1,000
doesnt
mean
that
Im
then
going
to
be
like
oh,
see
you
later,
guy,
Im
too
busy
to
tweet
it
or
engage
in
a
discussion
about
it
or
whatever.
I
mean
I
see
all
the
work
I
do
as
just
being
part
of
this
larger
ecosystem
of
things
that
Im
interested
in.
And
so
yeah,
whether
its
a
well
paid
magazine
or
a
tiny
blog,
I
as
a
writer
am
going
to
treat
it
the
same.
Schouweiler:
Eugenia
did
you
notice
that
the
investment
from
your
contributors
changed
as
you
were
able
to
go
from
free
to
paid?
Bell:
Thats
not
what
changed,
actually,
no.
I
mean
this
is
a
slightly
different
conversation
to
have,
but
really
the
investment
that
you
know,
our
writers,
our
regular
writers
and
even
those
who
are
once
a
month
or
once
every
couple
of
months,
all
of
our
writers
work
really
hard.
And
I
think
that
that,
you
know,
that
makes
those
pieces
more
valuable
and
potentially
gives
them
a
longer
life
span
out
in
the
world.
There
was
a
time
at
Design
Observer
until
about
four
years
ago
where
the
comments
section
was
incredibly
lively
and
was
as
much
a
part
of
the
post
as
the
post
itself.
I
mean,
you
know,
60
comment-
long
threads
that
were
full
conversations.
We
had
a
number
of
regular
readers
who
kind
of
commented
on
everything
and
those
wereI
mean
those
were
like
great
days.
Schouweiler:
Does
anybody
have
good
comment
sections
anymore?
Has
it
all
moved
to
Twitter
and
Facebook?
Bell:
Well,
thats
what
happened
with
us
unfortunately
and
you
know,
as
soon
as
you
know,
the
on
switch
on
Twitter
went
on,
that
entire
thing
moved
over
there,
and
theyou
know,
if
theres
a
tragedy
when
it
comes
to
commons,
you
know,
the
tragedy
is
that
its
no
longer
a
discussion.
You
know,
its
moved
to
Twitter
and
its
now
just,
you
know,
thats
great
or
retweet
are
theres
nono
one
is
saying
anything
of
substance
on
Twitter
about
anything.
Miranda:
That
is
getting
retweeted
so
hard
right
now.
Bell:
But
you
know,
for
Design
Observer
its
been,
you
know,
it
has
actually
been
a
big
blow,
we
reallywe
valued
that,
and
in
fact,
you
know,
were
doing
these
books
now
and
the
first
two
are
coming
out
this
summer
and
they
are
essay
collections
from
the
site,
that
span
quite
a
long
period
of
time
on
the
site
and
theythere
are
posts
that
were
reprinting
that
were
reediting
and
reprinting
that
had,
you
know,
really
rich
discussions
in
the
comments
section
and
weve
decided
to
reprint
those
as
they
appeared
on
the
site,
because
as
I
said,
you
know,
they
were
as
much
a
part
of
the
discussion
as
the
original
posts
were,
and
you
know,
if
theres
one
way
we
can
resurrect
that
or
you
know,
try
to
stoke
that
a
little
bit
more,
that
you
know,
thats
one
way.
Another
way
is
that
we
have
encouraged
our
contributing
editors
and
our
contributing
writers,
you
know,
we
dont
ask
much
of
them,
usually
but
we
do
hope
theyre
reading
the
site
every
day
and
we
want
them
to
at
least
comment.
We
dont
need
they
will
to
go
into
some
big
philosophical
discussion.
I
think
a
lot
of
our
readers
would
love
to
see
Michael
and
Rick
and
Jessica
back
in
the
comment
section
and
our
other
contributors,
but
its
a
momentum
issue
and
we
should
try
to
start
that
up
again,
because
you
know,
the
Facebook
and
Twitter
just
arent
really
compensating
for
the
loss
of
that.
Schouweiler:
Has
the
making
a
public
objective
worked
for
Temporary?
I
mean,
you
get
some
pretty
good
comments.
McAnally:
I
think
it
spans
both
audience
and
contributors
that
theres
a
sense
of
theres
a
stake
in
the
conversation
and
think
its
not
a
site
that
is
aiming
for
this
kind
of
mass
circulation,
so
I
think
that
if
youre
there,
then
you
want
to
have
a
conversation,
which
I
think
does
drive,
you
know,
more
interesting
comments,
like
I
appreciate
when
people
kind
of
take
the
time
to
do
it
there
where
its
searchable
and
but
attached
to
the
original
source.
We
were
running
a
book
club
for
a
while
that
was
built
around
comments,
the
entire
discussion
was
in
the
comment
section,
ours
included,
so
there
was
just
sort
of
a
general
introduction
and
then
it
was
really
intentional,
like
can
you
do
that?
Can
we
return?
I
think
there
are
only
a
few
sites
doing
it
well.
I
think
its
actually
rebuilding
a
culture
around
that
kind
of
thing,
which
I
think
e-flux
conversations
is
trying
to
do,
as
well,
and
the
think
about
Facebook
and
Twitter
and
the
thing
is
its
not
really
archived.
Its
there,
it
exists
but
its
not
searchable,
its
not
returning
the
value
back
to
the
original
conversation
and
so
ultimately
like
a
really
intense
thing
can
happen
and
then
it
doesnt
return
back
to
a
community,
actually
that
it
benefits,
however
you
define
that
community
unless
its
just
your
friends
circle
because
thats
false-reaching.
Because
I
think
we
intentionally
do
invest
in
that,
have
a
sense
that
our
stake
is
the
same
as
our
audience
as
the
same
as
contributors,
and
I
think
in
that
way
its
succeeding.
Schouweiler:
Your
editorial
staff
is
volunteer,
as
well.
McAnally:
It
is,
I
am
unfortunately
the
full
time
as
the
executive
director
of
a
nonprofit,
but
Temporary
exists
outside
of
those
hours,
its
kind
of
extra
to
that.
So
I
mean
we
have
startedI
mean
again
so
we
just
started
paying
writers
if
they
choose
recently.
Started
paying
our
other
editor
is
kind
of
like
doing
copy
and
managing
the
site
and
she
gets
paid
a
little
bit
for
that,
but
its
kind
of
comparable
to
the
scale
of
the
writers.
So
theres
no
sort
of
extra
infrastructure
layer
of
like
where
does
the
money
go
in
administration
and
all
of
these
things,
its
really
transparent
and
in
that
way
works
as
a
cooperative.
Schouweiler:
How
do
you
handle
the
decision
making?
I
mean
my
experience
with
publishing
started
with
print
and
thats
got
such
a
top-down
dictatorial
power
structure,
like
you
know,
my
editors
would
decide
how
much
we
could
afford
to
pay,
a
publisher
would
decide
and
the
editors
would
decide
who
to
assign
and
that
shifting
online
to
the
good,
I
think,
but
thosethe
power
dynamic
of
both
money
and
editorial
control,
moderating
conversations
in
the
comments,
like
who
pulls
the
plug
in
an
overtly
sort
of
collective
environment?
What
if
you
brought
in
a
writer
who
didnt
necessarily
immediately
fit
into
that
public
and
was
kind
of
an
interloping
voice?
Can
you
envision
a
situation
where
there
would
be
such
discomfort
where
you
would
think
we
are
going
to
pull
the
plug
on
that
person
or
thats
not
our
kind
of
piece.
As
a
collective
entity,
how
do
you
make
those
decisions?
McAnally:
I
mean
its
not
decentered
in
that
senseit
is
edited
by
two
people
and
we
make
the
decisions
about
those
kinds
of
questions,
including
moderating
comments
and
things
like
that,
but
also
choosing
what
we
publish
and
what
we
wont.
Its
not
kind
of
a
free
for
all
and
the
decision
in
that
sense
are
notintentionally
we
dont
talk
about
ourself
as
a
collective.
Like
its
not
collectively
owned
and
anything
like
that,
its
really
about
transparently
sharing
what
we
do
have.
And
I
think
thatbut
that
doesnt
give
up
editorial
control
at
the
same
time.
I
mean
I
think
thats
the
thing
thats
been
kind
of
the
question
of,
you
know,
a
lot
of
it
for
a
few
years,
it
was
kind
of
what
people
would
send
or
we
would
seek
out
and
specifically
ask
for
certain
pieces
from
people
that
we
knew
and
it
was
kind
of
a
broad
thing.
As
its
become
more
and
more
popular,
those
things
are,
you
know,
people
just
send
us
stuff,
we
have
to
be
a
lot
more
careful,
I
think,
with
our
editorial
process.
Schouweiler:
A
brass
tacks
question
here
from
Katie
Hill.
She
wants
everyone
to
talk
actual
numbers.
Is
it
always
a
dollar
a
word?
Does
anybody
make
a
dollar
a
word
anymore
or
real
writing
about
the
arts?
I
havent
for
years.
Miranda:
Well,
Im
staff
now,
so
I
have
this
magical
thing
that
happens
where
every
two
weeks
this
money
materializesI
can
go
to
a
doctor,
too,
without
having
to
go
to
Mexico.
As
a
freelancer,
the
pay
rate
was
all
over
the
place,
depending
on
the
outlet
I
was
working
for.
I
did
have
dollar
a
word
assignments,
and
dollar
a
50
word
assignments,
occasionally
I
could
even
get
2.
Which
was
magical.
Oftentimes
it
might
be
a
flat
rate,
so
many
of
the
art
magazines
would
be
like,
OK,
an
1800
to
2500
word
feature,
but
were
paying,
you
know,
$1700
and
thats,
you
know,
but
I
always
tried
to
negotiate
something
that
was
in
the
range.
Like
I
needed
to
be
a
dollar
a
word
does
not
assure
a
comfortable
living.
It
assures
a
living.
Its
like
Im
not
talking
about,
you
know,
vacations
in
Cancun,
Im
talking
about
I
can
pay
my
rent,
I
can
pay
my
bills
and
maybe
Ive
got
some
money
left
over
for
a
happy
hour
PBR.
Schouweiler:
I
dont
know
anybody
who
starts
at
a
dollar
a
word.
I
dont
think
you
spring
fully
formed
out
of
Zeus
thigh.
Miranda:
And
Ive
done
work
for
free
and
Ive
done
work
for
50
bucks
and
a
hundred
bucks,
because
sometimes
you
negotiate
it
was
sort
of
putting
that
checklist
through
my
head
of
you
know,
is
this
worth
it
for
me,
am
I
really
passionate
about
the
topic,
am
I
subsidizing
someplace
that
doesnt
really
need
subsidizing.
Like
if
the
questions
stacked
well
for
me,
I
really
feel
this
is
a
personal
decision,
so
its
not
necessarily
a
template.
You
know,
yeah,
Id
do
a
500
word
piece
for
50
bucks,
like
I
wasnt
but
I
needed
the
dollar
pieces
to
survive.
I
was
also
an
on-air
critic
and
so
that
was
a
steady
stream
of
revenue
that
I
had
as
a
writer.
Schouweiler:
For
freelance
work
I
sure
dont
know
of
anything
like
an
industry
standard.
Its
all
over.
Miranda:
The
web
writing,
yeah,
it
used
to
be
a
dollar
to
two
dollars
a
word
but
web
writing
turned
it
into
heres
25
bucks
and
like
a
small
scrappy
outlet
doing
something
interesting
whos
like
OK
but
you
know
when
the
Daily
Beast
is
approaching
you
and
says
we
want
a
2,000
word
reported
feature
in
two
days
Im
like
tell
Tina
Brown
to
take
a
cut
on
her
lunch
expenses
and
pay
me
a
living
wage,
like
no.
Schouweiler:
No
thank
you,
Huffington
Post.
Miranda:
Yeah,
thank
you.
Bye.
Bell:
Well,
Carolina
as
a
freelance
editor,
Ive
kind
of
had
these
thresholdsyou
know,
when
I
was
working
for,
if
I
was
doing
a
book
or
you
know,
exhibition
copy
or
something
for
a
nonprofit
artist
space
Id
have
one
rate
that
was
way
below,
you
know,
the
rate
I
would
charge
if
I
were,
you
know,
copy
editing
a
500
page
catalog
for
The
Met
or
something
else
of
that
size
if
I
was
working
for
a
commercial
publisher,
there
was
another
rate.
Though
working
for
a
commercial
publisher
is
usually
just
a
big
flat
lump
sum,
you
know,
like
Isaacs,
like
his
tattoo
of
you
know,
dont
read
the
comments,
mine
would
be
never
amortize,
like
you
could
never,
you
know,
never
think
about
that,
you
know,
because
those
jobs,
and
those
editing
jobs
that
some
editor
or
publisher
promises
are
going
to
be
three
month
gigs
and
they
become
seven
because
the
main
essay
doesnt
come
in
for
months,
you
know,
theres
that
part
of
your
life
that
youll
never
get
back.
Speaking
as
the
editor
of
Design
Observer,
we
have
a
two-tiered
rate
system
for
what
we
consider
short
pieces
and
then
long
pieces,
and
Schouweiler:
Whats
a
short
piece?
Bell:
A
short
piece
is
anything
up
to
about
400
words.
Schouweiler:
Whats
the
rate.
We
got
a
specific
question.
Bell:
Im
happy
to
say.
Schouweiler:
It
says,
OK,
whats
the
rate?
Bell:
Our
rate
for
a
400
word
piece
or
up
to
400
word
piece
is
about
$125
and
anything
in
the
500
to
800
word
range
or
longer
for
that
matter,
you
know
depends
on
how
much
longer
pieces
become,
sometimes
we
serialize
pieces,
is
$250.
Miranda:
I
mean
I
honestly
used
to
negotiate
a
rate
sometimes
like
oh,
our
website
pays
40,
Im
like,
great,
pay
me
50
because
its
like
youre
going
to
get
clean
copy
from
me,
its
going
to
be
well
reported,
like
theres
also
certain
things
when
youve
been
doing
it
long
I
feel
like
theres
a
certain
something
you
can
bring
to
the
table
and
be
like
great,
youre
just
going
to
pay
me
a
little
bit
more
than
you
pay
everyone
else.
Like,
just
a
little.
Schouweiler:
Carolina
is
going
to
take
that
bar
and
lift
it
with
this
shoulder.
Bell:
Similar
to
this,
you
know,
it
took
me
a
really,
really
long
time
to
start
saying
no
to
jobs
that
didnt
pay
enough
and
I
think
as
a
freelancers
you
are
just
so,
you
know,youre
terrified,
you
know,
you
think
you
say
no,
you
know,
to
some
gallery,
and
you
know,
the
no
in
your
brain
your
neurotic
brain,
my
neurotic
brain
is
that
oh,
theyre
never
going
to
call
me
back,
which
is
completely
asinine,
thats
not
true.
If
they
value
your
work,
I
was
talking
to
somebody
about
this,
who
said,
you
know,
who
was
trying
to
point
out
how
ridiculous
my
thinking
was,
she
said
but
you
as
an
editor
tore
who
commissions
writer
and
they
said
you
know
what,
Im
writing
an
essay
for
a
book,
I
dont
have
time
to
do
that
right
now,
she
said
would
you
never
go
back
to
that
person
because
they
dont
have
time
this
week
and
of
course
the
answer
is
no,
so
Schouweiler:
It
got
you
for
a
while
to
be
able
to
have
that
kind
of
freedom.
Bell:
Perhaps,
I
dont
know
but
the
same
woman
I
was
talking
to
was
also
a
book
editor,
said
to
me,
you
know,
Ive
been
editing
books
for
many
years,
and
you
know,
she
told
me,
she
told
me
point
blank,
she
said
act
your
age,
like
youre
at
a
point
now
where
you
dont
have
to
take,
you
know,
like,
you
know,
the
$300
gig
to
edit
a
gallery
guide,
but
you
have
a
Rolodex
full
of
good
young
editors
and
writers
who
would
be
great
at
that
and
would
you
know,
kill
for
that
opportunity
to
work
for
a
big
commercial
gallery
and
on
something
and
she
was
absolutely
right
and
it
seems
to
me
it
finally
dawned
on
me,
it
was
like
right,
this
is
the
point
in
my
career
as
an
editor
and
as
a
freelance
editor
where
I
should
be
kind
of
beginning
to
nurture
people.
Next
generation
of
editors,
whether
theyre
freelance
or
otherwise.
That
I
should
be
helping
out,
giving
that
work
to.
So
thats
one
way.
Schouweiler:
So
you
barter.
McAnally:
Yeah
mostly
we
allocate
ad
space,
artists
guest
writers
choose,
then
our
rate
it
generally
50
to
150.
Gueyikian:
Yeah
we
have
different
tiers
depending
on
the
type
of
writing
it
is
so
something
like
an
investigative
piece
that
take
a
little
bit
longer
might
get
100
or
150.
Something
thats
a
blog
post,
500
words,
we
usually
start
at
50,
and
we
hope
to
raise
that
in
the
fall
to
75.
Since
were
not
paying
a
dollar
a
word,
were
generally
working
with
young
writers
who
need
the
opportunity.
We
publish
about
12
posts
a
day,
so
we
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
to
publish
new
voices.
And
our
editors
work
really
hard
with
them,
so
were
nurturing
kind
of
a
new
generation
of
writers.
I
think
thats
part
of
the
value
we
can
provide
now.
Schouweiler:
Along
those
lines
of
value,
who
values
this
work
is
what
James
Bridle
asks,
which
is
a
great
question,
and
who
should
be
paid
like
doctors
and
who
pays
doctors
and
do
you
want
to
be
paid
by
a
system
like
that?
But
I
would
add
an
addendumwhose
work
gets
valued
like
that,
and
thats
seems
to
be
a
really
critical
question
about
access
and
actually
diversity
in
arts
writing
and
who
can
afford
to
go
through
these
really
low
levels
of
unpaid
work
to
reach
the
point
where
you
can
command
a
seat
at
a
negotiating
table
where
you
can
say
Id
like
you
know,
how
can
we
as
editors
and
publishers,
how
can
we
open
the
door
a
bit
wider,
like
what
are
the
economies
of
that
for
a
young
writer?
Miranda:
I
think
magazine
writing
has
always
been
problematic
for
that
reason.
When
youre
starting
out
youre
not
going
to
be
making
very
much
money.
I
mean,
when
I
started
out,
I
started
as
an
intern
at
The
Nation,
which
was
a
full-time
job,
Monday
through
Friday,
10-6,
then
I
got
paid
$75
a
week
living
in
New
York
City,
which
meant
I
did
moonlighting
at
a
bakery,
I
stuffed
cannoli
like
nobodys
business.
So
I
mean
I
didnt
come
from
a
family
that
could
support
me.
Like
I
was
not
the
cast
of
Girls.
I
had
to
make
a
living,
so
I
worked
at
night.
You
know,
slinging
coffee,
and
cannolis,
and
yeah,
and
it
gets
really
frustrating
and
exhausting
and
youre
sleep
deprived,
and
you
know,
you
dont
have
the
advantages
that
another
more
affluent
person
might
have.
Its
not
like
I
came
from
a
family,
I
ran
into
a
lot
of
people
in
New
York
its
like
their
uncle
was
so-and-so
at
time
Time
magazine.
I
didnt
have
that.
My
parents
are
immigrants
from
South
America.
I
grew
up
Southern
California
this
was
not
their
world
or
mine.
What
I
do
think
the
Internet
was
done
in
terms
of
diversity
is
that
it
has,
you
know
its
allowed
voices
like
mine,
you
know,
would
I
have
been
hired
by
a
major
daily
under
the
old
system?
You
know,
to
do
what
I
do
now?
Probably
not.
I
dont
have
a
degree
in
art
history.
I
dont
have
some
of
the
paperwork
it
takes
to
get
some
of
those
jobs
but
I
think
through
doing
work
online
and
through
my
blog
I
was
able
to
prove
that
you
dont
necessarily
need
that.
You
can
be
a
good
writer
and
a
good
reporter
and
do
the
homework
without
the
piece
of
paper,
so
I
think
the
web
there
has
provided
an
outlet
for
different
voices
and
also
allowed
voices
like
myself
to
build
an
audience,
because
you
know
in
a
print
publication
theyll
be
like
oh,
Latin
America
stories,
nobody
cares
about
those
and
its
like
no,
I
know
people
who
care
and
on
the
web
you
can
publish
them
and
kind
of
show
that
there
is
an
audience
for
it.
Schouweiler:
And
I
think
building
that
audience,
means
writing
the
stories
as
an
article
of
faith
that
the
audience
will
come
if
its
a
good
story.
Do
you
find
that
with
the
more
global
arts
coverage
that
youve
been
doing?
I
mean
youre
unusual
among
the
Brooklyn
based
outlets
for
being
really
intentional
about
having
national
and
international.
Gueyikian:
Yeah,
we
really
want
to
highlight
diverse
art
scenes
in
different
parts
of
the
world
and
I
think
people
now
come
to
us
to
learn
about
that,
and
to
read
about
different
things
going
on,
and
I
think
weve
developed
that
audience.
Schouweiler:
David
Truman
and
then
you
in
the
back
I
see.
Could
you
hold
on?
Think,
as
Orit
would
say,
think
of
the
Internet.
Lets
be
mindful
of
people
listening
remotely.
Audience
Member:
I
think
my
question
is,
are
pay
rates
the
same
for
writers
here
assay
for
example
in
Europe?
Are
European
writers
paid
more
for
doing
arts
writing?
Do
you
know?
Bell:
In
Europe
or
if
we
commission
European
writers.
Audience
Member:
No,
Im
talking
about
in
Europe.
Bell:
I
have
no
idea.
Audience
Member:
Heres
the
basis
for
my
question.
Are
writers
outside
the
US
paid
differently
because
the
public
has
amaybe
a
better
educated,
more
interest
in
the
arts?
Bell:
Not
for
the
with
web,
I
dont
think
so.
I
mean
my
little
experience
with
that
and
other
editors
I
know
doing
this
kind
of
work
abroad,
no,
I
think
the
pay
is
paltry
as
it
is
here.
Miranda:
I
think
in
most
parts
of
the
world
being
an
arts
journalist
avowed
poverty.
If
there
was
a
country
where
I
could
get
rich
doing
this,
wed
all
be
there
right
now.
Audience
Member:
Hi,
thanks,
this
is
a
great
conversation
Im
so
glad
for
the
transparency
of
it.
The
publication
I
founded
titled
Momus,
I
forgot
to
mention
that
at
the
earlier
session.
Schouweiler:
I
love
Momus.
Audience
Member:
Im
paying
200
per
piece
right
now,
thats
where
I
started
and
Im
about
to
bump
up
to
300.
Im
sort
of
disappointed
to
hear
the
rates
that
Im
hearing.
Id
like
to
think
that
my
rates
are
sustainable.
Well
see.
I
guess
my
question
is
this:
With,
say,
Hyperallergic,
why
not
publish
less
and
pay
more?
Is
the
only
way
that
you
can
maintain
the
relationships
that
youve
built
and
the
traffic
that
youve
built
at
the
pace
that
youre
publishing?
Gueyikian:
I
mean
thats
kind
of
our
thinking,
that
we
really
wanted
to
grow
the
audience
and
we
really
wanted
to
capitalize
on
the
momentum
to
create
a
sustainable
foundation
and
then
build
from
there.
We
felt
like
if
we
just
published
once
a
day
or
twice
a
day
that
we
wouldnt
get
the
critical
mass
and
momentum
behind
us
and
it
would
peter
out
and
die
after
a
couple
of
years
and
I
think
thats
how
we
approached
it
and
our
goal
is
to
raise
those
rates
and
our
goal
is
to
build
something
long-
term
and
we
always
had
a
ten-year
plan.
So
the
first
five
years
was
about
building
this
momentum
and
then
going
forward
were
going
to
be
building
the
business
around
it
and
building
up
all
of
the
infrastructure
that
supports
it.
Audience
Member:
So
I
work
for
an
LGBT,
pretty
much
alt-weekly
in
my
region.
While
Im
a
young
reporter
interested
in
going
national,
a
number
of
my
colleagues
arent.
They
really
do
want
to
have
the
opportunity
to
tell
these
stories
in
our
community.
But
we
all
have
clearly
had
different,
more
specific
forms
of
ad
revenue
than
yall
clearly
do.
Do
yall
have
any
experience
and
I
guess
maybe
Carolina
may
the
most,
but
with
likehow
will
we
survive?
How
can
we
tell
these
rich
stories,
too?
I
mean
granted
I
work
for
an
LGBT
weekly
and
we
just
write
about
how
people
want
to
beat
us
up
every
week
but
you
know,
it
comes
with
the
territory.
Im
not
guilting
you
all,
calm
down.
But
where
does
the
role
of
community
journalism
in
all
of
this?
Not
citizen
journalism.
But
places
like
ours?
Miranda:
Im
a
little
confused
about
what
the
question
is.
Is
it
how
do
you
make
a
community
journalism
story
a
national
story?
Audience
Member:
Well,
we
will
localize
a
lot
of
local
stories.
Im
seeing
this
as
a
lot
of
national
conversation
but
what
is
a
way
that
could
be
relevant
to
bring
this
to
bring
this
discussion
to
alt
weeklies,
regional
magazines,
yeah.
Miranda:
Its
really
interesting
that
you
ask
that
question
because
now
that
Ive
been
at
the
LA
Times
for
a
year
Im
in
this
interesting
position
where
I
do
think
about
national,
but
I
have
to
think
about
local.
I
cant
justing
writing
stories
about
the
New
York
art
world.
Or
whats
going
on
Basel.
I
really
think
if
there
is
a
place
that
is
vibrant
in
journalism
it
is
in
community
journalism,
because
you
are
there,
because
you
can
do
the
face
to
face
reporting,
you
can
go
out,
not
just
be
behind
your
desk
talking
about
some
expert
on
the
phone,
like
you
can
be
out
on
the
scene
in
ways
that
some
national
reporter
doing
it
as
a
phoner
just
isnt
going
to
be.
And
I
always
think
of
it
as
every
story
I
do,
as
it
having
the
potential
to
be
both
local
and
national,
that
when
youre
doing
a
profile
of
an
artist,
that
when
youre
telling
their
story,
youre
telling
a
story,
and
if
you
tell
a
good
story
its
going
to
attract
readers
regardless-of-where
they
are.
I
mean
how
many
times
have
you
clicked
on
some
viral
story
in
Facebook
about
some
guy
in
Alabama
saving
his
cat
or
some
guy
in
you
know
New
York
doing
whatever,
like
theres
a
real
power
in
storytelling
and
I
think
sort
of
untold
power
of
community
journalism
is
being
able
to
be
there.
And
so
its
getting
out,
not
just
being
behind
the
desk
its
not
just
doing
the
phoners,
its
meeting
people
and
making
sure
that
your
stories
reflect
your
profound
knowledge
of
having
been
in
the
place.
Schouweiler:
Theres
a
local
outlet.
Is
Alan
Berks
here?
He
and
his
wife,
Leah
Cooper,
another
playwright,
founded
Minnesota
Playlist,
and
they
do
the
most
innovative
interesting
critically
sort
of
meaty
theater
and
performance
criticism
youll
find,
and
its
for
profit
and
theyre
making
a
go
of
it
because
theyve
enlisted
the
community
of
actors
and
performers
who
have
a
stake
in
something
coverage
like
that,
much
like
Veken,
theyre
not
drawing
them
in
specifically
on
the
back
of
that
content,
theyre
offering
them
a
service,
theyre
offering
them
a
place
to
put
their
head
shots
and
audition
announcements
and
advantage
of
having
this
high-level
critical
conversation,
but
to
me
like
the
huge
success
that
theyve
had
and
other
platforms
like
them
is
actually
enlisting
their
community
members
as
stakeholders,
whether
thats
regional
or
a
community
of
interest,
because
I
think
Hyperallergic
has
been
great
about
galvanizing
a
community
of
interest.
Gueyikian:
Right
and
I
think
weve
figured
out
how
to
create
a
model
that
works
for
individual
artists
specifically
in
New
York
and
LA
and
Im
going
to
spend
the
next
few
years
in
how
to
revert
that
and
make
a
model
that
might
work
for
local
community
journalism
or
community
publications
where
sponsors
are
interesting
in
reaching
those
communities
right
now.
Those
communities
are
interested
in
reaching
whats
happening
in
New
York
and
LA
and
sponsors
are
interested
in
reaching
those
people
but
I
want
to
figure
out
how
to
flip
it
and
to
see
if
sponsors
want
to
reach
audience
around
the
world
and
around
the
nation.
McAnally:
That
kind
of
gets
to
the
heart
of
our
model
and
why
ads
dont
really
work
and
why
we
never
started
there
because
it
was
in
some
ways
starting
at
that
opposite
place
of
starting
in
small
communities,
so
in
a
sense
like
our
entire
model
was
we
would
be
working
in
a
community
that
we
would
ask
whats
important
to
your
community
and
thats
what
we
would
cover
and
they
would
kind
ofthere
would
be
a
back
and
forth
and
exchange
there.
But
I
think
that
we
actually
underplay
the
value
of
small
communities,
like
advertisers
are
looking
for
a
mass
market,
but
a
lot
of
the
most
meaningful
work,
there
might
be
five
people
in
the
room,
and
Im
not
interested
in
an
art
world
that
is
kind
of
catering
to
this
mass
audience
that
kind
of
an
advertiser
is
going
to
look
for,
you
know,
and
I
think
that
theres
kind
of
at
the
heart
of
that
a
really
problematic
model
of,
you
know,
its
why
museums
commercialize,
its
why
galleries
are
looking
for
this
populist
theme
and
it
all
gets
to
this
question
of
what
can
we
value
and
can
we
value
a
small
one
and
can
our
model
accommodate
that
and
I
think
that
thats
really
important.
Its
why
certain
things
move
to
be
monolithic
in
that
process.
Audience
Member:
Thank
you.
Im
going
to
stand
up
so
you
can
see
me
because
I
realize
its
hard
to
deal
with
disembodied
voices.
My
question
goes
to
that
word
community
that
you
were
just
talking
about.
My
name
is
Bean
I
am
an
art
critic.
Im
also
the
Editor
in
Chief
with
Daily
Serving.
Wearing
both
of
those
hats
I
totally
agree
that
paying
writers
is
really
important.
But
Im
also
an
artist
so
if
you
want
to
talk
about
getting
paid.
Buy
me
a
drink.
Lets
go.
So
my
question
is
as
people
who
are
communicators
and
people
who
have
outlets
for
our
voices
what
do
you
think
is
our
responsibility,
perhaps
an
ethical,
even
a
moral
responsibility,
to
talk
about
the
fact
that
artists
are
not
getting
paid
because
we
have
parallel
tracks,
were
talking
about
writers
not
getting
paid
and
artists
are
talking
on
their
own
track
about
artists
not
being
paid
and
I
wonder
if
you
think
that
overlaps
and
whether
we
have
a
sense
of
community
and
solidarity.
McAnally:
I
have
to
say
initially
yes,
thats
one
of
the
main
kind
of
tracks
Ive
been
thinking
about
is
we
sometimes
think
of
publishing
and
arts
publishing
as
a
separate
sphere
and
I
really
do
think
that
it
works
together,
you
know,
it
is
about
the
work
that
artists
are
making
and
the
galleries
taking
risks
on
them
and
then
us
as
writers
and
publishers
working
with
that
and
responding
to
it,
but
taking
it
all
seriously
and
I
think
there
is
a
sense
of
solidarity.
I
think
thatI
think
that
its
building
structures
that
work,
because
obviously
they
arent
there.
You
know,
if
we
keep
talking
about
this,
theres
more
money
in
the
art
world
than
ever
and
its
not
going
to
artists
and
its
not
going
to
art
writers,
well,
then
theres
something
wrong
with
that
picture,
I
think.
And
our
approach
has
always
been
to
sort
of
look
around,
who
is
there,
whos
with
us,
whos
complaining
about
that
fact,
and
then
start
there,
because,
you
know,
working
inside
the
system
to
date
has
not
gotten
us
very
far,
I
think.
Bell:
And
a
think
a
lot
of
the
reason,
you
know,
a
lot
of
writers
will
agree
to
write
for
low
rate
or
for
free
is
because
they
view
their
writing
in
the
same
way
you
visualize
your
visual
arts.
Its
what
you
do,
and
you
cant
not
do
it
and
youre
willing
to
do
it
at
your
level.
Or
whatever
the
stake
is.
So
I
think
theres
definitely
solidarity
there.
I
dont
think
we
really
answered
James
question
about
the
value
of
writers,
but
the
same
way
that
writers,
great
novelists
down
to
art
criticism,
you
know,
is
a
contribution
to
culture
and
society,
you
know,
artists
are,
you
know,
equally
so,
and
yes,
there
is,
you
know,
a
necessary
value
that
is
not
recognized
by
the
status
quo,
and
we
just,
you
know,
have
to
find
thatI
mean
were
not
really
answering
questions
here,
were
just
sort
of
talking
about
it,
but
Miranda:
I
guess
coming
from
a
news
background
its
like
sort
of
looking
at
the
angle
of
howI
have
been
following
the
debate
about,
for
example
a
living
artist
getting
paid
to
help
out
produce
like
a
survey
or
retrospective
for
a
museum,
because
you
hear
the
story
about
like
the
artist
and
the
museum
installing
his
big
show
and
hes
the
only
one
not
getting
paid.
Curator
is
getting
paid,
the
museum
marketing
director
is
getting
paid.
Everyone
is
getting
paid
except
for
the
artist
under
the
idea
of
well,
like,
this
show
will
give
them
exposure,
but
you
know,
is
that
artists
time
there
valuable?
So
that
is
a
story
Ive
been
kind
of
following
it
like
in
terms
of
covering
it,
I
also
work
for
a
general
audience
thats
not
necessarily
an
art
audience,
so
its
like
I
always
need,
for
stories
like
that
I
need
a
little
bit
of
a
news
hook
to
write
about
them.
Im
interested
in
writing
about
them,
but
for
example
theres
been
this
whole
case
going
through
the
courts
in
California
theres
resale
law
that
when
a
work
of
art
gets
resold
in
California,
like
an
artist
gets
a
cut
of
that
resale.
That
law
is
now
up
for
question.
I
forget
where
it
is
but
it
might
be
shot
down.
As
a
result
a
lot
of
people
sell
their
art
in
other
states
so
that
they
can
cut
the
artist
out
of
it
and
theres
been
this
whole
question
about
should
artists
benefit.
Its
always
like
I
always
need
that
little,
given
the
platform
I
write
for,
I
need
kind
of
somethingI
need
news
essentially.
That
its
a
harder,
its
harder
for
me
in
the
position
I
currently
have
to
just
write
the
big
picture
questions
like
should
artists
get
paid?
Its
a
great
question,
but
my
platform
doesnt
necessarily
lend
itself
to
it.
But
I
do
follow
it
and
I
especially
think
of
it
in
the
museum
setting
where
artists
will
devote
weeks
of
their
time
to
installing
a
show
and
if
theyre
not
a
commercial
artist
theyre
not
going
to
reap
any
benefit
from
it
whatsoever
and
in
the
mean
time
theyre
sacrificing
pay.
Schouweiler:
At
Mn
Artists,
we
see
a
lot
of
solicitations
for
donations
in
the
pipeline.
People
having
a
silent
auction
and
what
not.
Audience
Member:
Back
to
the
pay
issue,
Im
wondering
if
getting
paid
by
the
word
is
an
outmoded
way
of
looking
at
things.
Because
Christopher
Knight
said
one
of
the
things
that
the
Internet
does
is
open
up
space.
You
dont
have
to
worry
about
column
width.
And
yet
isnt
interesting
that
art
writing
online
is
short.
Im
a
big
fan
of
Hyperallergic
and
your
columns
are
short
and
tight
and
to
the
point.
So
how
can
a
writer
make
any
money
if
what
were
asked
to
do
online
is
you
know,
condense
down?
Gueyikian:
We
actuallyI
think
you
could
do
talk
to
Hrag
about
this,
but
our
editorial
team
prefers
shorter
pieces
that
are
more
accessible
and
I
think
sometimes
its
harder
and
takes
longer
to
write
than
longer
pieces
and
so
we
actually
prefer
that
writers
work
on
shorter
pieces
and
I
think
we
work
with
them
to
really
hone
them
and
focus
them
a
little
more.
Audience
Member:
And
I
appreciate
that
so
thats
why
by
the
word
doesnt
really
apply.
Miranda:
I
mean
theres
one.
Like
there
has
been
the
flat
rate
method,
that
can
sometimes
work.
That
can
sometimes
work
pretty
well,
especially
if
somebody
wants
a
short
piece,
but
that
for
example
requires
an
intensive
amount
of
reporting,
so
they
want
the
600-word
piece,
but
boy,
Im
going
to
have
to
work
the
phones
for
it
then
a
flat
rate
makes
more
sense.
So
yeah,
its
not
a
perfect.
I
dont
think
we
have
figured
out
a
perfect
system
for
how
to
bill
and
Ive
done
for
example
like
photo
essay
driven
things
where
Ill
choose
a
bunch
of
artists
we
have
them
photographed
and
then
what
Im
writing
are
essentially
very
large
captions
so
in
that
those
cases
Ill
negotiate
a
flat
rate
ahead
of
time,
because
obviously
the
amount
of
work
that
I
put
into
it
is
not
reflected
in
the
word
count.
Audience
Member:
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up.
Schouweiler:
I
could
put
on
my
editors
hat
for
a
second
and
the
whole
by-the-word
or
even
flat
fee:
if
Im
being
really
candid
with
are
you,
its
more
nuanced
than
that.
Because
not
every
word
is
worth
the
same
to
me.
Because
there
are
a
lot
of
factors
that
go
into
that.
Its
not
that
its
not
valuable
but
if
I
have
to
spend
a
tremendous
amount
of
time
cleaning
up
copy
that
isnt
ready
to
go
or
close
to
ready
to
go,
that
costs
me
something.
That
word
is
worth
a
bit
less
to
me
than
somebody
whos
super
dependable,
turns
in
really
well
workif
Im
going
to
have
to
fact
check
everything
because
there
are
sloppy
details,
that
costs
me
something
as
an
editor,
and
so
I
guess
if
I
had
a
tip
to
give,
it
would
be
sort
of
to
echo
what
Carolina
said,
write
about
a
number
of
things.
Cultivate
a
sort
of
diverse
number
of
subjects,
some
of
which
may
pay
better
than
others
that
youre
comfortable
writing
about,
and
even
if
you
cant
always
get
paid
what
youd
like
to
get
paid
to
write
about
the
thing
that
you
love,
like
cultivate
your
expertise
in
that,
and
make
your
copy
really
clean,
check
your
facts,
link
your
text,
make
it
easy
for
your
editors,
have
nice
pictures,
you
know,
think
about
the
medium
for
which
youre
writing,
and
Im
going
to
be
way
more
inclined
to
bump
your
pay
by
10
or
20
bucks
if
I
know
like
youre
going
to
give
me
a
really
well
developed
piece
thats
ready
to
go
that
I
know
is
going
to
be
engaging
and
get
me
traffic
so
it
kind
of
cuts
both
ways.
Its
still
like
the
bar
is
too
low,
I
think,
but,
yeah.
Miranda:
Yeah,
I
mean
Ive
worked
as
an
editor,
thats
why
I
felt
comfortable.
Its
like
turning
stuff
in
on
time,
lets
start
there,
you
know,
just
turn
it
in
on
time.
What
is
it
that
we
dont
understand
here.
Like.
So
I
felt
like
oh,
I
always
turn
in
my
stuff
on
time
and
its
generally
relatively
clean.
I
kind
of
felt
like
after
working
as
an
editor
for
a
summer,
like
oh,
I
can
ask
for
a
little
more
money
thats
OK.
Schouweiler:
I
think
we
have
one
more
time.
One
more
question.
Audience
Member:
Yeah,
its
a
question
specifically
for
James.
I
love
your
anti-profit
model
and
that
youre
trying
to
do
something
else.
Youre
trying
to
do
something
different,
and
I
suppose
its
a
romantic
notion
in
a
way,
but
how
do
you
look
forward
toI
mean
youre
bringing
in
people
that
you
know,
people
you
want
to
share
that
information
with
but
long
term
whats
your
sustainable
model
I
feel
like
if
you
didnt
want
to
do
anymore
you
and
your
partner,
it
would
just
dissolve.
And
I
would
feel
betrayed
if
I
was
working
for
that.
So
its
great
on
the
one
hand,
how
do
you
look
forward
with
that?
McAnally:
I
think
thats
an
interesting
question
because
it
is
completely
kind
of
in
the
editors
hands
of
that
sustainability
question.
I
think
that
ultimately
we
are
attempting
to
build
an
alternative,
you
know,
and
talk
about
sort
of
alternative
spaces
and
they
do
ebb
and
flow
but
some
lasts.
Weve
set
it
up
to
be
profit
agnostic
is
a
way
to
think
about
it.
We
do
bring
in
money
at
this
point,
we
do
start
to
sell
ads,
we
do
get
some
grants,
things
like
that
that
can
bring
in
I
guess
a
question
of
sustainability
within
finance.
I
think
the
important
thing
for
us
is
that
as
we
return
to
it,
that
money
will
never
dictate
the
model
and
I
think
that
thats
the
difference,
and
I
think
that
in
living
in
a
community
around
working
with
an
art
world
that
is
so
saturated
with
profitability
and
kind
of
money
changing
the
terms,
essentially,
of
what
is
possible,
that
I
think
thatI
think
that
theres
always
a
community
thats
willing
to
keep
that
going,
and
I
think
that
if
it
succeeds,
something
that
I
always
go
back
to,
its
about
the
broader
field
and
a
broader
way
of
working
succeeding.
I
think
that
thats
how
I
talk
about
it
in
terms
of
Temporary
is
if
we
last,
then
thats
one
example,
but
if
a
kind
of
way
of
working
takes
hold,
then
thats
an
entire
different
conversation
and
thats
something
that
I
would
be
proud
of
and
I
think
that
sort
of
extends
much
beyond
the
kind
of
site
itself
is
I
thinkI
mean
weve
already
seen
a
lot
of
sites
start
in
response
to
what
were
doing,
not
exactly
the
same
model
but
I
think
that
we
are
we
work
with
a
lot
of
smaller
publishers,
theres
a
recent
partnership
we
had,
we
had
like
30
Twitter
followers
or
something
but
what
they
were
doing
was
amazing
and
I
think
it
made
an
audience
but
the
fact
is
that
it
works
both
ways
that
were
not
the
model,
the
example
and
if
people
contribute
to
our
model
that
means
theyre
invested
in
the
idea
of
it
and
the
site
itself
is
just
an
example
of
that,
I
think.
Schouweiler:
Do
you
think
sustainability
is
really
always
necessarily
likeis
that
reallyshould
that
be
the
top
objective
in
our
minds?
Is
it
enough
to
survive
or
should
we
embrace
the
idea
that
some
publishing
projects
will
have
a
natural
life
span
and
theyll
rise
and
maybe
theyll
involve
pay
maybe
they
wont.
I
think
we
get
stuck
in
the
idea
of
its
got
to
live.
Weve
got
to
make
it
survive.
McAnally:
I
think
thats
why
everybody
becomes
a
nonprofit.
If
you
start
to
bring
in
that
term,
you
just
think
that
you
necessarily
have
to
go
down
a
certain
path
that
it
is
sustainable,
that
it
is
a
broader
community
is
responsible
for
it.
Schouweiler:
The
Internet
in
particular
seems
antithetical
sometimes
to
the
idea
of
indefinite
project.
It
really
seems
to
have
projects
that
have
a
life
span
and
can
rise
and
go
away.
Do
you
guys
have
questions
for
each
other?
Is
there
anything
we
didnt
cover?
A
lot.
Optimism.
I
dont
think
anybody
up
here
is
saying
the
sky
is
falling.
Miranda:
I
wouldnt
do
anything
else.
I
wouldnt
do
anything
else.
KEYNOTE:
Ben Davis on Post-Descriptive Criticism
Paul
Schmelzer:
Im
honored
to
introduce
todays
keynote.
When
we
invited
Ben
Davis
to
speak
at
Superscript
we
were
drawn
both
to
his
political
sensibility
and
his
engaging
and
accessible
criticism
for
publications
including
Art
Papers,
Frieze,
the
Village
Voice,
Slate
and
Artnet
News
where
he
serves
as
national
art
critic.
We
also
love
the
ideas
in
his
2013
bookseen
here9.5
Theses
on
Art
and
Class
(Haymarket
Press),
which
was
hailed
by
the
way
by
New
York
Times
critic
Holland
Cotter
for
its
smart,
ardent,
illusion-puncturing
observation
and
analysis
on
the
intersection
of
art,
commerce
andthe
elephant
in
the
art
fair
VIP
loungeclass.
But
little
did
we
know
there
are
other
reasons
to
invite
him:
Hes
one
of
us.
Ben
did
his
undergraduate
degree
at
Macalester
College
in
nearby
St.
Paul,
Minnesota,
and
during
that
time
I
learned
that
he
was
a
docent
right
here
at
the
Walker
Art
Center,
so
welcome
back
to
your
adopted
hometown,
Ben.
Im
particularly
excited
about
his
keynote
today,
as
hes
using
his
time
on
the
Superscript
stage
not
just
to
trot
out
some
prefab
conference
talk
that
he
does
all
across
the
country
at
colleges
and
universities.
Hes
using
his
time
here
to
plant
a
flag,
of
sorts.
Hell
be
using
his
times
on
stage
to
name,
define
and
dig
into
what
he
calls
post-descriptive
criticism.
And
of
course
you
have
plenty
of
time
to
explain
what
that
means.
We
hope
its
the
beginning
of
his
further
investigations
online,
and
maybe
in
another
book
long
after
Superscript.
We
hope
you
all
come
back
to
see
the
seminal
video
that
was
launched
right
here
at
Superscript
2015.
So
please
help
me
welcome
Ben
Davis.
Ben
Davis:
Can
people
hear
me?
Yes?
Hows
everybody
feeling?
Good.
Youre
ready?
Well,
fasten
your
seat
belts.
Its
an
epic
talk.
So
there
I
am.
This
makes
it
look
very
official
that
I
have
something
to
say,
so
Im
going
to
try
and
deliver.
That
was
a
very
generous
and
kind
introduction,
and
I
do
have
to
say
that
it
is
a
real
rush
for
me
to
be
back
here.
People
always
ask
you
wherever
you
go,
you
know,
how
you
became
an
art
critic
and
there
is
no
really
good
answer
for
that.
There
are
so
many
starting
points
but
one
possible
starting
point
I
can
think
of
is
right
here
at
the
Walker
where
I
was
not
just
a
tour
guide,
I
didnt
just
go
through
the
docent
training
but
I
was
a
tour
guide
for
kids
which
is
a
particular
kind
of
challenge
and
so
you
come
out
of
college
and
youre
full
of
all
these
heady
ideas
of
what
art
is.
This
is
a
Robert
Rauschenberg
from
the
Walkers
collection.
And
you
know
probably
that
how
to
talk
about
this
is
neo-dada
art,
or
proto-pop
art,
its
about
appropriations,
its
about
a
collage.
But
what
the
kids
see
is
a
big
exciting
mess
and
thats
why
they
like
it
and
thats
a
totally
different
way
of
looking
at
it
and
I
think
everyone
should
have
that
experience
of
trying
to
explain
art
on
that
level
in
a
way
that
has
informed
the
way
I
approach
and
write
about
art.
And
informs
some
of
the
ideas
in
this
talk
today
about
the
relationship
of
image
to
text.
So
there
it
is.
A
text
slide
for
a
talk
about
images.
And
I
should
say,
Im
a
visual
art
critic,
and
I
spent
many
years
giving
talks
without
images
until
I
actually
had
an
intellectual
epiphany
that
was
that
was
a
bit
of
a
paradox
or
a
contradiction
that
what
we
do
is
very
visual.
The
concept
I
want
to
present
is
post-description.
I
have
to
say
at
the
outset
that
I
am
almost
a
little
embarrassed
by
the
subjectby
that
subject.
I
have
very
specific
reasons
that
I
chose
it
for
this
talk
and
for
you,
but
its
a
kind
of
aI
think
its
almost
like
aits
a
technical
concept
that
I
think
that
to
some
of
you
is
going
to
be
head
scratchingly
cringingly
obvious
and
to
some
of
you
its
going
to
be
a
little
bit
repugnant
and
almost
like
everything
you
stand
against.
And
the
idea
is
very
simple,
essentially
and
as
I
say,
technical,
that
most
of
the
way
that
we
think
about
writing
about
art
has
been
formed
in
times
of
relative
image
scarcity,
that
is,
in
print
culture
and
since
this
is
a
conversation
about
digital
culture
and
its
effect
on
art
writing,
the
digital
world,
particularly
now,
is
one
of
relative
image
plenty
and
that
may
change
and
I
think
is
changing
the
way
we
think
about
what
an
art
critic
can
or
should
do.
And
before
I
go
on
I
want
to
say
two
particular
things
about
this
argument
and
the
first
is
Im
making
an
aesthetic
argument
and
a
non-epistomological
argument
that
is
Im
not
interested
in
here
totally
in
having
an
argument
about
whether
or
not
images
totally
capture
the
reality
of
an
artwork
or
can
or
should
or
if
words
do.
Or
you
know,
what
Im
interested
in,
this
is
sort
of
more
pragmatic,
I
think
its
true
that
images
are
more
engages,
theyre
more
am
engaging
way
to
describe
an
object
and
this
chain
of
thought
began,
as
I
told
Paul
when
he
asked
me
what
I
was
doing
here,
of
working
in
digital
media
for
ten
years
as
a
writer,
critic
and
editor
and
there
is
a
pragmatic
reality
that
art
criticism
which
is
in
some
ways
the
crown
jewel
of
art
writing
doesnt
do
that
well.
The
monographic
art
review
measured
by
traffic,
it
cant
justify
itself
against
news
or
opinion.
I
mean
it
really
isit
really
is
the
kind
of
laggard,
so
I
kind
of
started
thinking
about
what
is
it,
are
there
habits
that
we
need
to
break
and
things
we
need
to
do,
and
maybe
visual
art
criticism
needs
to
be
a
lot
more
visual
than
it
is.
Maybe
were
inheriting
patterns
of
writing
and
thinking
that
we
need
to
rethink.
And
the
second
thing
I
wanted
to
say
about
the
talk
that
I
think
is
important
is
that
its
descriptive,
not
prescriptive.
That
is,
Im
not
saying
that
we
should
do
this,
Im
saying
people
are
already
writing
in
a
new
way
and
thinking
about
images
and
text
in
a
new
way.
People
in
this
room
are.
And
what
I
am
saying
is
I
dont
think
thats
totally
theorized
or
thought
out
yet.
I
think
that
it
bears
more
thought
and
deliberation
than
weve
given
that
problem
so
far
or
that
Ive
given
it
so
far
and
this
is
my
attempt
to
think
it
through
for
myself
in
a
certain
sense.
So
why
is
it
a
big
deal
if
ideas
of
description
change?
Well,
first
of
all,
because
description
is
it
the
cornerstone,
if
you
take
a
class
on
art,
it
isit
is
and
such
things
exist,
it
is
the
cornerstone
of
what
you
will
be
taught
is
that
good
art
criticism
is
good
description.
My
first
editor
said
to
me
is
clear
description
is
the
most
important
thing,
and
this
is
a
very
recent
guide
to
writing
about
art.
Very
first
thing
she
says
you
need
to
do
is
clear
description.
And
thatsthe
meaning
of
thatwere
moving
into
a
world
where
thatthose
terms
areeven
as
I
was
planning
this
presentation,
I
saw
a
friend
of
mine
who
writes
for
New
York
Times
posted
on
Facebook,
this
is
Michael
Kimmelmans
review
a
new
Whitney
and
she
already
described
this
as
a
post-descriptive
review.
I
think
its
important
to
look
at
this
and
so
its
important
enough
that
I
am
actually
going
to
click
out
of
my
own
the
prison
of
PowerPoint
to
show
you
what
it
looks
like.
So
here
you
have
a
bigI
think
you
guys
may
be
taking
up
the
bandwidth,
but
you
have
a
big
enormous
image.
There
are
glitches
in
this
new
world
and
then
you
have
a
big
pieces
of
large
text
and
you
have
these
like
animated
graphics.
Giving
you
a
sense
of
the
geography,
zooming
you
around
here,
flying
over
the
city,
you
arrive
at
the
new
museum,
and
more
text.
Then
you
have
this
amazing
graphic
where
you
fly
into
the
new
Whitney
through
this
2
dimensional
woman,
look
out
through
the
window,
transforms
magically
into
real
New
York,
and
you
get
a
sense
of
the
view,
and
then
theres
and
then
it
goes
on
like
this.
Here
is
this
sort
of
strange
serial-killer-like
tracking
shot
taking
you
through
the
new
installation.
And
on
and
on
and
on.
Now,
as
interesting
as
that
is,
I
would
say
that
I
think
its
still
relatively
primitive.
As
absorbing
as
those
graphics
are,
I
think
if
you
read
whats
going
on
there,
it
still
essentially
reads
like
a
text
that
was
written
separately
from
the
images,
that
there
was
a
text
written
about
this
Kimmelmans
text
and
then
they
layered
a
bunch
of
very
elaborate
graphics
into
it
so
there
are
really
two
ways
of
thinking
about
what
the
critic
is
doing
there
in
one
place.
And
I
think
that
there
are
these
timeshere
we
are.
Its
a
little
bityeah,
there
we
go,
there
are
these
times
in
art
history
where
you
do
see
there
are
two
systems
of
thought
that
collide
with
each
other,
so
in
the
early
Renaissance
for
a
long
period,
for
instance,
people
were
learning
to
use
perspective,
but
theyre
still
painting
halos
on
figures
in
these
2
dimensional
flat
forms
so
that
the
halos
blocked
the
view
of
the
people
behind
them.
So
you
can
see
two
systems
of
thought.
In
the
early
days
of
photography
photography
was
being
thought
of
as
art
they
thought
they
had
to
make
paintings.
You
had
to
treat
the
surface
in
a
very
painterly
way
and
these
forms
have
charms
of
their
own,
but
you
can
definitely
see
two
different
forms
of
thinking
wrestling
with
each
other.
And
my
argument
is
that
thats
the
kind
of
world,
weve
been
writing
in
on
the
Internet
about
art.
Not
until
now,
because
I
think
its
an
evolving
form,
but
I
definitely
think
there
are
new
forms
of
thinking
that
are
occurring.
It
would
be
after
all
very
strange
if
we
had
thought
through
all
the
implications
of
writing
on
the
Internet
after
all
the
Internet
is
not
that
old.
This
is
the
New
York
Times
admitting
the
word
to
film
into
the
vocabulary
a
quarter
century
after
the
invention
of
film
and
they
essentially
say
well,
people
are
using
it
weve
got
to
use
it
but
we
think
this
film
thing
is
probably
a
fad.
They
say
the
vogue
of
the
moving
pictures
is
surely
at
its
height
and
will
last
until
the
great
actors
return
to
the
stage.
So
just
some
history.
Now
I
want
to
do
a
little
history
on
the
history
of
this
problem.
So
the
rhetorical
name
fortheres
a
Greek
word
ekphrasis
for
what
we
do,
where
the
idea
of
art
criticism
as
describing
works
of
art
comes
from.
The
literary
description
of
a
visual
work
of
art,
the
attempt
to
evoke
its
properties,
is
called
ekphrasis,
and
thats
a
Greek
word
but
the
thing
of
course
is
the
Greeks
didnt
have
have
exact
images
of
the
world.
Pliny
the
Elder
in
this
passage
when
it
came
to
botanical
art
they
couldnt
get
it
good
enough
to
be
scientifically
accurate
so
they
fell
back
into
descriptions
of
the
world.
That
didnt
prove
to
be
exact
enough,
either,
and
it
really
hampered
their
knowledge
of
medicine.
But
we
live
in
a
different
world.
I
like
to
point
out
that
art
criticism
was
we
know
it
as
we
trace
to
probably
really
picks
up
steam
there
in
the
19th
Century,
I
like
to
point
out
the
figures,
the
big
figures
of
art
criticism
is
Charles
Baudelaire
in
France
or
John
Ruskin
in
England,
both
it
would
have
been,
they
both
would
have
been
in
the
same
high
school
class
with
Marx
and
Engels,
like
they
were
born
at
the
same
time,
so
the
art
criticism
was
born
of
a
fast-changing
capitalist
world
where
standards
of
taste
were
happening
and
you
needed
someone
to
step
in
just
as
the
criticism
of
modern
art
was
born
of
the
same
system
of
capitalism
and
all
of
the
industrial
things
that
come
out
of
capitalism
and
photography
being
one
of
them
form
new
ways
of
thinking
most
notably
art
history
is
the
product
of
the
invention
of
the
illuminated
slide
lantern.
You
cant
have
a
real
art
historical
thinking,
an
art
historical
pedagogy
without
the
ability
to
photos
that
compare
things.
Nevertheless,
images
until
the
last
quarter
of
the
19th
Century,
were
relatively
rare.
And
criticism
was
steeped
in
ekphrasis
and
here
is
a
classic
example
from
John
Ruskin
which
Ill
read
to
you
in
its
entirety.
This
is
about
a
Turner
painting,
The
Slave
Ship:
It
is
a
sunset
on
the
Atlantic
after
prolonged
storm;
but
the
storm
is
partially
lulled,
and
the
torn
and
streaming
rain-clouds
are
moving
in
scarlet
lines
to
lose
themselves
in
the
hollow
of
the
night.
The
whole
surface
of
sea
included
in
the
picture
is
divided
into
two
ridges
of
enormous
swell,
not
high,
nor
local,
but
a
low,
broad
heaving
of
the
whole
ocean,
like
the
lifting
of
its
bosom
by
deep-drawn
breath
after
the
torture
of
the
storm.
Between
these
two
ridges,
the
fire
of
the
sunset
falls
along
the
trough
of
the
sea,
dyeing
it
with
an
awful
but
glorious
light,
the
intense
and
lurid
splendor
which
burns
like
gold
and
bathes
like
blood.
Along
this
fiery
path
and
valley,
the
tossing
waves
by
which
the
swell
of
the
sea
is
restlessly
divided,
lift
themselves
in
dark,
indefinite,
fantastic
forms,
each
casting
a
faint
and
ghastly
shadow
behind
it
along
the
illumined
foam.
They
do
not
rise
everywhere,
but
three
or
four
together
in
wild
groups,
fitfully
and
furiously,
as
the
under
strength
of
the
swell
compels
or
permits
them;
leaving
between
them
treacherous
spaces
of
level
and
whirling
water,
now
lighted
with
green
and
lamp-like
fire,
now
flashing
back
the
gold
of
the
declining
sun,
now
fearfully
dyed
from
above
with
the
indistinguishable
images
of
the
burning
clouds,
which
fall
upon
them
in
flakes
of
crimson
and
scarlet,
and
give
to
the
reckless
waves
the
added
motion
of
their
own
fiery
flying.
Purple
and
blue,
the
lurid
shadows
of
the
hollow
breakers
are
cast
upon
the
mist
of
the
night,
which
gathers
cold
and
low,
advancing
like
the
shadow
of
death
upon
the
guilty
ship
as
it
labors
amidst
the
lightning
of
the
sea,
its
thin
masts
written
upon
the
sky
in
lines
of
blood,
girded
with
condemnation
in
that
fearful
hue
which
signs
the
sky
with
horror,
and
mixes
its
flaming
flood
with
the
sunlight,and
cast
far
along
the
desolate
heave
of
the
sepulchral
waves,
incarnadines
the
multitudinous
sea.
They
do
not
write
criticism
like
that
anymore,
its
beautiful,
its
evocative,
it
attempts
through
the
force
of
rhetoric
to
evoke
the
intensity
of
the
experience
of
this
painting.
It
is
clearlyit
is
dense
and
difficult
and
complex,
involved
passages
clearly
the
product
of
a
culture
where
people
would
spend,
oh,
I
dont
know,
3
to
5
hours
listening
to
a
political
speech,
that
was
a
normal
thing
and
where
Shakespeare
was
popular
entertainment
and
not
boutique
entertainment,
so
but
nevertheless,
it
is
beautiful,
it
is
amazing,
it
is
a
work
of
art
in
itself,
and
I
doubt
any
of
you
unless
you
know
this
painting
actually
have
an
image
of
it
in
your
head
and
this
does
that
job
far
better
and
theres
a
detail
and
theres
another
detail,
and
theres
another
detail.
So
theres
a
lot
to
say
about
what
happened
with
pictures,
with
photos,
with
art
writing
in
the
last
half
of
the
19th
Century,
the
early
part
of
the
20th
century
but
Im
actually
interested
with
the
purposes
of
this
talk
with
how
recent
really
the
dramatic
changes
in
how
we
think
about
how
art
writing
relationship
to
images
is
so
I
went
to
the
New
York
public
library
and
I
found
the
oldest
issues
I
could
find
that
seemed
to
be
withinseemed
to
me
to
be
legible
as
an
art
magazine
so
this
is
the
Art
News
annual
from
1956.
And
on
the
inside,
inside
flap,
the
colored
plates
every
colored
plate
is
like
theyre
advertising
that
its
a
really
special
thing
that
there
are
color
plates
in
this
thing.
The
editor
emphasizes
that
they
have
exciting
color
plates
and
how
that
makes
this
particularly
luxury
product,
a
really
exciting
product
you
have
in
your
hand
and
heres
what
it
looks
like
inside,
still
a
lot
of
black
and
white
illustrations
but
then
these
glossy
inset
photos.
Now,
1962
is
an
important
year,
magazine
history
in
the
United
States,
National
Geographic
in
February
1962
becomes
the
first
all-color
magazine
published
in
the
United
States.
Same
year,
1962,
June,
1962,
Artforum
publishes
its
first
issue
in
San
Francisco,
later
moved
to
Los
Angeles
and
New
York
and
this
is
that
first
issue.
Heres
what
it
looked
like
on
the
inside,
ads
in
black
and
white,
theres
table
of
contents.
Heres
the
opening
critical
salvo
critics
pondering
then
as
we
do
now,
why
are
we
doing
this?
And
heres
a
passage
you
can
see
here
he
lays
out
the
tasks
of
art
criticism
and
theres
our
old
friend
description,
the
very
first
thing
that
he
mentioned
there
is
the
descriptive
task
that
of
telling
what
the
work
looks
like,
a
most
difficult
exercise
in
objectivity.
As
it
absolutely
would
be
given
as
this
is
what
the
layout
of
the
reviews
looks
like.
So
you
have
these
on
the
left-hand
always
separate,
on
the
left-hand
you
have
these
fairly
inscrutable
low-quality
black
and
white
reproductions
of
the
art
being
talked
about
and
then
on
the
right
side
is
dense
blocks
of
text
and
then
more
of
that
with
the
same
images
on
the
facing
page
and
then
a
lot
of
stuff
thats
like
this.
So
as
you
can
imagine,
description
not
just
of
absolute
necessity
there,
if
you
haveif
you
want
to
like
evoke
what
an
art,
the
visual
experience
of
a
work
of
art.
Now,
leaping
ahead
ten
years,
1972,
is
the
year
of
John
Bergers
classic
seminal
Ways
of
Seeing
documentaries
on
the
BBC.
This
is
an
important
reference
to
me.
Im
curious
how
many
people
in
this
audience
have
seen
or
read
ways
of
seeing.
Almost
everybody.
Thats
great.
Youre
a
great
crowd.
So
it
says
right
there
on
the
cover,
seeing
comes
before
words.
Its
the
very,
very
first
words
of
the
book
version
of
Ways
of
Seeing.
Famous
first
words
of
Ways
of
Seeing.
And
yet
the
interesting
thing
about
the
book
is
that
the
images
in
it
are
quite
bad.
Its
all
about
looking
and
the
excitement
of
the
image,
and
actually
for
that
matter,
he
talks
a
lot
about
the
ideological
impact
of
the
introduction
of
color
photography
and
yet
the
book
itself
is
quite
poorly
illustrated
actually
and
theres
a
reason
for
that,
a
good
reason
actually
is
that
Berger
was
committed
to
making
it
cheap
and
accessible
to
the
widest
number
of
people
and
in
this
period
theres
still
a
pretty
hard
opposition
between
detailed
color
images
and
which
would
make
it
much
more
accessible
and
these
kind
of
reproductions.
Jumping
ahead
another
ten
years
back
with
our
old
friend
Artforum.
I
dont
mean
to
pick
on
Artforum
its
just
a
convenient
object
of
study
that
represents
a
specific
way
of
thinking
about
art
but
here
it
is,
heres
what
it
looks
like
on
the
inside.
The
ad
is
now
in
color,
heres
the
reviews,
the
review
is
still
in
black
and
white,
and
the
images
have
moved
off
of
the
facing
page
and
is
now
on
the
same
page
with
the
text.
But
theyre
still
siloed
up
there.
Theyre
in
their
own
space
that
floats
above
the
text
throughout
the
back
of
the
book
and
the
reviews
and
this
is
what
that
looks
and
then
theres
plenty
of
pages,
still,
1982,
that
look
like
this.
Cut
forward
again
another
decade
or
so
and
this
is
actuallywhat
most
blew
me
away
this
is
after
I
graduated
from
college,
after
I
worked
at
the
Walker,
this
is
what
Artforum
I
guess
looked
like
when
I
started
professionally
writing
about
art
and
you
have
much
more
colorful
illustrations,
this
is
the
front
of
the
reviews,
you
have
a
clear
hierarchy
where
the
important
reviews
by
the
important
writers
are
colorfully
illustrated
and
then
shortly
thereafter
theres
the
ditch
where
they
put
the
less
important
reviews
with
the
less
vibrant
illustrations,
much
less
vibrant
illustrations
and
you
can
see
that
the
text
is
encroaching
a
little
bit
more
on
the
image,
as
well,
but
its
still
basically
the
same
thing.
Its
sometime
in
the
middle
as
far
as
I
can
tell.
I
havent
actually
looked
at
exactly
the
moment
but
its
in
the
middle
of
the
2000s
when
Artforum
goes
all
color.
This
is
a
Paul
Chan
on
the
cover.
And
this
is
what
it
looks
like
you
have
these
inset
tiled
images
that
are
now,
theyre
in
color
throughout
and
theyre
actually
much
more
integrated
into
the
text,
but
still
relatively
discreet,
right,
and
modest.
Now,
and
so
and
that
really
is
it
the
trajectory,
right?
You
go
from
low
quality
to
high
quality,
essentially,
in
some
sort
of
way
and
you
go
from
images
thought
of
as
completely
separate,
image
being
more
and
more
embedded
in
the
text.
Now,
at
the
same
time
all
this
happened,
of
course
this
other
little
thing
is
happening,
the
Internet,
and
is
becoming
a
thing.
This
is
the
magazine
I
worked
for
for
many
years,
Art
Net
magazine
which
is
depending
on
how
you
count
it
the
first
or
one
of
the
first
online
art
magazines.
Talk
about
different
systems
colliding.
Heres
what
it
looked
like
in
1997
when
it
was
launched,
this
is
a
review
of
the
Whitney
Biennial,
you
have
this
great
typewriter
font
clearly
designed
to
make
the
web
look
like
a
typewritten
thing
and
for
that
matter
its
presented
as
a
magazine.
Its
not,
you
know,
this
is
well
before
the
term
blog
even
existed.
Ten
years
later,
this
is
what
it
looks
like.
This
is
me
reviewing
the
2006
Whitney
Biennial
complaining
about
the
use
of
text,
that
labels
were
out
of
control,
there
was
too
much
text
mediating
your
experience
of
the
art
and
this
is
me
two
years
later,
reviewing
the
Whitney
Biennial
in
2008.
Now,
when
I
look
back
at
this
now,
and
keep
in
mind,
this
is
not
that
long
ago,
this
is
what,
7
years
ago?
When
I
look
back
at
that
its
almost
like
looking
at
another
world
its
hard
for
me
to
even
imagine
putting
together
an
article
like
this.
For
one
thing,
the
title
is
crazy.
Rave
on?
What
does
that
mean?
I
look
at
my
own
archive
now
and
I
remember
vividly
being
at
Art
Net
magazine
and
having
consultants
who
would
come
in
an
see,
you
know,
it
would
really
help
you
if
you
put
like
the
word
Picasso
in
the
title.
It
would
be
really
helpful
for
an
article
about
Picasso
and
were
like
were
not
going
to
name
the
article
theres
a
new
Picasso
show
at
MOMA,
that
doesnt
make
any
sense
and
thats
exactly
what
you
have
to
do
and
now
everyone
has
sentence
style,
declarative
news
headlines
because
thats
very
important
with
Internet
search,
and
then
the
other
thing,
and
this
Art
Net
magazine
was
already
a
technical
dinosaur
at
this
point.
This
is
akin,
I
think
some
of
you
who
have
grown
up
with
sophisticated
blogging
platforms
that
say
that
we
cranked
this
out
with
a
chisel
on
stone
is
that
we
didnt
have
any
sort
of
back-end
CMS
(content
management
system)
to
do
this,
we
wrote
this
stuff
to
Microsoft
Word
and
hand
it
had
to
a
designer
and
who
put
it
online
for
us
so
you
get
these
two
columns.
But
we
had
no
control
over
design
and
those
things
thought
about
totally
separately
and
thats
where
things
stood
in
2008.
Well
get
to
examples
of
whats
going
on
now
later
but
I
want
to
emphasize
how
recently
it
was
that
people,
me
included,
still
were
thinking
about
the
web
in
a
relatively
print-based
way.
You
know,
as
if
were
just
taking
what
we
do
on
theon
in
a
print
magazine
and
putting
it
online
and
thats
the
key
access
of
what
we
do.
So
part
two.
So
the
interesting
thingan
interesting
thing
for
me
about
this
topic
is
that
this
is
not
a
political
topic,
like
as
in
my
introduction
I
said
you
know
my
book
is
about
class
and
political
art,
so
this
is
not
a
political
topic,
not
really.
It
has
political
dimensions,
but
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
there
would
probably
be
less
argument
about
it
about
I
were
doing,
there
would
be
more
consensus
about
it
and
I
think
that
talking
about,
you
know,
whether
or
not
we
need
to
describe
works
of
art,
we
should
just
use
pictures
actually
touches
some
key
nerves
for
people,
the
very
core
about
what
people
think
about
this
is
my
former
boss,
Walter
Robinson,
Superscript
tweeted
the
topic
the
subject
of
my
talk
out
and
I
see
him
responding,
sorry
buddy
writing
about
art
is
thinking
about
art
and
begins
with
looking
and
he
certainly
is
somewhat
right
about
that
now
I
want
to
touch
through
a
couple
of
theoretical
touch
stones,
think
a
little
bit
about
why,
why
this
is
such
awhat
are
the
kind
of
resonances
that
makes
it
such
a
touchy,
touchy
issue
at
this
particular
moment,
as
I
think
it
is?
I
wrote,
last
year
probably
one
of
the
most
read
things
that
I
have
ever
done
is
an
article
I
wrote
last
year
about
Instagram
where
I
tookbecause
people
care
an
awful
lot
more
about
Instagram
as
a
means
of
expression
than
art,
but
I
took
John
Bergers
theories
about
how
classical
art
and
images
work
in
different
ways
and
applied
that
to
the
way
the
images
function
on
Instagram
and
it
became
a
very
big
hit
for
me,
got
picked
up
all
kinds
of
places,
including
the
Entourage
actor,
Adrian
Grenier,
reposted
this
visual
comparison
I
did
between
Kim
Kardashian
and
a
Spanish
nude
and
posted
it
on
his
Instagram
railing
against
inequality
and
this
became
a
celebrity
news
story.
Some
colleagues
and
I
got
called
into
the
Instagram
offices
where
they
wanted
to
pick
our
brains
about
ideas
for
stories.
So
here
I
wrote
a
Marxist
critique
of
Instagram,
invited
me
in
to
talk
about
it.
And
one
of
the
things
that
staggered
me,
that
was
flabbergasting,
that
they
said
to
me
is
very
casually,
they
said,
well,
one
thing
that
we
want
you
to
know
is
that
you
dont
need
staff
photographers
anymore.
Theres
no
reason
to
hire
a
photographer
anymore.
All
you
have
to
do
is
make
a
hashtag
if
you
do
an
event,
and
then
its
all
free
on
there,
as
long
as
you
know
where
to
find
it
you
just
like
harvest
the
bounty
of
Instagram
for
your
uses.
So
theres
a
lot
of
angst
about
being
a
writer
at
this
conference
about
writing,
but
you
know,
spare
a
thought
for
the
photographers,
because
as
a
profession
its
disappearing
pretty
fast.
This
is
the
two
years
ago,
Libration,
the
French
paper
published
an
issue
completely
without
images
in
solidarity
with
photo
journalists,
saying
the
profession
is
going
away,
precisely
being
crowdsourced
turned
into
an
amateur
thing,
writers
are
being
given
iPhones
and
so
on
this
is
what
their
culture
section
looked
like
without
images
and
actually
I
found
about
this
on
this
very
good
podcast
called
This
Week
in
Photo
that
I
listen
to
that
has
a
very
good
discussion
of
the
implications
of
this
maybe
better
than
anything
Ive
heard
from
the
point
of
view
of
writing.
This
guy
Alex
Lindsay
says
that
the
interesting
thing
is
that
most
of
you
who
are
bloggers,
we
naturally
write,
take
photos,
think
about
those
articles
figure
out
what
were
going
to
do,
we
are
moving
from
one
type
of
media
journalist
to
another
type,
a
media
journalist
is
going
to
be
able
to
take
those
photos,
theyre
going
to
get
really
good
at
photography
but
they
are
also
going
to
understand
how
to
do
creative
writing
and
narrative
writing
and
news
journalism
and
there
will
be
one
person
who
understands
that,
and
then
Frederick
Van
Johnson
whos
the
host
of
this
show
coins
this
term
the
multi-mediographer,
which
expresses
something
very
accurate.
It
becomes
so
ubiquitous
and
cheap,
becomes
so
pulped
that
you
actually,
we
live
now,
things
are
becoming
just
one
expressive
medium
that
you
kind
ofyou
pick
different
things
just
to
express
one
continuous
thing.
Youre
just
like
collaging
together
different
types
of
expression
and
its
all
one
form
of
writing
or
expression.
Thats
the
way
I
interpret
this
concept
of
the
multi-mediographer.
Now,
there
is
a
reason,
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
is
theres
a
long
history
of
art
criticism
being
about
the
design
of
thecelebrating
the
image
as
a
absorbing,
celebrating
the
absorptive
property
of
the
image
but
theres
also
an
important
critical
tradition,
theoretical
tradition
of
thinking
about
how
to
dispell
the
absorption
of
the
image.
I
think
this
is
one
reason
why
people
they
feel
this
is
an
invasion.
In
1957
Roland
Barthes
writes
Mythologies
where
he
talks
about
theres
a
political
analysis
of
the
way
images
work
in
society
he
talks
about
how
the
language
of
power
is
what
he
calls
mythology
to
take
one
thing
out
of
context
and
fill
it
up
with
another
meaning
and
make
it
become
the
natural
as
if
it
were
naturally
signified
something
else.
And
one
of
the
examples
he
used
precisely
this
magazine
cover
from
1957,
of
this
young
black
soldier
saluting,
presumably
the
French
flag
and
he
points
out
well,
theres
obviously
one
meaning
of
this,
the
clear
meaning
of
this
which
is
a
real
person,
but
on
the
other
hand
is
he
clearly
being
made
to
do
service
for
another
thing?
The
message
of
this
is
really
clearly
a
whole
other
mythology
about
the
French
nation,
how
the
French
nation
is
a
great
empire
but
its
a
progressive
empire,
and
all
serve
under
it
equally,
and
how
it
discriminates
against
nobody.
And
this
comes
from
Paris
Match,
which
is
a
fairly
genteel
text,
but
this
is
a
very
political
point
though
thats
happening
in
1957
when
the
French
occupation
of
Algerias
coming
undone,
its
quite
a
bloody
conflict,
The
Battle
of
Algiers,
if
youve
seen
it.
So
the
point
is
that
this
is
all
about
how
through
images
power
naturalizes
itself
and
Roland
Barthes
sees
the
job
of
the
mythologist.
Thats
what
he
calls
the
person
who
unpacks
these
and
debunks
these
things.
As
using
language
to
take
you
out
of
your
natural
enrapturement
with
these
things.
With
all
the
ideologies
that
have
been
stuffed
in
them.
Now,
that
was
a
prettyI
think
that
was
a
prettyI
dont
know
if
thisbut
the
point
is
that
in
I
think
this
is
aI
think
because
images
have
become
so
present
now,
you
know,
this
was
the
new
thing.
Color
photography,
color
magazines
was
a
relatively
new
thing
in
1956,
now
were
swarmed
with
images
but
people
are
very
image
savvy.
This
is
actually
a
common
form
of
writing
where
people
sometimes
take
a
little
piece
of
pop
culture
out
of
context
and
captions
it
in
such
a
way
that
it
becomes
allegories
for
things
and
this
is
a
kind
of
like
peoples
mythology
in
action.
The
point
is
that
if
the
project
in
Barthes
day
was
a
debunking,
I
think
people
now
are
naturally
cynical
about
the
image
and
recontextualizing
things.
I
guess
this
is
one
of
my
favorite
examples
of
modern
mythology,
this
is
the
hipster
cop,
a
police
officer
who
had
skinny
ties
and
skinny
jeans
and
was
sort
of
a
darling
of
the
media
and
obviously
this
functions
exactly
as
mythology
in
Barthes
sense.
Hes
a
real
guy.
He
becomes
a
media
sensation
because
he
represents
the
funny
side
of
power.
This
guy
knows
it,
hes
interviewed
in
GQ
and
he
talked
about
the
semiology
of
his
fashion
and
his
clothing
and
of
course
people
responded
to
this
immediately
with
a
variety
memes.
People
are
savvy
enough
to
be
natural
mythologists
in
Barthes
sense.
You
know,
most
of
this
stuff
with
the
response
is
kind
of
an
empty
cynicism,
but
I
think
there
are
some,
this
is
my
big
example
that
actually
symbolize
power
in
the
police
state
and
constitutes
a
form
of
image
criticism.
The
point
is
that
there
are
new
forms
of
criticism
with
images
that
are
already
being
born
and
already
sort
of
vernacular.
Vilm
Flusser,
a
Prague-born
media
theorist,
writes
in
1987
this
book
called
Does
Writing
Have
a
Future?
This
is
the
opening
page.
I
think
its
amusing
that
it
begins
with
Superscript
and
the
book
is
weird
and
problematic
in
many
means
in
ways
that
I
wont
go
into,
but
its
loaded
with
quotes
about
the
relationship
between
text
and
image
and
the
evolving
nature
of
it.
One
of
the
things
he
says,
one
of
the
arguments
he
makes,
first
of
all
he
makes
what
he
calls
electromagnetic
culture
or
something,
were
moving
towards
something
else,
were
moving
towards
essentially
a
post-literate
society
but
the
bulk
of
the
book
is
going
back
and
looking
at
what
alphabetic
or
articulated
language
has
does.
He
says
before
books
you
had
images,
right,
hieroglyphics
or
ideograms.
And
these
are
pictorial
ways
of
looking
about
the
world
and
alphabetic
speech.
This
is
the
quote:
One
writes
alphabetically
to
maintain
and
extend
a
level
of
consciousness
that
is
conceptual,
superior
to
images,
rather
than
continually
falling
back
into
pictorial
thinking
as
we
did
before
writing
was
invented.
And
so
theres
this
idea
that
we
havethat
a
form
of
thinking
and
expressing
yourself
that
forces
you
to
order
thoughts,
articulate
them
in
an
order,
actually
produces
a
space
for
critical
thinking
at
a
distance
from
an
image
and
that
is
precisely
that
and
formed
the
foundation
for
a
lot
of
ways
of
anything
not
just
about
art
and
criticism,
but
a
whole
number
of
things
and
that,
as
he
says,
the
rise
of
a
more
picture-based
universe
of
a
post-literate
world
it
leads
us
to
a
new
mode
of
thought
that
can
be
anticipated
but
not
yet
perceived.
All
in
all
hes
pretty
ambiguous
about
it,
so
as
I
say
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
problematic
text
for
all
kinds
of
reasons
(that
I
wont
go
into
here
that
we
can
talk
about
in
the
Q&A),
but
I
think
it
does
articulate
a
certain
anxiety
about
whats
going
on
with
the
rise
of
an
extremely
image-dominated
culture.
An
anxiety
that
was
articulated
to
me
very
well
is
this
article
from
the
New
Yorker
a
few
months
back.
This
guy,
Emerson
Spartz,
who
runs
sort
of
a
BuzzFeed
clone,
they
do
like
funny
listicles
and
stuff
called
Dose,
I
believe.
He
says
very
clearly
in
his
article
that
hes
not
interested
in
politics.
He
doesnt
find
the
news
interesting
because
he
thinks
the
presentation
is
boring
but
I
asked
him
if
he
had
any
advice.
He
says,
If
I
were
running
a
more
hard
news-oriented
media
company
and
I
wanted
to
inform
people
about
Uganda,
first
I
would
look
it
up
and
find
out
exactly
whats
going
on
there
on
there.
Good
advice
to
start
off.
Then
I
would
find
a
few
really
poignant
images
or
story
lines
ones
that
create
a
lot
of
resonant
emotion,
and
I
would
make
these
into
a
short
video,
under
three
minutes,
with
clear,
simple
words
and
statistics.
Short,
declarative
sentences.
And
at
the
end
Id
give
people
something
they
can
do,
something
they
can
feel
hopeful
about.
So
some
good
ideas
about
audience
engagement
there
but
also
clearly
lowering
the
bar
for
what
it
means
to
think
politically.
And
I
think
part
of
that
sensibility
is
in
the
air
and
that
makes
people
really
anxious
about
this.
Heres
BuzzFeed,
their
article.
Making
mythology
of
the
Marxist
critic
Walter
Benjamin
turning
him
into
an
inspiration
pinup
great
quotes.
Not
including
interestingly
my
favorite
quote:
Mankinds
self-
alienation
has
reached
such
a
degree
that
it
can
experience
its
own
destruction
as
an
aesthetic
pleasure
of
the
first
order.
But
you
cant
be
perfect.
So
there
is
a
way,
I
think
you
could
say
that
the
looping
animated
cat
GIF,
this
is
a
cat
on
a
book,
by
the
way
in
some
way
can
stand
as
an
allegory
for
the
return
to
a
kind
of
looping
mythical
thinking
primal
thinking
thats
you
know,
thats
outside
ofthats
beyondthats
almost
precritical
in
a
way.
Its
viscerally
youre
kind
of
frozen
in
this
kind
of
limbo
of
pleasure
and
Im
not
going
to
take
that
too
far
because
as
I
say
I
think
that
were
learning
new
ways
to
think
about
these
things.
I
just
wanted
to
show
you
this
GIF.
Now,
I
want
to
talk
about
forms
of
contemporary
writing
that
forms,
contemporary
forms
of
talking
about
art,
where
I
think
were
going,
essentially.
So
I
first
began
to
have
a
lot
of
these
thoughts
not
thinking
about
my
own
practice
but
thinking
about
how
contemporary
artists
were
engaging
with
images
on
the
Internet
so
I
was
teaching
my
students,
this
is
Artie
Vierkant
which
is
what
you
would
maybe
call
a
post
Internet
artistthis
is
one
of
his
image
object
images
that
blur
the
line
between
installation
shot
and
some
sort
of
abstraction
so
you
cant
really
tell
whether
its
a
real
object
or
not.
And
he
wrotehe
wrote
this,
you
know,
its
become
a
touchstone,
this
manifesto
called
The
Image
Object
Post-Internet
that
I
read
and
he
says:
The
architecture
of
the
Internetan
arrangement
of
language,
sound,
and
images
in
which
imagery
is
the
most
dominant,
immediate
factorhelps
facilitate
an
environment
where
artists
are
able
to
rely
more
and
more
on
purely
visual
representations
to
convey
their
ideas
and
support
an
explanation
of
their
art
independent
of
language.
This
is
a
crucial
point
of
departure
from
recent
art
history,
as
arguably
it
marks
an
abandonment
of
language
and
semiotics
as
base
metaphors
for
articulating
works
of
art
and
our
relationship
to
objects
and
culture.
So
thats
a
horrifying
statement
to
me
as
a
writer
that
was
my
first
thought
when
I
read
that
is
this
is
like
basically
images
explaining
other
images
and
its
cutting
out
me
out,
cutting
out
the
critical
middleman.
I
also
think
itswell,
I
also
think
its
a
little
confused
he
doesnt
seem
to
know
what
semiology
means.
But
my
second
thought
was
well,
maybe
I
can
work
with
this.
Maybe
there
are
forms
of
criticism
I
can
come
up
that
actually
are
a
critical
intervention
into
languages
that
use
images
against
each
other
in
order
to
create
a
form
of
criticism,
so
you
know,
this
was
my
little
experiment.
I
called
it
my
Instagram
art
reviews
in
that
I
would
use
the
structure
of
Peircean
semiology,
which
is
a
three-part
sign
where
the
first
thing,
the
object
would
be
the
work
of
art
and
then
I
would
find
a
second
thing
that
you
know,
an
association
maybe
to
represent
it.
You
know,
theres
an
association
that
it
produces
in
my
head.
You
know,
this
looks
like
that.
And
then
the
third
is
the
third
aspect
of
the
Peircean
sign
is
the
interpretant.
Theres
a
signifier
and
a
signified
but
then
theres
also
a
relationship
between
the
two,
they
mean
something
together
and
I
thought
with
those
three
things,
maybe
you
can
take
images
and
create
a
form
of
writing
with
images,
and
so
Ill
show
you
my
modest
experiments.
This
isthis
is
a
Richard
Serra
show
at
the
top
at
the
Gagosian
Gallery
and
then
theres
comparing
it
to
the
experience
to
Caspar
David
Friedrich.
And
heres
my
third
image
of
a
stock
photo
as
kind
of
signifying
the
industrial
sublime
or
something
like
that,
so
you
can
see
that
heres
the
comparison
it
makes
me
think
of
and
heres
what
I
think
about
the
comparison.
Heres
a
detailed
a
painting
by
Raqib
Shaw,
which
is
kind
of
like
fantastic
glittery
paintings
and
then
a
Frank
Frazetta
painting,
the
Conan
the
Barbarian
artist,
so
Im
comparing
him
to
pulp
art,
and
then
third
is
a
stock
photo
of
chintzy
cheap
gems,
its
like
the
idea
here
is
it
looks
like
pulp
art
and
therefore
I
think
of
it
as
cheap
razzle-dazzle.
And
heres
the
one
that
started
it
all,
The
Girl
with
the
Pearl
Earring
compared
to
this
famous
National
Geographic
cover
and
I
guess
what
I
think
the
visual
comparison
is
clear
but
I
guess
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
in
this
loaded
subject
matter
is
I
think
the
visual
appeal
of
both
is
that
they
are
made
to
seem
a
little
bit
otherworldly.
Now,
this
was
an
interesting
experiment
for
me.
I
learned
a
lot
doing
it.
There
are
many
others
of
varying
degrees
of
success.
I
learned
among
other
things
that
its
very
hard
because
as
it
turns
out,
coming
up
with
meaningful
comparisons
of
images,
thinking
of
images
writing
with
images
is
just
as
difficult
or
more
so
than
writing
with
words
and
I
would
freely
admit,
however,
that
it
is
a
bit
of
a
wrack
as
an
experiment,
I
mean
I
dont
think
might
as
well
just
put
an
image
there
that
indicates
that
well,
making
this
comparison
Im
a
little
bit
confused
about
how
to
represent
what
I
think
about
that
comparison.
Nevertheless,
I
think
youre
going
to
see
a
lot
more
of
this
kind
of
thing.
Not
exactly
this
kind
of
thing,
but
forms
of
thinking
with
the
image
inside
the
image,
critically
about
and
within
the
image.
Because
as
I
say,
images
have
become
just
another
expressive
material
for
people.
And
there
are
lots
of
examples.
I
think
people
in
probably
in
this
room
doing
interesting
experiments
with
this
that
I
dont
know
about.
Carolina
[Miranda]
was
reminding
me
before
about
this,
that
you
know,
the
Getty
does
Game
of
Thrones
recaps.
I
just
picked
out
one.
The
Pelican
Bomb
which
is
a
New
Orleans
art
website
and
publication
does
this
series
of
visual
essays.
This
is
one
that
takes
off
the
history
of
the
reclining
female
nude.
So
it
starts
with
Ingres,
the
Grande
Odalisque.
And
then
this
is
presented
all
in
a
stacked
ribbon
in
the
original
piece,
but
they
walk
you
through
a
sort
of
a
history
of
this
theme.
Now
I
think
its
interesting,
I
would
say
its
still
very
primitive,
though.
Its
essentially
on
the
first
two
levels,
you
know,
their
relationship
of
comparison
of
difference
and
sameness,
and
but
it
doesnt
make
a
critical
argument
and
the
reason
I
picked
it
for
you
is
because
I
think
it
brings
me
back
to
Ways
of
Seeing
and
people
always
remember
because
Bergers
arguments
are
so
clear,
they
remember
the
written
parts,
the
famous
parts
about
the
popularization
of
Walter
Benjamin
or
his
section
on
the
male
gaze,
but
there
are
vast
sections
of
that
book
that
are
just
images,
that
are
simply
visual
essays,
and
I
think,
actually,
more
sophisticated
than
that.
Heres
Chapter
2
which
takes
us
back
towhich
leads
in
this
famous
chapter
of
the
male
gaze
and
you
have
this
juxtaposition
of
images.
Heres
a
woman
working
in
a
bakery
and
behind
her
are
celebrity
shots
and
heres
a
glamorous
woman
in
a
car
with
people
looking
at
her.
Heres
a
whole
set
of
complex
situations
between
you
have
this
at
the
top
Picasso
and
Modigliani
and
this
pinup
and
this
kind
of
ecstasy
and
looking
at
histories
of
how
sexuality
is
expressed.
You
have
this
voluptuous
pin-
up
here
and
this
emaciated
Giacometti
with
this
sort
of
violence
of
the
gaze
and
you
have
these
like
hyper-sexualized
advertising
images
and
over
here
a
Dutch
still
life,
so
creatingtalking
about
how
the
language
of
making
objects
desirable
are
being
applied
to
literally
treat
women
like
objects
of
consumption.
So
thatsthats
all,
I
mean
thats
all
image
essay
and
I
think
it
is
notits
murky,
you
know,
and
I
think
he
wants
it
to
be.
I
think
he
wants
there
to
be
significant
comparisons,
but
also
room
to
breathe.
Thats
part
of
what
the
book
is
about.
But
I
also
think
if
you
go
through
the
book,
in
some
ways
I
think
that
the
most
sophisticated
form
of
navigating
between
images
and
text
is
maybe
that
I
know,
maybe
this
book,
which
was
produced
40-some
years
ago,
if
you
look
at
the
wayand
he
also
takes
off
from
Grande
Odalisque
and
heres
him
incorporate
it
into
the
text
of
the
book.
Heres
he
uses
details
of
paintings
to
show
how
images
can
be
constructed
out
of
them
and
he
useshe
has
a
sophisticated
way
of
looking
at
details
of
painting
and
how
words,
the
relationship
with
their
words
and
the
descriptions,
transform
them.
So
heres,
this
is
a
landscape
with
birds
flying
out
of
it.
Look
at
it
for
a
moment
and
then
turn
the
page.
When
you
turn
the
page,
it
says
this
is
the
last
picture
that
Van
Gogh
painted
before
he
killed
himself.
It
is
hard
to
define
exactly
how
the
words
have
changed
the
image
but
undoubtedly
they
have.
The
image
now
illustrates
the
sentence.
So
this
is
a
fairly
sophisticated
way
of
addressing
the
new
problems
for
us
that
are
emerging
for
us
as
we
write
online
and
part
of
that
this
is
an
analysis
of
how
images
function
and
hes
using
image
and
text
in
an
elaborate
way,
in
an
involved
way.
Come
back
to
Turner.
So
this
is
not
for
me
a
question
of
escaping
images.
Or
escaping
textuality.
My
argument
is
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
that
we
live
in
a
sort
of
hybrid
state,
you
know,
there
are
different
modes
of
thinking.
And
the
function
of
description
is
of
course
always
partly
analysis,
you
know,
youre
picking
out
the
significant
things
you
with
the
to
describe.
My
argument
is
once
we
disarticulate
those
two
things,
we
think
about
the
problem,
what
it
means
to
to
describe
around
images
and
within
images
in
a
different
and
more
productive
way.
Heres
another
text
about
this
same
description
of
this
same
painting
by
Thackeray.
He
describes
it
very
differently
and
he
services
what
is
only
implicit
in
Ruskins
description
about
the
painting
which
is
a
painting
about
slavery.
An
abolitionist
painting
inspired
by
an
incident
where
133
slaves
were
thrown
overboard
because
the
slaver
wanted
to
collect
the
insurance
money,
and,
after
all,
Turner
himself
accompanied
this
painting
with
a
poem
that
explains
the
meaning
and
ends
with
hope,
hope,
fallacious
hope,
where
is
thy
market
now?
So
Flusser
ends
his
book,
Subscript,
in
counterpart
to
Superscript,
that
we
need
to
go
back
into
kindergarten
and
we
need
to
relearn
how
we
think
about
basic
things.
And
I
began
with
a
story
of
my
time
as
a
tour
guide
here
at
the
Walker,
and
Id
forgotten
ways
of
seeing
has
been
a
very
important
reference
for
me
as
a
book
and
Ive
forgotten
that
the
TV
show
is
different
than
the
book
and
actually
the
first
episode
ends
with
John
Berger
showing
art
to
children
and
sitting
with
them
as
they
describe
a
painting,
and
his
conclusion
is
that
they
see
it
because
they
havetheyre
free
of
some
of
our
habits,
they
have
a
different
way
of
seeing
it.
They
and
this
is
a
very
hopeful
for
me
this
is
a
very
hopeful
thing
and
I
want
to
say
that
I
picked
this
topic
because
Ive
been
to
enough
art
journalism
conferences
to
know
that
gloom
is
in
the
air
and
there
will
be
a
lot
of
angst
about
money
and
so
on
and
the
state
of
the
profession,
but
I
think
that
you
need
to
disarticulate
the
question
of
the
economics
of
writing
about
art,
and
the
secondary
question,
which
is
about
whether
we
have
ideas
we
believe
in
and
whether
you
have
ways
of
presenting
art
that
excite
us
and
feel
real
and
lively
and
contemporary.
Theyre
separate
questions.
They
interconnect
their
separate
questions.
So
this
idea
of
thinking
through
the
present
and
the
potential
of
the
present
in
a
new
way
I
think
is
a
very
optimistic
conversation
that
this,
complete
with
its
typo,
you
know,
complete
with
the
typo
where
you
really
see
text
breaking
down
relation
of
images
is
a
hopeful
image
for
me,
its
about
new
its
about
new
starting
points
of
people
to
have
the
opportunity
to
do
something
new,
I
think
thats
a
very
exciting
conversation
to
be
a
part
of.
The
question
of
a
post-descriptive
criticism
or
post
descriptive
criticism,
if
such
a
thing
exists,
is
not
simply
a
that
applies
to
art
critics
of
course.
Art
criticism
is
about
engaging
the
visual
so
it
may
be
paradigmatic
mode
and
that
means
that
the
kind
of
solutions
to
the
question
of
how
image
relates
to
text
that
people
come
up
with
potentially
at
least
have
a
wider
relevance
to
culture
and
thats
not
something
you
can
say
about
everything
that
we
talk
about
within
art,
which
is
sometimes
very
arcane.
New
ways
of
seeing,
I
think
create
new
ways
of
writing
and
new
ways
of
writing
about
seeing,
and
its
on
that
note
that
beginning,
I
think
is
a
good
place
for
me
to
end
this
conversation,
and
turn
the
conversation
over
to
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Audience
Member:
So
a
couple
of
presenters
today
have
used
emojis
in
their
presentations,
so
it
kind
of
begs
a
question
like
when
we
have
a
unicode
standard
of
an
agreed
upon
definition
for
an
image
how
can
we
use
that
to
modulate
written
information?
Does
that
make
sense?
Davis:
Youre
asking
me?
I
mean
I
thinkI
dont
know
if
I
have
an
answer
to
that.
I
think
thats
an
aesthetic
and
intellectual
problem.
I
think
its
a
moreI
think
emojis
are
a
more
interesting
thing
than
people
give
them
credit
for,
you
know.
Its
people
thinking
with
images
finding
essentially
creating
new
signifiers
for
agreed
upon
you
know,
new
languages,
I
think
its
a
tremendously
interesting
topic,
probably
the
subject
of
a
lot
of
unreadable
dissertations
at
this
point,
youre
behind
the
curve
here.
Audience
Member:
First
of
all,
thank
you
for
your
talk
and
for
being
so
well
researched.
I
want
to
address
something
that
is
a
potentially
troubling
take
away
from
your
talk
and
thats
that
post
descriptive
means
post
verbal.
I
think
as
writers,
you
know,
theres
definitely
the
understanding
that
we
need
to
work
with
images,
we
need
to
incorporate
images
in
our
reviews
in
whatever
we
write,
but
replacing
words
entirely
with
images
is
a
kind
of
different
project
altogether,
so
I
guess
Im
wondering,
is
that
your
assignation
for
the
future
of
art
criticism
or
would
you
want
description
to
be
replaced
by
a
discussion
of
context,
politics,
ethics,
social
issues,
the
kinds
of
things
that
artists
are
concerned
with
in
the
studio?
Is
that
you
know,
I
guess
in
a
way
what
Im
asking
is
what
is
the
function
ever
an
art
critic
or
an
a
writer
in
you
know,
a
broad
way.
Davis:
What
is
the
function
of
an
art
critic.
Well,
there
are
different
questions
here
that
are
mashed
together.
Part
of
it
as
I
said
at
the
beginning
is
this
is
a
practical
talk.
I
mean
I
actually
wanted
to
do
a
talk
here
that
was
practical,
theoretical,
you
know,
that
the
pass-through
theories
of
images
and
theories
of
language
and
I
think
this
is
like
tremendous
practical
relevance
and
I
dont
know
about
you,
I
mean
there
isthe
problem
with
images
is
not
the
only
problem
with
reviews,
I
dont
think,
but
I
do
find
myselfthis
is
a
cliche
about
Internet
writing,
but
you
know,
scanning
reviews,
I
mean
I
write
them,
you
know?
This
is
a
little
bit
like
my
students
when,
you
know,
when
we
do
critics
and
I
ask
them
to
look
for
ten
minutes
at
their
peers
art.
And
they
cant
do
it
you
know,
and
I
say
you
spent
months
in
your
studio
and
you
cant
even
look
for
ten
minutes
looking
at
your
peers
art.
I
do
the
same
thing
with
writing.
I
spend
a
lot
of
time
trying
to
find
the
right
words,
and
I
find
myself
scanning
through
things,
tell
me
what
you
think
about
this,
why
should
I
read
this?
You
know.
Theres
some
function
of
description
that
can
be
done
better
by
image.
Image
I
think
thats
obvious,
and
that
I
think
that
there
are
intellectual
hangups
that
people
still
have
because
were
still
inheriting
models
of
how
to
write
from
the
past
and
I
think
a
new
model
thats
not
post
verbal
but
that
treats
images
and
text
on
a
moreon
more
of
a
same
plane,
that
willI
think
thats
just
happening.
I
dont
think
thats
not
like
me
saying
that,
I
think
the
people
are
doing
that.
I
think
it
raises
a
lot
of
questions
about,
you
know,thats
what
I
was
trying
to
say
about
the
political
vectors
of
this.
I
think
this
raises
a
question
where
it
was
mentioned
earlier
in
the
earlier
in
the
day,
you
know,
lots
of
visual
stories
with
no
thought
in
them.
Thats
a
thing.
I
mean
thats
a
thing
that
there
is
demand
for,
actually,
is
to
just
kind
of
give
yourself
up
to
the
idiocy
of
the
image.
The
argument
Im
trying
to
make
is
we
have
to
be,
to
use
a
really
corny
word
is
we
have
to
be
dialectical
about
this.
Right
now
it
seems
to
me
that
there
are
two
kind
of
big
positions
playing
out
there
are
people
that
are
running
madly
in
the
direction
of
the
visual
and
another
one
people
saying
no,
no,
were
holding
out
for
the
word
and
I
think
we
need
to
think
through
critically
the
problem
about
relating
the
image
to
the
word
in
the
newwith
the
new
reality.
So
I
think
thats
a
critical
problem,
right?
I
think
that
enlivens
the
task
of
the
critic
is,
because
its
not
just
describing
something
out
there
but
thinking
through
the
presentational
problems
of
what
writing
is.
Audience
Member:
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
talk
so
earlier
we
had
the
reference
to
the
Flannery
OConnor
quote
about
not
knowing
what
you
think
until
you
find
yourself
reading
it
and
you
yourself
have
referenced
this
sort
of
pedagogical
situation
and
I
find
with
my
own
students
they
have
no
idea
what
theyre
looking
at
until
I
force
them
to
delineate
exactly
what
it
is
theyre
looking
at
so
I
guess
Id
be
curious
to
hear
your
comment
on
the
kind
of
pedagogical
value
of
ekphrasis
even
if
its
something
that
may
not
persist
into
the
final
form
of
professional
criticism.
Davis:
Yeah,
I
mean
I
think,
yeah,
Walter
is
you
know,
in
a
certain
extent,
right,
the
tweet,
the
angry
tweet
from
my
former
boss
hes
saying,
you
know,
thinking
about
art
is
writing
at
art,
that
begins
looking
at
art
and
describing
it
or
something
like
that.
And
that
is
to
a
certain
extent
correct
pedagogically
I
think,
and
I
thinkthe
thing
is
thats
a
different
question
than,
you
know,
the
question
of
how
youdoes,
you
know,
do
you
need
todo
you
need
to
re-describe
things
and
there
are
some
things,
you
know,
to
say,
you
know,
it
looks
as
if
a
bird
clawed
its
way
through
white
paint
on
the
surfaces
of
this
canvas
is
like
a
beautiful
sentence
thats
Frank
OHara
writing
about
a
Cy
Twombly
but
it
doesnt
actually
do
the
duty
of
telling
you
what
it
is.
Its
a
separate
thing
that
youve
produced
and
that
separate
thing
has
its
own
value
and
Im
not
sure
I
total
want
to
ditch
it.
I
just
think
theres
a
problem
here
that
we
should
think
about.
Audience
Member:
Yes,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
talk.
When
you
talk
about
the
separate
thing
that
you
can
produce,
I
loved
your
Peircean
little
chart,
and
how
itits
almost
to
me
if
Id
seen
those
things
without
your
descriptions
Im
sure
I
would
have
had
different
reactions
to
them.
Its
almost
as
if
you
were
creatingyoure
creating
something
yourself.
Its
like
you
are
the
artist
yourself.
It
made
me
think
of
Warhol
perhaps
being
thats
what
he
did.
I
mean
he
wasnt
creating
art
so
much
as
he
wasyou
could
almost
say
creating
a
form
of
criticism
but
Im
curious
what
you
learned
from
that
practice.
I
mean
obviously
you
thought
a
lot
about
it,
what
made
the
images
when
they
werent
successful
and
what
didnt.
Davis:
Im
glad
you
find
them
interesting
I
sort
of
gave
up
on
that
experiment
and
I
was
excited
to
be
able
to
use
it
in
some
kind
of
way
here.
Iwell,
I
mean
the
hardfirst
of
all,
yeah
youre
inventing
new
forms
of
agreed
upon
structures
signification,
I
just
think
it
can
be
done.
I
think
through
images
you
actually
can
produce
forms
of
thought.
The
things
I
learned
from
it
were
two:
One
is
that,
you
know,
the
real
problem
thing,
there
is
no
problem
in
finding
comparisons,
you
know?
There
is
no
problem,
its
the
cheapest
form
of
criticism,
actually
to
say
this
looks
like
that.
Its
absolutely
theres
difficulty
finding
meaningful
comparisons
thats
where
the
third
term
comes
in
there,
thats
why
I
think
I
like
that
little
block
because
I
think
it
does
express
something,
so
where
the
third
term
comes
in
that
you
produce
a
thought
really,
and
what
I
found
and
I
think
you
probably
all
accepted
that
when
you
look
at
those
Instagram
art
reviews,
that
the
third
term
is
extremely
vague,
you
know,
because
imagesthe
trick
there
is
finding
images
that
are
enough
of
stock
images
that
they
already
function
as
words,
or
that
theyve
already
become
processed
into
essentially
a
signifier
and
then
those
are,
you
know,
its
pretty
simple
to
find,
you
know,
frowny
face
if
the
point
of
the
comparison
is
that
youyou
think
it
makes
you
sad
or
things
like
that,
but
to
produce
complex
senses
of
them
requires
kind
of
a
new
image
lexicon.
The
other
thing
that
I
learned
about
it,
which
this
is
screamingly
obvious,
but
worth
saying,
is
that
its
not
impossible
to
produce
thoughts
about
something
using
as
Artie
Vierkant
says
producing
images
for
images.
If
you
were
going
to
review
a
show
in
this
format,
you
could
do
it
it
would
take
like
100
of
those
things
to
produce
a
series
of
thoughts
where
you
could
compare,
you
know,
different
details
within
something
to
different
objects
and
build
that
up
into
a
significant
thing,
so
as
it
turns
out,
actually
just
old
fashioned
writing
is
very
efficient
for
some
things,
you
know,
thats
one
thing
that
I
guess
its
a
good
point
to
make
is
that
part
of
the
point
is
that
there
are
some
things
for
which
images
are
more
efficient,
and
more
engaging
and
there
are
some
things,
actually,
like
writing
is
more
efficient
and
I
think
were
just
in
a
moment
where
we
need
to
clarify
what
those
things
are,
because
theyre
putting
pulped
together
pretty
quick.
Audience
Member:
Thank
you.
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
bringing
in
John
Bergers
way
of
thinking
about
Superscript.
And
when
you
brought
up
the
Van
Gogh,
where
Berger
talks
about
the
image
being
the
illustration
for
the
writing,
I
thought
it
was
really
to
think
about
how
much
power
the
word
has
once
and
also
looking
back
the
at
those
Artforums
where
are
those
artworks
becoming
then
the
illustration
for
the
writing?
You
know
that,
in
some
ways
counter
to
what
youre
saying,
maybe
words
still
have
a
lot
of
power
over
when
youre
looking
at
something
and
you
read
about
it,
that
it
alters
your
way
of
looking
which
is
also
what
hes
talking
about
in
Ways
of
Seeing,
but
and
then
perhaps
to
think
about
is
it
also
going
towards
more
analysis
or
more
the
content
of
the
writing
going
more
towards
media
making
or
maybe
looking
in
ways
that
arent
in
the
description
but
engaging
in
the
artwork
differently.
Davis:
Well,
either
side
the
power
of
the
word
problem
well
Im
a
writer
so
Im
just
going
to
tell
you
that
I
believe
in
the
power
of
the
word.
But
as
for
the
second
piece
of
the
question,
what
was
the
second
question
again?
Audience
Member:
Well,
I
guess
thinking
about
if
descriptive
writing
is
less
pertinent.
Davis:
Right,
I
did
have
something
to
say
about
that,
yes.
Well,
look
so
there
is
a
pragmatic
lesson
that
just
you
know
my
process
as
a
writer
and
writing
about
things,
when
I
first
got
my
first
job
writing
about
art
at
artnet
magazine
magazine,
I
look
back
on
it
as
kind
of
a
golden
age
in
a
way
because
I
had
very
little
supervision
in
a
way.
I
got
to
write
about
what
I
wanted
and
what
I
wanted
to
do
was
write
reviews,
and
my
boss
gave
me
Walter
gave
me
tremendous
trust
and
so
on.
And
what
happened
over
the
course
of
the
years
I
worked
there
is
you
just
start
to
realize
that
the
reviews
while
they
serve
a
great
purposedont
get
people
nearly
as
interested
as
something
a
larger,
argument,
analysis,
news,
things
like
this,
political
commentary.
Theres
justthat
isand
so
then
it
does
make
me
think
thatI
mean
in
some
ways
Im
trying
to
think,
you
know,
how
criticism
can
function
in
new
kinds
of
ways,
taking
advantage
of
new
capacities,
but
the
other
argument
you
can
of
course
make
is
that
the
form
of
the
review
is
just
a
historical
product.
Theres
no
reason
we
have
to
be
writing
this
way.
There
are
other
forms
of
writing
about
art
that
well
discover
and
find
and
maybe
it
is
you
know,
more
emphasis.
I
do
find
myself
just
hungering
for
whats
the
point.
Tell
me
what
you
think
about
this.
So
maybe
it
is,
maybe
thats
thats
the
solution.
I
dont
think
theres
one
solution.
Thats
the
thing.
I
think
that
there
are
hundreds
of
solutions,
exciting
moment
in
a
way.
I
have
some
excitement
about
whats
going
on
right
now
because
itstheres
like
clearly
new
stuff
on
the
horizon,
new
ways
of
thinking
about
things,
new
ways
of
doing
things.
Im
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
a
lot
of
them.
Everyone
here
is
and
so
its
just
very
a
privilege
and
honor
to
be
here
in
front
of
you
and
I
hope
we
carry
this
conversation
into
the
future.
Thank
you
very
much.
Saturday,
May
30,
2015
PANEL PRESENTATIONS:
Connectivity and Community
Claudia
La
Rocco,
The
Performance
Club
One:
When
the
Walker
asked
me
to
talk
about
connectivity
and
community,
I
remember
thinking
I
probably
wasnt
the
best
gal
for
the
job.
I
expressed
my
concerns
that
I
hadnt
given
much
thought
to
the
subject,
that
my
response
to
the
phrase
arts
journalism
and
criticism
in
a
digital
age
is
typically
a
scrunched-up
face.
I
write
a
column
for
artforum.com,
I
publish
poetry
chat
books,
its
all
part
of
the
same
mess,
but
of
course
I
said
yes,
a
freelancers
gotta
eat.
Months
later
when
I
asked
if
there
was
a
particular
mandate
I
should
keep
in
mind
I
was
told,
were
very
much
looking
to
avoid
one-size-fits
all
canned
TED
Talks,
and
later
when
I
told
a
fellow
writer
I
was
having
difficulty
approaching
this
topic,
she
emailed
back
Connectivity
and
community
are
the
lies
of
our
age,
how
would
anyone
actually
feel
connected
via
the
Internet?
A
week
or
so
before
today,
I
asked
Twitter
what
it
would
do
if
it
had
to
give
a
talk
on
community
and
connectivity.
I
received
one
response.
From
the
writer
Marit
Case,
whom
Ive
never
met.
She
wrote,
Handwriting
is
still
important.
Two:
One
of
my
early
articles
for
the
New
York
Times
was
a
2005
profile
of
the
choreographer
Arthur
Aviles
who
after
an
impressive
international
career
as
a
dancer
had
been
working
to
establish
an
inclusive
performing
arts
center
in
Hunts
Point,
a
South
Bronx
neighborhood
that
has
not
historically
been
all
that
interested
in
the
arts
or
in
embracing
feminist
or
queer
perspectives.
Roughly
ten
years
into
his
project
the
center
was
both
humble
and
thriving.
Decidedly
site-specific
and
grassroots,
it
wasnt,
in
other
words,
anything
the
New
York
art
world
would
pay
attention
to,
unless
it
happened
to
fit
a
flavor-of-the-month
whimsy.
No
one
will
ever
say
hes
made
it
in
the
Bronx
and
Im
fine
with
that,
Arthur
told
me.
I
feel
satisfied
with
the
career
Ive
had.
This
is
the
next
step
to
come
back
home
and
develop
a
dance
community.
Referring
to
the
drive
that
many
choreographers
in
the
Bronx
had
to
make
it
to
Manhattan,
he
said,
They
want
something
bigger,
which
I
understand.
And
then
he
added,
I
want
something
small,
something
respectful.
Three:
My
first
substantial
journalism
gig
in
New
York
was
at
the
Associated
Press.
Back
then
the
AP
was
still
headquartered
in
Rockefeller
center.
Its
venerable
history
announced
by
the
ten
ton
Isamu
Noguchi
sculpture
entitled
News
that
adorned
the
front
door.
Entering
the
office
it
was
hard
not
to
feel,
if
only
fleetingly,
that
one
was
doing
something
important
and
useful
in
societyunless,
of
course,
your
job
was
as
an
online
editor.
The
multimedia
desk
where
I
worked
wasnt
even
housed
in
the
same
building
as
the
rest
of
the
organization.
Im
not
sure
if
I
was
paying
enough
attention
to
grasp
the
brilliance
of
the
department
charged
with
connecting
AP
to
the
worldwide
web
being
marooned
or
perhaps
quarantined
is
the
better
word
in
its
own
building.
But
I
do
remember
one
reporter
saying
to
me,
oh,
yeah,
you
work
at
that
desk
whose
purpose
nobody
else
here
knows.
Theres
nothing
so
symbolic
as
geography.
AP
Digital
was
like
an
island
of
misfit
toys
populated
by
rookies,
jobbers,
and
a
few
actual
multimedia
specialists
whose
reactions
to
APs
rather
impressive
ineptitude
in
the
face
of
a
technological
sea
change
ran
from
disbelief
to
disdain.
I
worked
part-time
on
that
desk
for
several
years,
years
in
which
attitudes
about
the
online
operation
from
other
AP
folks
didnt
so
much
shift
as
expand
to
include
the
irritated
belief
that
digital
initiatives
were
the
only
ones
safe
from
chronic
cutbacks.
Meanwhile,
I
scanned
the
Internet
on
my
numerous
desktop
monitors,
tried
not
to
make
any
intensely
bad
mistakes
in
the
headlines
I
spent
most
of
my
shifts
composing
and
wrote
for
the
arts
desk
whenever
I
could.
I
realized
I
wasnt
a
journalist.
I
began
to
think
of
criticism
as
a
Trojan
horse.
Four:
I
started
the
Performance
Club
in
2008,
while
working
as
a
cultural
critic
for
WNYC
public
radio.
WNYC
had
gotten
a
big
chunk
of
foundation
change
with
the
mandate
to
promote
online
community.
With
the
initiation
languishing
and
the
foundation
demanding
results,
WNYC
ordered
its
contributors
to
drum
up
proposals
for
its
website.
Mine
was
the
Performance
Club
which
I
imagined
as
a
book
club
for
live
art
so
people
could
take
part
in
the
discussions
through
monthly
social
gatherings
around
performances
while
also
having
conversations
that
would
continue
on
my
blog
forming
an
archive
of
discussions
and
debates.
My
proposal
was
responding
to
two
things
that
had
been
frustrating
me
for
a
while.
One
was
that
I
would
take
friends
to
the
live
art
I
was
then
writing
about
and
in
spite
of
being
smart
and
knowledgeable
in
other
fields
of
contemporary
culture,
they
would
come
out
of
these
performances
and
say
I
dont
know
how
to
talk
about
this
stuff.
The
critical
minds
they
would
use
to
read
any
other
sort
of
text
were
not
being
activated.
At
the
same
time,
conversations
with
my
colleagues,
the
actual
critics,
often
tended
toward
the
petty.
Little
clusters
of
us
marooned
in
lobbies
throughout
New
York.
Spending
intermissions
making
these
hierarchical
assessments.
So-and-so
was
better
than
so-and-so.
This
work
used
to
look
better
than
it
does
now.
I
was
interested
in
the
possibility
of
creating
a
third
space.
If
we
brought
together
people
who
are
already
intensely
knowledgeable
about
live
art,
and
people
who
were
curious,
but
felt
they
had
no
way
to
talk
about
it,
I
wondered
if
we
could
collectively
create
a
more
fruitful
conversation.
To
put
it
another
way,
I
like
talking
with
smart
people.
Its
one
of
the
only
consistently
good
reasons
I
can
think
of
for
getting
out
of
bed
in
the
morning.
Five:
Trust
your
boredom.
Thats
one
of
my
favorite
one-liners
in
Jonathan
Burrows
book
of
one-
liners,
A
Choreographers
Handbook.
I
appreciate
its
get
out
of
jail
free
insistence
and
just
now
it
seems
important.
I
had
assigned
sections
of
the
text
to
my
students
earlier
this
month
and
prepping
for
class,
cramming
on
the
train
as
usual,
I
was
stopped
by
these
three
words.
Its
not
that
Im
bored
exactly
by
the
idea
of
connectivity
and
community
but
it
makes
me
restless,
my
answers
to
it
feel
small,
preordained.
As
if
we
all
assume
we
know
what
were
talking
about.
As
if
alienation
isnt
the
right
answer,
as
if
technology
actually
lessens
class
divides.
Six:
The
Performance
Club
I
want
to
emphasize
was
something
I
proposed
because
I
had
to
propose
something.
In
an
area
I
had
never
considered
as
an
actual
thing.
Fostering
online
community.
I
couldnt
show
up
to
this
meeting
empty
handed
and
so
I
concocted
several
half-baked
ideas,
thinking
one
of
them
might
stick
long
enough
to
impress
my
producer.
Such
is
the
lot
of
the
contemporary
arts
freelancer,
busily
racing
along
as
one
colleagues
husband
put
it,
on
the
hamster
wheel
to
nowhere.
I
wasnt
expecting
the
thing
to
actually
stick.
Had
I
expected
it
to
stick
Id
like
to
think
I
wouldnt
have
saddled
myself
with
the
P
club
nickname,
something
that
another
colleague
later
said
sounds
like
a
cabal
of
urination
fetishists.
But
I
digress.
Having
almost
never
been
in
a
club,
I
found
myself
running
a
rather
successful
one.
People
showed
up
to
performances
and
stayed
out
for
hours
after
to
talk
about
them.
Despite
WNYCs
terrifically
wonky
web
infrastructure,
people
also
left
smart
comments
on
my
attempting
to
be
pithy
blog
posts.
The
club
became
known
around
New
York
and
beyond,
even
spawning
other
like
minded
ventures.
I
liked
this
network
aspect
of
it
which
didnt
yet
seem
oppressive.
Also
the
improvisational
nature
of
it,
the
thinking
and
writing
out
loud.
It
was
a
good
moment.
Seven:
A
journalist
friend
and
I
were
wandering
around
the
streets
of
San
Francisco
the
other
day
in
search
of
a
good
midday
drinking
bar.
The
subject
of
Twitter
came
up
and
we
agreed
that
there
is
often
a
direct
correlation
between
feeling
terrible
and
being
on
it.
Another
day
I
was
visiting
an
editor
at
the
San
Francisco
Chronicle
which
is
about
a
50-minute
walk
from
what
everybody
calls
the
Twitter
building.
A
guy
got
in
the
elevator
with
me
as
I
was
leaving
the
third
floor
and
when
I
asked
him
which
button
he
wanted
me
to
push,
1
or
2,
he
said
there
is
no
more
2.
Then
he
clarified
it
no
longer
belonged
to
the
Chronicle.
I
asked
him
what
was
there.
The
usual
he
said
a
bunch
of
hunched
over
20-somethings
plugged
into
their
laptops,
in
other
words
the
same
old
story.
Eight:
Whats
the
best
web
infrastructure
for
fostering
responsive
arts
journalism
that
encourages
valuable
substantive
conversations
between
writers
and
readers?
Thats
one
of
the
questions
were
meant
to
answer.
Im
not
sure
what
the
best
infrastructure
is.
I
do
know
Ive
never
worked
with
it.
Every
system
Ive
become
part
of
has
come
with
some
or
the
of
disclaimer
that
the
technology
is
outmoded
and/or
in
some
way
not
up
to
the
task
of
being
truly
interactive
and
the
assumption
is
that
interactive
means
lots
of
traffic,
lots
of
linking,
liking,
reposting,
etc.
In
this
I
see
a
strong
parallel
with
the
idea
of
the
traditional
audience
member
as
passive,
as
if
anything
that
happens
below
the
surface
cannot
count
as
true
engagement,
writers
business
busying
ourselves
with
numbers.
We
are
wholly
beholden
to
the
quantifiable.
There
never
appears
to
be
an
easy
or
good
way
to
make
these
systems
better.
This
seems
like
a
very
old
human
problem,
the
fashions
change
but
not
the
body.
The
status
quo
lets
us
distract
ourselves
with
the
pretty
idea
that
we
have
found
alternatives
and
we
comply,
giving
it
all
away.
Two
other
questions
posed
for
this
panel:
How
does
a
platform
create
a
sense
of
community
around
the
ideas
it
presents?
And
how
can
the
online
intersect
with
the
in-person?
The
Performance
Club
was
always
conceived
of
so
that
anybody
could
be
a
member.
It
was
free
and
open
to
the
extent
that
those
things
actually
exist.
It
was
up
to
individuals
to
decide
how
they
wanted
to
interact
with
the
idea
of
the
club.
There
were
people
who
read
everything
that
was
online
but
never
once
came
to
an
event
and
there
were
people
who
would
come
to
the
events
religiously.
They
ranged
from
practitioners,
artists,
funders,
writers,
and
people
who
worked
in
art
spaces
to
WNYC
listeners
who
have
no
particular
connection
to
the
arts.
Most
of
these
people
were
lovely.
Some
were
much
more
at
ease
in
person
than
online
and
vice
versa,
with
myriad
ways
of
performing
and
presenting
themselves.
A
few
made
demands
that
only
in
retrospect
presented
themselves
as
inappropriate
and
creepy.
I
found
the
live
gatherings
both
exciting
and
exhausting
it.
It
became
clear
that
in
creating
the
P
club
I
signed
up
to
be
a
social
sculptor,
someone
who
had
to
shape
and
care
for
public
space
whether
one
person
showed
up
or
35.
This
very
particular
sort
of
caring
felt
the
same
whether
the
space
was
physical
or
digital.
Does
a
platform
create
a
sense
of
community
any
differently
than
any
other
system?
Is
it
ever
the
platform
really
that
makes
the
difference
outside
of
extreme
examples,
a
technological
ineptitude
or
dazzlement?
Running
an
online
anything
seems
to
be
a
lot
about
being
a
good
host.
The
onus
is
on
you
to
make
your
guests
feel
comfortable,
to
try
and
head
off
trouble
at
the
pass
or
to
set
up
collision
courses
if
thats
the
sort
of
party
youre
interested
in.
And
for
the
guests,
the
question
is
do
you
want
to
be
in
a
room
with
anonymous
bodies,
the
pleasures
and
perils
in
in
that
or
do
you
want
to
be
at
the
dinner
table,
jockeying
for
the
best
seat?
Nine:
in
one
episode
of
Girls,
Lena
Dunhams
character
meets
with
a
publisher
whos
interested
in
publishing
her
book
which
is
in
limbo
after
the
death
of
her
last
publisher.
The
only
catch
this
new
publisher
tells
her
is
that
We
dont
do
e-books,
wed
want
to
put
it
out
as
an
actual
book,
you
know,
that
you
can
hold.
I
hope
thats
OK
with
you.
The
camera
cuts
to
Hannah,
theres
a
pause
and
then
she
breaks
out
into
high
pealing
laughter.
Are
you
kidding
me?
I
mean,
thats
the
best
thing
Ive
ever
heard.
I
just
said
yes
to
an
e-book
because
it
was
better
than,
like,
a
notebook.
In
another
another
of
the
many
exchanges
I
have
with
colleagues
while
procrastinating
on
these
remarks,
I
told
a
friend
who
edits
an
online
publication
that
I
didnt
know
what
to
write,
in
part
because
my
perspective
is
firmly
writer-based
and
P
club
aside
I
dont
think
I
do
anything
differently
in
print
versus
online
other
than
structural
things
like
making
use
of
hyperlinks.
She
messaged
me
back
I
find
that
you
do
write
with
an
online
sensibility
for
print,
your
style
and
tone.
I
think
thats
one
of
the
things
I
like
about
your
writing.
I
was
curious
by
how
pleased
I
was
at
her
response
as
if
it
granted
me
some
sort
of
currency
or
legitimacy,
and
at
the
same
time
I
had
no
idea
what
she
meant.
My
pleasure
made
me
slightly
queasy.
Ten:
When
I
left
WNYC
in
2010,
that
was
the
end
of
the
Performance
club
or
thats
what
I
figured
until
the
following
year
when
I
was
approached
by
two
former
members
who
convinced
me
to
relaunch
with
their
help
as
an
independent
entity.
This
new
iteration
of
the
club
received
a
Creative
Capital
Warhol
grant
in
2011.
On
the
website
you
can
still
find
the
following
proclamation.
We
intend
to
build
the
club
into
an
independent
multifaceted
real
time
and
web
based
center
for
interactive
discussion
forums
involving
audiences
artists
and
other
writers,
as
well
as
an
informational
hub
on
the
NYC
performance
scene.
I
made
good
on
this
officious
grant
language
for
about
a
year
and
a
half,
hosting
monthly
events
and
online
conversations.
I
paid
contributors
and
curated
conversations.
I
joined
Twitter.
Eleven:
Earlier
this
year,
I
was
guest
curator
for
dance
space
projects
platform
2015.
6
weeks
of
performances
workshops
and
readings
entitled
Dancers,
Buildings,
People
in
the
Streets.
The
main
performance
spine
featured
arranged
marriages
of
artists
from
disparate
experimental
traditions
in
New
York.
Two
of
these
artists,
Caitlyn
Gilliland
and
Will
Rawls,
decided
that
instead
of
a
studio
practice
they
would
create
a
social
media
one,
wading
through
the
pop
cryptic
world
of
text
acronyms
and
emoji
to
find
a
common
language
of
artistic
desire
and
mediated
intimacy.
What
they
finally
created
consisted
of
a
staged
reading
of
this
dialogue.
The
audience
seemed
split
between
those
who
found
it
intensely
moving
and
those
who
wondered
why
they
didnt
dance.
One
critic
wrote
their
bodies
seemed
as
well
matched
as
their
minds,
so
why
not
dance
together?
If
they
took
yet
another
step
and
explored
partnering
it
would
have
been
worth
10,000
words.
Theres
always
so
much
anxiety
around
language,
the
violence
it
does
to
nonverbal
forms,
simultaneously
how
inadequate
it
is.
Twelve:
Some
time
ago
I
got
an
email
from
the
Warhol
Foundation
asking
for
numbers.
They
were
doing
an
internal
review
and
were
looking
at
how
past
projects
were
faring.
I
remember
when
I
had
the
blog
at
WNYC.
Some
days
I
used
to
feverishly
check
my
stats.
A
lot
of
fretting
was
involved.
The
Warhol
request
was
not
unreasonable
and
it
came
from
folks
who
have
been
unceasingly
supportive
and
understanding,
minor
miracles
in
the
foundation
world.
I
cant
remember
if
I
answered
that
email.
It
appears
I
may
have
deleted
it.
There
didnt
seem
to
be
any
way
to
answer
without
sounding
defensive
for
dismissive.
For
example,
the
sentence
I
dont
measure
success
through
site
visitors
is
obnoxious
on
so
many
levels,
where
even
to
begin?
How
do
you
explain
that
you
junked
the
entire
concept
of
the
book
club
for
live
art
in
favor
for
building
a
space
for
criticism
of
art
for
weird
little
chunks
of
writing
that
most
people
will
have
zero
interest
in?
Is
there
a
way
to
say
that
the
island
of
misfit
toys
suits
you
more
than
the
mirage
of
inclusivity?
That
youre
worn
out
by
the
evangelism
game
artists
and
writers
are
supposed
to
play.
I
have
no
appetite
for
convincing
anybody
of
anything.
Also
for
lasting,
we
dont
last.
Why
should
the
things
we
make
be
any
different.
Thirteen:
Im
so
uninterested
in
anxiety
around
criticism.
It
just
seems
like
a
given.
Fourteen:
I
ended
the
Arthur
Arviles
profile
with
his
quote
about
wanting
something
small
and
respectful.
A
reader
emailed
me
to
say
I
loved
the
kicker
and
I
hope
you
realize
that
the
fact
that
they
put
a
refer
on
the
front
page
of
A
&
L
means
the
top
guns
like
it
too
those
two
impulses,
the
romanticizing
of
the
humble
effort
and
the
desire
to
be
widely
seen
seem
as
the
crux
of
many
a
present-day
difficulty
and
weirdness,
just
think
of
the
slow
blogging
movement.
Its
so
tempting
to
make
a
fetish
out
of
the
small
and
local.
Its
so
tempting
to
measure
your
worth
in
social
media
likes.
Both
of
these
things
are
themselves
so
obvious
and
off
stated
as
to
be
embarrassing
to
mention.
Fifteen:
When
I
was
running
the
previous
version
of
the
Performance
Club,
I
began
noticing
that
at
our
monthly
outings
I
no
longer
watched
shows
with
the
same
eyes.
I
wasnt
there
in
that
alone
in
the
crowd
capacity
that
the
traditional
critic
of
live
art
feeds
on.
I
was
watching
with
a
communal
eye
in
connection
to
the
now
very
specific
bodies
around
me,
bodies
for
whom
I
felt
responsible.
Is
this
so
different
from
the
imperceptible
transformations
that
occur
when
your
office
is
enveloped
by
the
Internet?
Theres
something
profound
here
which
I
will
but
draw
a
circle
around
for
you
to
ponder,
Maggie
Nelson
writes
in
The
Argonauts.
All
those
bodies
hunched
over
their
machines.
Im
back
to
my
own
stupid
self,
Jonathan
Burrows
writes
in
his
handbook.
The
computer
as
compositional
space
and
gathering
place,
studio
and
market,
room
of
ones
own
and
rooming
house,
the
critic
as
cyborg,
writing
alone
in
a
crowd.
Thank
you.
Ayesha
Siddiqi,
The
New
Inquiry
So
when
I
was
first
asked
to
speak
on
the
subject
of
community
and
connectivity,
the
broadness
of
those
prompts
reminded
me
of
how
much
time
we
spend
completely
enmeshed
in
them
and
how
much
that
living
in
it
keeps
us
from
really
questioning
exactly
what
our
relationship
to
these
subjects
is,
and
when
I
thought
about
it
a
little
bit,
I
realized
that
its
implications
captures
everything
from
the
tension
between
DYI
and
indie
for
content
creators,
publishers,
as
well
as
the
tension
between
establishment
media
and
whats
called
new
media,
the
tensions
between
corporations
and
the
surveillance
state,
and
howwhat
was
described
as
shifts
in
power
or
empowerment
for
typically
marginalized
voices
has
really
been
just
a
masking
of
new
vulnerabilities.
So
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
it
is
that
DYI
versus
indie
notion.
Over
the
past
few
years
weve
been
living
in
this
moment,
that
seems
really
optimistic.
That
seems
to
encourage
everyone
to
do
it
yourself,
because
you
can
now,
right?
Anyone
can
start
a
blog,
start
a
zine,
start
a
publication.
There
seems
to
be
a
greater
ease
with
which
you
can
pursue
creative
pursuits,
because
the
infrastructure
that
you
typically
needed
to
have
is
being
provided
for
you
whether
through
an
app
or
website
committed
to
that.
But
what
we
have
instead
is
the
fact
that
DIY
is
no
longer
indie.
Those
two
no
longer
mean
the
same
thing
because
youre
absolutely
foreclosing
on
your
independence
by
pursuing
DIY
projects
and
by
that
I
mean
you
dont
any
more
own
that
which
enables
your
project.
So
even
for
a
publication
like
New
Inquiry,
for
example,
were
just
as
vulnerable
to
the
platforms
that
produce
and
host
our
content
as
we
were
hoping
to
avoid
being
vulnerable
by
trying
to
not
be
a
corporately
backed
or
a
grant-based
publication.
And
while
you
no
longer
need
to
have,
say,
websites
or
offices
that
can
host
the
infrastructure,
what
instead
youre
giving
up
is
the
opportunity
to
own
that
which
is
enabling
you
and
thats
not
a
problem
thats
unique
to
independent
publications,
its
something
that
anyone
who
uses
social
web
is
a
part
of.
We
are
a
all
part
of
signing
up
for
things
that
were
generating
value
for,
and
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
the
subject
of
community
and
connectivity
raises
is
labor
and
its
valuation
and
who
ultimately
ends
up
benefiting
from
the
use
of
social
web
platforms.
So
for
platforms
like
Tumblr,
Facebook,
Twitter,
all
of
its
users
are
the
ones
generating
value
for
it,
right?
Were
essentially
running
their
product
for
them
for
free.
And
in
doing
so,
certainly
there
are
some
obvious
benefits,
so
you
know
were
in
this
moment
that
typically
marginalized
voices
have
greater
access
to
the
community
and
connectivity
that
were
here
to
discuss
today.
They
can
reach
each
other,
I
mean
theres
obvious
gains
to
be
had
there,
but
were
also
increasingly
mistaking
visibility
for
power.
And
for
these
typically
marginalized
voicesand
its
interesting,
the
people
Ive
noticed
at
this
point
in
time
that
have
the
most
angst
around
the
Internet
or
the
social
web,
people
who
work
in
media
and
are
like,
oh,
gosh,
Internet
is
just
the
worst,
right,
Twitter
is
terrible,
and
of
course
all
of
these
opinions
are
being
voiced
on
the
Internet
and
on
Twitter.
Theyre
typically
people
that
the
rest
of
the
world
has
been
pretty
kind
to
and
the
people
that
have
almost
the
greatest
investment
in
these
spaces
and
spend
a
great
deal
of
time
on
this
them
are
people
that
the
rest
of
the
world
isnt
that
friendly
to
and
it
was
initially
spaced
to
escape
the
daily
hostilities
and
aggressions
and
of
course
for
people
of
color,
people
who
arent
straight,
queer,
gay,
LGBTQ
communities.
These
are
really
vital
developments.
Our
ability
to
produce
and
establish
community,
our
ability
to
connect,
the
way
its
been
facilitated
for
the
social
web,
has
in
fact
changed
many
lives.
And
when
in
one
category
I
spend
a
lot
of
time
thinking
about
is
students
of
color
who
struggle
with
mental
illness
issues
and
the
ways
in
which
that
mental
health
resources
are
either
completely
designed
not
to
serve
them,
but
actively
reproduce
colonial
violence
in
the
way
in
which
those
administrators
are
trained
to
deal
with
people
of
color
that
they
may
encounter.
And
how
so
many
young
people
had
then
turned
to
the
social
web
to
generate
their
own
survival
scripts
to
produce
ways
of
coping
with
things
like
depression,
anxiety,
thoughts
of
self-harm,
and
thats
a
form
of
quote-unquote
life
hacking
that
Im
way
more
interested
in
than
cutting
up
an
old
takeout
container
to
make
a
plate.
Its
bizarre
how
what
the
word
life
hacking
gets
used
to
mean
and
its
association
with
tech
pros
when
there
are
people
doing
far
more
interesting
and
innovative
work
just
for
the
pure
pursuit
of
being
able
to
move
through
the
world
with
relative
grips
on
their
sanity
and
safety.
So
while
those
communities
are
being
developed
and
are
being
incredible
resources
and
incredibly
empowering
which
I
want
to
distinguish
from
actual
power
I
absolutely
recognize
those
benefits
and
Im
happy
for
people
who
have
access
to
these
spaces
and
conversations
and
can
more
freely
speak
their
truths
and
learn
from
each
other.
This
is
relevant
to,
you
know,
anyone
from
young
people
connecting
over
shared
experiences
on
mental
health
communities,
on
Tumblr
or
other
blogging
platforms,
or
the
fact
that
the
establishment
media
is
no
longer
shielded
from
the
necessary
critiques
that
people
outside
of
it
can
offer
and
how
so
much
of
whats
described
as
Twitter
backlash
is
really
the
resistance
to
the
historical
and
still
currently
ongoing
erasure
of
voices
and
discourses
and
essentially
colonial
perspectives
on
culture
writing
so
Im
absolutely
optimistic
about
what
it
means
for
media
and
publishing
that
a
lot
of
typically
marginalized
voices
are
able
to
speak
out
and
speak
to
establishment
media
and
to
each
other
and
theres
a
great
deal
of
power
in
the
affirmations
that
that
enables
and
allows.
While
all
of
that
is
happening,
all
of
the,
you
know,
the
visibility
that
follows
those
critiques
or
the
types
of
thinkers
and
writers
that
gain
attention
arentdont
have
then
the
access
to
actual
capital
versus
the
social
capital
that
their
visibility
on
social
web
may
accrue
for
them,
and
its
also
important
to
distinguish
visibility
from,
you
know,
the
fact
that
what
it
can
oftentimes
really
produce
is
the
same
socialsame
vulnerabilities
that
their
social
position,
the
rest
of
the
world
had
for
them.
So
a
lot
of
the
writers
of
color,
young
thinkers,
black
women,
trans
individuals
who
are
creating
content
for
these
corporations,
they
dont
own
what
theyre
putting
out
there.
Theyre
entirely
subject
to
the
corporate
ownership
of
those
platforms,
and
theyre
also
vulnerable
to
what
thatto
all
of
the
harms
that
that
visibility
can
bring
them,
whether
its
routine
harassment,
a
lot
of,
you
know,
whats
calledwhats
attributed
to
Twitter
or
something
unique
to
these
individual
platforms
is
really
just
the
misogyny
and
racism
that
exists
elsewhere
anyway,
and
the
way
that
those
patterns
of
oppression
replicate
themselves,
its
the
same
sense
of
entitlements
to
the
ideas
and
labor
and
bodies
and
images
of
people
of
color
and
of
women
only
now
its
on
these
platforms
instead.
And
so
theres
the
micro-level
of
you
know,
individuals
who
are
then
subject
to
something
thats
as
unfortunately
routine
as
harassment
to
being
stalked
online,
from
online
to
their
real-world
lives,
having
their
addresses
revealed
and
released,
having
their
pictures
taken
and
circulated
without
their
consent.
These
patterns
then
alsoand
those
vulnerabilities
are
also
present
for
anyone
trying
to
produce
independent
alternative
projects,
and
what
Im
seeing
with
the
rise
of
a
different
form
of
digital
DIY
culture
is
the
foreclosure
of
indie
culture
and
that
means
that
sure,
it
may
seem
exciting
to
have
a
website
that
you
describe
as
a
magazine,
or
to
kick
start
a
project
or
to,
you
know,
connect
potential
audiences
or
consumers
to
the
thing
that
you
want
to
put
out
into
the
world,
you
dontno
longer
need
the
same
skillset,
you
dont
need
to
be
a
coder,
you
dont
need
to
be
a
manufacturer,
you
can
just
use
the
apps
and
websites
that
are
now
designed
to
do
that
for
you,
to
fill
those
gaps,
right?
But
that,
I
mean
for
New
Inquiry,
thats
not
that.
We
when
we
first
started
didnt
need
our
own
payment
processing
system,
Amazon
payments
existed
and
that
meant
complete
vulnerability
to
the
whims
of
Amazon
and
the
potential
that
the
minute
that
they
decide
to
no
longer
offer
the
service
that
our
project
is
built
on,
we
would
be
dead
in
the
water,
and
it
was
only
narrowly
that
we
escaped
that
reality
recently
because
when
I
became
editor
in
chief
one
of
the
first
things
I
wanted
to
do
was
get
away
from
Amazon
and
it
just
so
happened
that
they
did
in
fact
decide
to
end
the
service
that
we
were
using
and
we
just
barely
in
the
nick
of
time
were
able
to
transition
to
something
else.
But
there
is
no
real
solution
to
that
vulnerability
because
as
anticorporate
as
you
may
want
to
be,
you
may
be
forced
to
engage
in
the
corporations
that
are
now
the
intermediators
between
your
production,
your
creation,
and
your
audiences
and
you
can
see
that
across
social
web
and
so
as
much
as
social
web
has
motivated,
propelled
real
shifts
in
media
and
publishing,
its
producing
new
kinds
of
cooptions
and
oppressions.
So
one
of
the
things
you
may
be
familiar
of
is
the
way
Facebook
treats
its
users
and
when
I
talk
about
community
I
think
about
what
it
means
for
people
to
get
together
online
the
most
basic
sense
of
the
word
and
what
community
means
to
the
people
that
own
the
platforms
that
everyone
is
getting
together
at,
right?
So
capital-c
Community
means
something
very
different
are
than
Twitter,
Facebook,
publications
like
BuzzFeed
or
means
something
very
different
to
them
than
it
does
to
the
people
getting
to
know
each
other
on
these
platforms.
And
the
behavior
that
thatthats
encouraged
the
ideology
that
gets
subsequently
produced,
theres
a
very
friction-full
exchange
there.
Its
not
asI
mean
people
who
are
on
Facebook
arent
there
with
the
assumption
that
theyre
you
know
passive
participants
in
the
maze
that
this
corporation,
the
lab
rats
in
this
corporations
maze
but
increasingly
the
way
Facebook
talks
about
its
users
is
just
that,
its
a
sense
that
these
people
can
fit
into
the
algorithms
we
produce
as
much
as
the
numbers
Facebook
uses
to
produce
its
algorithms.
And
the
fact
that
what
you
see
on
your
timelines
is
something
that
Facebook
designs,
so
for
a
publication
thats
sharing
articles,
Facebook
at
its
own
whims
decides
what
gets
promoted,
what
gets
seen
in
peoples
newsfeed,
what
doesnt
based
on
the
words
that
theyre
into
that
day
and
the
number
of
likes
and
shares
on
Facebook
have
less
to
do
with
perhaps
that
piece
of
content
than
the
way
that
Facebook
has
decided
its
going
to
be
presented
to
you.
Theres
slightly
different
pattern
of
that
same
social
control
that
happens
on
platforms
like
Twitter
and
Tumblr.
These
spaces
were
increasingly
just
shortening
the
gap
between,
you
know,
the
cultural
production
of
cool
by
the
alternative
and
its
cooptation
by
corporations,
and
essentially
at
ever-
increasing
rates,
teaching
corporations
to
be
more
efficient
at
advertising
to
us,
because
were
with
our
communities
being
so
public,
inviting
them
to
take
even
more
detailed
essentially,
you
know,
snapshots
of
the
ways
in
which
people
are
making
their
community
and
mimic
those
patterns
in
order
to
better
advertise
to
us.
So
you
see
on
Tumblr
promoted
posts
being
designed
to
look
like
any
other
Tumblr
post
but
they
inevitably
stand
out
quite
starkly
because
the
language
and
image
style
that
theyre
relying
on
is
one
that
was
produced
and
people
are
familiar
with
because
they
made
it
themselves
with
references
that
are
relevant
to
their
own
community
and
its
very,
very
obvious
when
someone
whos
not
part
of
your
community
tries
to
do
that,
thinking
of
all
the
slang
generated
by
you
know,
black
teens
on
Vine
that
way
way
later
will
eventually
move
to
white
and
nonblack
communities
and
then
a
Dennys
Twitter
account
telling
you
that
their
pancakes
are
on
fleek.
So
what
is
cool
and
not
cool
has
become
markedly
accelerated
and
that
cooption
is
not
whats
interesting.
Advertisers
being
corny
because
theyre
a
day
late
and
a
dollar
short
is
only
interesting
because
its
good
for
a
laugh.
What
is
interesting
is
that
within
the
surveillance
state,
that
acceleration
reveals
the
relationship
that
these
platforms,
which
we
always
forget
are
just
actually
corporations,
are
you
know,
mistaken
for
these
bastions
of
democracy.
When
the
social
web
was
first
blowing
up
and
places
that
couldnt
really
be
described
as
digital
natives,
places
like
CNN
and
other
media
outlets
were
quickly
trying
to
catch
up
investing
so
many
resources
and
having,
you
know,
robust
online
presence,
and
the
subject
of
community
engagement,
you
know,
became
an
entire
department
that
media
outlets
have,
what
is
interesting
about
that
is
all
of
the
voices
that
make
these
spaces
vibrant
and
interesting
and
worth
being
on,
because
theyre
offering
commentary
you
wont
get
elsewhere
because
theyre
breaking
news
on
the
ground,
that
other
outlets
are
slowly
struggling
to
get
at.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
theyre
only
moretheyre
only
producing
for
free
all
of
the
methods
that
places
that
have
always
had
money
and
always
had
reach
and
resources
are
able
to
use
and
I
think
this
is
more
insidious
than
simple
cooption
because
the
Internet
is
supposed
to
be
a
force
thats
more
democratic,
supposed
to
be
a
force
that
produces
more
connectivity
and
community,
who
is
it
ultimately
connecting?
And
visibility
in
a
surveillance
state
is
not
power,
and
all
of
the
historical
vulnerabilities
that
have
existed
for
marginalized
voices
are
simply
migrating
onto
digital
spaces
and
all
of
the
exciting
and
vital
work
that
people
are
doing
to
make
their
lives
a
little
easier
to
bypass
or
life
hack
all
of
the
deficiency
in
you
know,
their
workplaces
or
classrooms
or
day
to
day
experiences
by
connecting
or
communicating
with
each
other
exist
in
an
ecosystem
thats
primed
for
their
continued
exploitation,
that
remains
in
many
ways
hostile
to
them,
the
misogyny
that
a
female
academic
might
encounter
at
a
publication
or
within
our
department
at
school
is
easily
replicated
by
misogyny
you
encounter
in
your
Twitter
mentions
or
in
the
comments
section
of
something
you
write.
The
entitlement
to
the
emotional
intellectual
labor
of
people
of
color
that
exists
in
establishment
media
and
academia
is
easily
replicated
by
the
entitlement
exercised
over
these
peoples
work
online,
and
all
of
the
places
that
we
were
meant
to
subvert
by
being
online,
by
bypassing
traditional,
you
know,
paths
that
were
barred
from
us
by
being
able
to
avoid
and
then
eventually
make
irrelevant
gatekeepers
to
genres
like
cultural
criticism,
those
gains
have
to
be
seen
in
light
of
the
fact
that
all
of
this
exciting
interesting
work,
whether
its
done,
you
know,
whether
it
falls
within
the
category
of
cultural
criticism,
or
as
I
was
referencing
earlier,
communities
dedicated
to
helping
each
other
live
a
little
bit
more
honestly
in
their
public
realms,
or
connect
over
subjects
that
would
be
taboo
in
their
day
to
day,
you
know,
theyin
theyou
know,
in
the
long
game,
these
are
communities
that
Im
still
really
concerned
about.
Because
all
of
what
can
be
seen
as
empowerment,
people
finally
being
able
to
speak
and
speak
to
each
other
and
say
what
needs
to
be
said,
I
think
a
lot
of
whats
called
empowerment
on
the
Internet
is
referring
to
stories,
sharing
stories
of
their
own
lives
and
of
each
others
and
being
able
to
just
simply
speak.
That
has
not,
and
I
dont
see
it
under
existing
conditions,
translate
to
actual
power.
These
are
still
interactions
mediated
by
corporations.
Those
corporations
and
who
runs
them
is
still
fundamentally
the
same
asyou
know
it
looks
just
like
power
has
always
looked
in
this
country,
very
white,
very
male,
and
very
removed
from
all
of
the
communities
and
people,
people
of
color,
LGTBQ
individuals
that
participate
on
these
platforms,
so
as
much
as
Ive
appreciated
the
past
few
years
of
all
of
the
rest
of
us
getting
to
speak
and
getting
to
be
heard,
which
is
a
relatively
recent
and
exciting
development,
we
havent
reached
power
that
is
trulythat
can
truly
compete
with
historical
power
structures.
And
seeing
the
same
patterns
of
erasure,
violence,
entitlement,
that
exist
offline
be
easily
adaptable
and
have
evolved
to
online
spaces
and
to
see
that
these
communities,
whether
its
someone
bullied
by
members
outside
their
communities,
whether
its,
you
know,
TCOT
activists
trying
to
search
your
address
and
circulating
your
pictures
because
youre
a
Muslim
thats
going
to
bring
down
America,
which
is
something
that
any
Muslim
who
tweets
online
will
hear
at
some
point
in
their
life,
thats
something
that
we
havent
yet
found
a
way
to
evolve,
and
so
all
of
the
words
that
I
found
being
used
to
describe
this
moment
in
time,
and
even
use
myself,
things
like
this
is
empowering,
this
is
exciting,
or
for
movements
like
Arab
spring
or
for
movements
like
black
lives
matter,
have
to
be
understood
within
the
fact
that
ultimately
these
quote-unquote
content
creators,
whether
its
a
makeup
reviewer
that
you
know
has
an
audience
of
millions
online
or
a
Twitter
user
with
thousands
and
thousand
of
followers
and
has
huge
reach,
they
dont
own
what
they
put
out
there,
because
were
all
just
running
for
free
these
platforms
and
these
are
at
the
end
of
the
day
corporations
and
I
think
the
understanding
of
the
social
web
as
less
an
organic
and
natural
digital
space
that
were
all
getting
together
and
sort
of
holding
hands
around
the
fire
which
is
kind
of
the
sense
for
typically
marginalized
communities,
and
the
world
that
these
communities
have
been
able
to
generate,
theres
no
ownership,
theres
only
again,
free
labor,
and
for
me,
thats
not
new,
and
thats
not
encouraging.
And
thats
what
I
hope
conferences
like
this,
and
the
conversations
that
have
thus
far
been
brought
to
the
fore
are
able
to
effectively
recognize
and
intervene
in.
Otherwise,
everything
thats
exciting
about
now
is,
you
know,
in
a
few
years,
going
to
seem
like
a
lot
of
applause
for
very
little
gain,
for
the
same
old.
Thank
you.
Alexander
Provan,
Triple
Canopy
So
Im
just
going
to
jump
right
into
this
without
describing
Triple
Canopy
very
much,
but
I
will
mostly
speak
about
Triple
Canopy,
which
is
a
magazine
based
mostly
in
New
York
as
well
as
a
few
other
places
around
the
world
which
does
various
activities
all
of
which
we
understand
as
publication
in
which
we
argue
should
be
understood
by
others
as
publication.
So
whenI
also
was
going
to
have
a
more
linear
presentation
that
reflected
directly
on
these
images,
but
I
canned
that,
so
Im
just
going
to
occasionally
scroll
through
them
and
I
they
may
or
may
not
relate
directly
to
what
Im
saying.
So
when
Triple
Canopy
first
formed
in
2007,
we
the
editors
were
motivated
by
the
increasing
characterization
of
the
Internet
as
a
venue
for
the
unremitting
production
of
content
and
by
the
corresponding
feeling
among
magazines
and
art
institutions
that
they
somehow
had
to
participate
in
this
production.
That
they
had
to
solicit
interactions,
pursue
accessibility,
conjure
a
virtual
body
of
enthusiasts,
while
also
preserving
their
financial
models.
At
the
same
time
we
were
frustrated
with
the
frequent
valorization
of
online
forums
or
social
networks
or
publications
that
seemed
designed
to
generate
fleeting
or
inflammatory
interactions
among
users
who
gathered
because
they
shared
interests
or
hobbies
or
political
affiliations
or
supposedly
identities.
Were
those
really
communities
and
not
just
marketing
ploys?
If
they
were
communities,
were
they
to
be
lauded,
mimicked?
Should
magazines
strive
to
create
such
communities
or
perhaps
they
could
simply
be
found
if
you
knew
where
to
look.
How
many
unique
page
views
and
what
kind
of
bounce
rate
makes
for
a
legitimate
community?
Perhaps
we
were
anomalous,
but
as
far
as
I
remember
none
of
us
considered
ourselves
to
be
part
of
any
online
community.
I
dont
think
we
were
interested
in
creating
one,
really.
In
fact
we
wanted
to
argue
against
the
fragmentation
of
culture,
its
branded
platforms
with
particular
breeds
of
content
likely
to
appeal
to
narrowly
and
quantitatively
defined
groups.
On
the
most
basic
level
we
wanted
to
establish
a
magazine
that
would
through
its
rigorous
editing,
its
Catholic
interests
and
its
considered
presentation
of
work
address
people
as
sophisticated
and
unpredictable
readers
who
could
not
so
easily
be
classified
by
profession,
age,
locale
political
orientation,
ethnicity
or
consumption
patterns.
We
wanted
to
create
a
space
where
readers
as
well
as
contributing
artists
and
writers
could
expect
to
have
absorbing,
rewarding,
stimulating
and
even
profound
experiences
that
would
not
soon
be
forgotten.
This
was
probably
a
bit
of
a
fantasy.
Or
at
least
this
idealism
may
belie
our
actual
readership
in
the
intervening
years.
Nevertheless,
I
think
this
agenda
speaks
to
Triple
Canopys
orientation.
Toward
technology
and
the
discourse
around
it
to
our
concern
to
how
we
can
create
culture
and
meaningful
bodies
of
knowledge
in
what
is
increasingly
a
resistant
efficient
particularized
world.
Culture
is
also
something
personal,
John
Dewey
writes
in
Democracy
and
Education.
It
is
cultivation
with
respect
to
the
appreciation
of
ideas
and
art
and
broad
human
interests.
When
efficiency
is
identified
with
the
narrow
range
of
acts
instead
of
with
the
spirit
and
meaning
of
activity,
culture
is
opposed
to
efficiency.
Dewey
saw
in
the
early
20th
century
an
atomization
of
experience
into
separate
institutions
with
diverse
and
independent
purposes
and
methods.
Business
is
business,
science
is
science,
art
is
art,
politics
is
politics,
social
intercourse
is
social
intercourse.
His
description
of
the
conflation
of
culture
and
efficiency
seems
twice
as
true
today.
As
the
line
between
the
Internet
and
real
life
disappears,
as
our
consciousnesses
are
molded
if
not
overtaken
by
our
screens,
we
want
Triple
Canopy
to
serve
as
an
alternative
to
tech
world
fantasies
about
crowd
sourced
knowledge
production,
an
algorithmic
cultural
creation
to
a
star
system
cultural
economy
that
pays
a
few
people
a
lot
and
a
lot
of
people
little
or
nothing,
and
to
ossify
cultural
institutions
that
neutralize
everything
that
they
survey.
We
want
to
support
work
that
resists
and
expands
to
the
present
and
keeps
supporting
it
until
it
finds
its
place
in
the
world
which
may
take
years.
We
want
to
keep
enlarging
our
sense
of
what
Dewey
called
the
unity
or
integrity
of
experience
and
we
want
to
engage
the
world
at
our
own
speed.
This
leads
me
back
to
the
question
of
for
whom
a
magazine
might
exist
especially
a
magazine
that
operates
primarily
online
and
so
can
theoretically
be
for
everyone
and
just
as
easily
for
no
one.
Ill
talk
about
this
in
rather
reductive
terms,
community
on
one
side
and
public
on
the
other
side
and
I
wont
attempt
to
define
community.
Maybe
we
can
fail
to
do
that
later.
But
IllIll
briefly
distinguish
between
community
and
public
and
explain
why
but
its
helpful
to
think
of
Triple
Canopys
work
in
terms
of
public
and
not
community.
So
obviously
a
community
may
may
be
foundational
to
or
may
arise
from
the
activities
of
a
magazine.
Thats
certainly
the
case
with
Triple
Canopy,
but
our
motivation
has
not
primarily
been
to
support
or
dramatically
enlarge
the
community
that
birthed
the
magazine
and
it
has
for
the
last
almost
ten
years
sustained
it.
This
has
to
do
with
what
I
said
about
the
atomization
of
culture
and
the
way
in
which
the
digital
economy
has
come
to
understand
and
profit
from
individuals
as
quantities
of
relatable
data
points.
It
also
has
to
do
with
the
way
the
world
community
is
used.
So
often
used
to
identify
voluntary
non-economic
unequivocally
good
activities
rooted
in
empathy
kindness
selflessness
in
blogging
and
so
often
fallaciously.
Since
we
dont
have
that
much
time
Im
just
going
to
continue
by
reading
an
excerpt
from
an
excellent
book
on
the
subject.
Its
Miranda
Josephs
Against
the
Romance
of
Community.
She
writes,
What
I
call
the
discourse
of
community,
positions
community
as
the
defining
other
of
modernity,
of
capitalism.
This
discourse
includes
a
romantic
narrative
of
community
as
prior
in
time
to
society,
locating
community
in
a
long
lost
past
for
which
we
yearn
nostalgically
from
our
current
fallen
state
of
alienation,
bureaucratization,
rationality,
it
distinguishes
community
from
society
spatially
as
local,
involving
face
to
face
relations
where
capital
is
global
and
faceless.
Community
is
all
about
boundaries
between
us
and
them.
Boundaries
that
are
naturalized
through
reference
to
place
or
race
or
culture
or
identity.
While
capital
would
seem
to
denature,
crossing
all
borders
and
making
everything,
everyone
equivalent.
Further
this
discourse
contrasts
community
to
modern
capitalist
society
structurally.
The
foundation
of
community
is
supposed
to
be
values,
while
capitalist
society
is
based
only
on
value
(economic
value).
Community
is
posited
as
particular
where
capitalism
is
abstract.
Posited
as
its
other,
its
opposite.
Community
is
often
presented
as
a
complement
to
capitalism,
balancing
and
humanizing
it,
even
in
fact
enabling
it.
Thats
the
end
of
the
quote.
effectively
annex
various
kinds
of
communication
networks
and
face
to
face
interactions
and
bodily
experiences
for
and
as
publication?
And
can
a
magazine
shape
a
public
and
resultantly
shape
our
social
world?
So
this
isthese
are
images
of
a
recent
project
we
did,
which
is
emblematic
in
a
way.
Its
called
pointing
machines,
and
it
wasit
began
with
a
long
period
of
research
and
discussion
among
the
editors,
and
was
initially
instantiated
as
an
installation
at
the
Whitney
Biennial
and
these
are
some
images
from
the
various
paintings
and
prints
and
objects
that
were
included
in
that
installation.
The
issue
hinged
on
the
historic
and
contemporary
reproduction
of
images
and
artworks
and
the
various
kinds
of
audiences
and
meaning
they
can
attain,
through
painting,
through
photography,
through
3D
printing,
through
publication,
through
Zazzle
and
so
on,
and
that
body
of
research
and
that
initial
instantiation
of
the
project
was
used
as
a
prompt
to
write
other
writers
and
artists
and
scholars
and
performers
to
contribute
to
the
issue
over
time
and
then
the
results
of
that
issue
which
is
still
ongoing
are
on
our
website.
And
I
will
stop
there.
Thanks.
Brian
Kuan
Wood,
e-flux
journal
I
thought
to
talk
to
you
today
about
the
latest
project
that
were
working
on
at
e-flux
journal,
which
is
a
project
for
the
Venice
Biennale,
a
kind
of
massive
four-month
publishing
project,
but
its
calledits
coming
up
here.
Its
called
Supercommunity,
and
of
course
I
thought,
like,
OK,
theres
something
like
I
want
to
talk
about
it,
I
want
to
show
this
to
you,
but
then
like
something
about
it
seems
a
little
bit
too
right,
you
know,
to
be
talking
about
Supercommunity
at
the
community
and
connectivity
panel
at
Superscript,
like
something
is
corresponding
a
little
bit
too
much,
so
maybe
its
meant
to
be.
So
Ill
start
by
with
just
a
brief
introduction
of
e-flux
journal.
We
basically
startedsorry,
Im
just
checking
the
Internet
here.
Im
checking
my
email.
So
e-flux
journal
started
in
2008,
its
a
monthly
journal
edited
by
myself
and
Julieta
Aranda
and
Anton
Vidokle.
And
it
started
really
as
an
attempt
a
kind
ofyeah,
a
kind
of
really
almost
desperate
experiment
in
trying
to
find
a
way
of
creating
a
discourse
or
a
collection
of
writing
or
a
kind
of
language
that
could
address
a
certain
kind
of
global
spread,
that
has
happened
in
maybe
like
the
last
10
to
15
years
in
art,
where
we
basically
take
for
granted
that
the
community
of
the
discourse
of
art
now
takes
place
basically
in
most
places
of
the
world.
Right?
And
so
if
you
take
this
for
granted,
though,
it
really
starts
to
shift
the
foundations
of
what
you
consider
to
be
an
artistic
canon
or
what
you
consider
art
history,
because
in
many
places
in
the
world,
artists
who
are
working,
they
have
a
kind
of
relationship
with
art
history
and
what
is
often
conceptualism,
often
a
history
that
is
based
in
certain
capital
cities
in
the
west.
A
certain
relationship
with
a
canon
which,
you
know,
is
a
little
bit
too
close
and
a
little
bit
too
far,
right,
where
they
know
the
history,
maybe
better
than
many
artists
working
in
New
York,
but
then
also
feel
a
bit
distant
from
it,
where
like
the
history
doesnt
actually
apply
to
them,
so
its
like
its
not
your
history.
Its
a
very
common
post-colonial
condition
which
is
installed
into
the
working
conditions
of
many
many
artists
today.
So
then
how
do
you
create
a
certain
kind
of
discourse
which
has
a
certain
kind
of
amnesia,
which
has
a
certainly
kind
of
visceral
directness,
right,
which
also
is
reflective,
and
how
do
youhow
do
you
to
create
something
that
does
justice
to
this
new
kind
of
community
in
art
that
we
take
for
granted?
So
this
was
the
kind
of
idea
that
we
had
in
starting
the
journal
in
2008,
and
so
and
since
then,
yeah,
we
startedthere
was
a
PDF
version
of
the
journal.
Its
the
journal
is
basically
ten
issues
a
year,
its
free,
online,
we
made
a
PDF
version,
which
is
distributed
to
a
network
of
distributors
in
different
parts
of
the
world,
who
basically
receive
this
PDF,
and
can
print
it
and
sell
it
at
whatever
they
want,
so
you
know,
they
receive
a
PDF,
they
print
it,
they
can
sell
it
for
3
Euros,
they
can
sell
it
for
300
Euros,
they
can
give
it
out
for
free,
its
up
to
them
because
many
people
were
asking
for
a
printed
version.
I
dont
know
if
these
are
kind
of
boring
details
about
format,
but
you
know,
this
is
what
were
working
on.
Lately
we
started
e-flux
conversations
because
the
journal
has
been
sort
just
an
online
transposition
of
a
paper
publication,
right,
where
it
just,
you
know
where
we
are
like
a
printed
journal
but
it
exists
also
online.
So
there
was
very
little
dialogue,
dialogue
was
usually
taking
place
between
people
or
privately,
so
in
the
last
year
e-flux
conversations
became
a
kind
of
a,
yeah,
kind
of
a
discussion
platform,
a
kind
of
discussion
platform
for
dealing
with
a
lot
of
these
issues,
the
issues
that
we
deal
with
in
the
journal
but
in
the
discussion
format.
So
this
is
kind
of
still
new,
its
about
five
or
six
months
now
and
were
trying
to
understand
what
this
strange
community
of
people
who
are
really
kind
of
taking
hold
of
e-flux
conversations,
what
theyre
actually,
like
what
their
character
is,
because
it
turns
out
that
actually,
there
are
like
really
a
lot
of
smart
people
out
there
with
really
a
lot
to
say.
So
it
seems
to
attract
a
certain
kind
ofit
does
attract
a
lot
of
like,
you
know,
flaming
and
this
kind
of
things
that
you
see
on
YouTube,
that
theyre
actually
very
substantial
arguments
but
theyre
short-
form
micro
arguments
so
its
really
something
that
Ive
never
seen
online
before
so
were
kind
of
listening
and
trying
to
see
what
happens.
With
this.
And
what
the
community
tells
us.
We
also
do
a
series
of
readers.
TheI
think
its
the
9th
reader
that
we
just
came
out,
I
think
4
months
ago,
in
collaboration
with
Sternberg
Press,
the
last
book
is
called
The
Internet
Does
Not
Exist
and
this
is
a
kind
of,
you
know,
of
course,
the
title
is
a
kind
of
a
provocation,
but
it
has
to
do
with
a
lot
of
the
things
that
weve
been
thinking
about
today.
The
Internet
Does
Not
Exist,
its
a
kind
of
like
its
a
collection
of
essays
from
that
we
published
in
most
of
which
have
been
published
in
the
journal,
but
as
a
provocation,
the
editorial
concept
of
it
is
really
that
the
notions
and
the
images
and
the
figures
that
we
have
for
understanding
what
the
Internet
is,
havetheyre
really
just
not
sufficient
anymore,
right?
Like
you
can
imagine
some
kind
of
information
super
highway,
like
this
stuff
doesnt
really
work
anymore
and
so
at
the
same
time,
a
lot
of
people
think,
that
for
example,
if
you
want
to
understand
how
the
Internet
functions
or
how
the
communities
around
the
Internet
function,
how
this
kind
of
communication
function,
you
should
maybe
also
good
kind
of
like
old
school
Marxists
will
say
you
should
look
at
the
material
base
of
the
Internet,
right,
look
at
where
the
servers
are
and
look
at
how
theyre
connected
and
that
will
tell
you
whos
in
control
and
how
the
Internet
works
and
its
the
State
Department
and
its
the
NSA,
you
know,
U.S.
Department
of
Defense,
you
know,
all
of
this
is
kind
of
true,
but
it
also
doesnt
explain
exactly
what
the
Internet
is
actually
doing
to
us,
right?
What
the
Internet
is
doing
to
us,
what
its
doing
to
our
lives,
to
our
economic
lives,
to
our
personal
lives,
right,
is
actually
something
completely
different,
so
this
book
sort
of
wants
to
depart
from
the
notion
that
actually
the
Internet
is
something
which
you
have
to
describe
through
some
kind
of
other
figures,
right?
So
things
like
emotional
blackmail
and
things
like
this,
right?
Labor
extraction,
right?
Like
what
are
the
figures
that
we
can
use
to
describe
the
Internet?
But
of
course
I
mean
it
just
reminds
me,
there
are
also
people
who
are
doing
really,
really
important
work
with
the
actual
infrastructure,
artists.
You
have
someone
like
Trevor
Paglen
who
is
actually
looking
for
the
undersea
cables,
right,
so
we
still
think
of
actually
the
information
super
highway
as
a
kind
of
abstract
notion,
but
then
like
someone
like
Trevor
Paglen
is
actually
diving
down
to
find
these
undersea
cables
that
are
stretching
across
the
Atlantic
ocean,
for
example,
and
he
knows
about
like
the
actual
US
submarine
that
actually
goes
and
kind
of
kinks
the
cable
to
tap
into
it
to
monitor
the
communications.
So
this
stuff
is
of
course
really
important,
but
its
also
something
that
is
not
a
dominant
figure
that
we
use
to
think
about
how
the
Internet
functions.
So,
yeah,
so
just
to
tell
you
a
bit
about
the
Supercommunity
project,
afterI
mean
basically
weve
been
thinking
aboutweve
been
thinking
about
these
things
with
e-flux
journal
for
I
guess
7
years
now,
and
a
few
months
ago,
without
much
advance
notice,
we
got
an
invitation
from
the
Venice
Biennale
to
participate
as
the
journal
in
the
biennial
and
we
proposed
to
do
a
kind
of
four-month
daily
publishing
project
as
the
65th
issue
of
e-flux
journal
and
the
concept
of
it
is
Supercommunity
and
it
deals
with
a
kind
of
notion
of
community
which
haswhich
a
kind
of
notion
of
community
which
is
not
something
that
we
actually
want,
right,
which
is
autonomous,
like
a
warm
communitarian,
it
does
not
have
the
warm
communitarianism
that
can
cozy
up
mammal
style
like
everything
is
going
to
work
it
itself
out.
Actually
it
turns
out
that
weve
had
many
mass
revolutions,
we
have
a
lot
of
people
connected
to
each
other
and
actually
sometimes
it
works
out
it
turns
into
some
kind
of
new
fascism,
something
that
we
dont
want
and
we
didnt
ask
for.
So
this
poses
a
real
problem
to
sort
of
well
intentioned
artistic
standpoint,
right,
where
you
believe
that
your
work
or
you
are
on
the
right
side
of
the
barricade
and
the
work
youre
doing
is
by
its
very
nature
improving
the
world
and
making
the
world
a
better
place,
actually
it
seems
that
not
only
are
you
know,
if
you
look
at
gentrification,
not
only
are
artists
the
problem,
if
you
look
at
something
like
climate
change,
humans
are
part
of
the
problem.
So
how
do
we
look
at
these
without
being
the
heroic
saviors,
so
it
tries
to
think
in
these
terms,
through,
there
are
kind
of
short
form,
also
quite
cheerful
text
here
considering
the
topic.
Yeah,
but
notions
like
corruption,
cosmos,
we
have
planetary
computing,
is
the
universe
actually
a
gigantic
computer?
We
have
Cosmos
which
is
guest
edited
together
with
Boris
Groy,
Corruption
together
with
curator
Natasha
Ginwala,
Apocalypsis
together
with
Pedro
Neves
Marques,
Political
Shine
on
surface
reflection
and
bling
as
kind
of
a
new
ontology.
The
Art
of
Work,
Art,
The
Social
Common,
which
is
together
with
Raqs
Media
Collective,
and
the
section
on
Cuba,
which
were
doing
here
with
Coco
Fusco.
So
I
thought
I
would
basically
finish
by
reading
you
the
editorial
that
wethis
is
the
cats.
And
Ill
conclude
that
with.
And
you
can
actually
you
can
read
along
with
me.
No,
please
dont.
But
with
your
eyes,
please.
Having
no
body
and
no
name
is
a
small
price
to
pay
for
being
wild,
for
being
free
to
move
across
(some)
countries,
(some)
political
boundaries,
(some)
historical
ideologies,
and
(some)
economies.
I
am
the
supercommunity,
and
you
are
only
starting
to
recognize
me.
I
grew
out
of
something
that
used
to
be
humanity.
Some
have
compared
me
to
angry
crowds
in
public
squares;
others
compare
me
to
wind
and
atmosphere,
or
to
software.
Some
say
they
have
seen
me
moving
through
jet-lagged
artists
and
curators,
or
migrant
laborers,
or
a
lost
cargo
ship
that
left
a
trail
of
rubber
ducks
that
will
wash
up
on
the
shores
of
the
planet
over
the
next
200
years.
I
convert
care
to
cruelty,
and
cruelty
back
to
care.
I
convert
political
desires
to
economic
flows
and
data,
and
then
I
convert
them
back
again.
I
convert
revolutions
to
revelations.
I
dont
want
security,
I
want
to
leave,
and
then
disperse
myself
everywhere
and
all
the
time.
Im
not
worried
about
famine,
drought,
wifi
dead
zones,
or
historical
grievances,
because
I
already
stretch
across
the
living
and
the
dead.
I
can
be
cruel
if
that
is
whats
needed.
Historical
pain
is
my
criteria
for
deciding
the
pricing
of
goods
and
services.
Payback
time
is
my
favorite
international
holiday,
when
things
get
boozy
and
a
little
bloody.
Economies
have
tried
to
tap
into
me.
Some
governments
try
to
contain
me,
but
I
always
start
to
leak.
Social
contracts
try
to
teach
me
to
behave,
but
I
dont
want
rights.
I
want
fuel.
And
if
you
think
you
can
know
me,
Ill
give
you
such
a
strong
dose
of
political
and
economic
instability
that
youll
wish
you
never
tried.
e-flux
journal
has
been
trying
for
years
to
give
me
a
face
and
a
name.
The
editors
think
they
can
see
me
move
in
the
trees
of
the
Giardini.
They
think
they
can
find
the
supercommunity
in
how
plants
experience
pain,
how
humans
experience
pain,
how
jellyfish
talk
to
each
other,
how
acacia
trees
warn
other
acacias.
They
think
they
can
see
me
in
how
the
world
talks
to
the
world.
The
editors
think
they
can
trace
my
footsteps
by
asking
artists
and
thinkers
to
consider
how
the
supercommunity
assembles
through
a
growing
series
of
themes
that
reflect
the
profoundly
contradictory
scales
of
thinking
that
are
currently
altering
the
collective
consciousness
of
contemporary
art,
and
by
publishing
these
essays,
statements,
and
prognoses
in
individual
installments
over
the
course
of
the
Venice
Biennale.
For
instance,
they
think
some
artists
and
writers
from
New
Delhi
can
see
how
Ive
always
rendered
any
social
contract
uneven
and
unequal.
They
think
I
increasingly
use
corruption
as
a
vehicle
for
getting
around.
They
think
I
helped
a
bunch
of
Russians
hack
the
Enlightenment
to
design
spaceships
before
the
Communist
Revolution.
They
think
I
extract
labor
from
artists
with
false
promises,
when
all
I
want
is
for
them
to
stop
thinking
so
much
about
survival
and
focus
on
their
work.
They
think
Cuban
artists
know
something
I
dont
know.
They
think
I
build
infrastructure
out
of
surface
gloss
and
lighting
effects.
They
think
I
mash
physics
with
universalism
to
build
a
gigantic
computer.
The
supercommunity
loves
a
miniaturized
version
of
the
world
as
an
idea.
From
human
understanding
the
supercommunity
harvests
protocols
for
the
mobilization
of
goods,
services,
and
ideas
we
didnt
ask
for:
it
moves
a
lot
of
things
around,
but
never
forward.
The
supercommunity
wants
a
maximal
version
of
the
world
that
floats
any
governing
idea
so
long
as
it
never
governs.
I
grow
larger
and
healthier
when
forms
of
international
solidarity
are
stripped
of
their
progressive
promise,
and
when
those
solidaries
are
put
to
work
munching
up
real
estate
or
vying
for
control
of
towns
and
villages.
I
am
the
alphanumeric
calculation
of
visitor
numbers
and
the
force
that
floats
those
figures
to
source
outside
infrastructure
for
the
next
iteration
of
the
fair.
I
make
language
into
everything
and
nothing
at
the
same
time.
I
can
sort
you
faster
than
you
can
recognize
your
own
image
in
the
mirror.
And
in
fact,
I
will
replace
your
image
in
every
mirror.
Think
of
it
this
way.
I
need
to
attend
international
exhibitions
to
update
the
methods
I
use
to
sort
the
communities
of
the
world.
The
world
is
not
yet
in
alignment
with
its
own
communitarian
desires.
There
are
certain
areas
where
resources
have
pooled
precisely
because
those
resources
cannot
be
used.
They
function
like
banks
in
which
the
money
is
safe
because
it
cant
be
spent,
because
in
many
cases
the
knowledge,
content,
talent,
human
minds,
or
natural
resources
moved
away
a
generation
or
three
ago.
The
supercommunity
sources
internationalist
good
intentions
to
match
those
resources
to
the
talent
that
floated
awayto
seek
refuge
in
another
country,
another
national
pavilion,
a
yacht
moored
in
Riva
Dei
Sette
Martiri,
an
artists
incessant
doubts,
or
an
exhibition
boycott.
The
supercommunity
discovers
the
places
where
these
errant
resources
hang
in
limbo,
and
patches
them
back
into
the
venues
where
they
didnt
know
they
always
belonged.
This
is
what
makes
me
bigger
than
any
political
demand
you
ever
thought
you
had.
I
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
for
the
Biennale.
I
have
a
lot
of
work
invested
in
the
Biennale.
Dont
bother
with
choosing
me
or
not
choosing
me
to
represent
you.
I
am
the
supercommunity,
and
you
are
only
starting
to
recognize
me.
PANEL DISCUSSION:
Connectivity and Community
Claudia
La
Rocco:
So
as
Alex
suggested
were
going
to
start
with
failure.
We
thought
wed
start
with
a
discussion
of
terminology.
Last
night
at
dinner
and
as
I
think
all
of
our
talks
reflected,
we
all
have
varying
degrees
of
ambivalence
about
the
language
assigned
to
our
panel,
the
phrase
one
of
you
uttered
the
phrase
being
against
a
language
of
metrics
and
boosterism.
So
we
thought
wed
start
with
some
words,
community,
connectivity,
responsiveness,
value,
what
are
the
politics
of
these
words?
Are
they
adequate?
Are
there
better
alternatives
and
do
they
create
a
false
consensus?
Have
at.
Ayesha
Siddiqi:
I
mean
I
think
certainly
for
the
corporations
with
departments
dedicated
to
so-
called
community
engagement,
the
issue
false
consensus
is
very,
very
real
and
relevant
to
them
but
theres
also
so
many
people
using
the
Internet
for
whom
community
is
a
word
that
is
newly
available
to
them,
describes
a
very
novel
experience,
because
theyre
able
to
find
peers
where
they
didnt
elsewhere
and
the
ability
to
transcend
geographical
and
even
although
not
to
the
same
extent
economic
barriers
towards
connecting
with
each
other.
I
mean
think
of
say,
you
know,
members
of
diaspora,
first
generation
immigrants,
the
queer
kid
in
a
very
conservative
high
school,
these
are
people
for
whom
the
Internet
has
been
remarkable
in
terms
of
giving
access
to
community,
communities
that
are
in
the
process
of
being
built.
But
again,
as
I
mentioned
before,
thats
a
conversation
that
cant
be
divorced
from
the
existing
and
you
know,
definitions
of
community
that
were
all
sort
of
grappling
with
and
what
they
mean
to
different
people.
Alex
Provan:
And
I
didnt
mean
to
demean
the
genuine
feeling
of
connecting
with
others
in
a
togetherness
that
we
associate
with
community,
and
I
mean
I
thinkI
wish
there
were
another
word
to
use
as
a
substitute,
but
I
meant
mostly
to
differentiate
community
as
a
discursive
construct
that
is
often
used
quite
imprecisely
if
not
irresponsibly,
and
thatthat
is
of
course
not
the
same
thing
as
the
kind
ofthe
feeling
of
community
that
youre
describing.
And
I
guess
what
I
mean
and
what
this
book
I
mentioned
speaks
about,
I
mean
its
a
kind
of
anthropology
of
community,
one
thatthe
most
extensive
study
in
book
is
of
a
queer
theater
organization
in
San
Francisco
and
shes
primarily
interested
how
this
discourse
around
community
shuts
down
and
creates
certain
kinds
of
exclusion
which
are
generally
concealed
in
our
usage
of
the
term.
Brian
Kuan
Wood:
Yeah,
it
seems
that
the
kind
of
bad-faith
use
of
these
terms
has,
even
though
on
the
one
hand
one
can
criticize
that
theyre
being
used
disingenuously,
but
at
then
at
the
same
time
it
seems
to
be
a
lot
more
interesting
to
start
to
see
them
as
being
completely
structural,
right,
that
these
are
actually
the
protocols
that
we
arethat
we
can
only
be
following.
This
is
like
something
that
we
were
thinking
about
with
thewith
like
the
Politics
of
Shine
issue
in
January
and
then
in
the
part
in
the
Supercommunity
issue,
where
advertisement
and
like
a
projection
of
purpose
and
advertisement
of
what
the
community
is
or
could
be,
this
is
the
onlyis
the
only
way
to
actually
exist,
right,
like
the
opposite
of,
you
know,
inflating
yourself
or
seeming
bigger
than
you
are,
trying
to
market
yourself
the
opposite
of
this
is
like
some
kind
of
obsolescence
or
this
is
at
least
how
its
felt
that
we
will
just
simply
disappear
if
you
dont
kind
of
project
your
image
forward.
And
the
question
is,
really,
like
what
kind
of
like
strange
communal
dystopia
does
that
contribute
to?
I
mean
with
this
I
always
thinkI
me
I
think
its
also
very
important
to
approach
these
questions
on
many
different
scales
where
also
there
is
a
strange
kind
of
parity
between
the
way
like
that
marginal
groups
operate
and
the
way
that
if
you
go
up
to
higher
echelons
of
power,
that
the
way
that
actually
power
functions,
like
marginal
practices
are
being
used
on,
like,
on
vastly
different
scales
and
I
always
think
of
this
La
Rocco:
Can
you
give
an
example?
Wood:
Yeah.
And
I
always
think
of
this
Dutch
like
brilliant
Dutch
designers,
Metahaven,
who
are
great
researchers
and
always
kind
of
stumble
upon
these
extremely
large
scale
phenomena,
like
they
did
a
text
on
state
branding
where
they
basically
beautiful
formulation
where
they
said,
actually,
mostits
like
also
has
to
do
with
the
question
of
the
state
we
were
talking
about
yesterday,
like
basically
if
you
look
at
tourism
advertising
for
like
Greece
or
Spain
or
something,
everyone
knows
the
logo
for
Espana,
like
a
circular
thing,
like
you
have
it
embedded
in
your
mind,
right?
But
these
are
actually
more
recognizable
to
us
than
national
flags,
so
I
remember
who
can
remember
the
Spanish
flag?
Like
I
kind
of
can,
but
I
can
really
remember
the
tourism
logo,
right,
so
this
kind
of
marketing,
this
kind
of
marketization,
it
has
such
powerful
effects
that
we
somehow
have
to
find
ways
to
take
it
very
seriously.
Siddiqi:
You
just
said
a
few
things
like
one
that
marketization
of
borders,
right,
has
implications
for
the
ways
that
communities
are
policed
because
then
it
relates
to
the
way
that
those
borders
are
able
to
be
cooperated
and
replicated
and
re-instituted
by
places
with
a
great
deal
of
more
power
what
you
said
about
the
inadequacy
of
the
term
community
and
the
necessity
for
perhaps
needing
new
vocabulary
to
address
the
different
types
of
community
at
work,
I
think
it
might
be
productive
to
compare
the
word
community
to
the
word
public,
the
various
sorts
of
public
settings.
At
dinner
last
night
that
was
one
of
the
things
we
talked
with
was
the
ability
to
to
be
in
a
moment
which
we
have
ever-increasing
public
and
more
dialogue,
whether
its
a
culture
of
TV
criticism
in
the
age
of
shows
like
Mad
Men
or
Breaking
Bad
or
the
ability
for
marginalized
voices
to
sufficiently
antagonize
the
racism
or
the
misogyny
of
establishment
media
and
while
theres
an
idea
of
an
ever-
increasingly
active
public
sphere
with
ever-decreasing
amounts
of
power,
so
a
really
active
public
sphere
that
has
no
power.
Provan:
And
this
relates
to
what
you
were
saying
about
visibility
in
a
surveillance
state,
right?
However
much
agency
and
presence
you
might
have
within
the
public
sphere,
that
mightthat
could
very
easily
have
no
political
effect
or
no
possibility
of
achieving
any
political
effect.
Theres
not
a
direct
influence.
Siddiqi:
Well,
it
was
positive
political
effect,
because
theyre
certainly
seeing
policies
beingthat
were
produced
with
respect
to
the
political
effects
of
these
online
engagements,
so
the
ability
of
I
mean
state
agents
have
always
been
able
to,
and
have
to
infiltrate
various
political
organizations,
but
Im
thinking
of
all
the
cases
that
a
Facebook
status
has
led
to
the
harass
and
detention
of
people,
so
whether
it
was
recently
a
black
man
who
expressed
dissatisfaction
with
the
police
on
Facebook
and
it
was
perceived
to
be
an
active
threat
against
a
cop
and
he
was
charged
or
the
student
in
England
whowhose
academic
research
at
a
university
on
terrorism
was
interpreted
to
be,
you
know,
researchers
becoming
a
terrorist
and
he
was
put
in
jail
and
those
are
not
uncommon.
There
have
been
a
lot
of
people
whove
you
know,
been
met
with
significant,
like,
you
know,
state,
political
repercussions
for
the
things
that
they
have
expressed
or
shared
online
and
the
ways
in
which
those
expressions
can
be
used
as
evidence
against
them
and
so
thats
just
one
of
the
ways
in
which
the
social
position
of
anyone
is
replicated
on
theirwithin
their
online
presence
and
its
stillwe
are
not
escaping
the
policing
that
state
does,
and
were
not
escaping
the
borders
and
cooption
that
corporations
always
practice
on
us
when
we
do
what
were
doing
differently
online.
La
Rocco:
And
I
also
think
that
theres
this
incredible
dislocation,
right?
The
differences
between
how
we
use
these
technologies
and
then
how
we
view
how
others
are
using
them.
I
think
of,
you
know,
all
of
the
incredible
and
ferocious
shaming
of
people
whove
said
things,
you
know,
that
have
met
with
disapproval
on
various
social
media
and
this
idea
of
how
can
anybody
do
this,
you
know,
how
could
anybody
be
so
stupid
as
to
do
this,
but
of
course
were
doing
this
all
the
time,
and
theres
this
way
in
whichyou
know
weve
been
talking
about
various
speeds
and
what
are
the
speeds
at
which
we
want
to
exist,
and
one
of
the
things
that
occurs
to
as
being
related
to
that
is
thetheres
a
way
in
which
the
ability
to
improvise
is
being
completely
leached
out
of
our
culture,
because
everything
is
so
quickly,
both
set
in
stone
and
decontextualized.
We
were
just
saying
that
right
after
our
talks
its
fascinating
to
look
through
Twitter
and
see
all
of
the
ways
that
weve
all
been
misquoted
or
taken
out
of
context
and
that
thats
immediately
but
thats
something
of
course
that
we
also
do
all
the
time
to
other
people,
so
theres
this
idea
we
think
of
the,
you
know,
the
state
and
the
corporation
as
an
abstract
and
an
other,
but
its
as
you
were
saying
its
absolutely
us.
We
are
the
appalling
supercommunity.
Wood:
Yeah,
I
mean
with
this
this
seems
to
come
also,
it
seems
to
come
with
like
a
profound
dislocation
of
notions
of
public
and
private
that
used
to
be
quite
clear,
where
we
dont
really
know
the
difference
anymore
betweenyeah,
I
mean
also
on
different
scales,
between
like
also
on
private
feelings
and
between
interior
feelings
and
outside
world,
almost
like
some
kind
ofyeah,
almost
like
in
like
a
Russian
novel
or
something,
where
you
have
a
hard
time
distinguishing
between
grand
narrative
and
personal
and
private
emotions
but
then
also
just
economically
or
politically
public
sphere
and
private
sphere
are
intermingled
to
the
point
where
it
becomes
very
hard
to
sustain
this
moral
division
between
public
good
or
you
know,
private
self-benefit.
And
in
a
way
its
kind
ofit
can
be
almost
like
liberating
to
just
kind
of
like,
you
know,
chuck
these
notion,
because
theyre
really,
if
you
look
at
how
most
publics
were
constructed
formally,
it
really
came
from
the
state,
right?
Publics
are
usually
confined
by
nation,
and
theyre
usually
subsidized
by
states,
and
you
know,
I
mean.
Provan:
I
think
publication
and
circulation
of
media
has
a
lot
to
do
with
that.
I
mean,
not
to
go
back
to
Michael
Warner,
but
he
has
another
book
called
Letters
of
the
Republic
which
is
all
about
the
formation
of
an
American
national
identity,
not
through
coercion
of
the
state,
not
through,
you
know,
some
sort
of
false
consensus,
but
rather
through
the
development
of
communication
networks,
and
through
various
documents
and
publications
through
which
people
could
recognize
each
other
as
readers
and
therefore
as
part
of
a
public,
which,
you
know,
in
certain
ways
preceded
the
constitution
of
a
nation.
Wood:
Right,
right,
Michael
Warner
is
really
important
for
this
as
a
queer
theorist,
right,
because
queer
theory,
hes
writing
about
counterpublics,
because
as
I
remember
in
the
essay,
at
least
it
is
actually
antagonizing
and
working
against
a
public
consensus,
so
in
a
way,
like
queer
thought
is
so
interesting
for
always
having
trouble
with
the
cleanliness
of
the
division,
if
you
want
to
for
example
even
just
in
queer
politics,
like
if
you
want
to
bring
the
queer
community
above
water,
you
just
equalize
gay
marriage
and
then
you
have
taxpayers
and
everybody
can
be
a
nuclear
family
like
in
the
Jetsons
or
Leave
It
To
Beaver
style.
Provan:
Are
we
entering
the
Jetsons
period
finally?
Wood:
Maybe
Jetsons
is
a
bad
example.
Its
a
really
important
debate
within
the
queer
community,
like,
are
we
supposed
to
actuallylike
are
we
supposed
to
actually
be,
do
we
want
to
be
accepted
and
normalized
under
these
terms?
Wasnt
there
actually
something
about
deviant
practices
and
there
was
something
to
be
defended
in
being
marginal.
Maybe
we
dont
want
to
be
a
part
of
the
public
in
these
terms.
Maybe
we
want
to
have
our
private
culture.
Siddiqi:
I
mean
what
youre
saying
about
the
porousness
of
the
membrane
between
public
and
private,
immediately
for
me
provokes
the
questions
of
erasure
and
entitlement,
because
dissolution
between
public
and
private
and
the
way
its
carried
out
on
the
web,
how
many
of
you
have
seen
articles
which
are
essentially
a
series
of
tweets
captured
and
aggregated
so
this
popularity
of
aggregation
as
a
form
of
content
creation
and
publication
to
various
outlets
and
there
have
been
a
number
of
very
well
funded
established
media
outlets
that
entire
sections
that
are
populated
by
exclusively
through
aggregation,
and
of
course
what
and
who
theyre
aggregating
is
not
something
that
is
compensated,
it
goes
back
into
the
patterns
of
the
exploitation
of
the
people
who
are
newly
accessing
public
spaces,
spaces
in
which
theyre
able
to
speak
and
participate.
But
again
its
not
on
equal
terms,
it
is
again
an
exchange
that
is
normalizing
free
labor
and
what
Iveyou
know,
the
way
I
see
people
talk
about
this
use
of,
you
know,
to
use
a
particular
example
of
tweets
in
this
particular
way,
is
its
a
bit
unsettling,
because
you
know,
oftentimes
youll
hear
the
argument,
well,
its
publicly
available.
Its
right
there.
You
posted
it
so
you
must,
you
shouldnt
be
surprised
then
when
people
then
share
it
or
take
it
outside
of
the,
you
know,
to
use
the
word
the
community
in
which
it
was
shared,
so
if
youre
having
a
conversation
online
with
the
community
of
your
choosing,
that
is
not
necessarily
to
say
thatto
welcome
outsiders,
people
who
are
necessarily
not
part
of
that
community
to
come
in
and
take
what
youre
putting
out
there
for
their
own
ends
and
purposes,
and
this
has
real
consequences,
because
I
mean
the
people
who
are
aggregating
that
material
in
those
tweets
are
generating
sites
of
revenue
for
themselves,
those
pages
filled
with
the
uncompensated
words
of
others
are
creating
revenue
through
ad
clicks
for
all
of
these
outlets
and
whichever
outlet
that
may
be,
I
mean
Provan:
Huffington
Post
especially.
Siddiqi:
Huffington
Post,
Buzzfeed,
the
Atlantic,
Al
Jazeera,
theres
no
one
who
hasnt
been
guilty
of
doing
this.
But
the
argument
Im
repeating
again
is
if
its
publicly
visible,
we
are
entitled
to
use
it,
I
mean
its
a
bizarre
like
replication
of
rape
culture
logic
of
visibility
meaning
that
if
I
can
see
it,
Im
allowed
to
take
it.
And
that
to
me
is
related
to
the
question
of
borders
of
community
and
how
theyre
maintained,
how
theyre
policed
and
who
gets
to
really
own
them
and
enact
them.
So
all
of
the
people
I
secreting
and
establishing
interesting,
necessary,
vital
vibrant
communities
online,
the
borders
of
their
communities
is
not
something
that
theyre
able
to
exercise
control
over
and
their
exposure
to
not
just
violence
and
harassment
from
others,
the
but
also
exploitation
in
more
subtle,
but
perhaps
no
less
violent
ways,
from
people
who
are
trolls,
right?
I
mean
thats
another
word
that
gets
used
very
often,
but
has
a
range
of
meanings
of
what
constitutes
trolling,
because
thats
a
way
of
antagonizing
communities.
La
Rocco:
And
the
question
of
context
becomes
so
important.
Thinking
about
performance
pieces
that
get
replicated
online.
Theres
been
in
recent
years
an
explosion
of
technologies
that
can
really
go
a
bit
further
in
terms
of
capturing,
you
know,
live
performances
and
on
the
one
hand
this
is
great,
right,
because
these
works
can
be
disseminated
and
everybody
can
see
them,
and
on
the
other
hand,
you
know,
a
lot
of
works,
if
you
take
them
out
of
their
very
specific
context
of
whos
in
the
room,
who
is
the
community
that
it
is
initially
for,
they
become
something
else
entirely.
I
remember
performers
in
a
particular
group
being
really
upset
that
they
had
been
recorded,
and
they
no
longer
own
that
image,
right,
and
then
the
image
gets,
you
know,
edited
and
put
up
as
a
clip
on
YouTube
and
it
becomes
pornography,
because
its
the
context
is
stripped
away.
And
I
think
that
was
awe
were
talking
about
this
last
night,
right,
the
what
is
the
sort
of
the
tension
between
wanting
to
control
the
work
that
youre
making
and
then
this,
you
know,
this
drive
for
dissemination
and
for
circulation.
Provan:
And
its
especially
easy
to
control
it
if
nobody
cares
about
it.
La
Rocco:
Yes.
Provan:
Which
is
why
most
of
us
probably
havent
had
so
many
problems
in
this
regard.
Siddiqi:
I
mean
I
guess
what
were
talking
about
I
guess
is
the
attention
economy,
right?
Wood:
I
always
think
of,
I
mean
also
with
the
public
and
private
kind
of
thing,
I
always
think
of
this
reformulation
of
the
gated
community,
in
terms
of
as
a
kind
of
productive
principle
for
marginal
groups
that
Marjetica
Potr,
I
think
shes
a
Slovenian
artist,
she
described
the
kind
of
model
of
the
gated
community
that
was
being
used
by
marginal
communities
in
the
Amazon
to
resist
the
corporate
like
resource
extraction,
and
but
she
described
it
as
this
almost
like
a
certain
kind
of
like
a
panopticon
or
something
where
on
a
very
in
a
very
basic
way,
you
have
your
security
is
ensured
through
like
a
one-waythrough
one-way
visibility,
where
you
can
control
who
enters.
Like
you
can
leave
and
enter
as
you
like,
but
you
control
who
enters.
So
you
can
see
out,
but
no
one
can
see
in.
So
it
becomes
actually
like
a
technology
of
opacity
of
protecting
yourself
and
maintaining
a
certain
kind
of
amount
of
control
over
what
you
do.
La
Rocco:
I
wonder
how
you
each
relate
to
that
and
with
the
particular,
you
know,
publications
and
organizations
youre
involved
with,
and
yeah,
just
how
you
navigate.
Siddiqi:
How
we
navigate
what?
Sorry?
La
Rocco:
Navigate,
you
know,
the
desire
to
control
your
work.
If
that
is
a
desire,
to
have
it
correctly
contextualized
with
understanding
that,
you
know,
what
the
economy
is
that
were
in,
and
the,
you
know,
the
need
or
the
pressure
to
have
everything
be
circulated,
be
disseminated.
Siddiqi:
Right.
Provan:
And
thats
been
a
big
issue
for
kind
of
something
that
has
an
animated
concern
for
Triple
Canopy.
I
think
we
started
by
looking
at
various
magazines
from
the
60s
and
70s,
which
were
new
media
projects
at
the
time,
Aspen
was
especially
important
to
us,
and
like
Aspen,
for
instance,
was
a
magazine
in
a
box
that
was
delivered
to
your
door,
and
within
that
box,
you
could
find
foldable
sculptures,
records,
films,
texts,
and
it
was
in
some
ways
an
exhibition
packaged
as
a
publication,
and
it
made
a
very
convincing
argument
for
an
expanded
notion
of
what
the
magazine
could
be
and
for
the
various
material
supports
that
can
constitute
a
magazine,
and
it
alsoit
also
I
think
opened
up
new
relationships
between
authors
and
readers
and
publishers
and
editors,
and
not
by
coincidence,
Aspen
commissioned
Roland
Barthes
Death
of
the
Author
and
published
it
in
in
the
box
with
these
various
media
and
to
encounter
that
text
now
in
a
reprinted
in
a
collection
of
essays
is
kind
of
travesty.
But
it
has
this
additional
force
within
that
environment.
So
we
started
with
this
idea
with
a
highly
regulated
environment
in
which
to
encounter
works
of
art
and
literature.
And
we,
you
know,
developed
a
platform
which
made
it
especially
difficult
tofor
that
work
to
travel
elsewhere.
You
couldnt
print
anything,
the
pages
were
organized
horizontally,
so
to
copy
and
paste
an
entire
essay,
you
would
have
to
scroll
from
slide
to
slide
to
slide
and
go
through
the
same
manual
operation
many,
many
times
and
generally
people
dont
even
have
the
attention
to
read
something
for
more
than
two
minutes,
much
less
to
spend
five
minutes
copying
and
pasting
so
that
was
an
effective
and
somewhat
antagonistic
move
that
you
know,
probably
diminished
our
readership.
But
you
know,
nevertheless,
we
havelike
we
care
about
developing
an
issue
over
a
period
of
a
year
and
a
half,
and
were
very
insistent
on
certain
pieces
responding
to
other
pieces
in
certain
ways,
whether
or
not
that
is
how
they
will
be
encountered
by
the
majority
of
readers,
which
is
why
it
is
especially
surprising
when
a
project
that
we
publish
becomes
extremely
popular
and
starts
to
circulate
in
an
entirely
different
environment
that
we
have
no
control
over
whatsoever.
Which
is
not
to
say
that
that
is
regrettable
at
all.
It
is
just
notat
least
initially
it
was
not
part
of
our
calculus.
I
was
also
curious
how
you
thought
about
Performance
Club
about
the
kinds
of
discussions
of
live
art
that
ensue
after
the
performance
ends?
La
Rocco:
Yeah,
well
it
used
toI
guess
the
initial
iteration
of
the
Performance
Club
existed
in
what
I
didnt
realize
until
yesterday
it
was
was
a
golden
age
of
comments
on
websites
before
they
migrated
elsewhere.
It
was
astounding
to
me
how
immediate
the
conversationhow
immediately
the
conversation
began
and
how
strong
and
thoughtful
it
was,
and
it
was
quiteit
became
very
easy
to
see
that
there
was
no
community
that
I
had
created,
right?
It
was
just
there
already
and
it
wanted,
it
wanted
a
place
to
go
to.
And
so
I
sort
of
got
lucky
with
what
I
built.
Provan:
But
that
also
happens
at
a
time
when
people
are
interested
in
these
particularly
vexing
questions
about
how
to
represent
and
preserve
and
circulate
performance,
and
its
not
like
you
establish
this
as
receptacle
for
videos
and
increasingly
realistic
representations
of
an
experience,
of
a
performance
in
the
time
and
space,
right?
La
Rocco:
I
think
when
it
comes
to
performance
that
Im
a
hopeless
luddite
and
I
just
think
you
have
to
be
in
the
room.
Its
fine
to
watch
a
video
but
its
not
the
thing.
It
may
be
the
same
way
a
PDF
printout
of
something
you
made.
Its
not
the
thing,
right,
its
just
a
facsimile.
Provan:
I
think
it
also
has
to
do
with
how
you
imagine
something
being
received
in
five
years,
ten
years
beings
and
maybe
valuing
that
over
its
immediate
reception.
La
Rocco:
And
just
thinking
about
the
ways
in
which
you
know,
the
ways
in
which
I
understand
things
that
happened
in
the
past
performance,
thinking
about,
you
know,
visual
art
and
performance
in
particular.
Its
through
writers,
you
know,
its
throughunlessI
mean
most
of
the
time
you
know,
I
understand,
you
know,
Marina
Abramovics
walk
across
the
Great
Wall
because
of
Cindy
Carr,
you
know,
and
not
because
of
the
detritus
that
was
at
MoMA
as
part
of
her
retrospective.
And
I
think
the
conversation
around
ideas
within
performance
was
always
more
interesting
to
me
than
you
know,
one
of
the
constant
criticism
of
my
criticism
is
that
I
dont
give
enough
description,
which
I
also
thought
thatI
was
very
happy
with
that
criticism.
Wood:
On
the
issue
of
distortion.
Speaking
as
an
editor
its
really
terrifying
to
have
things
munched
up
and
changed
into
other
things
because
you
want
a
certain
amount
of
control
and
precision.
Like,
there
is
this,
but
then
on
the
kind
ofin
terms
of
like
the
way
that
image
and
texts
circulate
online,
I
think
its
something
that
in
a
way,
at
least
for
the
journal,
it
was
something
that
we
never
thought
of
really
so
much
formally
or
as
something
that
happens
formally
or
technologically,
but
maybe
we
kind
of
preempted
it
by
thinking
of
in
terms
of
this
kind
of
like
global
distribution
of
discourse,
right?
So
the
distortion
that
we
originally
saw
waswasnt
so
much
likeit
was
like
a
kind
of
original
distortion.
Provan:
The
premise
of
distortion.
Wood:
Yeah,
in
the
actual
foundation,
like
the
canonical
foundations
that
actually
that
has
been
already
scrambled,
and
so
the
question
is
like
how
to
actually
speak
about
art
in
a
coherent
way
granted
that
the
shared
references
are
already
kind
of
so
fragmented
that
automatic
consensus
cant
be
taken
for
granted.
Of
course,
this
is
a
kind
of,
you
know,
this
is
not
something
that
exists
so
much
in
like
in
New
York
and
in
the
US
in
general,
of
course,
because
the
canon
in
this
part
of
the
world
is
kind
of
subsidized
by
institutions
and
which
strengthen
the
idea
of
this
kind
of
clear
lineage,
and
progression,
but
this
isbut
in
many
place
this
has
already
been
distorted
and
unrecognizably.
Mangled.
Corrupted.
La
Rocco:
Herestheres
a
little
bit
of
a
belief
that
were
not
being
positive
enough.
Our
public.
Provan:
You
may
have
gotten
the
wrong
panelists.
La
Rocco:
Yeah,
sorry.
Sorry,
you
guys.
Wood:
This
is
positive.
Provan:
This
is
just
being
here,
being
negative
together
is
so
positive.
Siddiqi:
None
of
our
critiques
offer
a
rejection
of
anything.
Its
mostly
inspired
for
an
idea
to
have
a
better
status
quo
than
the
one
were
trying
to
address
here
now.
La
Rocco:
I
guess
I
would
ask
thiswell,
I
mean
its
beautifully,
the
language
is
beautiful,
the
sentiment
is
not
beautiful,
but
you
said
that
visibility
in
a
surveillance
state
is
not
power
and
I
wonder
if
you
wereeither
of
you
two
would
have
thoughts
as
to
what
is
power
and
what
does
true
ownership
look
like?
You
know,
is
it
possible?
We
are
getting
questions
about
the
best
web
platforms
for
creating
community
in
a
positive
way
Wood:
I
think
its
really
important
as
Ayesha
was
saying
that
yeah,
suggesting
which
is
like
that
even
though
in
spite
of
all
of
this
distribution
of
agency,
that
thelike
still
and
this
is
really,
really
important,
like
still
the
centers
of
power
are
still
really
the
same,
like
the
police
are
the
police
and
the
government
is
the
government,
right?
And
but
then
with
this,
I
always
think
of
this
thing
from
2010
that
was
kind
of
like
a
weird
pilot
project,
maybe
people
might
have
heard
of
this
in
the
UK
that
David
Cameron
did
called
Big
Society,
which
is
kind
of
a
strange
thing
for
one
of
the
conservatives
to
do.
Provan:
Theres
no
such
thing
as
society.
Wood:
But
then
you
flip
it.
Provan:
There
is
such
a
thing
as
big
society.
Wood:
But
then
you
flip
it
and
you
make
it
bigger,
so
now
after
his
predecessors.
Provan:
Zero
times
100.
Wood:
Yes,
exactly
that.
There
is
no
such
thing
as
society,
suddenly
now
there
is,
no,
there
is
society
and
theres
a
big
one,
but
what
was
it?
There
is
basically
a
kind
of
conversion
of
the
functions
of
government
into
a
social
network,
it
was
like
the
welfare
state
turned
into
Facebook
where
you
know,
rather
than
having
schools
and
hospitals
and
these
kind
of
like
silly
old-fashioned
things,
right,
you
have
the
government
functions
as
you
know,
where
also
the
government
has
to
give
resources,
then
you
start
to
the
government
actually
tried
to
kind
of
like
roll
back
its
role
from
a
supportingsomething
that
supports
with
resources
and
supports
as
a
kind
of
like
weird
telephone
operator
that
basically
patches
people
together,
so
it
administers
to
like
big
website
and
it
was
a
pilot
project,
I
dont
think
it
was
actually
implemented
but
I
think
he
was
kind
of
testing
the
waters
to
see
how
wacky
things
could
possibly
get
with
this
where
basically
if
you
break
your
leg
or
something,
sprain
ankle
and
I
need
a
doctor,
they
will
find
you
a
doctor,
where
you
say
if
I
want
to
learn
something,
I
want
to
learn
particle
physics
why,
Big
Society
will
find
you
someone
in
your
neighborhood
who
can
teach
you
about
particle
physics,
right.
La
Rocco:
That
person
always
exists
in
ones
neighborhood.
Wood:
It
so
profoundly
liquidate
the
traditional
function
of
the
state
which
is
to
administer
and
manage
like
the
resources
of
the
people,
it
converts
thatit
converts
that
so
profoundly
that
it
actually
starts
to
become
kind
ofthats
then
thats
Jetsons,
and
Manchester
isnt
getting
any
funding
from
London
and
starts
to
scratch
its
head
and
says
what
is
the
contract
that
is
holding
us
together
if
no
resources
are
changing
hands.
La
Rocco:
It
also
assumes
a
certain
privilege
of
who
would
be
hooked
into
these
networks
to
begin
with.
I
mean
it
made
me
think
about
something
I
heard
about,
you
know,
how
in
Detroit
many
people
have
like
ambulance
plans
like
that
if
you
were
in
an
accident,
that
you
have
somebody
that
you
call
to
take
you
to
the
hospital,
because
the
ambulances
dont
work,
which
is,
you
know,
you
can
get
a
you
can
get
an
$8
cup
of
coffee,
but
you
cant
get
an
ambulance.
Wood:
Yeah,
but
these
are
basic
life
functions,
also,
that
the
state
performs.
They
cant
be
deferred
toyou
cant
Facebook
your
ambulance,
like,
so
then
the
why
question
is
then
how
to
like
return
to
ethical
questions
of
how
power
is
supposed
to
operate,
when
there
are
all
ofwhen
the
terms
have
changed
so
much,
and
where
the
terms
have
changed,
but
also
the
kind
of
the
way
that
the
ethics,
the
way
that
the
ethics
have
changed
around
them.
Siddiqi:
I
think
the
thing
thats
changing
is
what
types
of
labor
and
the
types
of
labor
that
are
making
these
platforms
valuable,
their
interpretation,
because
I
dont
thinkI
mean
that
lack
of
power
that
I
was
referencing
was
actually
a
reproduction
of
the
same
social
vulnerabilities
that
people
experience
offline,
right?
So
when
youre
talking
about
public
and
private
and
racial
entitlement,
where
power
still
is,
and
isnt,
I
mean
as
much
as
these
corporate
platforms
produce
their
own
ideologies
and
condition
certain
behavior,
Facebook
especially
doing
just
straight
out
experiments
on
its
users
and
trying
to
elicit
particular
emotional
responses
and
making
various
industries
increasingly
independent
so
its
not
just
your
DIY
project
thats
dependent
on
say
Instagram
censorship
rules
or
say
if
WordPress
decides
to
shut
down
one
day
and
the
work
that
you
may
have
been
putting
on
there
for
years
disappears,
etc.,
its
also
the
sense
of
entitlement
to
ownership
we
also
practice
as
individuals
and
who
were
taught
to
expect
to
feel
power
over
and
so
as
much
as
different
types
of
people
are
using
these
platforms,
they
are
not
at
all
in
the
same
boat
and
by
this
Im
talking
about
neither
obvious
examples,
a
woman
online
has
a
very
different
experience
than
a
man.
A
woman
talking
about
American
foreign
policy
and
she
is
wearing
a
hijab
in
her
avatar
has
a
very
different
experience
online
than
anyone
else.
A
lot
of
American
foreign
policy
pundits
who
are
white
and/or
male,
theyll
have
their
name
or
something
in
their
Twitter
bio
in
Arabic
script
its
like
a
popular
trend
to
do.
And
its
so
funny
to
see
that
when
its
such
a
like,
you
know,
bullshit
hipster
gesture,
and
all
of
the
people
for
whom,
I
mean
ofagain,
like
a
person
of
colors
experience
online
is
conditioned
by
being
a
person
of
color.
So
as
much
as
there
is
a
new
distribution
of
agency,
the
social
vulnerabilities
are
the
same,
and
the
storytelling
and
the
ability
to
own
narratives
by
producing
them
yourself
from
within
your
own
community
for
your
own
community,
makes
more
salient
the
things
that
are
going
to
make
you
a
target,
and
so
your
racial,
national
background,
your
sexual
orientation,
and
so
thats
what,
as
much
as
we
call
out
the
corporate
seats
of
power,
weits
useful
to
also
recognize
the
ways
in
which
we
participate
in
those
power
dynamics,
because
again,
we
are
also
doing,
that
the
entitlement
we
may
feel
over
the
image
ofyou
know,
I
was
thinking
about
this
on
the
last
podcast
I
recorded
was
about
this,
the
entitlement
we
feel
over
black
images,
right?
So
when
you
look
at
the
trends
of
sharing
communicating
via
memes
and
GIFs
and
vine,
right?
So
you
are
how
many
times
has
the
reaction
GIF
or
the
meme
in
that
conversation
been
of
a
black
entertainer,
from
say
a
reality
show
or
a
rapper?
And
the
particular
entitlement
of
that
culture
product,
you
know,
by
everyone
else,
thats
not
really
new,
thats
part
of
a
tradition
in
American
culture,
and
is
replicating
like
very
longstanding
historical
relationships
towho
the
producer
of
culture
are
and
who
are
the
people
that
ultimately
gain
the
benefits
of
it.
And
just
thinking
about
how
much
that
entitlement
to
the
way
we
use,
you
know,
pop
cultural
icons
as
personal
avatars,
the
very
grim
juxtaposition
of
that
to,
you
know,
the
country
in
which
thats
the
norm,
we
dont
have
a
comparable
ability
to,
you
know,
empathize
with
that
black
pain.
I
mean
if
we
did
we
wouldnt
have
as
many
police
shootings
as
we
do,
right?
So
its
this,
I
think
so
many
of
the
things
that
digital
culture
makes
visible
are
existing
facets
of
our
society
and
culture.
And
whats
new
now
is
our
ability
to
more
effectively
intervene
in
them
because
its
not
just
a
racist
newspaper,
right?
Its
us
on
Twitter.
And
I
think
in
carrying
that
relationship
to
the
circulation
of
imagery
and
the
ways
that
we
talk
about
these
things
is
just
as
useful
as
calling
out
the,
you
know,
ideologies
and
practice
by
the
corporate
platform
owners.
La
Rocco:
Should
we
take
questions.
Provan:
Yeah,
I
mean
maybe
that
we
could
talk
briefly
about
something
else,
but
Im
just
curious
about
howhike,
we
could
talk
about
the
circulation
of
images
and
words
in
terms
of
how
in
a
concrete
situation
power
might
be
exercised.
I
mean
I
think
it
might
be
useful
to
talk
about
what,
Olga
was
describing
earlier
in
terms
of
the
Tania
Bruguera
situation
because
its
a
very
straightforward
metric
for
figuring
whether
or
not
anything
that
we
do
has
anything
to
do
with
what
we
can
do
with
exercising
power
in
a
meaningful
way.
Of
in
this
case
we
cant
know
what
will
happen
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months,
but
that
is,
I
think
that
to
me
is
at
least
a
more
tangible,
if
not
more
meaningful
way
of
understanding
what
kind
of
power
we
might
possess
and
whether
its
worth
anything.
Siddiqi:
Well,
I
also
want
to
use
the
same
thing
you
did
in
your
presentation,
you
made
a
really
great
point
about
not
treating
community
as
alike
to
mean
exclusively
like
positive.
To
have
positive
connotations
and
I
would
want
to
do
the
same
thing
with
power,
right?
Its
not
that
these
things
dont
have
power,
its
that
they
have
a
particular
power
and
it
may
or
may
not
be
used
for
good.
So
think
of
the
Je
Suis
Charlie
phenomenon
and
Charlie
Hebdo
and
how
that
became
and
people
who
were
unaffiliated
tweeting
their
alliance
with
an
outlet
that
was
producing
commentary
that
aligned
with
a
longstanding
active
state
agenda
and
the
ways
in
which,
you
know,
so
manyso
much
of
the
theater
of
solidarity
and
protest,
that
Je
Suis
Charlie
and
Charlie
Hebdo
and
the
response
produced
to
me,
to
me
it
very
clear
the
through
lines
I
think
you
alluded
to
before,
between
borders
of
state
and
culture
and
marketing
and
I
mean
Im
thinking
that
among
the
responses
was
all
of
these
various
heads
of
state
standing
in
solidarity
with
this
racist
publication
and
saying
that
the
way
thatand
the
way
that
the
stakes
were,
you
know,
incorrectly
framed
to
be
that
of
freedom
of
speech.
Wood:
Freedom
of
expression.
Siddiqi:
Exactly
who
was
advantaged
in
that
conversation,
because
the
participants
spanned
various
seats
of
power
or
lack
thereof,
but
the
actions
were
firmly
within
Provan:
Thats
why
I
think
its
useful
to
talk
about
people
organizing
everything
and
speaking
in
order
to
achieve
a
very
specific
end.
Rather
than
in
order
to,
you
know,
enrich
a
spectacle
of
solidarity.
KEYNOTE:
James Bridle
Paul
Schmelzer:
In
introducing
todays
keynote
speaker,
Id
like
to
begin
with
a
quote.
The
cloud
renders
geography
irrelevant.
Until
you
realize
that
everything
that
matters,
everything
that
means
you
dont
die
is
based,
not
only
on
which
passport
you
possess,
but
also
on
a
complex
web
of
definitions
of
what
constitutes
that
passport.
In
the
new
battles
over
citizenship,
those
definitions
are
constantly
under
attack.
Thats
James
Bridle,
London-based
artist,
writing
in
his
Walker
Artist
Op-Ed
last
July
on
how
the
response
to
terrorism
by
some
governments
means
the
redefinition
of
the
terms
surrounding
citizenship,
including
in
the
UK
and
elsewhere,
full
deprivation
of
citizenship
for
individuals
with
suspected
links
to
terrorism.
In
the
ten
months
since
he
wrote
that,
Bridle
has
continued
his
examinations
of
the
evolving
nature
of
citizenship,
and
just
yesterday
he
launched
a
new
project
that
continues
exploring
the
relationship
between
citizenship
and
the
cloud.
Co-commissioned
by
The
Space
and
created
for
Southbank
Centres
Web
We
Want
Festival,
Citizen
Ex,
available
at
citizen-
ex.com,
is
software
that
allows
you
to
see
your
algorithmic
citizenship.
That
is,
it
shows
you
all
the
places
your
browsing
data
passes
through
whenever
you
use
the
Internet.
That
is,
countries
governed
by
laws,
including
some
that
might
involve
your
dataand
you
dont
know
that
youre
passing
through
those
locales.
As
the
project
website
states,
Citizen
Ex
calculates
your
algorithm
citizenship
based
on
where
you
go
online.
Every
site
you
visit
counts
as
evidence
of
your
affiliation
with
a
particular
place
and
added
to
your
constantly
revised
algorithmic
citizenship.
Because
the
Internet
is
everywhere,
you
can
go
anywhere,
but
because
the
Internet
is
real,
this
also
has
consequences.
Citizen
Ex
is
a
timely
example
of
the
ways
Bridles
work,
which
encompasses
art-making,
criticism,
and
writing
for
outlets
including
the
Guardian,
Wired,
Domus
and
his
own
site,
booktwo.org,
engages
with
the
contemporary.
I
use
that
term
deliberately.
At
dinner
last
night
with
James,
the
term
political
art
came
up
in
relationship
to
his
work,
and
its
not
a
term
that
he
prefers
to
use,
but
you
can
see
why
people
do.
He
has
addressed
through
his
projects
things
like
surveillance
and
technology
all
the
way
to
the
US
Covert
Drone
Program.
One
of
his
projects
you
may
have
heard
of
Dronestagram.
It
basically
simulates
a
drones-eye
view,
pairing
Google
Earth
images
of
locations
of
verified
drone
strikes
with
news
accounts
on
those
kills.
To
my
mind
its
something
of
a
disruptive
technology,
because
its
this
place
where
the
rest
of
us
are
putting
photos
of
our
dinner,
or
kids,
or
our
cats,
or
our
parties,
and
here
hes
reminding
us
of
what
our
governments
might
be
doing
in
these
covert
drone
wars.
He
simply
says
hes
responding
to
the
world
around
him
and
the
one
we
live
in
through
creative
meansrather
than
dealing
with
political
art.
Its
just
the
world
we
live
in,
its
his
sensibility
that
he
uses
in
approaching
this
world.
And
thats
what
our
next
panel
is
about.
Artists
as
Cultural
First
Responders
is
about
how
artists
are
using
the
Internet
and
technology
to
respond
to
this
moment
through
art,
through
writing,
through
platforms
of
other
publications
and
institutions.
Im
not
sure
thats
all
hes
going
to
talk
about
in
his
keynote
because
hes
doing
double
duty:
hell
be
on
the
following
panel,
and
hes
also
giving
the
keynote
right
now.
I
welcome
him
to
our
stage.
Thank
you.
James
Bridle:
Hi.
Thank
you
very
much
for
having
me,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
invitation,
thank
you
very
much
to
the
Walker
for
bringing
me
all
the
way
here,
its
my
first
time
at
the
Walker
in
Minneapolis
in
Minnesota,
and
its
wonderful.
And
thank
you
all
very
much
indeed
for
being
here.
Im
not
really
gonna
talk
about
any
of
that.
Which
is
weird
because
its
exactly
what
I
came
here
to
talk
about,
but
the
last
six
months,
year,
Ive
been
really
focusing
on
my
own
work,
Im
just
making
stuff
and
putting
it
out
there
which
Im
very
lucky
enough
to
be
able
to
do
at
this
moment
in
time
and
I
havent
actually
been
writing
too
much
about
it
or
actually
engaging
like
with
criticism
outside
my
own
work,
but
Im
both
like
a
bit
bored
at
giving
like
artist
talks,
even
though
I
will
do
a
bit
of
that,
and
also
kind
of
really
wanted
to
respond
to
a
lot
of
the
stuff
thats
been
discussed
over
the
last
36
hours
which
means
Ive
basically
been
writing
this
on
the
fly.
So
it
may
be
all
over
the
place.
Its
definitely
going
to
be
discursive
at
times
Ive
felt
like
Ive
been
live
blogging
the
other
speakers
who
have
been
really
excellent.
I
just
dont
want
to
repeat
it.
Thats
just
enough
apologies
now
so
Im
going
to
get
on
with
it.
Im
heard
as
you
heard
a
writer
and
a
journalist
and
an
artist
and
a
number
of
other
things.
I
feel
like
Im
mostly
speaking
as
an
artist
because
it
gives
you
that
permission
to
speak
about
other
things
or
to
speak
in
a
slightly
different
register
but
I
want
to
talk
to
my
colleagues
in
criticism
and
journalism
as
well
because
I
think
were
all
in
this
together
to
use
a
to
use
a
horribly
tory
phrase.
No,
Im
just
going
to
shut
up
and
talk.
Lets
start
with
these.
Has
everybody
seen
these?
Has
anyone
seen
these?
If
you
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
Google
Maps
like
I
do,
you
may
have
encountered
these
things.
They
areyou
will
see
them
as
images.
Theyre
planes
in
flight.
But
theyre
specifically
captured
in
a
particular
way.
I
call
them
the
rainbow
planes,
and
I
found
them
as
I
was
kind
of
hunting
around
Google
Maps
for
various
reasons
and
then
I
kept
finding
more
of
them
and
then
I
started
actively
looking
for
them
because
I
think
they
are
extraordinary,
they
are
beautiful
and
strange
and
emblematic
of
Im
not
entirely
sure
what,
or
I
wasnt
but
they
spoke
to
me
in
a
certain
kind
of
way
so
I
figured
you
should
just
obsessively
collect
them
and
keep
talking
to
them
and
try
and
work
out
what
on
earth
is
going
on
here
and
it
took
a
while
and
it
ended
up
getting
to
by
various
round
about
works
work
I
was
doing
in
satellite
imaging
in
other
contexts
and
stuff
but
ended
up
getting
there
and
what
the
rainbow
plane
is
its
an
artifact
of
satellite
mapping.
Its
a
glitch.
But
like
all
true
glitches,
its
not
just
a
mistake
its
kind
of
an
opportunity
to
look
through
into
the
underlying
systems
that
produce
this
image,
because
it
is
a
glimpse
intoits
not
a
mistake,
it
is
a
fundamental
result
of
the
way
in
which
this
image
is
created
and
constructed.
The
rainbow
plane
iswhat
happens
is
satellites
dont
have
cameras
on
them,
right?
Were
getting
increasingly
used
to
satellite
imagery,
its
kind
of
extraordinary,
its
kind
of
amazing,
you
can
take
out
your
phone
and
scan
through
satellites
and
scan
the
entire
earth
s
surface
its
kind
of
like
having
a
superpower
but
were
not
looking
at
photographs.
What
youre
looking
at
here
is
an
image
thats
constructed
out
of
data.
Satellites
have
a
sense
about
them
that
records
radiation
across
the
electromagnetic
spectrum
and
it
extends
beyond
human
version,
as
well.
Theyre
recording
the
infrared
and
the
ultraviolet.
Theyre
seeing
in
wider
spectra
than
we
are
and
they
record
red,
green
and
blue
separately
when
they
make
these
data
images
and
when
they
reconstruct
those
images
for
humans
to
be
able
to
view
them,
they
overlay
the
red
green
and
blue
and
so
occasionally
you
find
in
these
satellite
images
these
artifacts
which
are
produced
by
fast
moving
objects
because
the
red,
green,
and
blue
have
been
kind
of
stuttered
by
the
fact
that
this
plane
is
flying
very,
very
fast
indeed.
And
so
when
this
image
is
constructed,
it
leaves
this
extraordinary
kind
of
rainbow.
But
in
that,
you
can
see
how
the
satellites
see,
right?
Its
a
reconstruction
of
the
world
through
the
eyes
of
the
machines.
Its
a
moment
at
which
we
can
see
how
technology
has
a
way
of
seeing
the
world.
But
its
also
to
me
emblematic
of
something
that
were
trying
to
learn
from
it.
Something
that
the
network
is
kind
of
trying
to
teach
us,
which
is
a
new
way
of
saying
alongside
or
through
or
within
those
technologies.
This
is
like
John
Berger
again,
right?
We
were
there
yesterday
and
I
want
to
pick
up
from
where
from
what
Ben
Davis
was
saying
about,
because
I
think
its
really
important
we
figure
out
whats
changed
since
these
kind
of
statements
were
made.
Berger
made
these
statements
40-odd
years
ago
and
even
this,
which
is
right
there
at
the
beginning
of
Ways
of
Seeing.
In
Dziga
Vertovs
film
called
The
Man
with
a
Movie
Camera
was
made
40
years
before
that
and
hes
already
talking
about
this
kind
of
machine
vision.
Hes
already
trying
to
understand
whats
changed
in
this
kind
of
human
vision
of
the
world
and
what
it
means
for
us
and
so
if
weve
got
anything
new
to
talk
about
here
at
a
conference
which
is
entitles
Arts
Journalism
and
Criticism
in
a
Digital
Age,
then
the
key
to
that
has
to
be
in
the
second
half
of
the
sentence,
right?
It
has
to
be
changed
whats
changed
in
those
40
years.
And
Berger
was
talking
about
the
eye
a
lot.
But
I
want
to
talk
about
networks
and
the
difference
in
images
that
is
produced
not
just
in
distribution
and
assemblage
but
out
of
the
way
of
construction
and
the
way
that
construction
is
kind
of
shared
now
amongst
many
of
us.
Ben
asked
the
question
yesterday
about
how
many
people
have
seen
Ways
of
Seeing.
How
many
have
read
it?
How
many
have
seen
the
film?
Thank
you,
and
Bergers
thing
of
constantly
looking
deeply
into
paintings
and
seeing
the
details
and
stuff.
So
how
many
of
you
when
you
go
to
the
galleries,
really
peer
at
the
surface
paint?
Thank
you.
How
many
of
you
have
viewed
source
on
a
web
page?
Thats
a
good
number
and
how
many
people
write
code?
Still,
thats
a
good
number.
Thats
really
good.
Ill
be
honest
that
was
better
than
I
was
hoping
for.
Its
unfair
that
last
question
Im
biased
towards
it
because
I
trained
as
a
computer
scientist
its
and
kind
of
my
default
position
and
theres
a
lot
of
noise
at
the
moment
to
teaching
everyone
to
code
and
as
if
it
will
magically
save
the
world.
Computer
science
in
that
sense
breeds
a
certain
myopia,
I
believe.
It
can
be
a
useful
myopia,
it
teaches
you
to
break
the
world
down
into
structures
and
processes,
into
small
discrete
steps
to
make
them
understandable.
That
kind
of
analysis
is
kind
of
useful
to
address
other
large
and
complex
systems
that
we
may
find
ourselves
embedded
in,
but
Im
not
sure
that
teaching
everyone
to
code
is
the
best
solution.
You
shouldnt
have
to
be
a
plumber
in
order
to
take
a
shit,
right?
You
shouldnt
have
to
fully
understand
everything.
But
plumbers
do
have
a
general
knowledge
of
management
of
water
resources
which
is
knowledge
that
may
perhaps
be
seen
certainly
useful
to
us
as
well
and
we
should
possibly
pay
attention
to
those
fields
of
knowledge.
I
want
to
go
into
a
little
Bergeresque
wonder.
I
want
to
introduce
you
to
some
friends
of
mine.
I
call
them
the
render
ghosts.
You
know
them,
right?
They
live
in
the
unbuilt
buildings
all
over
town,
youve
seen
them.
Ive
been
really
fascinated
by
these
images,
these
renders,
these
constructions
for
some
time
for
the
roles
that
they
play
in
the
world
for
the
way
theyre
constructed
and
consumed.
For
me
theyve
almost
attained,
particularly
living
in
London
was
overrun
with
this
stuff,
theyve
basically
become
public
art.
And
Ive
been
kind
of
studying
them
and
trying
to
learn
their
techniques
and
in
particular
Ive
become
fascinated
with
the
people
in
them,
as
well.
You
watch
them
long
enough
and
you
see
these
same
people
going
about
their
day
and
becoming
familiar
and
theyre
deeply
weird,
these
images,
right?
Theyre
supposed
to
be
the
future,
this
place
were
going
to
inhabit,
but
theyre
full
of
this
very
odd
juxtapositions
and
strangeness,
like
the
potentially
toxic
plants
which
are
going
to
fill
up
these
privatized
public
spaces.
Theyve
always
got
children
playing
in
them
because
its
supposed
to
be
about
a
the
future,
even
though
its
a
future
that
were
never
going
to
inhabit.
And
in
fact
theyre
never
going
to
inhabit
it,
either.
They
have
to
move
out
as
soon
as
the
buildings
get
built.
They
live
in
relationship
to
the
future
in
just
as
precarious
of
a
way
as
we
do.
And
sometimes
you
can
kind
of
catch
them
looking
back
out
at
you.
Sometimes
kind
of
hopefully,
sometimes
slightly
more
fearfully,
you
can
even
watch
them
despite
everything,
falling
in
love.
They
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
balconies.
They
really
love
their
balconies
and
they
like
to
party
up
there.
And
it
seems
to
be
very
important
to
them.
But
a
lot
of
the
time
these
images
are
also
as
I
had
said
deeply
revealing
about
the
world.
This
is
one
of
my
favorite
ones.
This
is
just
around
the
corner
from
my
house
in
London
where
theyre
happily
building
a
new
chain
of
designer
outlet
stores
in
one
of
the
less
lubricous
parts
of
London
and
this
render
is
overlaid
on
top
of
a
real
street
and
this
gentleman
on
the
mobile
phone
in
the
pin
striped
shirt
is
added
to
the
real
image
as
are
the
German
luxury
cars
and
the
4
wheel
drive
in
the
background
and
just
in
the
background
you
can
see
an
actual
local
slowly
kind
of
being
blurred
out
of
existence
by
the
overlaying
of
this
stuff.
They
can
also
be
quite
strange
and
interestingly
beautiful.
This
is
an
image
by
a
visualization
studio
called
Picture
Plane
which
have
become
friends
of
mine
who
have
taken
an
incredibly
detailed
approached
to
this,
even
in
fact
using
for
example
the
sky
is
from
18th
Century
landscape
painting
as
the
background
to
their
renders
of
these
new
housing
developments
in
south
London.
The
care
and
attention
they
seem
to
put
into
these
things,
I
wanted
to
work
with
them
and
I
warranted
to
look
at
ways
in
which
this
particular
approach
to
image
making
could
be
possibly
turned
to
other
uses.
I
worked
with
them
to
construct
a
series
of
spaces,
and
very
specifically
I
wanted
to
look
at
spaces
which
werent
made
visible
in
other
ways.
The
Dronestagram
project
which
you
heard
before
was
very
much
a
project
taking
an
event,
an
occurrence,
a
thing
that
was
going
on
in
the
covert
drone
war
for
which
images
were
not
available
and
finding
those
images
in
another
context
and
making
them
available,
to
kind
of
fill
in
gaps
in
imaging
when
images
are
not
provided
in
these
circumstances,
that
lacuna
is
often
you
know,
very
revealing
about
the
nature
of
the
event.
But
of
course
we
have
the
technology
to
address
that
now,
we
can
intervene
in
that
kind
of
image-making
process.
I
obtained
planning
documents
from
a
number
of
sites
that
related
to
immigrant
detention,
judgment
and
deportation
in
the
UK.
This
is
an
airport
outside
London
where
people
are
deported
in
the
middle
of
the
night.
Its
actually
a
private
jet
terminal,
so
in
the
middle
of
the
day
you
have
celebrities
and
business
people
flying
out
and
in
the
middle
of
the
night
they
use
it
for
deportation
but
its
an
entirely
private
place
and
theres
no
way
to
take
photos
there
but
plans
are
available
at
your
local
department
office.
This
is
the
courtroom
in
central
London
where
special
immigration
appeals
are
heard.
No
photographs
of
this
space
are
available,
but
its
possible
to
sketch
in
there
which
is
what
we
did.
And
whats
interesting
to
me
is
not
just
that
its
possible
to
recreate
this
image
but
its
actually
possible
to
portray
this
architecture.
Whats
interesting
about
particular
court
is
its
used
for
the
provision
of
secret
evidence.
Secret
evidence
is
a
provision
under
UK
law
where
evidence
can
be
provided
to
the
court
without
the
defendant
being
allowed
to
know
what
evidence
is
being
presented.
A
court-appointed
mediator
is
allowed
to
see
the
evidence,
but
the
defendant
nor
the
defense
team
are
allowed
access
to
it
and
this
form
of
secrecy
takes
a
form
in
the
courtroom
itself.
It
solidifies
as
architecture
because
you
have
this
curtained-off
witness
box
on
one
side,
actually
a
partition
here
which
allows
security
personnel
to
watch
the
court
without
being
visible
from
the
public
on
the
other
side.
So
you
have
the
infrastructure
and
the
architecture
of
the
place,
but
that
is
also
rendered
invisible
and
made
visible
to
us
by
the
technologies.
Likewise
you
can
represent
various
realities
which
we
dont
necessarily
have
access
to.
And
this
representation
is
regularly
denied
by
power.
And
this
is
that
particular
airport
at
night.
This
is
the
detention
center
near
HeathrowAirport
where
people
are
kept.
The
thing
thats
also
odd
here
I
think
that
Im
not
representing
the
individual
stories
of
detainees
and
migrants
themselves
as
important
as
though
stories
are,
because
what
Im
trying
to
address
is
the
kind
of
unaccountability
and
kind
of
ungraspable
vastness
of
the
system
which
produces
this
which
through
me
I
have
to
talk
about
through
architecture
and
infrastructure,
because
again,
to
me
as
a
scientist
I
see
complex
agglomerations
of
architecture
and
infrastructure
and
I
see
the
laws
and
social
processes
that
produce
them.
But
through
this
kind
of
process
of
journalistic
investigation,
academic
research,
artistic
impression
and
the
deployment
of
the
new
technologies,
some
possible
way
of
seeing
the
world
anew
is
made
possible.
Back
to
those
figures,
the
render
ghosts.
Who
are
they,
where
do
they
come
from?
Do
they
know
theyve
been
kind
of
rendered
into
the
network
in
this
way
and
digitized,
distributed
and
spread
around
the
world.
I
dont
think
they
have,
and
so
I
wanted
to
tell
them.
And
find
out.
So
through
talking
to
architects
a
lot,
I
found
these
banks
of
images.
These
are
a
sample
sheet
for
one
of
these
collections
of
imagery,
in
fact
one
of
the
very
first
ones,
because
what
I
discovered
was
that
for
a
long
time
there
were
only
a
couple
sets
of
these
available.
There
was
a
particular
set
of
a
few
hundred
figures
that
had
been
shared
around
because
of
all
the
Internet
almost
all
practicing
architects
architecture
studios
and
if
you
looked
carefully
you
saw
the
same
people,
like
this
suit
guy
recur
endlessly
and
endlessly
again
around
the
streets
and
Id
see
them
also
all
over
the
world.
This
is
that
same
image
set
called
business
people.
See
the
bloke
in
the
white
suit
at
the
bottom.
Here
he
is
visiting
the
Whitney.
This
was
actually
on
the
boards
outside
the
museum
and
he
looks
like
hes
about
to
throw
himself
off
but
hes
waiting
for
it.
I
said,
I
wanted
to
know
about
these
people
and
ask
them
questions
and
understand
what
was
going
on.
And
so
I
set
out
to
find
them.
And
theres
a
thing
thatso
I
went
to
do
some
research
about
the
origin
of
these
images.
This
is
rendersearch.com
which
was
not
successful,
I
discovered
that
they
were
based
in
Albuquerque
in
New
Mexico,
so
I
started
running
targeted
Facebook
ads
against
people
who
lived
in
this
area,
trying
to
locate
them
this
way.
I
was
also
trying
to
understand
this
company
that
produced
them,
because
they
werent
answering
my
calls
which
I
thought
was
rude.
They
did
once
actually
and
then
they
hung
up
on
me.
And
so
I
went
to
Albuquerque,
and
there
was
no
one
at
home,
but
I
was
there,
so
I
was
running
like
more
local
newspaper
ads,
putting
up
signs,
all
this
kind
of
thing.
I
really
have
no
idea
what
Im
doing
at
this
point,
right?
This
is
where
the
obsession
with
the
network
takes
you
is
you
dive
really
deep
into
it
and
what
happens
then
was
that
I
actually
met
a
guy
at
a
bar
as
you
do,
who
turned
out
to
be
a
local
investigative
journalist
as
you
do,
who
had
a
load
of
state
tax
records
on
his
phone
as
he
did,
apparently
and
what
he
told
me
was
that
in
fact
this
company
had
only
formed
in
the
state
subsequent
to
the
release
of
the
images
and
that
they
were
not
in
fact
from
here
at
all
and
thatas
in
fact,
everyone
in
New
Mexico
had
been
telling
me
since
I
arrived,
these
people
are
not
from
here,
they
dont
look
like
New
Mexicans
theres
something
wrong
in
every
way.
So
I
was
in
Albuquerque
where
Id
never
been
before
for
this
purpose
and
Id
never
seen
that
telly
show
so
I
had
no
other
kind
of
frame
of
reference
to
be
here
there.
I
was
figuring
out
what
to
do
so
I
decided
to
take
a
couple
of
my
favorite
render
ghosts
on
a
road
trip.
We
went
out
into
the
desert,
and
I
took
them
to
Los
Alamos
which
seemed
like
a
sensible
place
to
go
if
youre
trying
to
understand
the
Internet.
Which
is
kind
of
essentially
what
I
was
trying
to
do,
right?
This
is
what
a
huge
amount
of
this
kind
of
work
has
been
about
for
me
is
that
Im
trying
to
build
some
kind
of
sensible
and
useful
model
of
the
Internet
that
can
I
use,
right?
We
had
that
mention
of
the
cloud
earlier.
The
cloud
being
like
this
incredibly
dangerous
metaphor
that
kind
of
hides
the
operation
of
huge
systems
behind
a
kind
of
veil
of
like
you
dont
need
to
worry
about
this,
its
completely
fine,
even
though
you
are
engaged
with
it
all
the
time
and
its
not
some
magical
distant
far
away
place
but
something
that
surrounds
us
totally
at
all
times
and
were
constantly
accessing
and
affects
every
moment
of
our
lives
apart
from
sleep
but
theyre
trying
to
get
in
there,
too.
So
this
is
what
Im
trying
to
do,
Im
trying
to
understand
the
Internet
so
I
can
operationalize
that
understanding
and
use
it.
And
Los
Alamos
seemed
to
be
a
useful
place
to
be.
Its
one
of
the
historical
birthing
places
of
this
kind
of
thing.
Its
not
entirely
true
that
the
Opernet
was
developed
in
response
to
the
development
of
the
bomb,
but
the
connection
between
military
technologies,
the
Cold
War,
and
previous
to
that
kind
of
aiming
systems
that
developed
the
computer,
the
Cold
War
development
of
these
distributed
networks,
laterally
things
like
you
know
kind
of
XBox
Connect
and
these
visional
based
systems
that
came
out
of
warfare,
they
all
kind
of
originate
in
this
big
bang
at
Los
Alamos
for
me
so
it
seemed
like
a
useful
place
to
go
and
you
have
realizations
going
out
in
the
desert
like
that
and
you
figure
out
things
and
what
I
figured
out
there
was
what
I
was
looking
for
was
not
a
better
description
of
the
Internet
like
going
to
a
place
that
is
kind
of
completely
pointless
because
the
history
isnt
there,
the
history
happened
and
the
history
is
all
around
us
and
the
history
is
something
that
is
now
becoming
completely
widely
distributed
over
all
of
these
things.
The
history
of
the
bomb
and
just
like
the
kind
of
history
of
the
Internet
but
I
understood
that
I
was
understanding
that
as
a
metaphor
through
the
Internet,
that
my
understand
of
the
Internet
actually
allowed
me
to
understand
that.
And
thinking
about
how
to
use
the
Internet
to
understand
everything
else,
that
actually
I
realize
Id
been
trading
myself
as
a
computer
scientist
as
a
person
on
the
Internet
to
actually
use
that
understanding
and
apply
it
to
lots
of
other
things.
So
likeI
was
going
to
spend
the
rest
of
this
talking
a
bit
about
criticism
and
the
Internet.
Which
I
could
go
that
way,
as
well.
Ten
years
ago,
in
my
capacity,
another
previous
capacity
as
a
literary
editor
and
a
publisher
I
was
attending
a
lot
of
publishing
conferences
weve
all
been
there
and
we
were
all
involved
in
a
lot
of
the
same
kind
of
conversations
that
it
feels
like
weve
been
having
here.
About
the
changes
that
have
been
wrought
by
these
technologies
and
particularly
by
networks
and
it
strikes
me
then
and
it
strikes
me
again
now,
that
this
perceived
crisis
is
not
like
some
horrible
visitation
from
the
outside,
right?
It
hasnt
been
forced
upon
us
by
devious
programmers
or
even
in
fact
by
large
corporations
that
have
definitely
seized
the
ground
now.
But
what
it
brings
to
us
it
a
kind
of
a
moment
of
clarity
when
we
first
perceived
the
ongoing
catastrophe
take
my
favorite
things,
books,
and
how
they
exist
in
the
network.
All
of
these
publishing
companies,
theres
less
of
this
now
thank
goodness
but
one
of
the
big
fears
of
the
early
predatory
Internet
was
piracy,
right?
Was
this
horrible
fear
that
something
was
being
stolen
from
us,
because
it
was
really
about
that,
right?
Underneath
all
this
talk
about
lost
revenue
to
publishers
and
this
kind
of
thing,
the
fear
of
piracy
is
a
fear
of
the
loss
of
control
of
the
text
and
the
meaning
that
kind
of
comes
from
that
and
the
authority
which
stems
from
having
control
of
that
meaning.
And
its
like
kind
of
fear
of
kind
of
an
other
control
of
the
text
in
many
ways.
And
this
is
my
favorite
example
of
that
happening,
right?
These
are
two
copies
of
a
novel
collected
in
Peru
by
my
friend
Andrea
Franckie
who
runs
a
thing
called
the
Piracy
Project,
which
kind
of
collects
this
sort
of
thing.
Because
Peru
is
at
such
a
great
distance
from
the
central
Spanish
literary
production,
which
is
unsurprising
still
in
Spain,
theres
a
lot
of
piracy
in
that
part
of
the
world.
These
are
both
pirated
editions
of
a
best-selling
novel
published
in
Spain,
and
it
takes
a
long
time
for
it
to
reach
the
end
of
the
supply
chain,
and
so
it
gets
incredibly
pirated
because
its
popular.
These
are
both
pirated
versions
and
theyre
also
different
translation,
the
texts
differ,
characters
have
different
names
in
various
places,
like
the
thing
has
become
unstable,
and
this
is
what
happens,
that
piracy
and
that
instability
is
what
happens
at
the
periphery,
but
the
periphery
is
everywhere
now.
Like
theyre
still
senses
of
gravity
and
that
stuff
but
the
network
has
shifted
that
relationship
to
some
extent.
But
also
this
is
what
happens
to
all
texts
and
what
has
always
happened
to
all
texts.
All
of
them
disintegrate
and
disperse,
are
written
and
rewritten
and
overwritten
and
become
the
property
of
those
who
discover
them
and
are
appropriated
and
re-appropriated
and
misappropriated,
nobody
has
control
of
this
process
and
nobody
has
ever
had
control
of
this
process.
The
difference
that
has
been
wrought
by
digital
technology
in
this
example
is
not
that
its
destabilized
the
text
but
that
it
has
revealed
the
text
as
always
being
utterly
and
fundamentally
unstable
and
digital
technology
has
given
us
a
place
to
see
that
truly
and
properly
for
the
first
time.
You
see
the
same
effect
in
online
forms
of
knowledge
production,
as
well,
take
Wikipedia,
take
the
fact
that
Wikipedia
articles
are
assembled
of
these
agglomerations
of
professional
and
amateur
writers,
they
can
contain
all
kinds
of
inaccuracies.
They
never
conform
to
this
mutual
point
of
view.
But
like,
so
what,
right?
What
the
hell
ever
has?
I
dont
believe
that
that
was
ever
the
case.
This
is
a
printout
I
made
many
years
ago
of
a
single
Wikipedia
article,
right?
The
changes,
I
printed
out
the
change
log
of
that
article.
One
of
the
brilliant
things
about
Wikipedia
is
you
can
see
every
edit
thats
ever
been
made
to
an
article,
and
so
actually
the
difference
in
Wikipedia
and
when
you
do
that,
you
get
a
12-volume
set
of
books
which
is
the
size
of
an
old
school
encyclopedia.
And
this
is
visibly
distributed
system
unlike
these
previous
encyclopedias,
with
Wikipedia,
can
you
pull
it
apart,
you
can
see
its
previous
versions,
you
can
trace
some
of
the
IP
addresses
of
the
contributors,
you
can
see
when
its
changed
by
someone
who
works
for
a
corporation
or
whos
you
know,
an
IP
address
within
the
House
of
Representatives
around
election
time.
You
can
see
when
that
article
was
hastily
compiled
in
response
to
a
news
event
or
something,
you
can
see
when
its
been
built
up
carefully
over
time
over
many
kind
of
sources,
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff
and
all
that
is
visible
to
us.
Its
a
creation
of
something
that
is
if
not
totally
visually
and
appreciably
more
democratized
and
accessible
not
only
in
terms
of
its
writers,
but
in
terms
of
its
readers,
as
well
and
thats
made,
again,
startlingly
visible
to
us
and
the
construction
of
the
web
is
also
the
construction
the
discussions
that
we
have
on
it
and
even
the
fact
that
its
co-constructed
by
those
technologies
is
visible
to
us
as
well.
This
is
a
list
of
the
top
30
editors
of
the
English
Wikipedia.
All
the
ones
highlighted
in
yellow
are
bots,
right?
Theyre
software
systems.
20
of
the
top
30
Wikipedia
editors,
the
ones
that
make
the
most
edits
are
software
systems,
theyre
automated
little
programs
that
go
around
Wikipedia
editing
things,
adding
dates,
correcting
punctuation,
all
this
kind
of
stuff.
Im
not
asserting
that
theyre
making
changes
to
the
factual
history
of
the
world
by
doing
this.
But
they
are
assisting
us
and
theyre
kind
of
working
alongside
us,
and
they
are
co-creating
with
us
this
representation
of
the
world.
But
again,
because
of
the
way
in
which
this
is
done,
that
is
kind
of
visible
to
us.
The
other
big
thing
that
people
are
upset
about
in
the
publishing
world
in
the
last
decade
has
been
like
this
idea
of
attention,
right?
The
fact
that
people
are
you
know,
suddenly
all
turned
to
kind
of
jelly
brains
who
arent
paying
attention
anymore.
This
one
really
annoys
me
as
if
before
the
Internet
people
were
all
perfect
students
who
all
sat
there
quietly
and
read
the
book
from
cover
to
cover,
and
again,
this
is
bullshit,
right?
And
we
know
it
is
from
our
own
experience.
But
yet
we
kind
of
persist
in
kind
of
complaining
about
this,
as
though
its
something
thats
been
produced
by
the
technologies
rather
than
something
thats
always
been
with
us
thats
been
rendered
incredibly
clear
to
us.
The
Internet
didnt
cause
it,
it
revealed
and
potentially
accelerated
it,
as
well,
but
thats
something
thats
emerging
from
your
latent
desires,
it
feels
like
to
me.
And
it
should
be
said
really
clearly
this
is
not
true
just
for
attention,
but
for
opinions,
as
well.
And
I
think
this
leads
very
follows
very
much
from
what
Ayesha
Siddiqi
said
earlier
on
that
the
Internet
didnt
create
legions
of
misogynists
and
racists
and
homophobes
and
it
just
turned
over
the
rock
and
gave
them
a
massively
horrifically
amplified
voice.
Its
like
a
Naked
Lunch.
You
get
say
everything
at
the
end
of
the
fork.
And
as
depressing
and
distressing
as
that
is,
it
also
makes
those
attitudes
visible
and
undeniable
and
potentially
actionable
in
ways
that
they
simply
werent
before.
I
like
this
term
used
by
the
architectural
theorist,
Keller
Easterling,
which
is
disposition.
She
says
that
technology
has
a
disposition,
that
it
is
encoded
with
certain
kind
of
beliefs.
And
propensities
to
act
in
the
world.
But
she
also
uses
that
disposition,
uses
a
very
careful
analysis
that
uses
that
very
kind
of
politics
of
technology
to
emphasize
that
it
is
something
we
can
construct
and
hedge
around
that
it
is
merely
one
kind
of
particular
vector
in
the
world
and
that
if
we
persist
in
believing
that
we
are
kind
of
hostage
to
the
dispositions
of
those
technologies,
then
were
just
like,
you
know,
were
simply
going
to
be
acted
upon
by
them
rather
than
kind
of
engaging
with
them.
And
a
lot
of
the
analysis
that
Easterling
does
is
this
kind
of
analysis,
which
Brian
referenced
earlier,
I
think,
quite
well
and
referenced
the
work
of
Trevor
Paglen
which
is
quite
close
to
the
work
that
I
do
in
his
materialist
Marxist
analysis
of
the
Internet
which
traces
these
kind
of
paths.
I
dont
think
its
an
entirely
redundant
analysis
for
a
number
of
reasons,
because
its
not
so
remote
and
abstract
now.
None
of
this
stuff
is.
Its
not
about
noting
that
these
cable
lines
really
exist
or
that
they
follow
pretty
much
the
patterns
of
colonialism
and
connecting
the
nations
back
to
the
sites
of
old
Imperial
power.
The
presence
of
that
information
on
the
network
makes
it
far
far
more
addressable,
understandable,
its
possible
to
link
it
more
directly
to
whats
happening
in
the
world
than
it
was
before.
I
kind
of
have
to
believe
that,
because
otherwise
we
have
to
just
kind
of
have
to
junk
the
last
50
years
of
technology,
right?
Learning
about
how
images
and
data
systems
work
and
networks
actually
function
also
for
me
permit
forms
of
critique.
These
systems,
regardless
of
who
directly
bit
them,
not
ignoring
that,
because
its
important
to
know
a
little
bit
how,
but
understand
that
they
exist
in
the
world
and
that
theyre
here
to
educate
us,
not
merely
to
be
opposed,
we
can
choose
what
to
learn
from
these
metrics,
right,
the
negative
reviews,
the
response,
the
audience
to
those
kind
of
stuff.
We
can
choose
what
to
learn
from
those
results.
We
can
redesign
them
to
better
suit
our
needs.
We
can
also
avoid
them
in
ways
that
were
not
possible
before.
Like
we
need
these
kind
of
examples
in
order
to
provide
our
counterexamples
and
this
visibility
of
systems,
not
necessarily
of
people,
is
incredibly
important.
Im
sorry
to
pick
on
Hyperallergic
here,
but
after
all
the
discussion
of
ad
networks
yesterday
I
kind
of
had
to
check
on
this
and
its
really
important
to
remember
that
this
is
the
reality
of
the
funding
and
support
models
and
networks
which
were
discussing
whenever
we
talk
about
how
stuff
gets
paid
for
on
the
Internet.
Theyre
predicated
on
surveillance
networks
being
you
cant
have
ad
revenue
on
the
Internet
without
these
kind
of
networks
and
I
think
theres
a
parallel
to
a
kind
of
James
C.
Scott
analysis
of
legibility
when
it
comes
to
previous
forms,
institutional
and
state
arts
funding
because
we
all
know
weve
had
to
conform
in
certain
ways
in
describing
our
work
in
order
to
receive
certain
fundings
or
weve
had
to
present
in
certain
accepted
forms
of
art
in
order
to
get
this
and
this
is
just
a
more
insidious
form
of
that
kind
of
conforming.
Conforming
as
a
kind
of
surveillant
body
as
kind
of
identifiable
and
trackable.
So
on
top
of
these
networks
we
built
these
other
systems
that
would
make
that
surveillance
and
those
actions
visible
in
turn.
Because
something
critical
about
these
technologies
is
that
they
cut
both
ways.
This
power
is
not
new
but
its
no
longer
invisible.
It
has
to
be
written
down
in
order
to
be
enacted
by
the
machines.
Weve
been
training
ourselves
a
mode
of
analysis
that
comes
from
the
network
and
its
increasingly
impossible
to
ignore
the
deep
tectonic
underpinnings
of
these
structures
and
thats
precisely
why
were
capable
of
having
discussions
about
things
whether
its
zombie
formalism
or
racial
and
gender
representation.
Its
why
were
talking
about
floundering
materially
short
of
money,
short
on
self-
esteem,
because
those
things
have
been
foregrounded
by
the
actions
of
these
technologies,
and
theyre
impossible
to
ignore.
As
the
historian
Tony
Judt
said
in
a
very
eloquent
warning
to
non-historians
and
to
those
who
said
that
history
is
over,
he
said,
by
ignoring
history
youre
like
a
person
walking
around
an
old
house,
you
can
pretend
the
rooms
are
empty
empty
but
youll
keep
bumping
into
the
furniture.
You
cant
pretend
ignorance
about
this
stuff
anymore.
The
same
is
true
of
the
network
and
the
reality
it
presents
to
us.
The
network
has
kind
of
flattened
out
time,
its
substantiated
an
addressable
history
and
its
here
to
teach
us
this
stuff.
But
I
kind
of
want
to
go
further
than
that,
as
well,
into
justIm
actually
finishing
well
ahead
of
time,
thats
good.
I
want
to
go
further
beyond
that
just
kind
of
building
up
those
kind
of
layers,
because
thats
where
Ive
got
to,
right?
Thats
the
kind
of
analysis
Ive
been
doing
and
thats
where
I
feel
good
about
this
kind
of
stuff
that
its
possible
to
address
these
things
and
build
on
top
of
them
and
understand
the
technologies,
and
therefore
understand
the
world
is
the
precepts
of
that,
right?
But
I
want
to
go
further
than
that
into
what
feels
like
uncharted
territory,
because
Im
trying
to
figure
it
out.
Because
there
are
deep
and
serious
problems
with
that
approach,
as
well,
and
on
which
they
underlie
it
and
they
can
be
understood
possibly
through
this
framing
of
the
network,
as
well,
because
its
not
enough
just
to
point
at
this
stuff,
right?
Its
not
enough
to
point
at
pictures
or
images
or
aesthetics
and
their
deployment
and
the
material
frameworks,
you
kind
of
have
to
go
deeper,
I
think
into
the
ontologies
of
the
discussion
itself.
Which
are
also
being
revealed.
As
I
say
in
my
own
work
Im
kind
of
thoroughly
guilty
of
this.
In
making
the
invisible
visible
has
been
the
guiding
principle
of
my
work.
This
series
of
work,
the
drone
shadows,
illuminate
a
particular
use
of
a
technology
and
they
make
visible
its
inherent
visibility,
as
well,
and
it
tries
to
raise
questions
about
why
that
particular
form
of
invisibility
is
so
pervasive,
not
just
in
politics
and
the
technologies
of
politics
and
warfare
but
in
the
technologies
that
we
use
every
day,
the
social
technologies,
the
noumenal
networks
of
the
Internet
itself.
The
danger
as
Ayesha
pointed
out
earlier
is
that
of
mistaking
visibility
for
power.
Its
a
really
good
phrase
that
Im
stealing
already
as
you
can
note.
Visibility
without
reconfiguring
the
underlying
power
structures
is
kind
of
just
yelling,
just
showing
off
after
a
while,
right?
The
difficulty
Im
starting
to
think
is
weve
also
fallen
into
a
kind
of
trap
about
how
we
think
about
those
oppositions,
one
that
has
a
long
history
but
one
that
has
been
reinforced
and
illuminated
by
the
technologies,
because
this
discussion
of
visibility
and
invisibilities
doesnt
just
happen
in
the
margins.
Its
happening
at
the
height
of
international
discourse
and
state
conversations
that
are
actually
the
kind
of
the
central
issues
of
our
time.
Take
the
struggle
thats
occurring
between
state
and
non-state
access
and
privacy.
The
central
paradox
of
the
debate
illustrated
by
these
two
delightful
logos
is
this
weird
thing
about
how
the
NSA
and
WikiLeaks
essentially
share
the
same
vision
of
the
world,
right?
Both
of
them
believe
that
there
is
some
kind
of
central
dark
secret
at
the
heart
world
that
if
we
can
only
bring
it
to
light
it
will
make
everything
better.
This
is
the
ontology
of
big
data,
its
the
bad
lesson
were
learning
from
the
technologies.
Its
this
belief
bounded
on
metrics
and
databases.
That
seems
to
align
so
closely
with
enlightenment
ideas
of
just
the
general
increases
knowledge
that
slips
through
our
critical
defenses.
Its
the
bad
lesson
to
learn,
its
the
wrong
lesson.
Its
the
opposite
of
the
lesson
of
the
confusion
around
piracy
or
the
destabilization
of
text
and
knowledge
that
is
what
the
networks
are
actually
trying
to
teach
us
and
its
weird
that
we
are
stuck
within
that
and
a
lot
of
that
has
to
come
from
analysis
para,
I
think,
and
how
its
captured
the
ground
of
this
discussion
very,
very
successfully
on
both
sides
and
the
problem
occurs,
I
think,
in
art
discussions
and
in
art
criticism,
as
well,
in
particular
I
think
the
need
to
kind
of
place
artworks
and
events
into
a
kind
of
discernible
and
authenticated
lineage,
to
see
everything
in
terms
of
histories
and
movements
and
manifestoes
which
to
me
is
a
form
of
sense
making
that
have
been
largely
discredited
by
the
network.
Even
the
places
that
criticism
cannot
or
has
no
right
to
go,
if
its
honest
about
its
own
position
and
capabilities.
Visibility
and
transparency
are
the
baseline
but
theyre
not
the
goal.
Theyre
acknowledgement
to
the
situation
but
they
are
theyre
not
what
we
should
always
be
striving
for
and
to
quote
Tony
Judt
again
the
job
of
the
historian
(or
in
this
case
the
critic)
is
to
take
tidy
nonsense
and
make
a
mess
of
it.
An
accurate
mess
is
far
truer
to
life
than
elegant
untruths.
Andre
Breton
in
the
Surrealist
Manifesto,
which
I
came
across
the
other
day
and
struck
full
force
by
the
statement
made
100
years
ago
that
we
dont
seem
to
have
learned
from
at
all:
If
in
a
cluster
of
grapes
there
are
no
two
are
alike,
why
do
you
want
me
to
discuss
this
grape
by
the
other,
by
all
others.
Our
brains
are
addled
by
the
incurable
mania
of
wanting
to
make
the
unknown
known.
To
make
it
classifiable.
Im
not
saying
that
Surrealism
is
the
answer
now,
merely
noting
that
this
sense
is
not
new
and
we
can
reach
back
more
than
100
years
to
find
arguments
for
it
engendered
by
not
dissimilar
technologically
produced
societal
change,
we
just
dont
seem
to
be
very
good
at
implementing
it.
And
as
a
partial
apology
for
quoting
two
straight
up
white
men.
Ill
also
quote
Cahun,
who
stated
that
realities
disguised
as
symbols,
which
for
me,
are
new
realities
which
are
immeasurably
preferable.
I
make
an
effort
to
take
them
at
their
word,
to
grasp,
to
carry
out
the
diktat
of
the
images
to
the
letter.
Trust
the
evidence
of
your
senses
and
your
ideas.
Trust
the
images
and
the
sensations
that
you
gain
from
the
network
because
you
have
direct
experience
with
this.
Those
things
that
were
told
about
the
authenticity
is
dying
or
the
authority
is
not
present
in
the
network
anymore
or
that
people
dont
pay
attention
and
theyre
not
thinking
so
widely
and
clearly
anymore,
those
arent
true
and
we
can
deny
them
from
our
own
experience.
Stop
bumping
into
the
furniture,
in
short.
The
job
of
art
for
me
is
to
disrupt
and
complicate,
renew
and
criticize
these
networks
by
representing
and
building
upon
them.
But
the
idea
that
visibility
or
making
visible
figuratively
or
not,
is
a
way
of
solving
the
world
is
troubling.
Demanding
that
things
here
make
sense,
fit
into
recognizable,
even
newly
fashioned
categories
is
a
recipe
for
determinism,
fakery,
failure,
and
violence.
The
reason
for
the
rise
in
discourse
around
the
representation
is
that
they
directly
challenge
this
revolutionary
process.
The
frame
cannot
contain
them
and
the
center
cannot
hold.
This
is
also
the
job
of
criticism.
It
has
to
make
the
same
demands
from
the
same
position
of
understanding
the
material.
I
dont
see
how
criticism
can
function
without
making
the
same
level
of
demands
and
responding
to
the
same
challenges
as
art
itself.
In
a
form
of
solidarity,
but
also
for
its
own
survival.
It
needs
to
acknowledge
both
its
place
in
the
network
and
like
the
network,
its
political
position
in
reproducing
and
occasionally
opposing
the
situation.
It
needs
to
account
not
for
the
power
but
the
fundamental
uncertainties
and
instabilities
of
a
world
which
is
not
radically
new,
which
has
always
been
with
us,
but
we
we
can
no
longer
ignore.
Thank
you
very
much.
Audience
Member:
Your
example
of
the
airport
thats
used
as
both
the
celebrity
and
the
detainee,
deportation
center,
just
made
me
think
about
privacy
versus
secrecy,
and
how
theres
a
tension
between
those
who
are
allowed
privacy
and
then
those
for
whom
secrecy
is
used
sort
of
as
a
weapon.
Just
wondering
if
you
talk
about
that
a
little
bit.
Bridle:
Yeahso
youre
right,
those
ideas
of
privacy
and
secrecy,
theyre
not
fixed
things.
Cant
be
kind
of
awarded
like
badges
and
they
cant
be
kind
of
reconstructed.
Theyre
negotiations
and
theyre
positions
that
are
negotiated
from
positions
of
power
or
otherwise.
I
think
one
of
the
most
ubiquitous
things
happening
around
privacy
online
now
is
that
it
requires
this
huge
buildup
of
knowledge
in
order
to
achieve
it
for
one
self
and
if
you
dont
have
the
knowledge
or
the
power
to
kind
of
buy
it
so
youre
kind
of
at
an
automatic
disadvantage.
But
both
of
them
privacy
essentially,
is
the
right
to
privacy,
the
right
to
those
things
is
essentially
the
right
to
freedom
of
action,
that
you
can
do
the
things
that
you
want
to
do.
And
surveillance
curtails
that
in
all
kinds
of
ways
so
privacy
is
the
thing
that
frees
you
from
that.
Theres
a
reason
those
things
are
under
attack,
right?
There
are
structures
that
are
deliberately
attacking
them.
But
those
are
not
necessarily
like
addressable
to
single
actors,
particularly
in
these
kind
of
very
large
network
systems,
because
I
get
really
careful
when
I
say
we
built
the
Internet
but
it
was
largely
constructed
by
white
men
in
Southern
California.
But
there
are
uses
of
the
Internet
to
me
like
speak
to
all
of
our
desires,
that
yeah,
this
is
something
that
we,
more
generally
than
that,
have
built
for
us
that
were
tryingthat
is
trying
to
teach
us
something
that
were
trying
to
understand
and
if
the
actions
that
its
talking
are
like
offensive
to
us,
are
like
aggressively
attacking
things
like
our
privacy,
then
thats
something
that
weve
kind
ofthat
aligns
with
other
desires,
that
means
thatIm
expressing
this
terribly
badly,
that
is
a
kind
of
fundamental
result
of
some
of
the
other
things
that
we
wanted
out
of
the
system
in
different
ways
and
it
comes
out
not
fully
understanding
that
system?
Different
levels.
I
dont
know
if
that
made
any
sense.
Audience
Member:
Hi,
I
think
that
was
a
great
talk.
You
did
not
meet
any
of
the
render
ghosts;
is
that
right?
Bridle:
No,
still
havent.
I
think
theyre
in
Vegas.
Audience
Member:
Is
this
continuing?
Bridle:
Im
planning
to
get
there
the
at
some
point,
yeah.
Audience
Member:
I
know
you
hadnt
really
figured
out
but
do
you
know
what
you
will
do
with
these
people
when
you
find
them?
Bridle:
I
want
to
ask
them
Im
slightly
terrified
obviously
because
it
will
get
weird
but
its
that
part
of
that
trying
to
understand.
Its
just
saying
of
what
is
your
experience
of
this
having
happened
to
you,
because
at
the
moment
they
are
unfairly
and
slightly
sort
of
aggressively
ciphers
for
me
like
of
all
of
our
experience
so
I
dont
think
its
going
to
be
helpful
necessarily
to
find
them
and
ask
them
that,
but
theres
like
many
of
these
projects,
the
things
that
you
find
out
on
the
way
are
somewhat
valuable,
as
well,
but
when
I
see
them,
I
will
simply
ask
them
like
did
you
know
this
was
happening?
Do
you
know
youve
been
to
these
places
and
what
does
that
mean?
Audience
Member:
I
think
theres
an
interesting
hookup
you
got
with
Eric
Crosby
here
if
you
get
a
chance
to
talk
to
him.
Hes
got
something
interesting,
the
Walker
has
something
interesting
coming
in
a
common
direction
there.
But
I
want
to
ask
you
just
simply,
could
you
connect
the
dots
between
your
training
as
a
computer
scientist
and
how
youve
ended
up
in
the
art
world?
Bridle:
Yeah,
sure.
I
took
computer
science
kind
of
under
duress,
because
they
dont
let
you
study
arts
and
sciences
properly
like
as
a
dual
thing
at
least
in
the
UK,
you
kind
of
have
to
pick
one
of
the
two
worlds
which
is
stupid
and
retrograde
and
ridiculous,
but
I
was
interested
in
the
Internet
because
it
seemed
to
be
the
new
exciting
shiny
thing
and
it
seemed
to
have
some
kind
of
meaningfulness
and
I
mistakenly
thought
you
got
to
be
on
the
Internet
by
doing
computer
science
which
turns
out
to
be
entirely
wrong.
I
studied
artificial
intelligence
that
turned
out
to
be
wrong,
as
well,
but
by
the
time
I
finished
that
I
hated
computers
so
much
that
I
went
to
work
in
traditional
book
publishing,
which
is
why
I
was
at
those
publishing
conferences
and
its
why
I
was
yelling
at
those
publishing
conferences
because
it
seemed
that
everyone
there
was
also
there
because
they
hated
computers
and
was
afraid
of
the
Internet
and
seemed
to
see
computers
as
being
kind
of
and
the
Internet
as
being
inimitable
culture
and
was
kind
of
destroying
it
and
in
reaction
to
that
I
started
to
get
bag
back
into
technology
again
and
I
became
like
the
E-book
guy
and
going
to
these
conferences
and
yelling
at
people
that
maybe
they
should
not
be
afraid
of
the
Internet
because
it
was
quite
important
but
specifically
I
got
interested
in
what
was
happening
to
books
in
that
process.
Like,
what
does
it
mean
for
them
to
to
become
digital?
What
does
that
do
to
the
book?
You
know,
how
does
it
become
kind
of
ephemeralized,
where
do
our
experiences
of
literature
kind
of
reside
when
you
cant
shut
the
book
and
put
it
on
the
shelf
and
theres
so
much
of
that
bound
up
in
culture
and
our
own
experience
of
it
that
the
books
just
need
an
extraordinary
place
to
study
that
but
then
you
get
what
happens
to
the
literature,
as
well,
what
happens
to
the
form
of
that,
as
well,
and
you
know,
these
become
places
in
which
to
study
the
effects
of
the
network.
Sorry,
when
I
say
the
network,
I
mean
like
the
Internet
and
us,
like
the
complete
thing.
Like
the
effect
of
that
on
culture
and
therefore
on
us.
Thats
just
where
I
was
studying
it
and
because
there
werent
things
to
point
at,
I
would
start
making
things,
like
those
Wikipedia
books
and
that
slowly
got
kind
of
through
various
routes
ended
up
in
the
art
world.
The
other
thing
being
a
project
called
the
New
Aesthetic,
which
was
a
kind
of
ongoing
look
at
around
why
didnt
stuff
look
new
anymore?
Broadly.
That
was
not
particularly
an
art
project,
but
I
was
using
examples
from
all
over
kind
of
technological
processes
but
it
turned
out
to
be
a
term
that
seemed
to
be
incredibly
useful
to
people
in
all
sorts
of
fields,
particularly
in
the
art
world
where
was
mistakenly
called
a
movement.
But
if
it
became
something
that
was
useful
to
people,
then
brilliant.
It
same
a
sort
of
self-fulfilling
thing
in
itself.
There
was
a
lacuna
in
the
conversation
that
it
kind
of
filled.
Thats
why
Im
here
today.
Audience
Member:
I
just
wanted
to
hear
the
story
if
you
have
a
minute,
mind
finding
the
first
rainbow
plane.
If
you
can
can
remember
the
first
time
you
actually
came
across
it?
Bridle:
No.
I
cant
remember.
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
Google
Maps.
Like
a
lot.
Its
kind
of
the
default
thing
to
go
out
and
search
for.
So,
yeah,
I
really
cant.
The
moment
I
realized
what
it
was
was
when
I
actually
came
out
of
the
Drone
Shadows
Project,
because
Itheres
a
weird
thing
about
the
drone
shadows,
which
is
that
theyre
these
huge
physical
full-size
installations
that
take
a
full
day
to
install
so
that
I
can
photograph
them
and
put
a
picture
on
the
Internet
because
thats
where
they
get
seen
and
Im
completely
fine
with
that
so
they
are
precursors
to
digital
images
as
much
as
physical
installations
which
is
not
uncommon
these
days
and
I
did
one
in
DC
a
couple
of
years
ago
and
I
got
a
satellite
picture
of
DC.
It
cost
about
$400
to
buy
satellite
imagery
and
even
then
it
turned
out
it
wasnt
like
high
res
enough
to
be
able
to
pick
up
my
drone
shadow.
But
when
they
deliver
satellite
imagery
it
comes
in
this
arcane
image,
it
comes
in
these
different
layers,
and
it
turns
out
those
different
layers
are
actually
the
different,
the
results
from
the
different
sensors,
so
if
you
calibrate
it
right
you
figure
out
one
of
them
is
the
red
layer
and
one
of
them
is
the
green
layer
and
the
blue
layer
but
theres
also
a
layer
thats
entirely
clouds
because
they
just
use
a
very
narrow
frequency
that
doesnt
penetrate
water
so
theres
a
whole
set
of
satellite
imagery
thats
just
pictures
of
clouds
so
I
had
to
learn
how
to
process
satellite
imagery.
Not
quick
all
the
time
but
in
doing
that
I
was
I
was
like,
ohhhh,
thats
what
this
thing
is,
and
thats
always
a
good
thing.
So
thats
the
story.
Marisa
Mazria
Katz,
Creative
Time
Reports
Creative
Time.
So
Ive
been
with
them
for
four
years.
And
you
know,
there
was
something
very
natural
you
could
say,
inevitable
about
launching
a
platform
for
artists
to
weigh
in
on
news
at
Creative
Time.
Its
an
organization
that
has
been
commissioning
artists
to
engage
with
urgent
social
and
political
issues
since
its
founding
four
decades
ago.
So
for
instance,
I
like
to
look
at
this
project.
Its
a
real
inspiration
for
Creative
Time
Reports.
So
this
is
Gran
Furys
Kissing
Doesnt
Kill,
Greed
And
Indifference
Do.
The
Creative
Time
project
was
produced
in
1989
at
the
height
of
the
AIDS
crisis
in
the
United
States.
The
political
art
action
appropriated
advertising
and
media
strategies
to
spread
information
about
AIDS
and
its
social
ramifications
to
a
vast
audience
by
pairing
the
pieces
message
with
an
image
of
three
interracial
couples,
both
same
sex
and
heterosexual,
kissing,
the
image
appeared
on
postcards
that
were
circulating
through
mass
mailings
and
on
posters
affixed
to
New
York
City
buses.
So
how
many
of
you
know
Creative
Time,
show
of
hands?
OK.
So
for
the
very
few
that
dont,
just
a
little
bit
of
history.
I
want
to
talk
about
what
our
mission
is.
Which
really
underscores
that
artists
are
important
to
society,
that
artists
should
be
weighing
in
on
the
times
in
which
we
live,
and
that
public
places,
and
public
spaces
are
places
for
free
expression
and
creativity.
Now,
with
all
of
this
in
mind,
Creative
Time
Reports
genesis
came
about
when
our
artistic
director
and
president
Ann
Pasternak
began
asking
questions.
Questions
like,
if
Creative
Time
believes
the
idea
that
artists
matter
in
society,
and
if
we
want
them
to
impact
how
we
think
about
todays
most
pressing
issues,
what
are
the
public
spaces
that
would
truly
magnify
their
voices?
Where
should
they
be
participating?
Where
is
public
dialogue
happening?
And
the
answer
we
arrived
to
was
online.
So
we
thought
now
if
were
going
to
work
in
this
vein,
it
entailed
expanding
our
definition
of
public
space,
beyond
shared
physical
spaces,
and
entering
into
a
dialogue
with
news
media.
So
we
incubated
this
idea
for
a
full
year
before
the
sites
launch
in
October
2012
and
we
decided
it
was
going
to
be
established
and
rested
on
several
pillars,
first
that
we
would
work
with
artists
all
over
the
world.
And
this
really
entailed
me
leaving
my
desk,
so
you
know,
every
month
or
so
I
was
in
another
country
and
several
of
which
were
you
know,
Tunisia
Hungary,
the
United
Arab
Emirates,
and
Kenya.
This
wasnt
just
to
meet
potential
contributors
but
also
to
engage
what
does
it
project
like
this
mean
what
does
it
mean
for
an
artist
to
weigh
in
on
the
news?
Than
they
confirmed
early
suspicions
that
a
monolithic
approach
just
wouldnt
work.
The
pieces
we
featured
had
to
be
as
wide-
ranging
in
form
subject
and
language
as
the
contributing
artists
were
diverse.
It
also
meant
cultivating
a
deep
sensitivity
to
geo
political
situations
that
have
the
potential
to
make
our
artist
correspondents
vulnerable.
For
instance,
if
an
artist
wished
to
remain
anonymous,
we
pledged
that
we
would
hide
his
or
her
identity.
So
this
was
one
of
the
first
pieces
that
we
did
with
an
artist
that
made
such
a
request
and
this
piece
was
published
on
the
eve
of
the
2013
elections
in
Iran.
We
also
knew
that
if
we
were
going
to
successfully
weigh
in
on
the
news
we
had
to
be
timely
and
we
had
to
publish
pieces
that
we
were
certain
would
align
with
the
news
cycle.
So
how
do
we,
a
staff
of
more
or
less
two,
sometimes
three,
you
know,
compete
with
megalithic
media
sites?
We
came
up
with
a
few
strategies.
First,
we
wanted
to
always
stay
abreast
of
upcoming
events
that
have
the
foreseeable
potential
for
life-altering
consequences,
like
the
2013
Kenyan
elections
which
came
5
years
after
a
vote
that
sparked
violence
resulting
in
over
1,000
deaths.
We
also
wanted
to
unearth
approaching
anniversaries
that
resonate
often
bitterly
with
those
who
mark
them
like
the
20th
anniversary
of
NAFTA
or
the
one-year
anniversary
of
hurricane
Sandy.
It
also
meant
consistently
taking
on
issues
that
are
significant,
no
matter
the
month,
like
global
warming,
race,
surveillance
or
immigration.
We
would
ask
ourselves,
which
artists
are
most
poised
as
Howard
Zinn
wrote
in
his
book,
Artists
in
Times
of
War,
to
think
outside
the
boundaries
of
permissible
thoughts
and
dare
to
say
things
no
one
else
will
say.
The
second
critical
component
of
Creative
Time
Reports
was
cultivating
partnerships
with
major
publications
that
would
then
co-
publish
our
pieces,
thereby
distributing
artist
personal
perspectives
and
critical
interventions
to
thousands
or
even
millions
of
readers.
So
our
first
such
partnership
was
with
Foreign
policy
magazine
which
was
based
in
Washington,
D.C.
and
the
occasion
was
the
Hajj,
the
pilgrimage
to
Mecca
undertaken
by
Muslims
as
one
of
the
five
pillars
of
Islam.
The
photo
essay
was
by
the
Saudi
artist
Ahmed
Mater,
who
showcases
the
rapid
transformation
of
a
sacred
city
now
flooded
with
multimillion
dollar
real
estate
developments
and
these
are
just
some
other
photos
from
the
photo
essay.
This
is
a
hotel
that
was
recently
built
that
overlooks
the
Kaabah.
This
is
a
gas
station
that
he
often
frequents
or
sees
on
his
way
home
to
Jeddah.
A
year
later,
one
of
our
more
memorable
piece,
David
burns
op
ed
on
the
effects
of
soaring,
sorry,
whats
what
it
looked
like
in
foreign
policy.
David
Burns
op
ed
on
the
effects
of
soaring
rents
on
creative
life
in
New
York.
Went
viral
through
our
partnership
with
the
Guardian
and
what
was
amazing
about
this
afterwards
is
that
the
Guardian
asks
us
to
become
part
of
their
comment
network,
which
means
that
we
basically
are
in
constant
dialogue
with
them
about
upcoming
pieces
that
were
about
to
publish
and
very
often
they
will
take
them
and
republish
them.
So
since
for
foreign
policy
weve
partnered
roughly
with
2
dozen
publications
including
Al
Jazeera
America.
This
was
with
a
story
about
a
photographer
whos
been
documenting
the
lives
of
migrants
whove
moved
from
all
parts
of
China
to
Beijing
and
live
in
bomb
shelters
beneath
buildings,
often
illegally,
and
then
weve
also
worked
with
the
New
Yorker.
This
is
Sylvia
Plachy
photo
series,
images
that
she
took
from
the
first
Gulf
War.
So
aligning
ourselves
with
such
outlets
we
initially
released
content
as
responses
to
the
news.
But
this
was
hard
for
us,
because
it
left
us
nipping
at
the
heels
of
a
fluctuating
media
cycle
rather
than
determining
our
own
publishing
rhythm.
So
the
shift
in
our
strategy
kind
of
came
about,
in
2013
with
an
artist
weve
all
been
mentioning
today,
with
Trevor
Paglen.
He
approached
us
with
the
idea
of
photographing
the
National
Security
Agency
and
other
US
intelligence
agencies.
So
the
project
required
a
tremendous
amount
of
legwork.
Even
when
we
secured
clearances
from
each
agency,
which
was
the
National
Geospatial
Agency
and
the
National
Reconnaissance
Office
in
addition
to
the
NSA.
We
still
had
to
find
a
helicopter
pilot
who
was
willing
to
fly
above
these
institutions.
One
of
which
was
located
in
a
restricted
flight
zone.
So
I
accompanied
Paglen
on
the
shoot
and
created
a
short
film
that,
together
with
the
text
written
by
the
artist,
explains
the
impetus
behind
the
project.
The
piece
that
resultedits
called
Overheadwas
co-published
with
the
Intercept
which
was
founded
by
Glenn
Greenwald,
Laura
Poitras
and
Jeremy
Scahill.
So
Im
going
to
show
a
little
film
about
this.
Its
the
one
that
I
was
just
mentioning
its
about
3
minutes
long
and
its
so
much
of
what
Creative
Time
Reports
is
about
is
we
step
out
of
the
way
of
the
artist
within
we
let
them
speak,
so
I
felt
it
was
important
that
you
hear
a
little
bit
about
how
this
all
came
about
from
Trevor
directly.
If
you
could
play
the
film,
please.
Trevor
Paglen
(on
video):
One
of
the
things
that
is
happening
in
society
right
now
that
I
think
is
quite
dramatic
is
a
real
shift
in
the
way
that
we
understand
what
is
a
relationship
between
the
state
and
citizens,
what
is
the
relationship
between
the
state
and
people
in
general,
and
that
is
something
thats
really
changing
as
a
result
of
new
kinds
of
technologies
that
have
been
developed,
new
ways
of
surveilling
people,
and
new
ways
of
storing
data,
quite
frankly,
and
so
I
guess
thats
where
my
interest
in
these
institutions
comes
from,
is
just
trying
to
understand
how
theyre
influencing
the
rest
of
the
world
and
to
try
to
help
develop
a
vocabulary,
a
kind
of
visual
and
cultural
vocabulary
that
we
can
use
to
begin
talking
about
this
kind
of
thing.
Its
very
difficult
to
talk
about
something
thats
so
abstract,
so
I
feel
like
part
of
my
job
is
to
try
to
point
at
something,
to
try
to
make
an
image
that
can
be
a
reference
point
for
a
larger
conversation.
When
we
imagine
organizations
like
the
NSA
or
the
CIA
or
the
National
Geospatial
Intelligence
Agency,
I
think
we
tend
to
think
about
them
as
being
very
separate
from
the
rest
of
the
state
and
very
separate
from
other
civic
institutions,
and
to
a
certain
degree
thats
true.
These
are
secret
agencies
they
have
classified
budgets;
most
everything
that
they
do
is
classified.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
however,
these
are
not
so
dissimilar
from
your
local
library,
and
we
have
no
problem
going
to
the
local
library
and
saying
what
policies
we
want,
what
hours
we
want
them
to
be
open,
have
something
to
say
about
what
the
rules
are.
And
we
dont
feel
that
same
sense
of
ownership
over
the
agencies
of
the
intelligence
community
and
I
think
we
should.
What
I
hope
is
that
these
images
will
be
first
of
all
helpful
to
people
to
just
try
to
wrap
their
heads
around
what
some
of
these
agencies
are,
to
just
point
to
them
and
acknowledge
the
fact
that
theyre
there,
that
they
exist,
that
theyre
doing
work.
Beyond
that,
I
hope
that
they
can
contribute
in
some
small
part
to
a
wider
cultural
vocabulary
that
we
can
use
to
try
to
see
these
institutions,
to
try
to
understand
them,
to
try
to
think
about
what
it
is
that
they
do.
And
to
try
to
think
about
the
effect
that
they
have
on
the
society
around
them.
Mazria-Katz:
So
this
piece
debuted
as
I
mentioned
before
with
the
intercept,
but
it
came
on
the
day
that
it
launched,
it
was
a
really
big
moment
for
us
to
be
part
of
this
endeavor.
And
there
werethe
ripple
effects
were
just
staggering
and
we
really
took
note
you
know,
so
in
addition
to
the
press
coverage
that
the
project
got,
Paglens
images
have
illustrated
stories
about
surveillance
in
newspapers
and
TV
broadcasts
around
the
world.
Human
Rights
Watch
used
his
photo
on
the
cover
of
a
damning
report
on
US
surveillance
and
the
journalist
Tom
Engelhardts
book,
Shadow
Government,
used
the
image
for
its
cover.
So
realizing
that
our
most
impactful
pieces
are
often
the
ones
that
take
the
most
time
to
conceive
and
execute,
we
recalibrated
our
approach
to
how
and
when
we
published.
As
a
result
of
this
thinking,
we
slowed
down
on
how
often
we
published
and
in
a
sense,
we
found
ourselves
working
more
along
the
lines
of
Creative
Time,
ensuring
that
our
artists
are
grounded
in
communities
they
cover,
to
avoid
the
ubiquitous
art
world
and
media
world
in
general
pitfall
of
parachuting
in
to
report
on
a
crisis
and
leaving
before
any
substantive
work
has
been
done.
The
slower
pace
essentially
allows
us
to
work
with
more
integrity,
to
fact
check
all
the
more
rigorously
and
take
time
to
massage
ideas
that
are
still
forming.
Simultaneously,
weve
cultivating
new
paths
for
expanding
our
out
reach
and
Creative
Time
Reports
added
several
regional
editors
this
past
year,
from
Istanbul
to
Nairobi
to
Vancouver,
we
see
these
editors
as
our
eyes
and
ears
in
cities
around
the
world.
Not
only
bringing
new
artists
contributors
on
board,
but
also
deepening
our
sensitivity
to
local
conditions.
The
first
such
piece
we
did
was
with
our
editor
Sheyma
Buali
who
is
based
in
London,
Sheyma
helped
us
usher
in
this
piece
from
Lebanese
cartoonist,
Karl
Sharro,
just
days
after
the
Charlie
Hebdo
attack.
Creative
Time
Reports
strives
to
present
artists
engaging
with
pressing
issues
in
an
expanded
range
of
forms
punctuating
news
feeds
and
home
pages
around
the
world,
with
unexpected
stories
and
images.
We
hope
that
our
signature
mix
of
art,
activism
and
journalism
will
become
an
increasingly
visible
and
trusted
source
for
unconventional
forms
of
expression
with
real
political
impact.
Thank
you.
Dan
Fox,
frieze
So,
Id
like
to
begin
by
playing
dumb.
Ive
been
worrying
about
this
phrase
artists
as
cultural
first
responders
ever
since
the
invitation
to
take
part
on
this
panel
arrived.
Worried
because,
Ill
admit,
I
didnt
really
understand
it.
I
turned
it
over
in
the
light,
tried
to
gauge
the
weight
of
it.
I
tried
to
work
out
what
it
was
made
from.
I
sensed
that
it
might
be
something
about
artists
as
citizen
journalists,
perhaps,
or
Trojan
Horse
activists
bravely
storming
the
bastille
of
social
media.
But
still,
my
initial
sense
was
that
it
made
me
feel
uncomfortable.
It
soundedand
heres
where
I
have
to
apologize
to
my
lovely
hosts
at
the
Walkerit
sounded
melodramatic.
For
some
reason
I
could
not
help
but
read
the
term
first
responder
literally.
Artists,
vital
though
they
are
in
our
societycrucial
though
they
are
to
our
understanding
of
each
other,
to
making
the
world
a
more
interesting
placeare
not
paramedics,
theyre
not
firefighters,
coastguards,
or
law
enforcement
officials.
(Although
some
paramedics,
firefighters,
coastguards
or
law
enforcement
officials
may
well
be
artists.)
A
painting
of
a
fire
engine
is
not
going
to
put
out
the
blazing
inferno
engulfing
an
apartment
block
or
rescue
a
cat
stuck
up
a
tree.
A
3D-printed
sculpture
of
your
left
hand
isnt
going
to
dig
survivors
out
from
the
rubble
of
an
earthquake
or
taser
an
innocent
man.
I
could
have
pressed
the
curators
for
more
clarity,
but
instead
I
decided
to
consult
higher
authorities.
According
to
the
United
States
Homeland
Security
Presidential
Directive
No.
8:
The
term
first
responder
refers
to
those
individuals
who
in
the
early
stages
of
an
incident
are
responsible
for
the
protection
and
preservation
of
life,
property,
evidence,
and
the
environment
[]
as
well
as
emergency
management,
public
health,
clinical
care,
public
works,
and
other
skilled
support
personnel
(such
as
equipment
operators)
that
provide
immediate
support
services
during
prevention,
response,
and
recovery
operations.
Now,
I
know
it
seems
willfully
obtuse
and
pedantic
to
continue
pursuing
the
literal
meaning
of
this
term
cultural
first
responder
but
in
doing
so
I
discovered
that
the
exercise
of
trying
to
find
parallels
between
the
real-world
definition
of
first
responder
and
this
creative
context
began
to
raise
some
intriguing
questions.
First
of
these
might
be
about
protection
and
preservation:
is
that
what
artists
really
do?
What
does
it
mean
if
the
interplay
between
platform
and
content
(to
quote
the
description
of
this
panel
discussion)
is
a
question
of
prevention
and
recovery
rather
than
innovation,
say,
or
critical
intervention,
or
creative
destruction.
What
ifto
come
at
this
from
an
extremely
paranoid
angleartists
are
not
the
first
responders,
but
the
emergency
incident
itself,
and
that
the
first
responders
are
not
nice,
cuddly
creative
individuals
but
those
involved
in
the
actual
development
of
new
technology
platforms,
plundering
methodologies
from
art
in
order
to
monetize
them,
turn
them
into
some
time-swallowing
new
app?
Lets
say
the
artists
are
the
responders.
What
incident
might
they
be
responding
to?
The
Homeland
Security
directive
refers
to
the
early
stages
of
an
incident.
This
is
something
that
other
people
during
the
course
of
the
conference
have
already
spoken
about,
so
excuse
me
for
repeating
it.
Given
the
topic
of
the
digital
age
that
frames
this
conference,
we
can
assume
on
a
grand
historical
perspective
the
incident
to
be
the
bracing
Internet
revolution
weve
been
living
through
for
the
last
15
to
20
years.
If
thats
the
incident,
then
it
was
only
a
small
handful
of
artists
that
rushed
to
the
scene
at
the
early
stages,
anduntil
recently,they
were
quickly
abandoned.
Think,
for
instance,
about
how
quickly
the
art
world
in
the
early
2000s
became
embarrassed
of
1990s
net
art
and
media
lounges
in
museums.
Think
too,
how
the
art
world
for
a
long
time
remained
insulated
from
many
of
the
changes
being
brought
to
the
arts
at
large
by
the
forces
of
social
media
and
file-sharing,
and
essentially
remained
analogue
in
what
it
produced.
In
a
2011
essay
for
frieze
magazine,
because
Ive
got
to
get
the
advertisement
in
there
somewhere,
curator
Lauren
Cornell
described
how
unlike
other
industries,
such
as
music
and
publishing,
the
art
world
wasnt
forced
to
react
to
cultural
shifts
wrought
by
the
Internet
because
its
economic
model
wasnt
devastated
by
them.
The
quality
of
Christian
Marclays
The
Clock
(2010),
for
instance,
isnt
dependent
on
YouTube
votes
or
the
extent
to
which
it
circulates
virally,
and
nor
can
one
download
and
install
a
BitTorrent
of
a
Rachel
Harrison
sculpture.
The
principles
that
keep
the
visual
arts
economy
runningscarcity,
objecthood
and
value
conferred
by
authority
figures
such
as
curators
and
criticsmake
it
less
vulnerable
to
piracy
and
democratized
media.
(I
would
like
to
qualify
that
slightly,
by
making
clear
that
were
speaking
in
broad
brushstrokes
here.
Technology
changes,
and
will
surely
come
and
bite
the
analogue
arse
of
artists
sooner
or
later.
The
stickier
reality
is
that
what
we
call
the
art
world
means
many
things
to
many
people,
and
your
experience
of
its
conditions
differs
depending
on
where
you
are
positioned
in
relation
to
it
in
terms
of
geography,
economics,
race,
gender
and
sexuality.)
But
back
to
the
topic.
At
risk
of
plumbing
the
depths
of
my
own
crass
literalism
even
further:
what
does
it
mean,
then,
to
entertain
the
idea
that
in
recent
years
artists
have
not
proven
themselves
to
be
cultural
first
responders,
because
there
was
no
urgency
for
them
to
be
so,
but
maybe
second
or
even
third
responders?
Maybe
artists
should
not
be
first
responders
anyway.
Theres
something
a
little
self-
aggrandizing
about
assuming
artists
should
be
on
the
front
line.
An
artists
work
may
well
be
more
valuable
in
the
space
of
reflection,
in
mulling
things
over,
assessing
the
situation
across
a
longer
period
of
time.
On
the
front
line,
they
might
just
get
in
the
way.
We
also
need
to
define
what
we
mean
by
artists.
Visual
artists
are
the
only
creative
workers
who
use
the
word
art
in
the
title
of
their
own
professionwriters,
actors,
critics,
dancers,
musicians,
designers,
film
directors;
theyre
all
artists
too,
but
the
appellation
tends
to
get
owned
by
visual
artistsa
bit
like
the
way
the
country
of
America
takes
the
name
of
two
continents
and
owns
it
for
itself.
As
were
in
a
big
institution
which
dedicates
a
lot
of
what
it
does
to
the
visual
arts,
I
assume
its
visual
artists
to
whom
were
referring
in
this
conference
but
I
think
its
artists
in
the
broadest
sense
whom
we
should
be
thinking
about
here.
This
is
a
broad
generalization
again,
but
conversations
in
the
visual
arts
sometimes
have
a
tendency
to
refer
to
other
creative
disciplines
as
if
they
exist
as
picknmix
sources
of
inspiration,
or
areas
for
visual
artists
to
study
occasionally
in
order
to
critique
them,
as
if
only
artists
are
capable
of
having
deep
insights
into
what
other
people
do.
Indeed
if
the
incidents
to
which
creative
people
are
responding
are
the
technological
and
concomitant
social
changes
brought
by
the
Internet,
then
maybe
its
musicians,
publishers,
writers
and
filmmakers
we
should
be
looking
to
as
the
first
responders,
for
its
their
means
of
making
a
living,
of
distributing
and
valuing
their
work,
that
have
really
drastically
altered
in
the
past
decade
and
a
halfthey
should
be
here
at
this
conference
because
were
all
in
this
together.
That
said,
a
part
of
me
cant
help
but
think
that
to
call
any
artists
cultural
first
responders
is
to
buy
into
an
older
Romantic
myth
of
the
artist
as
seer,
soothsayer,
oracle.
The
True
Artist
Helps
the
World
by
Revealing
Mystic
Truths,
as
Bruce
Nauman
put
it
sarcastically.
But
words
associated
with
the
arts
also
have
slippery
meanings
today,
changing
valences.
For
instance,
in
our
lifetimes,
the
word
creative
has
migrated
from
being
a
nice,
friendly
adjective
into
a
noun,
a
common
job
title
in
large
technology
businesses
developing
platforms
that
many
of
usartists
or
otherwiseuse
daily.
What
does
that
mean
when
we
ask
who
gets
to
set
the
agenda
for
the
interplay
of
platform
and
content,
or
talk
about
media
inventors
who
create
altogether
new
modes
of
storytelling,
makers
who
use
online
means
to
critique
institutional
power?
Some
of
the
more
powerful
media
inventors
and
makers
are
deeply
embedded
in
the
very
institutions
that
need
critiquingnot
museums
and
galleries
but
government
agencies,
Silicon
Valley
corporations
and
tech
start-ups.
They
are
the
ones
spinning
new
modes
of
storytelling
about
the
world,
positioning
themselves
as
disruptors
whose
creative
technologies
are
going
to
make
the
world
a
better
place.
I
could
be
wrong,
or
simply
stuck
in
my
own
little
corner
of
the
art
world,
which
is
quite
possible,
but
I
dont
see
that
many
visual
artists
or
arts
writers
making
entirely
new
communications
platforms
that
will
revolutionize
how
you
watch
video
art
or
call
your
grandma
on
her
birthday.
That
might
shift
generationally,
as
more
people
understand
how
to
take
control
of
the
engine
mechanics,
rather
than
being
stuck
with
the
given
functionality
of
the
software
offered
to
us
by
the
tech
industry.
Or
maybelooking
around
at
how
many
of
us
are
glancing
at
our
various
devices
in
the
room
andsorry,
Ive
lost
my
placeusing
platforms
designed
by
technology
companies
they
have
no
dialogue
with
or
control
overcultural
first
response
is
nothing
more
than
trolling
conference
speakers
on
Twitter
like
a
child
sniggering
at
the
back
of
the
class.
At
times
I
feel
that
the
best
first
response
might
be
to
switch
off
your
devices,
throw
them
out
and
go
live
off
the
grid.
We
dont
all
have
to
be
making
art
that
engages
with
technology;
its
still
fine
to
make
a
painting.
You
can
still
write
art
criticism
using
all
the
tools
that
tech
provides,
but
its
still
an
option
to
write
a
long
essay
and
publish
it
in
a
book
made
from
paper.
The
idea
of
a
first
responder
implies
responsibility
and
authority.
These
days
were
all
reviewers,
weve
all
got
an
opinion
about
that
exhibition,
TV
show,
restaurant.
But
that
assumes
certain
freedoms.
I
know
artists
who
do
not
live
in
countries
such
as
the
US,
and
this
is
something
Marisa
spoke
about
very
eloquently,
artists
who
live
in
countries
where
being
a
first
responder
is
impossible
for
reasons
of
censorship
or
harshly
conservative
cultural
attitudes.
There
are
critics
who
are
more
worried
about
being
arrested
the
next
day
than
whether
they
should
accept
a
flat
fee
or
be
paid
a
dollar
a
word
for
their
exhibition
picks
of
the
week.
So
we
come
back
to
the
issue
of
second
or
third
response.
A
second
or
third
response
might
mean
building
a
second
or
third
layer
of
meaning,
of
encoding,
onto
what
an
artist
makes,
and
that
could
be
for
reasons
of
security
as
much
as
anything.
(Think,
for
instance,
of
how
playwrights
living
under
the
Soviet
Union
used
surrealism
or
science
fiction
in
order
to
talk
about
their
political
situation.)
Secondary
or
tertiary
response
might
also
mean
taking
a
step
back,
responding
slowly.
The
speed
of
opinion
in
the
digital
age
demands
instant
response,
instant
punditry
to
news
events,
and
the
arts
arent
insulated
from
that.
Ive
been
working
as
a
critic
since
1999
and
in
that
time
Ive
felt
the
pull
of
the
Gs,
seen
the
pedal
hit
the
metal;
I
have
to
get
my
review
of
the
new
Whitney
Museum,
say,
or
Venice
Biennale,
published
within
nano-seconds
of
the
doors
opening;
there
is
now
an
assumption
is
that
art
critics
have
to
go
at
the
same
speed
as
news
reporters,
sports
journalists
and
gossip
columnists.
But
the
one
question
we
dont
ask
often
enough
is
what
speed
should
be
of
the
essence?
A
reflective
review
written
slowly,
published
a
couple
of
months
after
the
event,
can
be
just
as
valuable
than
the
snappy
one
published
in
the
heat
of
the
moment.
(As
Yeats
observed,
the
worst
are
full
of
passionate
intensity.)
Life
doesnt
reveal
itself
to
us
all
at
once,
and
neither
does
art.
Making
thingswhether
its
a
piece
of
online
art,
an
essay,
a
movie
or
a
dancetakes
time
and
there
is
value
in
refusing
to
live
in
the
fast
lane.
Lets
quickly
remind
ourselves
of
the
legal
U.S.
government
definition
of
first
responder:
they
are
responsible
for
the
protection
and
preservation
of
life,
property,
evidence,
and
the
environment.
Is
the
question
we
should
be
asking
ourselves
not
one
about
making
the
new
but
valuing
the
old?
As
the
conversations
weve
seen
over
the
last
two
days
have
demonstrated,
there
is
a
sense
of
embattlement
amongst
some
of
us.
The
general
tenor
of
the
conversations
this
weekend
has
been
that
we
are
trying
to
protect
and
preserve
something;
striving
to
preserve
imaginative,
thoughtful,
constructive
responses
to
culture;
defending
a
space
in
which
you
can
live
a
life
of
the
mind,
a
life
of
the
creative
hand,
from
the
douchebags
who
have
turned
the
world
into
such
a
harsh
economic
environment.
On
the
other
hand
we
need
to
ask
what
is
worth
protecting
and
preserving
that
doesnt
just
shore
up
all
the
old
structures.
If
youll
excuse
me,
Id
like
to
swerve
sharply
off
the
main
road
for
a
moment
and
head
in
the
direction
of
big,
clunky,
boulder-like
metaphors
and
some
hastily
conceived
ideas.
Just
latelyand
because
this
is
the
sort
of
nonsense
that
fills
my
mindIve
been
thinking
about
a
movie,
made
for
TV
in
1985,
called
Max
Headroom:
20
Minutes
into
the
Future.
The
film
is
set
in
a
United
Kingdom
run
by
a
small
handful
of
media
organization
and
corporations.
TV
sets
have
no
off
switch,
and
the
corporate
oligarchy
monitors
the
personal
lives
and
data
of
every
single
citizen
through
the
TV,
which
feeds
a
non-stop
diet
of
reality-style
shows
voted
for
by
viewers.
A
popular
journalist
named
Edison
Carter,
played
by
the
actor
Matt
Frewer,
has
recently
been
employed
by
one
of
these
media
companies,
Network
23.
His
job
involves
running
around
the
city
chasing
news
stories
using
cameras
that
provide
a
direct
feed
to
the
TV
network:
he
is
a
first
responder
in
real-timejournalist
and
producer
all
wrapped
up
into
one.
Carter
has
discovered
that
the
network
is
pushing
a
form
of
subliminal
advertising
called
blipverts
that
cause
seizures
and
can
kill
people
who
see
them.
In
the
course
of
gathering
evidence
he
suffers
an
accident,
running
his
vehicle
into
a
low-clearance
sign
(which,
in
the
UK,
are
marked
Max
Headroom,
an
abbreviation
of
Maximum
Headroom).
Network
23
thinks
Carter
is
a
goner,
but
worry
about
their
ratings,
so
get
a
young
computer
whizz
to
download
Carters
personality
and
create
an
artificial
intelligence
avatar
of
him
to
cover
up
the
disappearance.
Unfortunately
for
them,
the
avatar
is
broken;
it
stutters,
glitches.
The
Network
gets
rid
of
it,
and
it
falls
into
the
hands
of
a
local
pirate
TV
station,
who
tinker
with
the
avatar,
semi-fix
it,
and
create
a
new
kind
of
TV
show
host
called
Max
Headroom
who
makes
sarcastic
comments
against
a
floating
backdrop
of
vector
graphics.
In
the
meantime,
Carter
awakes
from
his
coma,
and
uses
Max
as
a
diversion,
allowing
him
to
ultimately
expose
the
Network
23
honchos
for
the
crooks
they
are.
Whats
this
sudden
tangent
got
to
do
with
artists
as
cultural
first
responders?
Well,
for
one
thing
there
are
the
superficial
parallels
in
the
plot
between
our
present
and
those
20
minutes
into
the
future;
citizen
journalists,
social
media,
uploading
news
straight
to
the
network.
Were
all
broadcasters
now.
Arts
criticism
is
a
branch
of
arts
broadcasting,
but
writing
has
always
been
broadcast.
Secondly,
in
Max
Headroom
theres
this
idea
of
the
artist
as
a
gremlin
in
the
machine,
a
renegade
that
infiltrates
more
powerful
media
forces,
cleverly
providing
a
meta-commentary
on
the
system.
(Following
the
movie,
the
Max
character
went
on
to
host
music
TV
shows
and
appear
on
a
record
with
the
band
the
Art
of
Noise.)
Its
a
romantic
idea,
but
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
now
that
larger
business
forces
use
the
language
of
the
creative
artsof
disruption
and
subversion
and
viralityin
order
to
innovate
new
products,
maybe
its
an
outdated
look.
To
be
inside
something
is
not
necessarily
to
critique
it.
Printing
out
Instagram
photos
and
hanging
them
in
a
gallery
isnt
making
work
about
the
Internet,
its
just
ice-skating
across
the
top
of
it.
On
November
22,
1987,
two
television
stations
in
the
Chicago
areaWGN-TV
and
WTTW
experienced
a
broadcast
signal
intrusion;
the
stations
were
briefly
hijacked
by
a
masked
figure
dressed
as
Max
Headroom,
filmed
in
front
of
a
rotating
piece
of
corrugated
steel,
emulating
the
moving
digital
environment
that
Max
lived
in.
To
this
day,
nobody
knows
who
perpetrated
the
broadcast
intrusion,
nor
really,
what
he
wanted.
But
it
represented,
however
briefly,
a
situation
in
which
the
means
of
distribution
were
seized.
There
are
obvious
parallels
today
in
hacking
that
I
dont
have
time
to
go
into
now.
But
this
train
of
thoughtfrom
Max
Headroom
to
the
broadcast
signal
intrusion
reminds
me
that
our
present
relationship
to
the
Internet
is
merely
part
of
an
older
story
of
the
relationship
between
artists
and
the
media
and
screen
culture.
Two
quick
examples.
Between
1973
and
1977
Chris
Burden
produced
his
TV
Commercials
he
bought
advertising
space
on
local
television
Through
the
Night
Softly,
Poem
for
L.A,
Chris
Burden
Promo,
and
Full
Financial
Disclosure.
Through
the
Night
Softly
was
a
performance
where
Burden
held
his
hands
behind
his
back
and
crawled
through
fifty
feet
of
broken
glass
on
Main
Street
in
Los
Angeles.
Even
earlier,
in
1971,
the
British
artist
David
Hall
made
his
seven
TV
Interruptions:
seven
short
films
broadcast
on
Scottish
TV
with
no
explanation
or
contextual
framing.
Did
anything
change
in
the
ways
TV
affected
us?
No.
The
traction
that
art
has
on
the
world
is
by
and
large
small,
slow,
incremental.
The
second,
third,
fourth
response.
Finally,
and
maybe
most
importantly,
when
the
movie
was
made
in
1985,
the
technology
did
not
exist
to
produce
an
actual
A.I.
avatar.
(Or
at
least
it
was
beyond
the
budget
of
this
TV
production.)
When
actor
Matt
Frewer
played
Max
Headroom,
he
played
him
dressed
in
heavy
latex
make-up
and
a
fiberglass
suit.
He
was
flesh
and
blood
human,
using
analogue
technology
to
play
a
digital
character.
Theres
something
about
this
layering
that
reminds
me
of
our
present
situation:
your
social
media
handle
is
nothing
but
a
prosthetic,
you
are
still
flesh
and
blood.
The
digital
age
is
still
also
an
age
of
bodily
functions
and
bodily
needs.
As
James
pointed
out
earlier,
Internet
is
cables
and
satellite
hardware.
All
of
which
is
to
say
that
is
that
a
first
response
might
be
laughter,
tears,
debating
with
someone
in
person,
punching
them
in
the
nose
or
giving
them
a
great
big
kiss.
Using
new
technology
in
your
work
does
not
make
you
a
better
artist
nor
a
more
interesting
human
being,
and
its
OK
if
your
first
response
is
the
last
response.
Know
what
to
discard,
and
know
what
to
preserve
and
protect.
Thank
you.
Claire
Evans,
Terraform
(VICE)
Hi,
my
name
is
Claire.
I
want
to
begin
with
a
question
that
I
thought
would
be
far
more
left-field
until
Dan
brought
up
Max
Headroom.
But
the
question
is:
what
is
science
fiction?
Many
people
in
response
to
this
question
throw
together
a
collection
of
tropes.
Science
fiction
is
outer
space.
Science
fiction
is
rockets
and
lasers
and
men
traveling
to
the
corners
of
the
universe.
But
thats
only
the
simplest
way
of
defining
and
extremely
complex
literary
and
culture
form.
In
fact,
theres
something
of
a
cottage
industry,
among
academics,
in
drafting
new
and
more
comprehensive
definitions
of
a
genre
that
changes
as
quickly
as
our
relationship
to
the
future
itself.
And
because
it
means
a
lot
of
different
things
for
a
lot
of
different
people,
a
singular
definition
for
science
fiction
is
hard
to
grasp.
The
boundaries
are
squiggly,
and
the
more
granular
you
get
with
the
question,
the
more
difficult
the
answer
becomes:
Does
a
science
fiction
story
necessarily
have
to
take
place
in
the
future?
Well,
no,
every
work
of
fiction
has
some
temporal
relationship
with
the
world
in
which
it
is
written,
and
even
canonical
science
fiction
texts
like
Star
Wars
take
place
a
long,
long
time
ago.
Does
science
fiction
have
to
be
rigorous
in
its
science
or
technological
approach?
Yes,
there
is
a
culture
of
science
fictionhard
SFin
which
that
is
an
important
quality,
but
some
of
the
greatest
science
fiction
writers
of
all
time
flubbed
the
science
or
considered
it
secondary
to
the
central
problems
of
their
work.
William
Gibson,
for
example,
wrote
Neuromancer
on
a
typewriter
with
little
to
no
knowledge
of
the
Internet,
and
Ray
Bradbury
famously
put
air
on
Mars
in
the
Martian
Chronicles.
If
we
try
to
define
science
fiction
by
first
determining
what
it
isnt,
we
enter
into
an
equally
thorny
area.
Why
is
Slaughterhouse
Five
shelved
under
literature
in
bookstores,
when
its
protagonist
is
abducted
by
aliens
from
the
planet
Tralfamadore,
but
equally
literary
books
by
writers
like
Joanna
Russ
or
Ursula
Le
Guin
or
James
Tiptree
Jr.
are
relegated
to
the
mothballed
corner
of
science
fiction/fantasy.
And
if
we
try
to
define
where
that
slash
falls
between
science
fiction
and
fantasy
its
even
more
hairy.
Because
if
aliens
and
robots
and
far-future
scenarios
are
permitted,
then
why
arent
dragons
and
elves,
etc.?
The
truth
is,
a
lot
of
different
kinds
of
texts
qualify
as
science
fiction,
books
about
parallel
histories
and
alternate
realities
and
futures
so
distant
they
might
as
well
be
mythic
or
ancient.
Books
where
there
are
artificial
intelligences
on
our
desktops
or
extraterrestrial
intelligences
far
off
in
the
cosmos.
In
my
study
of
the
genre,
which
is
informal
but
lifelong,
I
have
only
found
onehard
and
fast
rule
about
science
fiction,
which
I
am
going
to
try
and
explain
to
you
now.
Imagine
a
world.
It
can
be
the
earth
if
thats
easier
for
you
to
imagine.
In
99%
of
science
fiction,
it
is
the
earth
in
some
failed
capacity.
Whatever
the
world
is,
you
must
think
of
it
as
a
starting
point.
It
can
have
as
tumultuous
a
history
as
you
like,
but,
for
the
time
being,
it
is
a
world
that
exists
in
a
world
of
present
condition,
with
set
physics
and
social
dynamics.
Now
change
one
thing
about
that
world.
What
kind
of
thing?
Anything,
it
can
be
aesthetic,
metaphysical,
ecological,
political.
It
usually
takes
the
form
of
a
question,
which
can
be
a
technological
question:
What
would
happen
if
all
the
computers
woke
up
tomorrow
and
said
hello?
What
if
we
crack
faster-than-light-speed
travel?
It
can
be
a
deeply
human
question.
What
if
we
cease
to
be
able
to
breed?
What
if
we
radically
upend
social
structures?
Pose
and
answer
one
of
these
questions,
and
you
immediately
create
what
genre
critics
call
a
radical
discontinuity,
which
is
a
particular
form
of
cognitive
dissonance
unique
to
science
fiction
that
occurs
when
everything
is
familiar
except
for
one,
or
a
few,
significantly
altered
variables.
Radical
discontinuities
are
what
makes
science
fiction
science
fiction:
Not
rockets,
not
outer
space,
not
far-
flung
time
lines.
Theyre
also
what
makes
science
fiction
a
particularly
potent
tool
of
first
response
for
artists,
because
every
radical
discontinuity
is
inherently
critical.
By
proposing
an
alternative
to
the
world,
either
an
aspirational
alternative
or
an
alternative
that
serves
as
a
warning,
depending
on
your
proclivity
for
utopia
or
dystopia.
Using
discontinuity
for
critique
isnt
isolated
to
critiques
of
technology
or
society.
It
can
work
for
art,
I
think,
or
it
can,
although
I
dont
see
it
used
very
much.
In
a
lot
of
science
fiction
that
deals
with
art,
music,
you
know,
the
markets
frequently
missed.
When
you
look
at
musical
sequences
in
science
fiction
like
the
Mos
Eisley
Cantina
in
Star
Wars
or
the
cave
rave
in
The
Matrix,
it
doesnt
tell
you
anything
about
the
future,
its
usually
just
like
this
shorthand
of
exoticism,
or
something,
but
I
think
it
can
be
done
in
art
and
it
can
be
used
in
an
interesting
way
for
art
criticism.
Im
thinking
of
the
work
of
Mark
Von
Schlegell,
does
anybody
know
his
work?
When
we
practice
the
mental
calisthenics
of
determining
the
difference
between
the
real
world
Yeah,
cool!
Hes
a
science
fiction
writer
who
comes
from
art
criticism
and
has
published
a
handful
of
really
incredible
novels
and
semiotext,
but
hes
far
outside
of
the
science
fiction
landscape
that
he
can
only
really
publish
in,
like,
highfalutin
European
art
magazines
and
exhibition
catalogs,
and
he
makes
these
incredibly
funny
and
biting
critiques
of
the
art
world
that,
I
think,
are
an
indicator
of
what
could
be
possible
if
we
took
that
idea
seriously.
So,
for
example,
for
one
of
his
stories,
he
presents
the
future
of
contemporary
art
as
a
hybrid
of
all
the
essentially
harmless
activities
of
the
Western
cultural
tradition
in
a
new
practice
called
kulturnautics,
which
is
among
other
things
a
circus
of
mathematically
impossible
pavilions
that
are
sprouting
up
rudely
and
constantly
into
the
lives
of
the
working
poor.
This
kind
of
thing
is
really
snakry,
of
course,
but
it
represents,
to
me,
again
what
is
possible
when
we
begin
to
think
seriously
about
speculative
fiction
as
a
form
of
art
writing
or
art
criticism.
No
matter
what
the
point
of
focus
is,
though,
when
we
practice
the
mental
calisthenics
of
determining
the
difference
between
the
world
that
we
live
in
and
the
variable
world
at
hand
in
a
science
fiction,
when
we
try
to
discover
where
the
radical
discontinuity
has
been
made,
and
try
to
see
how
we,
in
our
lives,
in
our
world,
might
be
led
to
the
juncture
at
which
those
discontinuities
are
formed,
we
learn
a
great
deal
about
what
is
seemingly
natural
to
us
in
the
world.
It
makes
us
reevaluate
everything
we
take
for
granted.
These
strangenesses
in
science
fiction
can
help
clarify
the
normal,
and
it
can
help
us
to
understand
the
inherently
arbitrary
or
historical
nature
of
some
social
constructions.
It
confronts
us
in
a
specifically
cognitive
way
that
is
designed
to
leave
us
as
readers
wondering
a
great
many
thingsits
designed
to
pose
questions
like
where
are
we
headed?
Or,
whether
we
are
complicit
with
the
world,
or
whether
we
are
really
ourselves
at
all.
Radical
discontinuities
dont
require
temporal
extrapolation.
They
do
not
require
the
future
in
any
capacity.
Which
is
another
of
the
assumed
hard
tenets
of
science
fiction.
Yes,
the
easiest
way
to
understand
the
effects
of
a
discontinuity
is
to
play
it
out
over
time
and
to
see
how
it
modifies
and
takes
root
in
the
world,
but
something
like
a
parallel
history,
such
as
in
Philip
K.
Dicks,
The
Man
in
the
High
Castle,
a
novel
which
takes
place
in
a
world
in
which
the
allies
lost
the
war,
can
do
the
same
kind
of
critical
work,
while
taking
place
in
the
present.
And
the
kinds
of
science
fictions
that
emerged
from
Mundane
SF,
which
is
a
movement
in
the
mid
2000s
in
science
fictionthat
was
kind
of
like
a
Dogme
95
for
science
fictionit
called
for
stories
that
took
place
in
the
near
future,
with
little
technology,
very
little
theatrics.
It
argued
that,
as
in
the
manifesto
it
said,
our
most
likely
future
is
one
in
which
we
have
ourselves
and
this
planet.
And
it
called
for
fiction
that
spoke
to
those
realities.
With
these
kinds
of
practices,
science
fiction
isnt
something
escapist,
exotic,
or
inherently
futuristicit
is
just
an
attitude,
an
approach
to
critique
that
can
be
applied
anywhere
and
by
anyone.
Great
science
fiction,
the
truly
transgressive
shit,
proposes
many
different
radical
discontinuities
at
once,
creating
complex
intellectual
bombs
that
implode
slowly
in
the
mind,
but
the
important
thing
is
that
it
always
remains
tethered
to
the
world
as
we
know
it,
to
the
world
as
it
was
before
the
question
or
questions
were
posed,
right?
It
always
presents
a
clear
road
from
the
real
to
the
discontinuous,
a
road
we
can
imagine
walking,
because
otherwise,
theres
no
through
line.
Theres
nothing
to
hold
onto,
and
therefore,
it
no
longer
has
any
position
for
real
critique.
It
becomes
just
fantasy,
pure
escapism.
Which,
speaking
of,
is
the
line
between
science
fiction
and
fantasy.
For
the
fantasy
writer,
the
creative
act
is
one
ever
pure
imagination.
His
or
her
invented
world
doesnt
necessarily
need
to
hew
to
a
physics
consistent
with
our
own.
A
fantasy
writer
is
free
to
magically
relax
the
structure
of
the
cosmos
at
will.
But
if
science
fiction
writer
wishes
to
do
the
same
thing,
they
must
invent
a
reason
why,
a
method
how,
and
then
cope
with
the
consequences.
It
may
seem
like
a
small
difference,
its
kind
of
a
conceptual
stance,
but
makes
all
the
difference,
because
waking
up
is
what
lends
gravitas
to
dreams.
I
deal
in
science
fiction,
partially
for
a
living.
Some
of
you
may
know
me
as
a
musician
if
you
know
me
at
all
but
I
edit
a
rogue
science
fiction
imprint
of
VICE
called
Terraform.
Its
part
of
VICEs
science
and
technology
site,
motherboard,
of
which
I
am
the
Futures
editor.
Terraform
is
where
where
we
publish
stories
that
speak
to,
extrapolate
from,
or
are
otherwise
in
conversation
with
the
current
news
stories
my
journalist
colleagues
are
covering
elsewhere
on
the
VICE
platform.
So,
we
connect
our
fiction
in
a
very
tangible
way
with
the
actual
realities
and
anxieties
of
the
present,
and
if
somebody
reads
a
piece
of
speculative
fiction
on
Terraform
and
is
piqued
by
the
issues
it
raised,
we
have
a
very
direct
means
for
the
readers
to
go
back
to
read
about
whats
actually
happening
in
the
present
day
through
tags
and
suggested
articles.
I
sometimes
explain
Terraform
to
people
by
saying
its
tomorrows
news
today,
which
is
glib,
but
fairly
accurate.
At
Terraform,
we
deal
in
the
near
term
radical
discontinuity.
This
means
we
publish
stories
about
things
like
drones,
the
gamification
of
war,
misogyny
on
the
web,
forms
of
protest
in
the
21st
century,
and
the
ways
in
which
our
relationship
to
social
media
changes
our
relationships
to
one
another,
etc.
We
only
publish
once
a
week
and
our
upper
ceiling,
unless
something
is
exceptional,
is
around
2,000
words,
which
is
equivalent
with
the
standard,
shareable
news
story
on
the
web.
So
we
can
be
quite
nimble,
and
often
commission
fiction
or
draw
from
our
slush
pile
depending
on
what
is
happening
in
the
world.
So,
one
of
our
favorite
things
to
do
is
actually
to
commission
journalists
and
non-fiction
writers
to
extrapolate
the
ramifications
of
their
own
beats
in
a
timely
manner.
So,
for
example,
during
a
particular
hairy
privacy
scandal
involving
Uber,
we
had
technology
writer
Paul
Ford
imagine
a
dystopia
in
which
a
self-aware
entity
named
Uber
controls
all
resources.
Weve
had
the
music
Internet
culture
blogger
Carles,
formerly
of
Hipster
Runoff,
write
us
a
picture
of
Coachella
in
the
year
2065,
as
a
scorching
and
inhospitable
tent
city
in
the
militarized
desert.
Not
everything
we
do
is
this
literal,
obviously
because
fiction
is
much
more
ambiguous
than
that,
but
we
find
that
these
kinds
of
stories
receive
the
most
engaged
and
immediate
responses
from
our
audience,
because
their
themes
are
already
highlighted
in
public
conversation
on
the
web.
Ideally,
their
themes
evoke
existing
but
latent
fears
or
perceptions
about
the
direction
of
where
the
world
is
heading,
and
so
the
work
of
the
reader
to
locate
the
radical
discontinuities
within
them
is
simple,
even
intuitive.
Its
been
for
us
the
most
effective
strategy
for
injecting
fiction
into
peoples
feeds
and
seeing
it
shared
in
the
way
nonfiction
is
shared.
In
some
case,
weve
used
Terraform
as
a
platform
for
direct
critical
response
to
issues
about
which
we
are
passionate,
some
of
which
are
self-reflexive.
This
year,
there
was
a
cultural
upheaval
in
science
fiction
as
our
most
illustrious
literary
awards,
the
Hugos,
were
in
a
sense
overtaken,
legally,
but
maliciously,
through
the
gaming
of
a
public
ballot,
but
a
very
conservative
group
advocating
for
a
political
adventure
yarn-style
science
fiction
which,
perhaps,
never
really
existed.
You
know,
when
men
were
men
and
saved
damsels
from
aliens
in
space,
etc.
Considering
that
the
Hugos
have
honored
some
of
the
great
progressive
and
radical
voices
of
the
last
100
hundred
years,
you
know,
people
like
Kurt
Vonnegut,
Ursula
Le
Guin,
Samuel
Delaney,
Phillip
K.
Dick,
and
Octavia
Butler,
it
seems
disingenuous
and
myopic,
to
say
the
least,
to
imagine
that
it
deserves
to
be
in
the
hands
of
people
who
do
not
use
science
fiction
in
that
way.
Science
fiction
has
always
been
a
tool
for
the
marginalized
to
imagine
new
worlds
beyond
the
limitations
of
the
here
and
now,
and
such
nostalgia
seems
ill
placed.
In
reaction,
Terraform
commissioned
a
story
from
Kameron
Hurley,
a
Hugo-winning
writer,
extrapolating
what
might
happen
when
we
no
longer
have
the
freedom
to
imagine
our
own
future,
if
we
let
the
trolls
win.
I
dont
want
to
spoil
it,
but
its
not
good.
This
is
what
science
fiction
does
best.
It
uses
speculation
to
shed
light
on
the
problems
of
the
present,
which,
in
this
case,
are
the
problems
of
science
fiction
itself.
The
kind
of
stuff
that
we
publish
on
Terraform
is,
and
that
I
love,
spiritually
quite
close
to
what
cyberpunk
was
in
its
prime:
Fiction
about
the
very
near,
the
very
close,
the
alarmingly
corporeal
realities
of
technology
and
what
it
does
to
us,
our
societies,
and
to
our
planet.
I
think
that
now,
more
than
ever,
science
fiction
and
art
has
a
responsibility
to
be
engaged
head
on
with
the
complexities
of
the
world,
because,
frankly,
we
need
its
power
as
a
critical
tool.
At
Terraform,
we
believe
that
fiction
isnt
just
a
place
to
go
to
escape
from
reality.
Its
a
place
where
we
can
come
to
understand,
even
take
control
over,
what
is
real.
To
test
code,
you
have
to
run
it.
To
see
if
a
building
will
stand,
you
have
to
build
a
model.
And,
for
us,
science
fiction
is
the
same
thing
science
fictions
functionality
has
always
been
to
take
the
world
as
we
know
it,
tweak
some
key
variables,
to
create
discontinuities
and
to
let
it
run.
What
emerges
from
the
experiment
may
not
tell
us
anything
meaningful
about
the
future,
but
its
a
really,
really
good
mirror
for
the
present.
The
core
science
fictional
gesture
of
radical
discontinuity
is
not
unique
to
the
written
word.
Its
something
that
can
be
employed
by
anyone,
any
artist,
any
writer,
operating
in
fictional
and
nonfictional
spaces
alike.
Its
not
watertight
or
isolated
to
genre,
its
more
like
a
tendency
or
an
impulse
that
can
be
manifested
in
any
number
of
ways
by
anyone
interested
in
reality.
So,
I
hope
that
Ive
made
clear
that
science
fiction
is
a
mechanism
for
understanding
and
I
want
to
leave
you
with
a
second
stupid
question:
What
is
reality?
Philip
K.
Dick
defined
reality
as
that
which
doesnt
go
away
when
you
stop
believing
in
it,
a
purposefully
evasive
definition
which
requires
us
to
believe
in
nothing
in
order
to
prove
the
reality
of
anything.
But
by
that
definition,
the
future
is
real,
because
although
its
intangible,
it
doesnt
require
our
belief
to
exist.
So,
the
future
is
real
and
it
belongs
to
all
of
us
and
none
of
us
at
once,
and
the
more
we
shore
up
its
reality
by
writing
about
it
seriously
as
though
it
were
real,
and
identifying
the
variables
which
create
it,
the
clearer
our
position
in
the
present
becomes.
This,
in
my
mind,
is
the
real
purpose
of
criticism,
the
role
of
criticism,
not
only
to
engage
with
the
world,
but
to
clarify
our
understanding
of
it,
so
that
we
can
live
better
within
it.
As
my
favorite
genre
critic
Robert
Scholes
writes:
To
live
well
in
the
present,
to
live
decently
and
humanely,
we
must
see
into
the
future.
PANEL DISCUSSION:
Artists as Cultural First Responders
Fionn
Meade:
I
think
one
of
the
things
in
beinghaving
been
handed
this
sort
of
frame
first
responders,
it
was
interesting
that
we
all
kind
of
stepped
into
a
questioning
mode
around
that
idea
of
artists
as
first
respondents
in
different
ways.
Including
I
guess
maybe
a
background
question
here
is
this
presumed
newness
of
a
sort
of
informal
capacity
that
the
web,
you
know,
and
the
digital
platforms
that
were
now
all
talking
about
presented.
Is
in
that
kind
of
informality
that
wasis
new
and
has
presented
a
new
landscape,
has
it
been
entirely
co-opted
by
the
sort
of
promotion
of
the
personal
and
the
preference
and
in
that
regard,
has
that
not
created
a
kind
of
first
responsiveness
that
actually
is
occupying
a
lot
of
space
in
terms
of
digital
platforms,
and
if
were
not
talking
about
first
respondents
in
regards
to
artists,
maybe
we
can
just
say
what
isis
this
a
counter
kind
of
responsiveness
that
were
talking
about,
so
Marisa,
in
your
work
you
talked
about
slowing
down
actually
the
pace
of
reports.
Marisa
Mazria-Katz:
Yeah,
well
I
mean
I
think
what
we
discovered
was
that
it
didnt
make
sense
for
us
to
have
artists
responding
to
the
news
cycle,
which
is
just
accelerating
almost,
you
know,
constantly,
because
I
mean
you
know,
I
think
we
wanted
to
give
them
the
space
to
reflect
and
also,
if
we
wanted
to
sort
of
upend
traditional
takes
of
the
news,
you
know,
that
takes
some
thought,
and
its
not
something
that
we
felt
was
really
working
to
have
somebody
hear
about
something
and
then
respond
to
it
right
away.
We
just
didnt
feel
that
the
artists
we
were
working
with,
that
their
practice
really
like
worked
in
such
a
way.
Of
course
there
are
exceptions
to
this,
but
generally
speaking
we
felt
that
if
this
site
was
going
to
actually
be
different,
or
have
something
else
to
say
that
it
was
about
giving
space,
and
giving
more
time.
And
allowing
artists
to
work
in
a
way
that
I
think
they
more
traditionally
work.
Rather
than
asking
them
to
be
journalists.
Meade:
And
in
the
case
of
Trevors
work,
but
also
James
your
work,
this
effort
to
make
in
a
sense
the
invisible
visible,
actually
in
general
takes
a
sort
of
amount
of
research
and
development
before
the
project
is
even
shared?
James
Bridle:
Yeah,
but
I
mean
I
hope
all
artists
do
some
kind
of
research
or
have
some
kind
of
background
to
what
theyre
doing.
I
thinkId
really
like
Dans
point
that
the
first
response
is
not
necessarily
the
thing,
but
I
think
the
more
interesting
thing
that
a
lot
of
stuff
is
the
response
a
at
all.
We
can
agree
that
we
necessarily
should
not
be
the
first
people
on
this.
On
the
scene
we
will
get
in
the
way
but
we
should
definitely
be
there,
and
the
thing
that
for
me,
the
technology
enables
occasionally
demands,
sometimes
makes
difficult
or
like
makes
bad,
is
if
theres
a
better
way
of
doing
that,
is
that
there
is
a
kind
of
necessity
of
response.
Which
is
very
hard
not
to,
and
also
the
fact
that
you
are
responding
is
always
kind
of
visible,
because
of
the
ways
in
which
that
work
is
then
disseminated
and
displayed
and
so
on
and
so
forth
so
I
think
its
less
possible
to
just
put
a
thing
and
go
this
is
just
my
little
response
over
here
and
you
dont
have
to
worry
about
it.
Like
its
going
to
be
out
there
so
theres
always
going
to
be
a
context
or
response
around
it
in
some
form.
Meade:
I
also
wanted
to
ask
you,
Claire,
when
you
talked
about
radical
discontinuities
of
science
fiction
in
some
way
softening
the
sort
of
maybe
softening
the
rhetorical
onslaught
of
the
future,
that
science
fiction
in
a
sense
makes
the
future
more
porous,
through
its
embrace
of
radical
discontinuities.
Claire
Evans:
I
think
it
also
prepares
us
for
the
future,
which
is
kind
of
the
tangled
hierarchy
that
science
fiction
has,
where
did
we
land
on
the
moon
because
a
generation
of
engineers
Arthur
C.
Clark
or
Isaac
Asimov
or
do
we
have
these
glamorous
cyberhacker
cabals?
Its
difficult
to
know
what
is
predictive
and
what
isnt
about
science
fiction
but
one
thing
that
is
true
is
that
if
we
can
become
familiar
with
new
scenarios
ahead
of
time
we
can
be
prepared
for
them
and
we
tend
to
think
about
them
so
that
when
the
time
comes
we
can
have
a
good
first
response.
It
helps
us
to
prepare
and
steep
ourselves
in
kind
of
the
rhetoric
of
tomorrow.
Meade:
And
just
Dan
you
were
quite
blatant
in
saying
that
in
your
view,
perhaps
artists
are
second,
third,
and
beyond
respondents
that
theres
theres
a
delay
inherent
in
to
some
degree
degree
in
artistic
practices
practice,
Victor
Shklovsky,
the
Russian
art
critic
says
that
art
was
a
device
it
actually
complicates
and
gives
a
sort
of
demand
of
the
shape
of
attention,
and
that
perhaps
that
quality
is
a
question,
how
does
that
exist
in
the
digital
shift
or
in
the
digital
predominance
of
communication
transactional
surveillance,
the
atomization
of
transactional
surveillance?
How
do
you
maintain
in
a
sense
that
notion
of
artist
as
a
device.
Fox:
To
slowing
things
down?
Meade:
Yeah.
Fox:
Well,
its
a
question
of
choice,
isnt
it
partially?
Choice
of
attention,
choice
of
where
you
put
things.
As
I
said,
I
mean
James
is
right
to
say
that
by
and
large
what
we
do
now
will
be
made
visible
at
some
point,
but
you
still
have
theyou
can
still
go
and
live
you
know
in
a
wood
somewhere.
You
can
go
and
not
document
what
youre
doing
in
the
studio.
You
can
have
a
studio
in
the
middle
of
a
great
big
city
and
not
take
a
single
photograph
of
what
goes
on
in
there
so
there
are
certain
choices
about
when
you
put
something
out
into
the
world
and
how
long
you
take
to
incubate
it
and
who
you
talk
about
it
with.
You
can
have
private
conversations
with
people
still.
But
again
its
like
James
said,
there
is
this
sort
of,
you
know,
demands
to
respond
for
various
kind
of
digital
platforms,
that
make
us
feel
very,
very
anxious
about,
you
know,
you
kind
of
anxiously
have
to
sort
of
you,
somehow
demonstrate
that
we
were
there,
you
know,
we
were
there
thinking
and
having
a
response
that
was,
you
know,
fully
formed
and
well
considered
right
there
in
the
moment.
And
you
think
when
you
sort
of
get
away
from
that.
There
is
still
a
choice
in
that.
Meade:
So
do
you
think,
I
mean
Duchamps
for
instance
when
he
adopted
the
ready
made
he
said
it
was
a
way
to
move
away
from
the
proliferation
of
the
retinal
and
from
the
self
that
had
to
be
some
degree
guessed
at
or
doubted
in
a
way
and
that
he
saw
more
agency
again,
roughly
100
years
ago
in
that,
do
you
think
that
in
your
work
in
engaging
kinds
of
thewith
making
visible
and
making
invisible
really
in
the
end
borders
that
are
based
in
legal
transaction?
Do
you
think
that
that
by
surfacing
that
its
a
move
away
from
in
a
sense
the
expectations
of
you
as
an
individual
artist?
That
has
an
individual
studio
practice?
Bridle:
I
dont
know
about
like
to
the
extent
that
like
this
is
all,
you
know,
just
my
opinions,
like
I
think
that
in
my
work
itsIm
putting
this
out
as
an
individual,
but
I
have
an
expectation
that
it
will
naturally
travel
and
be
explored
in
different
ways
because
that
is
the
nature
of
the
medium
in
which
I
work.
Its
not
a
broad
brushstroke
about
artist
practice
in
general
at
all
but
it
is
to
me
fascinating
and
brilliant
that
I
know
these
things
can
be
sent
out
and
always
have
been
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
people
have
their
own
encounters
with
the
work
and
I
dont
really
see
that
something
has
kind
of
particularly
changed
in
there
though
I
do
think
that
yeah,
that
it
still
doesnt
seem
to
have
percolated
into
most
stuff
to
any
degree
that,
so
many
of
the
attitudes
I
was
set
up
to
write
are
still
not
being
addressed.
Or
arent
like
particularly
well
considered
when
talking
about
this
stuff,
except
that
again
like
we
keep
saying
that
getting
harder
and
harder
to
ignore,
right,
that
we
have
actually
built
an
entire
system
to
make
us
all
enforced
creators
of
ready
mades.
Thats
what
it
does
is
its
a
perfectly
Duchampsian
system.
Meade:
I
was
also
struck
in
thinking
through
Tania
Brugueras
work
or
Tatlins
Whisper.
In
Havana
that
what
was
interesting
as
well
in
a
work
that
is
seen
as
timely,
topical,
respondent,
correspondent,
almost,
Im
curious
your
take
you
know,
on
this
in
particularly
Marisa
that
piece
is
called
Tatlins
Whisper
No.
6,
so
its
actually
informed
by
a
series
and
choreographed
performances
of
resistance
and
the
space
of
resistance
that
actually
goes
back
a
number
of
years
and
whats
interesting
to
think
about
that
is
that
the
logic
of
that,
so
to
speak,
the
artistic
logic
of
that
is
perhaps
less
of
interest
in
the
coverage
of
her
being
detained
than
it
is
the
fact
of
her
being
detained.
Do
you
find
that
the
logic
for
instance
of
a
work
like
that
in
its
sort
of
sequence
and
its
terms,
so
to
speak,
comes
across
in
the
topicality
of
coverage
around
it,
the
reception
of
it.
Mazria-Katz:
I
dont
really
know.
No,
I
dont
think
so.
I
mean
it
wasnt
really
in
terms
of
you
mean
the
press
coverage
of
what
happened
to
her?
No,
it
didnt
seem
so
to
me,
really,
the
project
itself,
I
mean
did
you
I
mean
when
you
were
Meade:
Well,
no,
I
was
just
curious
in
my
view,
no,
basically
whats
in
the
news,
is
the
topicality
of
an
artist
being
detained
in
Havana,
and
it
often
goes
not
far
beyond
that
into
what
the
kind
of
concentric
implications
are
of
the
work
that
led
here
to
make
that
decision
to
do
it
there
and
similarly
what
it
might
have
meant
that
by
doing
it
as
an
artist
born
there
but
from
elsewhere
what
does
it
mean
for
artists
are
living
in
Cuba
and
do
have
a
different
sense
of
the
limitations
or
constrictions
upon
expression
there?
A
lot
of
that
Coco
Fusco
kind
of
surfaced
it
in
a
way
in
a
piece
that
e-flux
published,
I
bring
it
up
because
the
topicality
of
it,
the
first
responder
part
of
it
is
because
of
the
artist
being
detained.
Fox:
Thats
what
news
demands,
doesnt
it?
Whats
going
to
be
headline
news
is
not
the
critical
thinking
behind
the
making
of
the
piece
of
art.
You
know
and
a
really
crass
example
of
this
would
be
the
way
art
gets
written
about
in
terms
of
auction
prices,
you
know,
you
post
impressionist
painting
of
some,
you
know,
some
flowers
that
people
arent
really
interested
in
what
led
those
flowers
to
be
painted,
whats
interesting
is
the
incredibly
wealthy
Russian
oligarch
how
much
they
paid
for
it.
Mazria-Katz:
Its
a
lot
of
times
how
we
commission,
too,
is
anticipating
whats
going
to
be
in
the
news
and
thinking
about
who
are
the
artists
who
are
going
to
say
something
about
it
and
have
something
insightful
to
say
about
it,
so
for
instance,
you
know,
the
Kenya
piece
that
I
showed
you,
we
worked
on
that
for
6
months
before,
and
actually
what
happened
was
II
arrived,
maybe
it
was
even
longer
than
6
months
because
I
got
to
Nairobi,
I
met
the
author,
and
knew,
because
in
2012
everybody
be
was
talking
about
the
2013
elections
they
were
quite
fearful
of
what
would
happen.
So
I
knew
that
this
was
something
that
was
going
to
be
in
the
news
and
commissioned
her
almost
immediately
after
meeting
her
and
reading
her
work
to
write
something
because
I
knew
what
she
was
going
to
say
was
going
to
be
very
different
from
the
traditional
news
take
on
the
Kenyan
elections
but
I
also
knew
that
her
piece
would
probably
get
news
coverage,
too,
and
overall
thats
the
realthats
the
big
goal
of
what
were
doing
is
inserting
these
artists
voices
into
the
news
and
with
Tania
with
everything
that
was
happening
with
Cuba
it
was
sort
of
like
a
perfect
storm
and
it
all
kind
of
erupted,
right
but
I
mean
thats
very
much
how
I
work.
I
mean
of
course
I
reallyI
really
make
a
special
effort
to
get
to
know
an
artists
work
but
I
will
equally
look
at
whats
happening
in
the
news
to
make
sure
that
Im
doing
something
that
people
are
going
to
be
paying
attention
to.
Its
of
the
utmost
importance
to
us.
Evans:
Yeah,
and
if
youre
going
to
commission
this
kind
of
thing
I
think
there
are
parallels
to
what
we
do,
because
you
have
to
look
into
the
future
to
some
extent,
you
have
to
look
for
anniversaries
or
pegs
of
some
kind
even
if
its
as
stupid
as
something
as
Valentines
Day.
A
lot
of
that
comes
down
to
traffic,
too,
we
know
that
on
every
holiday
theres
going
to
be
a
flurry
of
posts
on
that
subject
around
that
holiday
and
different
reactions
to
it
and
its
not
like
artists
are
wandering
into
the
line
of
fire
without
information.
You
have
to
look
for
someone
whos
already
interested
in
this
subject
and
ask
them
because
theyre
the
one,
because
kind
of
theyre
the
last
responders,
this
have
been
there
all
along.
I
think
those
what
you
united
to
talk
to.
Mazria-Katz:
Also
we
cant
get
an
editor
to
pay
attention
to
us
at
these
bigger
publications
unless
we
kind
of
anticipate
what
might
be
on
their
radar,
too,
so
thats
really
important
for
us.
Bridle:
I
was
going
to
say
that
theres
a
more
subtle
thing
to
do
as
well
in
terms
of
those
Paglen
photos
which
to
me
are
the
kind
of
answer
to
the
difficulty
that
was
being
briefly
discussed
a
couple
of
times
of
this
material
Ill
say
of
the
Internet
question
of
what
does
it
mean
just
to
point
to
it
and
show
it
is
that
those
photos
got
reinserted
into
the
media
in
a
very
different
way
that
relied
on
sense
causes
but
they
used
licensing
and
their
major
kind
of
tool
for
doing
it
and
I
think
theyre
such
a
fantastic
example
of
like
instrumentalizing
the
art
in
a
certain
way
in
way
to
sneak
it
in
there
and
turn
what
could
just
be
an
image
of
the
world
of
something
far
far
more
active
and
descriptive
that
goes
out
into
the
world
that
isnt
just
writing
you
know,
a
news
story
but
is
actually
something
far
moreyeah,
targeted.
Meade:
In
Claire,
in
your
work,
youve
talked
about
how
theres
a
being
both
like
a
musician
and
a
writer
and
an
editor,
the
difference
between
sort
of
expected
immediacy
around
live
performance
and
providing
the
universality
of
music
as
a
sort
of
immediacy
which
I
only
bring
up
because
when
you
go
to
a
show
youre
expecting
the
artist
as
first
respondentsomeone
whos
taking
on
immediacy
but
youve
distinguished
that
from
the
work
of
not
only
the
editing
but
the
delay
of
science
fiction,
again
not
using
the
word
delay
but
the
implicit
delay
of
science
fiction
that
allows
for
a
different
critical
space.
Can
you
talk
about
that
just
Evans:
Well,
I
think
that
in
this
moment
in
time,
all
artists
are
existing
on
three
or
four
different
temporal
tracks.
As
a
musician
theres
a
part
of
my
livelihood
that
requires
being
in
a
place
with
people
in
a
moment
and
theres
an
ephemeral
quality
to
it
but
at
the
same
time
a
musician
must
use
the
same
tools
that
we
use
to
make
music
to
disseminate
and
communicate
with
people
and
that
happens
in
a
much
more
diffuse
way.
As
a
writer
you
write
in
a
moment
and
you
publish
something
and
you
seem
to
have
a
48
hour
window
in
which
anyone
could
give
a
shit
about
it
and
then
its
over.
But
it
continues
to
live,
you
know,
its
not
just
that
window
of
time.
If
something
is
on
the
Internet
and
its
in
a
place
which
is
not
going
to
go
out
of
business
any
time
soon
and
you
have
an
archive
of
it
online
then
people
can
continue
to
react
to
it
for
years.
The
longer
you
write
on
the
web,
the
more
you
get
emails
from
people
about
something
written
six
years
ago.
I
get
comments
on
the
blog
that
I
havent
updated
in
three
years
because
everything
is
existed
in
the
sort
of
simultaneous,
you
know,
equivalence.
Mazria-Katz:
You
think
48
hours?
I
think
thats
really
generous.
But
Evans:
I
guess
it
depends
if
youre
west
coast
or
east
coast,
too.
Fox:
I
really
notice
that
too
as
an
editor
of
a
magazine
that
as
opposed
to
use
Christopher
Knights
phrase
from
yesterday
in
a
way
part
of
like
the
niche
art
legacy
publishing
is
a
glossy
print
magazine
that
has
been
going
for
many
years,
you
know,
but
at
the
sam
time
its
a
magazine
that
haswe
have
blogs,
we
have
social
media,
we
make
videos,
we
produce
at
different
kind
of
temporal
rates,
but
one
thing
Ive
always
noticed
about
doing
a
magazine
and
the
print
magazine
is
how
its
consumed
at
different
kind
of
paces.
You
know,
and
you
get
die
hard
fans
who
might
kind
of
get
an
issue
through
the
mail
if
theyre
subscribers
and
theyll
read
it
cover
to
cover
and
provide
some
kind
of
response.
But
most
people
dont.
Thats
not
the
way
I
consume
magazines.
The
way
I
consume
magazines
is
bit
by
bit
and
slowly
and
that
could
be
a
copy
of
the
New
Yorker
thats
next
to
the
loo
and
you
kind
of
read
slowly
over
the
course
of
many
visits
or
its
something
that
you
stumble
years
later
in
a
magazine,
you
might
be
like
Ben
yesterday
in
his
lecture
was
talking
about
his
lecture
and
going
to
the
library
and
looking
at
Artforum
in
1982
and
whatever
and
discovering
new
things.
Publishing
has
its
sort
of
slowness
and
some
things
that
are
very,
very
old
can
suddenly
seem
very,
very
fresh
again,
things
that
were
overlooked
at
the
time
can
suddenly
seem
very,
very
urgent
so
they
kind
of
renew
themselves.
Meade:
Do
you
think
given
that
that
there
is
a
role,
though,
forPaul
Schmelzers
project
with
Artist
Op-Eds,
you
know,
has
invited,
like
Dread
Scott
was
responding
to
Fergusons
or
events
like
Ferguson,
really
larger
implications
than
just
Ferguson,
like
in
the
moment
but
maybe
from
his
ongoing
engagement
as
an
artist
I
similarly
I
think
Coco
Fuscos
entry
into
Joe
Scanlans
process
was
really
helpful
and
was
performed
a
kind
of
mediating
in
betweenness
that
allowed
people
to
have
a
more
sophisticated
conversation
about
the
reception
of
that
via
the
Whitney
Biennial.
I
guess
Im
asking
in
your
role,
do
you
think
that
ado
you
think
that
that
is
something
that
frieze,
for
instance,
finds
new
platforms
for
or
new
immediacy
for
or
in
terms
of
like
providing
that
space
for
a
kind
of
highly
editorialized
immediate?
Fox:
Yeah,
I
mean
I
think
wed
like
to
do
more
of
that
weve
been
working
with
a
slightly
antiquated
website
for
the
last
several
years
which
has
not
allowed
us
to
be
as
dynamic
as
we
could.
But
I
think
different
rates
of
response
are
really
valuable
in
editorial
work.
I
think
theres
responding
very,
very
quickly
to
something
as
it
happens
can
be
really
important.
I
think
the
example
about
the
Scanlan
controversy
at
the
Whitney
Biennial.
The
whole
conversation
around
that
was,
you
know,
something
that
has
to
kind
of
happen
in
the
moment.
Whereas
its
still
possible,
though,
to
have
that
conversation
6
months
later,
because
these
problems
dont
go
away,
either.
You
know,
I
think
thats
an
important
thing,
a
slow
response
is
also
a
reminder
that
problems
of
for
instance
race
in
the
art
world
dont
disappear
because
people
stop
talking
about
them
in
the
kind
of
buzzy
world
of
you
know,
social
media
or
kind
of
what
gets
circulated
very,
very
rapidly
online.
And
I
think
that
in
a
weird
sort
of
way
whats
printed
on
paper
and
like
the
slowness
of
distribution
with
that,
kind
of
provides
some
sort
of
not
just
sort
of
archiving
or
not
just
sort
of
archiving
role
but
also
it
provides,
it
provides
a
brake,
you
know,
as
in
like
a
car
brake,
it
slows
things
down.
Bridle:
Can
I
mess
up
that
question
a
political
bit
by
saying
like
these
arent
slow
responses.
Like
a
fast
response
is
not
necessarily
a
first
response.
Particularly
in
terms
of
thebecause
youre
asking
meme
who
have
been
thinking
about
this
for
quite
a
while
and
actually
their
response
may
be
a
lot
more
thoughtful
and
in
depth
than
a
lot
of
the
kind
of
immediate
responses
to
stuff.
I
mean
that
is
the
thing
about
going
out
and
asking
different
people
who
have
worked
on
something
for
quite
a
long
time
is
that
youre
drawing
on
a
huge
extensive
body
of
knowledge
that
a
very
fast
media
wasnt
and
just
because
its
published
doesnt
mean
Mazria-Katz:
Just
to
add
to
that,
one
of
the
beautiful
things
that
about
I
think
asking
an
artist
to
respond,
you
know,
versus
a
journalist,
because
working
as
a
journalist
for
so
many
years
theres
all
these
rules
that
you
have
to
abide
by
and
you
have
to
work
in
a
certain
way
whereas
the
artist
can
draw
on
so
many
different
sources,
work
in
different
ways,
embed
themselves
in
communities
and
dont
have
of
the
rules
that
journalists
might,
and
that
I
think
then
produce
also
something
that
can
be
very
different,
and
Fox:
Yeah,
I
think
thatthat
also
brings
up
this
distinction
between
the
arts
journalist
and
the
arts
writer.
You
know.
There
are
very
different
types
of
writing
about
art.
Theres
writing
about,
you
know,
whos
moving
where
in
the
institutions
or
what
things
are
being
sold
for
or
what
is
very
newsy
or
very
sort
of
fact
based
and
requires
journalistic
skills,
proper
professional
journalistic
skills
but
then
writing
a
monographic
essay
about
an
artists
work
or
a
historical
movement
or
something
requires
other
skills,
that
requires
skills
to
do
with
imagination
and
empathy
and
maybe
deep
sort
of
historical
knowledge
or
having
followed
someone
for
a
long
time.
Maybe
it
requires
sort
of
different
kinds
of
literary
skills.
And
so
you
know,
when
we
think
about
this
idea
of
like
first
response
and
this
circles
back
to
what
we
were
just
saying
just
now,
its
about
like
who
has
the
best
set
of
tools
for
a
given
situation,
and
there
isnt
a
one
size
sort
of
fits
all
kind
of
solution
for
this.
Meade:
Right.
And
thatI
think
youthis
was
a
Twitter
question,
how
do
artists
respond
differently
from
critics
and
journalists,
which
I
think
you
were
just
sort
of
getting
at.
But
is
thereI
mean
is
there
in
a
sense
ado
you
feel
like
youre
creating
space
through
your
projects,
in
this
case
I
would
say
this
to
Claire,
Marisa,
and
Dan
as
editors,
you
know,
are
you
creating
platforms
that
you
see
as
being
like
sustainable
in
that
way
that
can
actually
and
if
you
are,
what
are
those,
how
do
you
differentiate
the
time
registers
of
your
responsibility
as
an
editor
and
publisher
that
invites
artists
into
a
particular
format?
Evans:
Wait,
define
sustainable?
Meade:
Sustainable
meaning
something
that
you
think
will
like
you
said,
stick
around,
be
there
for
a
period
of
time,
not
just
disappear.
Evans:
I
mean,
working
on
the
Internet
you
will
always
have
to
keep
in
the
back
of
your
mind
the
possibility
that
the
platform
will
someday
disappear
and
reconcile
yourself
to
that
and
try
to
sort
of
live
it
up
while
you
can.
Thats
always
been
my
attitude.
Bridle:
But
different
to
publishing
a
magazine
just
on
a
shorter
scale.
Evans:
Sure
were
talking
about
slow
and
fast
but
these
are
condensed
time
scales
were
talking
about
years
at
the
most
and
the
world
is
vast
is
time
is
vast
and
even
our
books
will
one
day
turn
to
dust
so
we
have
to
reconcile
ourself
to
that
to
some
extent
and
make
work
that
lasts
in
people
that
reflects
people.
Bridle:
Something
about
the
quality
of
the
work.
Like
the
first
responders,
its
ultimately
about
getting
people
to
make
work
and
getting
it
out
there
and
the
response,
like
maybe
thats
the
difference
between
the
artist
and
the
critic
or
there
are
shades
towards
it,
but
ultimately
is
that
you
just
want
to
get
the
thing
out
there
and
say
the
thing
and
then
you
know
all
those
other
processes
can
happen
to.
Mazria-Katz:
Im
not
sure
hopefully
this
is
part
of
this,
but
our
platform
is
interesting
because
its
almostits
whether
or
not
people
come
to
our
site,
youd
absolutely
love
lots
of
visitors
to
our
site,
and
you
know,
its
great,
but
what
we
really
aim
for,
its
not
emphasizing
the
platform
as
much
as
its
the
insertion.
And
thats
beenthats
been
a
really
interesting
thing
to
try
to
work
with,
because
with
the
emphasis
of
numbers
and
metrics
and
Google
analytics
and
how
are
we
doing
and
all
these
things
and
then
what
happens
when
you
kind
of
take
the
ProPublica
model,
which
is,
you
know,
its
which
is
also
just
like
us
inserting
into
mainstream
newspapers,
you
know,
what
does
that
mean
for
you,
and
where
will
we
be,
you
know,
we
may
not
be
around,
but
these
pieces
will
still
live
on
in
these
other
sites,
lets
say,
and
thats
something
that
has
been
part
of
our
process
is
realizing
that
if
the
goal
is
that
artists
are
being
read
and
discussed
by
people
all
over
the
world,
how
are
we
best
going
to
serve
that
around
that
wasthat
was
a
really
conscious
decision
at
the
very
beginning
for
us.
Meade:
And
it
was
interesting
to
hear
that
it
was
really
slowing
down
and
taking
the
time
to
think
of
maybe
more
strategically
about
the
insertion
of
the
work
or
the
artist
into
a
different
level
of
circulation
and
distribution.
That
created
and
efficacy
that
otherwise
you
wouldnt
have
had,
but
do
you
feel
as
though
youre
influenced
by
your
partners
in
that
regard?
Mazria-Katz:
Our
partners
want
the
people
that
often
that
they
havent
ever
heard
of,
or
are
doing
things
that
are
really
interesting
that
are
not
on
their
radar.
So
in
orderI
mean
Im
not
sure
if
Im
answering
the
question,
but
when
we
think
about
our
partners,
we
think
about
what
can
we
bring
them
that
they
arent
going
to
be
able
to
do
themselves?
And
having
Creative
Time
and
the
knowledge
of
the
art
world
and
artists,
we
really
bring
something
to
them
that
otherwise
I
dont
know
that
they
would
be
able
to
eventheyve
ever
even
heard
of,
so
I
mean
thats
how
we
try
to
thinkwe
try
to
think
of
how
can
we,
you
know,
sort
of
help
grow
or
expand
the
kinds
of
pieces
that
they
are
putting
out
into
the
world.
Thats
where
we
see
our
role.
Fox:
I
mean
just
speaking
about
our
work
on
frieze
magazine,
in
a
couple
of
years
ago
we
started
making
our
own
short
videos,
which
is
something
you
see
a
lot
you
know
news
organizations
doing,
but
not
so
much
in
the
sphere
of
like
specialist
art
magazines,
and
theyre
just
like
short
10-minute
films
that
we
do
with
a
production
company
in
London
and
theyre
all
paid
for
out
of
the
editorial
budget
of
the
magazine,
but
weits
been
very
much
like
a
kind
of
learning
as
we
go
process,
making
these
things.
But
what
weve
discovered
is
that
its
opened
up
a
new
sort
of
function
of
the
magazine
for
us,
which
is
possibly
one
of
record,
one
of
like,
you
know,
possible
kind
of
like
archival
value,
which
print
doesnt
really
sort
of
do
in
the
same
way.
So
for
instance,
was
it
last
year,
I
think
it
was
last
year
we
produced
our
first
30-minute
documentary,
which
we
did
in
association
with
the
BBC,
which
was
about
the
history
of
the
Glasgow
art
scene,
and
through
the
magazine,
through
the
kind
of
contacts
we
have,
you
know,
we
were
able
to
speak
to
a
whole
bunch
of
people
in
different
generations
in
Glasgow
about
how
the
art
has
developed
in
the
city,
we
were
lucky
enough
to
be
able
to
use
the
BBCs
archive
to
pull
in
the
archive
footage.
We
also
ended
up
being
one
of
the
last
people
who
got
inside
of
the
Glasgow
School
of
Art
before
it
was
hit
by
fire,
so
what
this
documentary
ends
up
being
is
this
sort
of
snapshot
of
Glasgow
at
a
certain
moment
before
something
happened
which
was
very
symbolic
to
the
city
and
now
we
have
this
great
30-minute
record
of
lots
of
different
people
of
lots
of
different
generations
speaking
about
their,
you
know,
their
connection
to
the
city.
And
it
operates
in
a
different
way
to
something
in
print,
you
know,
because
we
dont
have
an
editorialize
voice.
Of
course
we
make
editing
decisions
in
what
you
show,
but
its
talking
heads
basically
artists
and
curators
and
writers
talking
to
the
camera,
you
can
hear
the
grain
of
their
voice,
see
what
theyre
like,
see
the
environment.
I
think
thats
something
that
technology
has
allowed
us
to
do
as
a
magazine
or
to
start
exploring
as
a
magazine.
Meade:
But
I
mean
thats
also
partly
why
just
the
Walker
commissions
inviting
artists
to
make
works
that
respond
to
signature
artists
in
our
collection
that
already
have
an
interest
in
say,
Derek
Jarman,
was
that
interest
in
surfacing
new
platform
that
could
invite
that
kind
of
expertise,
that
kind
of
ongoing,
say
engagement
the
allure
of
something
that
already
has
a
momentum,
do
you
see
the
magazine
devoting
more
time
and
space
and
resources
to
that
and
whats
the
balance
of
exploring
perhaps
really
meaningful
new
platforms
for
artists
but
at
the
same
time
providing
as
you
put
it
a
kind
of
legacy
role
ofor
not
legacy
but
a
kind
of
convention
of
reception
that
is
still
valuable
because
it
has
an
inherent
convention?
Fox:
Yeah,
I
mean
I
think
there
are
questions
of
just
economics.
We
dontthese
videos
that
produced
out
of
the
editorial
budget
and
we
dont
have
any
extra
money
for
them
that
is
raised
by
advertising
of
these
videos
and
were
able
to
produce
them
because
the
production
company
are
friends
of
ours
and
we
get
mates
rates
basically
of
their
facilities
but
I
think
whats
interesting
for
us
as
a
magazine
is
how
it
has
raised
this
question
of
like
horses
for
courses,
kind
of
what
are
the
right
writing
skills
for
a
certain
type
of
platform
situation?
So
the
writing
skills
that
you
need
to
write
a
400-word
review
are
different
to
the
writing
skills
you
need
to
write
2500-word
monographic
essay
about
an
artist
which
are
different
to
the
writing
skills
you
need
to
write
for
the
moving
image
which
requires
more
concision,
more
sensitivity
to
speech
rather
than
to
word
you
know
words
on
a
page
so
I
think
its
another
kind
of
writing
that
were
learning
about.
Meade:
But
isnt
the
acuity
of
new
forms
of
writing
responsive
to
this
kind
of
immediate
attention
and
I
mean
were
describing
things
that
dont
sound
that
different
than
they
have
been
in
terms
of
approaches
so
I
guess
Im
asking
is
there
a
new
kind
of
artist
that
is
sort
of
this
first
responder
thats
adopting
the
acuity
of
immediate
response
because
I
feel
like
were
sort
of
talking
about
the
counter
to
that.
Bridle:
I
just
want
to
say
thatI
keep
wanting
to
make
science
fiction
metaphors
basically
and
this
is
a
really
long
one
but
something
about
the
way
you
just
talked
about
making
that
Glasgow
film
is
you
were
basically
making
a
science
fiction
without
knowing
it
because
you
were
predicting
something
into
the
future,
I
mean
you
werent
predicting
it,
I
hope
you
didnt
set
fire
to
the
place,
but
there
was
a
weird
thing
that
happened
there.
And
not
all
artists,
but
a
huge
number,
but
also
in
terms
of
when
you
make
stuff
thats
deliberately
intended
tock
into
a
news
cycle
and
stuff
you
are
doing
a
kind
of
futurism
that
is
predictive.
The
difference
to
that
to
the
kind
of
pure
reactive
thing
that
we
criticize
is
that
its
done
from
a
position
of
kind
of
thoughtfulness
and
consideration
and
so
were
coming
to
it
with
like
a
domain
awareness
and
a
history
of
research
and
that
kind
of
thing
that
allows
you
in
hindsight
to
go
oh,
yeah,
I
was
doing
science
fiction
because
I
was
looking
in
a
place
in
which
there
was
some
kind
of
moment
in
a
moment
in
which
you
were
kind
of
projecting
yourself
forward
in
the
time
that
you
make
or
write
this
thing.
And
thats
the
same
thing
that
happens
to
archived
pieces
that
get
resuscitated
or
whatever
they
all
exist
in
those
kind
of
time
lines
and
when
they
get
reacted
essentially
speaks
to
the
quality
of
thought
that
went
into
them
in
the
first
place.
Evans:
I
think
artists
and
journalists
have
had
the
skill
of
because
if
youre
paying
attention
to
the
world,
this
is
actually
a
kind
of
William
Gibson
thing,
you
can
trace
the
nodes
of
things
that
are
latent
and
see
where
they
might
intersect,
because
youre
looking
and
so
that
I
mean
its
pa
form
of
looking
into
the
future
but
its
also
just
awareness
of
the
present.
Bridle:
What
Gibson
does
in
terms
of
that
reaching
across
the
network
and
picking
things
out
its
like
particularly
it
speaks
completely
to
that
flattening
of
time
because
theres
no
temporality
to
the
thing
at
all.
He
just
has
what
appears
to
us
to
be
a
temporal
foresight
which
is
actually
kind
of
a
spatial
one
because
he
exists
in
this
wider
network
but
I
think
a
lot
of
artists
of
a
certain
kind
and
the
ones
that
have
been
worked
that
thats
what
theyre
doing,
theyre
kind
of
spreading
out
to
these
networks
and
being
absolutely
more
aware
of
them.
Meade:
Rather
than
rather
than
being
determined
by
them.
Bridle:
Yeah,
absolutely.
Meade:
So
that
anticipatory
predictive
quality
is
actually
different
in
some
ways
than
discussing
it
as
a
perhaps
respondent,
correspondent,
imbedded
reacting
to
the
incident.
Bridle:
I
think
it
relates
to
what
we
had
talked
about
last
night
when
I
complained
about
this
label
of
political
artist
or
activist
artist
which
is
like
one
that
I
get
a
lot
because
I
make
work
about
drones
and
war
and
stuff.
And
like
I
dont
object
to
it
because
its
aI
find
it
weird
that
its
just
applied
to
me
because
Im
making
work
about
these
things
as
though
making
work
about
anything
isnt
about
these
things
or
making
work
about
the
world
in
which
you
encounter
is
not
some
kind
of
form
activism
or
involvement
in
the
world
and
I
feel
its
quite
similar
to
this
are
you
an
artist
who
engages
with
stuff
or
not?
Well,
we
do,
we
live
in
the
world,
hi.
Meade:
I
think
it
might
be
because
we
havewe
have
this
great
group
of
people,
but
also
its
our
last
opportunity
for
audience
questions,
I
thought
I
would
open
it
up
to
the
audience
for
any
questions
on
our
conversation.
Audience
Member:
My
favorite
science
fiction
short
story
is
Roadside
Picnic,
you
know,
in
which
we
as
a
human
race
are
dealing
with
the
detritus
left
behind
by
an
alien
invasion
in
which
they
seem
to
take
no
notice
of
us
whatsoever
and
I
just
wondered
in
instead
of
a
question
Id
like
sort
of
a
comment,
I
feel
like
its
relevant
to
this
conversation,
in
the
sense
that
you
know,
like
we
are
grappling
with
our
responses
to
these
things
that
to
these
technologies
and
to
those
modes
of
working
and
modes
of
like
socializing
that
we
still
dont
quite
have
a
handle
on,
and
yet
are
trying
to
make
proclamations
around
and,
you
know,
determine
our
future
according
to
like
the
clumsy
ways
in
which
you
know
were
moving
forward
in
the
present
moment.
Evans:
Yeah.
I
mean
the
like
the
cosmic
zoom
out
is
always
really
important.
I
mean
its
you
know
in
the
midst
of
all
of
this
deep
conversation
about
essentially
invisible
things,
that
matter
a
great
deal
to
us,
we
must
always
remember
that
you
know,
were
on
a
rock
and
you
know
if
an
alien
is
passing
by,
they
dont
necessarily
have
any
understanding
or
interest
in
what
were
talking
about.
Its
useful
to
remember
that
sometimes,
even
if
its
just
like
this
kind
of
theoretical
construct,
like
we
may
not
be
alone
into
the
universe,
and
if
we
arent,
then
you
know,
we
are
just
as
important
as
the
other
guy,
and
we
know
nothing
of
whats
going
on
with
them,
soyou
know.
Bridle:
As
well
about
the
indeterminacy
of
our
present
and
the
acknowledgment
of
that
which
I
think
is
often
possible
in
art
is
not
possible
in
politics
that
withinits
full
of
people
going
no,
I
am
right
about
this
and
that
is
one
of
the
major
problems
with
the
world.
The
refusal
to
kind
of
acknowledge
a
little
bit
of,
you
know,
contextual
difference
or
dissonance
in
that,
and
thats
what
those
kind
of
stories
teach
us
more
and
more,
and
that
I
dont
think
it
would
be
impossible
to
spread
that
allusion
a
little
bit
further
into
other
forms
of
public
discourse.
Meade:
Theres
the
sense,
though,
that
I
mean
this
gets
at
a
verylike
a
very
important
gap
which
is
that
art
that
the
politics
of
art
areart
that
embeds
critique
kind
of
promises
a
political
accomplishment
that
it
doesnt
deliver
and
it
actually
often
thrives
on
that
nondelivery
or
the
ambiguity
thats
created
around
not
delivering
in
a
sense
that
the
political
agency,
theres
awhich
is
very
different
than
being
in
the
position
of
political
power.
Bridle:
Yeah,
I
dont
and
Im
afraid
to
and
Im
disillusioned
by
the
inability
of
like
that
kind
of
political
forms
of
those
things
to
come
true
on
a
lot
of
the
claims
that
we
make
like
we
havent
got
that
figured
out
yet
and
yeah,
if
you
want
to
do
that,
you
should
probably
be
trained
as
a
lawyer.
We
know
that
other
things
have
bigger
structural
things
but
at
the
same
time
thats
not
the
only
thing
were
trying
to
do
in
the
world,
either.
Audience
Member:
Hi,
just
continuing
on
this
idea
of
power,
in
your
various
subjects,
I
feel
like
the
issues
have
come
up
like
issues
of
curation,
issues
of
systemic
disposition,
I
was
just
wondering
what
you
guys
had
to
say
in
terms
of
the
role
of
values
and
the
implementation
of
values
and
whos
making
the
decision
that
sort
of
generates
the
values
that
result
in
decisions
that
affect
all
of
our
disciplines.
Fox:
Well,
Ithats
a
big
question.
Audience
Member:
Sorry.
Fox:
Its
a
big
its
a
very,
very
good
question,
and
a
big
question.
All
I
canall
I
can
say
to
that
is
maybe
just
a
sort
of
reiterate
something
that
was
trying
to
say
earlier
in
my
talk,
which
is
that
I
think
we
need
to
not
be
myopic
about
first
within
just
speaking
about
the
arts
generally,
about
what
fields
we
work
in,
you
know,
this
idea
that
the
kind
of
artist,
visual
artists
are
somehow
the
most
interesting
ones
and
people
that
do
things
in
other
fields
dont
have
political
agency
or
what
have
you.
I
think
its
a
conversation
were
all
involved
in.
And
then
secondly
you
know
not
being
you
know,
I
think
like
being
aware
of
your
own
sort
of
biases
in
terms
of
where
you
come
from
sort
of
metaphorically
and
literally,
physically
and
I
think
its
something
you
need
to
maintain
some
vigilance
on.
Its
not
at
all
easy
to
do.
But
yeah,
sorry,
Im
really
thats
a
really
inarticulate
answer
and
a
very
platitudinous
one,
I
sort
of
apologize,
but
I
think
maintaining
vigilance
about
those
things
and
not
be
locked
down
into
a
specialist
conversation
of
your
own
field
where
what
were
doing
here
as
professional
art
critics
or
what
were
doing
here
as
artists
who
work
in
just
in
the
visual
arts,
I
think
not
getting
bogged
into
your
own
sort
of
lane
thats
crucial,
also.
Evans:
And
being
transparent,
also,
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
afraid
to
have
an
opinion
about
something,
because
theyre
just
always
the
possibility
that
youre
going
to
get
trolled
for
it,
which
is
a
very
real
fear
and
I
think
it
affects
some
people
more
than
others,
but
we
shouldnt
sacrifice
our
capacity
to
speak
openly
about
what
we
believe
in.
Bridle:
That
transparency,
Im
in
terms
of
its
good,
because
it
like
it
means
were
actually
like
being
serious
and
genuine
in
saying
what
were
talking
about,
and
like
expressing
our
values
clearly.
It
also
hopefully
builds
some
sort
of
solidarity
with
other
people
but
it
also
opens
us
up
to
proper
critique
about
stuff,
as
well
that
want
to
be
challenged
on
those
values.
So
sometimes
I
have
I
get
like
really
scared
when
I
express
something
that
I
feel
really
strongly
about
in
my
work,
and
is
the
reason
for
doing
it
but
more
often
than
not
its
good
that
that
comes
out
because
it
gets
reinforced
because
there
is
genuine
good
strong
criticism
that
I
understand
what
the
fact
thats
really,
really
happening
so
I
understand
that
its
necessary
to
state
values
for
both
of
those.
Audience
Member:
So
you
think
those
are
occurring
organically
out
of
the
conversation
sort
of
between
systemic
and
organic.
Bridle:
The
values
are?
Audience
Member:
Yeah.
Bridle:
I
think
theres
probably
some
sort
of
I
hope
it
describes
what
I
considered
to
be
universal
ones
and
theres
the
more
kind
of
actionable
ones
that
happen
with
the
encounter
with,
but
that
should
always
be
open
to
some
kind
of
critique
in
conversation.
Fox:
Otherwise
it
just
becomes
ideology,
doesnt
it.
Audience
Member:
We
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
kind
of
bemoaning
the
lack
of
power
that
comes
in
a
lot
of
our
positions
and
what
were
looking
at
but
first
responders
are
somebody
who
has
a
lot
of
power,
right.
They
often
frame
the
narrative
because
of
theyre
first
draft.
They
often
talk
when
the
most
people
are
listening
so
that
narrative
is
picked
up
by
a
lot
of
people
and
so
the
question
becomes,
I
guess
my
question
is,
I
know
its
hard
to
be
first
responders
as
artists
but
how
do
we
get
there?
I
mean
what
can
we
start
doing
to
be
in
that
position?
Bridle:
I
think
thats
really
good.
And
I
think
we
should
shy
away
from
actually
trying
to
occupy
that
position
from
everything
weve
said
if
in
fact
we
believe
in
the
values
essentially
of
those
things
we
said.
Like
I
dont
have
particularly
great
strategy
for
doing
that
except
I
think
actually
stating
these
things
clearly
and
loudly
remains
important.
That
we
shouldnt,
while
being,
you
know,
reasonably
reticent
about
the
actual
political
effect
some
of
this
work
might
have,
not
shying
away
from
we
think
it
should
and
holding
you,
know,
saying
loudly
and
clearly,
what
we
think
is
actually,
I
mean
I
dont
necessarily
do
that
much
and
I
dont
right
now
on
this
stage
in
front
of
you
feel
like
I
have
a
huge
amount
of
power,
I
feel
very
lucky
to
have
it,
but
you
know,
thats
when
we
get
to
say
those
things.
How
we
say
them,
a
little
bit
harder.
Fox:
Yeah,
I
think
you
make
a
good
point,
though
in
being
the
first
person
to
say
something
is
often
a
really
scary
position,
because
youre
advancing
an
opinion
that
people
havent
necessarily
commented
on
and
youre
opening
yourself
up
totally
for
kind
of
being
trolled
or
criticized
or
what
have
you
and
its
a
very
brave
position
to
take
and
I
think
that
if
you
do
take
that
position
its
just
a
case
of
being
open
to
the
fact
that
you
can
modify
your
views,
and
the
people
who
are
listening
to
you
make
that
first,
that
first
statement,
that
first
kind
of
salvo,
you
know,
kind
of
reaction,
shouldnt
like
take
you
down
for
that,
either,
because
its
a
veryyou
know,
youre
putting
yourself
in
a
very
vulnerable
position
and
people
need
to
respect
that
vulnerability,
I
think.
Meade:
Yeah,
that
idea,
which
is
a
valuable
one,
that
the
act
of
criticism
is
or
critique
is
self-education
in
public.
Fox:
Yeah.
Yeah,
it
is.
Meade:
And
not
in
a
sense
making
a
judgment
that
is
universal.
It
is
a
modifiedits
putting
one
self
in
a
position
of
Evans:
And
its
difficult
because
things
last,
you
know
and
if
you
make
an
opening
salvo
in
a
times
of
crisis
that
turns
out
to
be
misguided
then
that
stays
with
you
unless
you
have
the
capacity
to
go
back
and
edit
it
until
your
opinion
is
like
Wikipedia
style
up
to
date
but
we
have
to
remember
we
all
have
the
right
to
make
that
opening
salvo.
Bridle:
But
also
it
doesnt
have
to
be
the
thing
that
is
said
first
or
loudest,
either,
but
to
say
the
new
thing,
as
well.
Again
that
slightly
temporal
difference
that
when
the
thing
that
is
said
that
is
new
that
should
be
kind
of
supported
and
critically
engaged
with
very
carefully,
that
that
doesnt
have
to
be
the
thing
said
first
and
loudest.
Fox:
Yeah
and
I
think
if
youre
a
critic
you
also
have
to
remember
that
youre
perfectly
within
your
rights
to
change
your
mind,
which
you
know,
a
lot
of
people
dont
expect
of
critics.
I
think
youre
totally
totally
able
to
disagree
with
yourself.
Disagree
with
the
younger
version
of
yourself.
God
knows
that
Ive
written
some
crap
that
I
cant
believe
I
said
at
the
time.
I
would
never
say
now.
Evans:
But
thats
kind
of
nice
that
you
have
a
historical
record
of
prevailing
opinions
or
whatever
it
was
that
youre
writing
contained
within
your
own
body
of
work
that
you
can
create
your
own
history
and
you
cant
have
that
record
unless
you
take
the
risk
of
saying
the
thing
in
the
first
place.
Meade:
Unless
theres
a
burning
last
question
maybe
we
can
end
there.
And
thank
you
for
the
conversation.