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:
Pixel — extraits from Adrien M / Claire B on Vimeo
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.