Francis Hwang, Technical Director of Rhizome.org and convener of tomorrow’s Blogging and the Arts panel at the New Museum forwarded the panelists some questions. Here are my answers.

Do you personally see blogging as another way to present art, or simply to talk about it? Is the blog art, or is it information about your art?

I see it as information about MTAA’s art. But I use it as my own soapbox to rant and rave about whatever I feel like ranting and raving about. M.River feels differently (see this post for more).

Does this sort of approach push the artist as a personality or individual forward at the expense of the artwork?

We’ve been our own subject since we started working together (a bit like Gilbert & George in that way). We’re not our exclusive subject, but we’re definitely part of it (see TIME!©, Five Small Videos…, 1YPV, &c). So there is no danger in our personalities being put forward at the expense of the art; our personalities are integral to our work.

Does blogging affect your creative process? Does it affect your sense of schedule and deadlines? Your thinking process? Do you find yourself sharing ideas with a public more quickly than you would otherwise? Does the feedback you get from readers influence your work?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Come to the panel if you would like me to elaborate ;-)

Why doesn’t the mainstream art world care about this?

They’re stupid.

m.river adds:
Funny T.Whid, but no. It’s not that they do not understand. It’s just that Blogs have no value at this point. Note, I’m not using value equals money here. Blogs are either ephemera of an art practice or they function as zines to art criticism. Only rare exceptions (like jimpunk/abe linkon) function as artworks.

It took some time for rock and punk zines to have value to music criticism. Only when an art practice is deemed important does the ephemera gain value. New art forms like "Artblogs" take time to grow.

The question is not exactly accurate. It should read -Why doesn’t the mainstream art world care about this now? When and under what circumstances will Blogs matter to a larger art audience?

t.whid rebutts:
Blogs have no value? You are right and wrong. To the top-down structure which is the dominant art world, yes, they have no value. Blogs networks info from one to many. The art world needs to network info from a few to a few so the value is limited in that sense (relative few galleries, museums, etc to a relative few collectors, curators, etc).

But, the simple fact that the dominant art institutions don’t or can’t find value in the Web (in general) and blogs (in particular) due to their structural deficiencies and no one in a power position seems to want to fix their problems is why, I say, “They’re stupid.”

Are you conscious of who might be your reading/viewing audience when you’re posting work or commentary online? Are we talking about other people in your “scene”, other artists, members of the more general art-interested public, your friends, your mom, etc.? How is that different from when you’ve got work in somewhere else, like a gallery?

I’m conscious, especially when I’m posting my political rants. But if I’m dishing some gossip or something I think twice about what I put on the blog. Plus, M.River gives me inside info now and then about the large art institution he works for and I can’t share some scoops unfortunately. permanent link to this post