ARCHIVES

  • May 2017 (1)
  • March 2016 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • October 2014 (1)
  • July 2014 (2)
  • April 2014 (1)
  • March 2014 (3)
  • January 2014 (1)
  • September 2013 (1)
  • June 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (5)
  • March 2013 (1)
  • December 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (3)
  • September 2012 (11)
  • August 2012 (6)
  • July 2012 (5)
  • June 2012 (1)
  • May 2012 (7)
  • March 2012 (1)
  • February 2012 (4)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • November 2011 (4)
  • October 2011 (12)
  • September 2011 (9)
  • August 2011 (1)
  • May 2011 (2)
  • April 2011 (1)
  • March 2011 (1)
  • January 2011 (7)
  • December 2010 (1)
  • November 2010 (2)
  • September 2010 (8)
  • August 2010 (7)
  • July 2010 (1)
  • June 2010 (1)
  • May 2010 (9)
  • April 2010 (4)
  • March 2010 (15)
  • February 2010 (3)
  • January 2010 (9)
  • December 2009 (6)
  • November 2009 (4)
  • October 2009 (15)
  • September 2009 (5)
  • August 2009 (12)
  • July 2009 (2)
  • June 2009 (3)
  • May 2009 (9)
  • April 2009 (3)
  • March 2009 (3)
  • February 2009 (3)
  • January 2009 (2)
  • December 2008 (2)
  • November 2008 (4)
  • October 2008 (11)
  • September 2008 (12)
  • August 2008 (5)
  • July 2008 (5)
  • June 2008 (4)
  • May 2008 (2)
  • April 2008 (4)
  • March 2008 (4)
  • February 2008 (3)
  • January 2008 (2)
  • December 2007 (5)
  • November 2007 (6)
  • October 2007 (11)
  • July 2007 (10)
  • June 2007 (10)
  • May 2007 (3)
  • March 2007 (3)
  • February 2007 (2)
  • January 2007 (1)
  • August 2006 (1)
  • July 2006 (13)
  • June 2006 (14)
  • social media is dead, long live social media

    Those who know me know that I am all but obsessed with search engine algorithms. I do google myself and other things regularly ,mostly out of curiosity about the changing of the algorithm. The google algorithm in particular experienced a major shift sometime in late 2007, i think. Before that it was pretty straight forward. the algorithm would sniff out mutual links and related text to establish a relevant hit. I know this because in 2006 I began to take interest in the internet. i had been online, and even emailed and blogged before then, but that was the year i set up my website. For most people this is as far as they need to go to start creating some google juice for themselves. For me the problem was unique(or at least as unique as the other two jonathan brilliants i am now facebook friends with.) The problem is that my given name contains an adjective, a common one at that. even after a year of a website, and a blog, i still couldn’t be found on a simple google search. rather the algorithm found occurrences of the name jonathan, plus the adjective brilliant. while accurate this wasn’t me, but it got me thinking. So in 2006 after googling, the way that google bombs, and google searches work, I set out to claim my google ranking. As an artist this is part of my ongoing quest to understand my place in the world. It is true that a part of me is just wholly invested in the creation of content that is a reaction to what i experience as a human being. In 2006 a big part of what i was experiencing in addition to the rigors of my studio practice was a new understanding of how the internet works. This was the year i really began to understand the internet as something malleable, another material i could tinker with. It was a given that if someone wants to find something or someone they will google it, or whatever search engine they like. So this was the year that I made a 5 year commitment to create a non-stop stream of mutually linked content and documentation of the work i make. part of this is a genuine desire to communicate with people I meet in my journey through life, and part of it is a little bit mischievous and doubtful of the internet. What has been interesting to me is to watch the erosion of true stream of consciousness ways of living and making work. I think the impatience that people have developed fro simply letting their minds or lives wander without stopping to document it or google what it is they just discovered really robs us of one of the joys of the human mind. That tendency to wander is what always leads me to new discoveries, and true I am no luddite, but more and more I am throttling back from my reliance on the Internet and google searches to lead me to the next discovery. I still rely 90% on my life as experienced off line to provide content and inspiration for what is mirrored online. I should point out that my relentless mutual linking and content spewing is still fun, although less so today. True my blog automatically imports as a note on facebook and posts to a tumbler, but in both those locations the formatting is lost, which is fine by me. It brings me to an article i just read in wired, online no less, that talks about some of these same ideas and brings up one thing that frightens me. While I was an early adopter and fan of Facebook(which could be where you are reading this but if you want to see this in it’s original location click here) I am dubious of their newly developed frame re-directing when you click links. Full disclosure i love frame redirecting and use it all the time, but I don’t like the way facespace changes the way we interpret the interweb. I do however enjoy the fact that in many ways facebook has taken the internet back in time five years. By this i mean it doesn’t provide any new experiences of what is out there but rather has repackaged everything the internet has to offer in blue and white lowercase letters. and while it might be humanizing the internet homepage, i am still a fan of the old fashioned classic google page as a starting point, sometimes you can’t improve on simplicity,

    or can you