Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed Manovich. I hadn't really ever considered databases in the ways he wrote about them. Not to date myself, but I was "coming of age" during that transisiton when computers became more commonplace in the home (at least in Silicon Valley) and the encyclopedia salesman went the way of the Dodo.

The Gen-X Generation learned both the narrative and the database methodologies. Today's youth, however, accept the notion that the database and algorithm and their many benefits--on-demand TV, the Internet, Halo 3--have always been there and the data that come are able to be sorted in any manner. (Go ahead, ask a high school student what a card catalog is.) They are accustomed to this proliferation of borrowed and appropriated information that is availalable to them no waiting, 24/7, but without benefit of any narrative or trajectory.

It's creating interesting issues within society and, or course, art. Just as we construct our own algorithms to respond to entertainment like Halo 3 (which accesses data, creates new algorithms and produces more data to respond to the players), we are all constantly constructing our own simple algorithms to create order from the massive amount of information available to us on a day to day basis. We store this informaiton in our own personal databases--the three pounds gem. The best part is when we spit this masticated data out, there's no more white out, misplaced eraser ribbon or scrounging for one more piece of pristine paper when we realize we need to type the damned stuff out again due to the dreaded type-o.

Dore said there is no class today. She's ill
Hope you all get this message

I am out of my league in reading Manovich’s article – because I haven’t seen much digital media art. Manovich makes a case that the database takes precedence over the narrative – but I wonder whether his article is just dated. With my extremely limited exposure to Second Life, it seems narrative is sublimated there too – sublimated to wandering around the database. But if an avatar is on some mission, then does the narrative take precedence? In this link to one artists he mentioned, George Legrady, database trumps narrative – although, could a narrative can form in the theater of one’s mind?

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~g.legrady/

The whole notion of writing an article as impetus for sparking some kind of art theory revolution is moot. Taking the post-modern mentality and thinking that “there would be no new theory, only recombinations of what had already been thought” is a dead end. Times change, as do tastes and experiences; the progression of time in itself should be enough to spark the change Rajchman hopes for. I find his description of what contemporary art has become under the stagnation of post-modern theory on p.390 very informative, “[Art] became instead a set of stock formulas to be thrown together in the computer at will without regard for origin or rigor in an ever more arbitrary and entangled quotational patchwork.” This references his claim that “multiculturalism” may become “as ubiquitous a term as ‘post-modernism’ once was” which I feel is the most striking point of the article. Perhaps post-colonial theory and globalism in the form of “multiculturalism” will be the most informative keys in divining the future of art theory….

aaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

In regards to the Krauss article I am taking the side of it's all shit, shit, shit, detritus, excrement, shit.
these artists need to
1. read "Everybody Poops"
2. Wipe their asses and be done

After reading the article for the tird time I came to the conclusion that the only shit worth analysing is a turd in the bowl in the shape of the buddah.

pplluuuuptttt!

To me theory seems a way to understand the complex notion of art and artist. It is like the age old question, which came first the chicken or the egg??? Art seems always to be apart of the human psych and humasn expression. And so is rational and intellectual thought. I think these go hand in hand. It is very human to try to puut forth meaning or an intellectual interpretation for just about anything. In the Rajchman essay, he suggest in reinventing theory. That is like saying let's reinvent Freud's theory. We can argue, reinterpret, recontextualize, reintellectualize, but I do not think we can reinvent theory.
Perhaps some artist use theory, as Pantea states, and bring the ideas within specific thoery into the studio. And I think for all of us in this class, we cannot bring the ideas into our studio. Either consciously or subconsiously, it will be present in some form or another.
For me, I struggle with the ideas that are projected onto art works. Art is so open for interpretation, and sometimes an artist perhaps doesn't know what a certain piece may specifically be about. I guess, theory creates a dialogue and intrepretation. Theory is a reasoning and rationing of unrational thought and unreasoned process of thought; intending to illude to a distinct thought of approach or concept. For me my art is instictual, personal, and motivated my universal idealization. And if a theory fits my art, rather than my art fitting a theory, then so be it.