, , , , ,

Reviewing an article written by Ben Davis – “Social Media Art” in the expanded field.


Upon reading this article i found myself to be quite confused on the whole; the article was way too long and i was not a fan of its structure and the flow it presented. the text had to be read over and over to try understand what is really trying to be said.

Apart from this, what caught my attention most, and it seems that this also caught many peoples attention, are the vague definitions stated by Davis about Art and Social media. These definitions lead one to think of the validity of this whole argument, does the author have to authority to make such statements about Art and Social media, when throughout the article his poor use of english and approach make the argument look even weaker?

It is interesting to see other comments made about this article, by viewing Rhizome and the comments available here. (http://rhizome.org/editorial/2010/aug/9/required-reading/)

It was interesting to notice that a number of individuals also thought this about Davis and his authority and also question his knowledge on the subject –

“What’s surprising to me is that as an editor he can write the following…”By “art,” let’s say we mean the products of the traditional, professionalized art world, a privileged class of esthetic objects set apart from ordinary communicative acts, authored by a special person called an artist…For “social media,” let’s say we mean all these new-fangled media platforms which are highly accessible, and based around enabling open-ended conversations between networks of participants.””

After reviewing Davis’s article and other comments made on this, i can conclude that this is irrelevant to my knowledge, since his statements aren’t based on good knowledge of the subjects. On this note i believe that this proves that such delicate subjects should be left to be discussed by professionals in the fields and who at the end of the day provide good material which one can actually learn from.