Speaking of art and the internet: My NYC office is looking for a p/t designer to work in-house, M-F in the afternoons, starting very soon. It’s an entry-level gig and the primary requirement is excellence in Photoshop. Hands-on design experience necessary (college/internships OK); designing for digital media a huge plus; CMS experience nice but not necessary. This person will work closely with our senior designers, producers and editors to create all manner of design assets for the web, mobile and apps. S/he will also work with me on a project so if you are hate-following my Tumblr you might not enjoy this.
Anyway, if this sounds like something you can do and would like to do, please send your resume and relevant links (portfolio, online projects, etc.) to me via comedydigital at gmail.
- Locker room lady: Excuse me. Are you an artist, by any chance?
- Me: I'm not.
- Lady: Really? You're not an artist?
- Me: Why, do I look like an artist you know?
- Lady: I just couldn't help but notice your tattoos, and I was thinking they looked like tattoos an artist would have. Does your work involve art?
- Me: Well, I mean- I work on the internet.
But the big question is, why does the direction taken by museums, or by art history as a discipline, have to be an either-or? Traditional or contemporary, old-style or new style, in-the-field or online. That’s the rhythm of fashion: something always has to be out so that something else can be in. But writing the history of art shouldn’t work that way. Good artists don’t work that way. Why not take lessons from them?
If you’re up early on a rainy Sunday, clicking around for thoughts about non-Western art and/or contemporary myopias regarding cultural history and what can be done about them, start here.