Untitled

July 18, 2007 6:04 PM

Untitled, HTML, 400 x 300 pixels.
posted by 31d1 (59 comments total)

*scratches head*
posted by Kattullus at 6:10 PM on July 18, 2007

I think this is some sort of performance art making a statement about pointless posts to oddities that aren't all that interesting.
posted by IronLizard at 6:12 PM on July 18, 2007

You know that voice in the back of your head urging you to make cryptic posts? Treat it like you'd treat a voice urging you to murder.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007 [10 favorites]

wha?
posted by sephira at 6:17 PM on July 18, 2007

Huh?
posted by ericb at 6:19 PM on July 18, 2007

You're joking, right?
posted by oaf at 6:21 PM on July 18, 2007

It's cool! Someone made tables and stuff all in HTML and it looks cool like art!
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:27 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Buh?
posted by WinnipegDragon at 6:27 PM on July 18, 2007

Nonplussed, English prose, five words.
posted by oncogenesis at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is interesting. I was all prepared to dismiss this, but the more I look at his works, they become more... interesting.
posted by suedehead at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007

I definitely don't get it. Any image can be turned into html tables. Just like any image can be turned into, say, macaroni art. But... why?
posted by dmd at 6:28 PM on July 18, 2007

I get it. But I'm not telling.
posted by ORthey at 6:30 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

ummmm... what?
posted by punkrockrat at 6:32 PM on July 18, 2007

BRILLIANT!
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:39 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

HTML is dead. (NOT CSSIST.)
posted by fidgets at 6:49 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Everybody's a critic.
posted by facetious at 6:55 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

I like this.
posted by DU at 7:03 PM on July 18, 2007

The medium is the message.
posted by cortex at 7:05 PM on July 18, 2007

Wow! A third crazy post in as many nights for me to complain about!
posted by mrnutty at 7:05 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

If you really wanted to be a jerk, you wouldn't have posted a link to HTML-table art to the front page, you would have posted HTML-table art to the front page. Amateur.
posted by grobstein at 7:06 PM on July 18, 2007

Treat it like you'd treat a voice urging you to murder.

But the last time I did that bad things happened.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:07 PM on July 18, 2007

There's art and then there's good art.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:12 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Man. The web is really starting to suck.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:16 PM on July 18, 2007

Damn, the lack of table tags here is crippling my art.
posted by bonaldi at 7:18 PM on July 18, 2007

This [that] page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
posted by infowar at 7:18 PM on July 18, 2007

Is there a text in this class?
posted by kimota at 7:38 PM on July 18, 2007

Nonplussed, English prose, five words.

I LOLed.
posted by tarheelcoxn at 7:39 PM on July 18, 2007

I, for one, am for this. I remember seeing this blog a couple years ago, glad to see this guy is still at it. While it may not be the most engaging art I've come across on the web, I like the compositions and the idea that they're specifically made for the web, so you don't have to have any of the disclaimers like, 'these paintings look better in person than,' etc...
posted by garethspor at 7:49 PM on July 18, 2007

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
posted by 2sheets at 8:03 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I agree, garethspor. Reminds me of Josef Albers.
posted by suedehead at 8:04 PM on July 18, 2007

This doesn't make any sense. And even if it did, it sucks. I mean, really?
posted by puke & cry at 8:16 PM on July 18, 2007

sure, why not?
posted by garethspor at 8:25 PM on July 18, 2007

Can someone more versed in art history help me out here? Is this boring concept art, or boring regular art?

Seriously, though, sort of clever, I guess. Not the kind of clever I'd buy a book of, or hang on my walls, but clever enough to click through for 30 seconds or so.
posted by infinitywaltz at 8:27 PM on July 18, 2007

posted by tehloki at 8:39 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Damnit, preview lied to me. Please delete that failed abortion ^ and this post too.
posted by tehloki at 8:40 PM on July 18, 2007

</boring>
posted by sswiller at 8:58 PM on July 18, 2007

this is not a comment.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:14 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

OK, honestly, having read the artist's statement and perused a bit more of this, it's actually kind of interesting stuff. Like I said, I probably wouldn't hang it on my wall, necessarily, but he's got some interesting ideas, and from what I gather, he's done some interesting work in other media as well. Some of his watercolors are reminiscent of Japanese art in a way that I like, and I enjoy his contrast of heavy, stylized india ink lines with pastel blurs of paint. It's very modernist and stylized, but just barely representational enough to intrigue viewers who might ignore purely abstract art.

Not a bad post, but it probably would've gotten a better response if it had been a tad less cryptic, and maybe included a hidden linke to some of Ashley's own explanations of his work.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:18 PM on July 18, 2007

Uh oh, quonsar broke the Internet...web...filter...thing.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:19 PM on July 18, 2007

Um, if beauty is in the eye of the beholder than this "art" is pretty darned fugly.
posted by fenriq at 9:25 PM on July 18, 2007

BRILLIANT, QUONSAR!
posted by IronLizard at 9:36 PM on July 18, 2007

Pope Guilty : You know that voice in the back of your head urging you to make cryptic posts? Treat it like you'd treat a voice urging you to murder.

But what if that voice is telling me to murder quonsar?
posted by quin at 9:36 PM on July 18, 2007

Heh, Brilliant, IronLizard! (check your URL... ;)
posted by quin at 9:38 PM on July 18, 2007

get the hell off our internet
posted by TrialByMedia at 9:40 PM on July 18, 2007

Yes, I know quin, I totally fucked that up. But did you see the cartoon? Blank canvas? Quonsar's comment IS the blank canvas.
posted by IronLizard at 9:44 PM on July 18, 2007

quonsar's post is gone and now none of the following posts making fun of quonsar's post are funny anymore.

Or rather, they are, but for different reasons, I guess.
posted by infinitywaltz at 9:45 PM on July 18, 2007

Yes, because now it looks like I'm capriciously threatening to murder a well respected member of the community for no apparent reason.

Actually, your right. That is pretty funny.
posted by quin at 9:59 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Cretins used to say much the same about this guy's work.
posted by squalor at 10:49 PM on July 18, 2007

I think this guy's work is awesome. This one in particular struck me. It brings attention to the fact that these are the thinnest lines that you can draw with computers.

As an exercise in formalism it's beautiful. Very well placed plus-sign with the slight shift to make it twinkle. It evokes an exploding star in an old video game. Or some kind of fissure in a piece of paper.

It's 400x300, so small and contained. Only four lines enclosed in that space. Like a petri dish with only a few hairs. This is the strand of the computer. It's simplicity is sublime.
posted by philosophistry at 11:10 PM on July 18, 2007

philosophistry, you're just trying to live up to your username with that comment, no?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:20 AM on July 19, 2007

I'm now convinced there's really only two kinds of art. One is the kind where the "artist" is laughing at you behind your back while you view it and the other is everything else. Clearly this particular piece falls into the former category.
posted by tommasz at 6:56 AM on July 19, 2007

You know that voice in the back of your head urging you to make cryptic posts? Treat it like you'd treat a voice urging you to murder.

Follow it, unquestioningly?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:50 AM on July 19, 2007

Kill them. Kill them all.

posted by the back of your head at 1:38 PM on July 19 [+] [!]


Well, OK then.
posted by IronLizard at 11:42 AM on July 19, 2007

Crap.

THANKS FOR DISABLING THE SPAN TAG DAMMIT
posted by IronLizard at 11:43 AM on July 19, 2007

This entire thread is just a comedy of errors, innit?
posted by IronLizard at 11:43 AM on July 19, 2007

flapjax, no I enjoyed these pieces immediately. The words came afterwards to communicate that enjoyment. But probably why I enjoyed the piece is that I'ved tried creating art using only a 1-pixel non-anti-aliased pencil. I really like the aesthetic.

When the pixels are really noticeable, it reminds me of fiddling with MS Paint when I was 12, and seeing the pre-made drawings, like the chess board. It's a certain style. The HTML guy's work is just an act of minimalism with this style.

There isn't really much difference in genre between the HTML guy, and Franz Kline, Robert Ryman, Barnett Newman.
posted by philosophistry at 1:00 PM on July 19, 2007

Come on, there's got to be SOME art theory peeps lurking in the MeFi crowd.
posted by philosophistry at 1:00 PM on July 19, 2007

Hey, man, art's only, like, a theory.
posted by cortex at 2:33 PM on July 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm for it.

But I'm also excited for this to open. (notice? one link to one page instead of three links to one page? it's, uh. Brilliant.)
posted by OrangeDrink at 11:46 PM on July 19, 2007