once again, limited by comments

so i'll just post this here in response to nick.

A few things--

Some of the stuff here is awesome. Others, as we've touched on, feel trite and trivial.

But to avoid critical tautology...
My biggest complaint about video art has always been scale. For a museum, 'installation' is the key word. Over and over again: a weak digital projector, shot on minidv in poor lighting, repetitive motion or scenario that, in its hour long running time, amounts to some theoretical piece. web art suffers from the same problem, but more so because it's limited to our screen. this also brings up the question of transferring gallery art onto the internet. for analog mediums, it's basically impossible. can it be successful for a youtube pastiche?

hence, wendy's first question: "are you talking about digital art or web art?"

there's a definitive line between the two, and we all know it. i won't talk on my phone in a museum, but right now, typing here, i might as well be on the toilet.

a conversation from two days ago:
4:23 PM Tally: hey- would u be down to contribute to our bloggg?
http://eadersdigest.com/
we would love to have u onboard
4:24 PM B-)
4:25 PM me: shit
yeah sure sure
what are the requirements
Tally: um.. theres a thing called the internet
and it desperately needs curation

curation indeed. I think that, in general, our efforts would be better concentrated into analyzing a single piece/site/website/text rather than dumping a slew on us. the white page/black hyperlink homepages are, well, frustrating. like trying to turn the web page and having it slide back under you.

***
musings:

youtube circular breathing: the excitement here is not just listening to the tones, but clicking on the links to other videos, and creating an entirely new set of varied tones. so, why isn't on a larger scale? couldn't one make a huge rang of tones/loops that could create a whole orchestra? ie TERRY RILEY - IN C

bugs in screens:
web art that can only be made with the use of a digital camera, a camera exterior to the computer. the bug represents that space between the screen and the projection (or illumination, whatever LCDs do). it's interesting to think that space is still there. for film, that's the space between the projector and the screen; for video, the analog space of degradation between the magnets of the tape and the CRT. laptops and ipods are approaching a state where the screen is the machine, and the machine is the screen. but the 'bugs' still have something to say, an area to occupy.

youuuuutuuuuube:
can we say a network of time? this is the best one.