Aesthetics Distributed

Act III   Post-Internet Art
Project: Praxis Proposal

• Upcom­ing: Exer­cise 2 due S 4/11 (instruc­tions below)
  — ArtEvent attend & review (suggest/discuss in prior thread)

 
 
M 06-Apr Read/discuss: Fibrecul­ture issue 7 *choose 1 article

• see list of 9 under “Arti­cles”: Tofts, Mun­ster, et al through Arm­strong
  → please post your selec­ted article

• dis­cuss: inno­vat­ing dis­ci­pli­nary con­ven­tions + art dis­course
  — for Exer­cises 2–3 & Project 3

W 08-Apr               Dis­cuss: Fibrecul­ture arti­cles (cont’d)
+ “Net Art 2.0” from remixthebook.com

• Activity/Focus: “Dis­trib­uted Aes­thet­ics” (cont’d) and
  → new con­sid­er­a­tions for review? (art event)

 
 
» Blog Entry & Response: optional / extra credit (toward par­tic­i­pa­tion)
 
 
 
Due (S 4/11): Art Event Review (Exer­cise 2) — Instruc­tions Below
 
 
 
 
— via Colos­sal:

Art Event Review (Exer­cise 2)

Due S 11-Apr
500 words (min. / 750 words max); media: 1 image/video (required)
10 points (see exer­cise guide­lines/rubric)

 
» Task: Com­pose review of event/exhibit (in-person dis­play, per­for­mance) attended — in style suit­able to dis­ci­pline, apply­ing con­ven­tions of dis­course com­mu­nity (as observed in model/example).

You might imag­ine writ­ing for the pub­li­ca­tion of the model you observed, con­sid­er­ing edi­to­r­ial stan­dards and audi­ence expec­ta­tions.
Or, con­sider blog [as] pub­lish­ing: read­ers of your review likely include those who have attended or plan to attend the local event/exhibit.
In either case, thor­oughly con­sider audi­ence, apply­ing rhetor­i­cal aware­ness and under­stand­ing of dis­ci­pli­nary writ­ing con­ven­tions of your field.
→ For instance, don’t for­get an over­all assess­ment (the­sis); con­text or con­nec­tion to field/movement, and a con­clu­sion (e.g. broader sig­nif­i­cance or relevance?)

Remem­ber (impor­tant com­pos­ing tech­niques): as a review this should be crit­i­cal (using cri­te­ria) with spe­cific sup­port exam­ples, while lim­it­ing/avoiding sum­mary & descrip­tion
(con­sider rhetor­i­cal sit­u­a­tion: what would edi­tor expect/advise? what do read­ers expect?)
 
While this is a straight­for­ward review — apply­ing con­ven­tions rec­og­nized — not espe­cially con­cern­ing net­worked media ecol­ogy, you cer­tainly should con­sider some of our recent top­ics — e.g. ambiance, speci­ficity of site and mate­ri­al­ity, audi­ence expe­ri­ence, — to inform your review (left implied or stated explic­itly),
or to dis­cuss in conclusion.