Relavent Phrases I Found on Urban Dictionary.

Social Fruit Fly-
Like a social butterfly, lacking in charm or beauty and always around.


Materialist-
(self explanatory)


Cupcakegasm-
Obsession with and overconsumption of cupcake related things.


Fame Whore-
An individual who is willing to do anything, regardless of how humiliating or demeaning, to achieve notoriety.


Pole Bite-
Pole bruises

1000 Character statement for Reaction (for Guggenheim)

Reaction (2009) is a exploration and response to the mediated self in contemporary culture. In it, young men watch and react to performances in violent viral videos from shock-sites and post their reactions to YouTube. The videos are then appropriated by the artist and edited in Final Cut Pro. The viewers of the videos become performers themselves as a result of their awareness of the recording devices used to create the reaction video. The position of the gaze becomes blurred due to the multiple layers of interaction within a singular video: initial performer (whom we do not see), audience  then also assuming the role of  performer, and the fourth degree removal viewing audience (presumed to be the self). Whom is on display? Is this phenomenon a product of desire for celebrity, which perhaps, is the only way to truly exist in a mediated world of multiple selves? Is social matter and its behaviors influenced by the gaze which we place upon it as observers or participants?

1000 character statement for Angry Gamers (for Guggenheim)

Angry Gamers (2010) examines our culture’s fixation with social media, gaming and ultimately, our emotional interconnectivity as a populace through these mediums. Research techniques such as trend watching and content curation were utilized in combination with editing in Final Cut Pro to execute the work. The goal of Angry Gamers is to create the next page in the dialogue within the digital world regarding our concept of reality. Emotional absorption into “virtual” worlds calls into question what the meaning of “virtual” actually is. Code, binary and pixels are not real in the same way the senses are real. Our senses can offer us corporal tangibility. However, bodily reactions and immersion in the culture of social media and its content along with the relationships that are created with others who also participate in it are physically real.  Is reality and its effects on the self limited to situations of the physical world? 

Interesting

Here are some interesting facts about cameo's in relation to the concept of facebook or the facebook profile default pic.....

Early Greek and Roman carvings featured images of gods and goddesses, themes from mythology, beautiful women and biblical events or other great events.

Many cameos through history depict living heroes or rulers.

In the Hellenistic era young women used cameos as charms to express desire. A woman could wear a cameo depicting a dancing Eros as a seductive invitation to love.

Women began collecting cameos to prove cultural status during the Elizabethan period. At the same time, tourist travels to the ruins of Pompeii were on the rise and women began collecting shell and lava cameos as souvenirs to remember their travel.

During the 18th century, men purchased these carved gems to mark their prestige and culture.

Mass produced cameos are generally molded and not carved.

Victorian women considered a cameo carved in their personal likeness a prized possession.

Speaking of Facebook Default Pics....

...They reference cameos. While the term cameo refers to a method of carving, the cameo item itself consists of two contrasting colors which depict a portrait or scene, carved in a relief manner. Facebook isnt relief, but the idea remains...

The portraits often depicted royalty or rulers or royal court. These were sometimes given as gifts.

Im thinking a lot about the concept of the cameo plugged into space of the Facebook Profile Pic with a little bit of contemporary youth culture thrown in (Generation Me). I think it could be a cheeky commentary....

When combining the (in my opinion) direct reference of cameo in Facebooks default profile pics, what are we saying about ourselves and our importance? When you think about it, HAVING a facebook profile in the first place is, in some ways, elevating ourselves into a higher level of importance that we could never achieve on our own. (see Reggie Watts' Fuck Shit Stack for more on this). The thought that we are important enough that people want to keep up with our personal news and life is absolutely ludicrous.

While I believe interconnectivity is imperative to the progression of the human race, im still somewhat baffled by the idea that people exist in this world who think that other people really care what they had for breakfast (ie- the self important useless status update). But then, is THAT thought ("i dont care what you ate for breakfast") selfish in and of itself? Is that very thought of not caring what someone eats for breakfast further proof of a self important individual because, really, the breakfast status updates are actually just a matter of peripheral awareness (ie- the idea that something besides myself exists, the post navel gazing era overlapping the navel gazing era).

Question which makes no sense part 2.

Ok. So heres the real question, in clearer terms (hopefully):

we have the micro (self) and the macro (the whole). does the micro shape the macro or does the macro shape the micro?


i mean this in terms of popular culture, desire, fame, interconnectivity, perceived and projected self.

im leaning a bit towards Alicia Silverstone's coining of the term "Monet".....
When you look from far away you can see the entity of the image, but close up, its a big ole mess.

Facebook Default Profile Pics

changes the meaning of "fault"

 

Question which makes no sense.

After many years since first reading "Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag, I keep coming back to the Oscar Wild quote at the beginning:

“It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.”

So here is the question: which is more complicated? The surface or the core? Is it that something looks simple, but is actually really complicated, OR does it look complicated, but is actually really simple? Can it be both?

I think this question is specifically applicable to my current body of work. I keep saying that im interested "not in how were all different, but how were all the same", but what does that really mean? How are we different and how are we the same?

Are we all individual beings, but were all fighting for the same thing at the core (love, food, sex, shelter)?

OR

Are we all fighting for the same on the outside (love, food, sex shelter) but were really actually more complicated in our core (with regards to motive, preference, perception, intuition, judgement, feeling)?

post structuralism, commodity fetishism, Derrida and the like....

New Work

Meat Joy by Carolee Schneeman

One of many Nan Goldin Photos

Laurie Simmons

These are all things ive taken snaphots of in real life next to the google image search of the things. Started June 2010. Ongoing.

I got a million ways to get it.

I see Dan Flavin, Kelly Richardson, Rorschach, and Damien Hirst references in Jay-Z's "On to the next one".
Some less noticeable references include Avedon's fashion photography, Mappelthorpe's X Portfolio, Batmans Joker character by DC Comics, and a mixing of the Satans from The Passion of the Christ and Constantine (check out the video for the references here).
I cant stop watching this for some reason.
Im also particularly interested in the old Holga frame thats used, as opposed to the 16:9 industry standard.