Instead of blogging last Tuesday, I went to a panel full of the folks over at n+1 about The Internet. The Friday before that, I went to a panel staged by Rhizome called "Net Aesthetics 2.0". Both had their charms, but both ended up disappointing me.

I was looking forward to the n+1 panel because they are a bunch of intelligent people who could probably bring an interesting perspective to contemporary life in a networked world. At best, the speakers seemed well-thought yet uninformed, at worst they were petulant - reducing The Internet to merely a series of Gawker comments saying bad things about them. Mark Grief was easily the least self-obsessed, yet his broad questions concerning interaction spurred by and within the confines of the web have largely already been asked by internet and digital media thinkers before. His speech was a fish-out-of-water case, not realizing that critical thought has in many cases moved beyond his thinking. I left the panel thinking that we should not leave cultural criticism of networked culture to the literary-types.

As for the Rhizome panel, I was pleased to see Tim Whidden ad Tom Moody speak and was looking forward to hearing from Petra Cortright, one of the contributors to Nasty Nets. While most of the panelists were interesting, I was severely disappointed with Petra and Damon Zucconi. I posted these thoughts on Art Fag City's review earlier tonight:

"Damon made attempts to refer to some interesting theory-esque threads in digital media studies, but ultimately he came across as someone who has perhaps read some fancy terms before but is clueless when it comes to how to use them. He may actually have known what he was saying, and it could have been a problem with nerves in front of a crowd, but to me it seemed like he needs to do a lot more research.

As for Petra, I really do like her work and think what she’s doing is significant in the trajectory (sorry Tim) of net art (sorry again). After hearing her speak, however, it seems like she should leave the analysis of her work to others."

Damon would frequently throw in terms that you might often read in this blog, then fail to elaborate on them. When pressed to do so (both gently and in a confrontational manner) by the other panelists, he seemed barely able to speak. He came across as someone who was just starting his inquiries into digital media and the theoretical works surrounding his artistic practice, but has only finished the introductions of books.

The fault I found with Petra on the other hand was her seeming inability to grasp the significance of her own work. She didn't seem to realize the statements about nostalgia, production, and affect that something like Nasty Nets is constantly making. I suppose this might be the very reason she is able to create these works in the first place, though.

I don't like the idea of writing negatively about these young artists, but in this case - as with the n+1 panel - the problems were utterly remediable by the speakers doing some basic background research on the topic.