artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene





Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye


IRC Channels



Comment Feed:


23 March 2010

I don't care, I'm not going back to bang paths.
posted by dhartung 23 March | 09:55
Excellent, so museum collections now support pointer and reference types?
posted by FishBike 23 March | 10:14
You know I was at (@?) MoMA just yesterday and while I was checking out Robert Ryman's Untitled, 1975, which is a medium sized minimal white pastel done on plexiglass without even a frame, this couple came up and read the card afterwhich the boyfriend said with an audible note of complaint "So he didn't do anything". I have to admit that it's surprising to still encounter that resistence, we are only so post-modern and above it all it seems. The mefi thread on this topic was like a room full of that guy (plus a few genuine cards).

Conceptual art is big right now, so doing a conceptual acquisition is right in line with the times.  
posted by kodama 23 March | 10:22
I don't know @, but I know what I like.
posted by Atom Eyes 23 March | 10:44
So others remember bang paths! Do you remember the .uucp domain?
posted by Obscure Reference 23 March | 13:12
Cheers to MoMA, which is super-cool and had a surprise Free Day when I was visiting New York a few years ago, I think because they had recently re-opened. Their Department of Architecture and Design was especially cool.

Jeers to kodama for steering me to that Mefi thread. :)
posted by muddgirl 23 March | 13:45
Heh, I feel I gave ample warning...and I didn't even link to it!
posted by kodama 23 March | 14:58
Also, this reminds me of my favorite exhibit at the Tate Modern (which my memories confuse with MoMA all the time): An Oak Tree. Surely the first traceable use of an FAQ?
posted by muddgirl 23 March | 15:06
I skimmed the story looking for the best bit. Twice. But I don't exactly understand what, exactly, MoMA has acquired. The @ symbol? But... it's a symbol; it's not something that can be "owned" as such, is it?

What Have We Acquired?

Tino Sehgal’s Kiss presents interesting affinities with @ in that it is mutable and open to interpretation (the different typefaces one can use) yet still remains the same in its essence: it does not declare itself a work of design, but rather reveals its design power through use; it is immaterial and synthetic, and therefore does not add unnecessary “weight” to the world.

A big difference between the two pieces is the price, which brings to an extreme the evanescent difference between art and design. Being in the public realm, @ is free. It might be the only truly free—albeit not the only priceless—object in our collection.

We have acquired the design act in itself and as we will feature it in different typefaces, we will note each time the specific typeface as if we were indicating the materials that a physical object is made of.

Huh? I don't get it. And I don't understand why the net is all abuzz about it.
posted by Doohickie 23 March | 19:40
I'm with Doohickie in not getting it.
posted by rhapsodie 23 March | 20:54
Whose Food Politics || Come and knock on my door (because the doorbell’s not working)