n° 41 – Ano XV – Março de 2017  →   VOLTAR


International Conference Art Criticism 2.0

Tumbling down the rabbit hole: art criticism on social networks and Internet freedom.

Elisa Rusca – AICA / Alemanha

Since 2012, New York based curator and critic Brian Droitcour is using his account on the online platform Yelp to write exhibitions and art venues reviews[1]. This fact caused a reaction: on the 12th of November 2013, Orit Gat published “Art Criticism in the Age of Yelp” on the Internet based journal  Rhizome. In her paper, Gat analysed some issues about  Yelp and its potential use as an art criticism tool. When taking Brian Droitcour’s writing as a starting example – and, consequently, going through its deontological problems – she wrote: “In this time of “quiet crisis” of criticism, the standing question is whether Yelp is a solution or a problem. […] I suggest a similar expansion of the practice of writing to include Yelp, […] To say that Yelp democratizes criticism is too popular a term – and too problematic a wording when discussing an economy of free labor and the large corporation that benefits from it – but by changing around who is in and who is out of the reviewing game, it does shake up the structure of criticism.”[2]

By taking Droitcour’s case as an example, Gat seemed encouraging the reader to look at the Internet as a place of dialogue; a universe still partially intact where one could find new ways to write about art, opening up to a larger number of writers and a more diverse audience and possibilities of styles. The social platform as a place where to publish, mentioned to inject some “new blood” to the “regular” art criticism world, seems to be an inspiring idea indeed. However, it leads one to question if Droitcour’s case is unique. Considering the whole writing production about criticism online (without entering in the discourse about the style of writing), is the fact of using Yelp to write about art emblematic?  And, if yes, why and  how is the use of a social platform as Yelp different? To answer these questions we have to look for existing alternative ways to write about art online;  however, before starting I’d like to specify that by “alternative ways” I intend the written productions that take place on the Web that haven’t any correlations with existing paper magazines, e.g. Internet versions of Frieze, Artforum or Art Press, nor online magazines such as e-flux that are structured according to a traditional journalism frame of references. This is due to Gat’s articulation, which focuses on new social platforms.

There are indeed four privileged channels to do art criticism on the Internet: blogs, forums, communities and social networks. The most common way to write online is to create a blog, which is an informational and discussion website that can have one author or multiple contributors who publish its content anonymously or not. ArtFCity (www.artfcity.com), Art Sucks (www.artsucks.com) and Art Ravels by Linnea West (linneawest.com/blog)[3] are art blogs examples. Along with blogs one can find Internet forums, websites where the users can discuss different threads through posted, fixed messages. Forums can be topic specific (progressive rock music, Japan, visual art, etc.)[4] or community related (Harvard University Forum, Berlin Expats Forum, etc.)[5]. Community related forums are similar to web communities; however, communities have often a more complex structures of interactions between members, e.g. vote-systems giving more or less visibility to the topics and comments considered more or less relevant by the users. Therefore, the summation of the users’ personal judgment will define the visibility of a theme: this is the case of Reddit (www.reddit.com).

Web communities such as Reddit share some common points with popular social networks as Facebook, Yelp or TripAdvisor, despite the fact that almost the totality of Reddit users has a nickname to “post”[6], when social networks aim to avoid the anonymity of those who ask for their services. In addition to that, social networks are online services whose software interacts directly with the user’s computers, allowing a personalised experience for everyone; social network claim connectivity between the users as their strongest asset.

The social network Yelp was born in 2004 as an informational email-based website reviewing local services. It was founded by Jeremy Stoppelman and Russel Simmons, who were in their late 20s at the time and strongly believed that “the average Joe or Jane is the best critic”[7]. Stoppelman and Simmons wanted to cover the need of having some insider tips for someone new to a city or a specific geographical area, having their idea based on their personal experience after moving to San Francisco. Re-designed in 2005, Yelp popularity exploded in 2006, making it today one of the world references among platforms of its kind.

After this quick overview about the possibilities to write online, one could conclude that today a large number of options exist to approach the discussion about art on the Web. Yelp is only one among them. What would then make its art critic use different?

Let’s consider Brian Droitcour’s use of Yelp. Writer, translator and curator based in New York City, Droitcour started to use his Yelp account to review shows and art venues in February 2012. As he explained to Orit Gat[8], it all apparently started without any serious purposes: “I was talking to someone at an opening about the Ai Weiwei show at Mary Boone Gallery,” Gat reported Droitcour explaining to her, “and we were trying to figure out if it was still open. When I Googled it, one of the top results was a Yelp review and I was like, ‘Oh my god, I really want to review galleries on Yelp.’”[8] The joke ended up in a four-year long project so far, and during this time Droitcour has been reviewing 72 art galleries, 21 museums and several more non-profit spaces and unconventional art venues (shown in his Yelp account under the category “Art & Entertainment”)[9]. The reasons that apparently made him pursuing this project are the quick accessibility of the review for the public, as well as a larger style flexibility in the writing process. Gat reported “”As an art writer, when you write a review at times you feel like it’s just giving the gallery something to publicize, another page in the binder, another line on the CV for the artist. I was just super frustrated with reviews,” Droitcour explains. Yelp reviews, generally speaking, are not included in such binders.”[11]

According to Droitcour, Yelp would then allow more freedom for the critic, being able to use the social network as a new place where to experiment with content, style and the public. Ultimately, the answer to the question “what’s make writing about art on Yelp different?” seems then to rely on the own social networks articulation: the user-generated content expands non-stop the platform’s material and build its virtual structure, making it a living, organic system. This permanently moving interacting creature is then the perfect place to reach quickly and in an efficiently selected way the largest audience possible, allowing an instant response to any kind of discussion. The reverse of this incredible machine is the impossibility, for the ordinary user, to keep track or research on its overall material. As we will see,  this fact might then prove wrong Gat’s theory about the use of Yelp as a way to “shaking up the structure of art criticism by changing around who’s in and who’s out of the reviewing game”. Not only this: it opens up to other deontological questions about writing on the Internet, especially those related to the problems  of its  archive:   how to keep track of everything that is produced online? How to structurally archive its elements and  study this material in order to pursue with the art criticism’s historiography and  knowledge? Since the very beginning of the digital art age some artists have been trying to answer these  questions.  To archive  the Internet is in fact at the core of  the work of net pioneer Olia Lialina, who since the late 1990s collects, organises and studies early Internet pages.  Lialina’s Internet archaeology  emphatises the immortality of data, yet her task seems a Sisyphean work due to the incalculable size of the Internet. Another example of attempt to archive the Web is the initiative “404 page not found”, a website collecting old pages. It started in 2009 with the purpose to uncover websites created between 1994 and 2001 which weren’t much updated since. A more recent example: in 2013, Kenneth Goldsmith, launched the initiative “Printing out the Internet”, from an original idea of Aaron Swartz, aiming both goals: archive and accessibility.

 Indeed, there are  some initiatives  willing to deal with the conservation and studies of the Internet; I am not stating that data are impossible to save and store.   However, when I point out the impossibility to really archive the Internet I am questioning the existing methodologies because collecting them in closed servers  seems to me to fundamentally differ  from  archiving  them for further studies. There is in fact a problem of accessibility:  big data analysis are, so far,  made and used more by private corporations  rather than by Internet historians or in technology studies. As for its definition, an archive is a collection of documents of historical interest that are available for research, the notion of “archiving the Internet” would imply first, that everything that is online have a historical interest and second, that there are common, defined agreements to organise and study it. Therefore, even though it is actually possible to save data, there aren’t so far any satisfactory results in building an archive of the Internet, nor a thought through database for art criticism production online – if such thing is possible, for the Internet is constantly growing and expanding for thirty years from now and continues to do so.

Second aspect to consider, when thinking about the use of social network as Gat intends, is the question related to the online professionalism (that touch to multiple problems, such as who is writing, and for who? What is written and how? How to reward writers? Why actually paying them if there are a lot of volunteers spontaneously posting reviewing material that can be published and discussed?). All these questions are related to the fact that the Internet is (more or less) open to everyone, everywhere (more or less). That means that there are a lot of voices online. Yet, this plurality is not organised in a generally agreed ruling system, like the democratic system rules a determinate country -even though it could mislead to an illusion of democracy by its multiplicity of ideas’ expressions. In fact, one often forgets that the Internet is a tool based on mathematics. It is an instrument regulated and controlled by national laws and international agreements between governments, corporations and users. Yet, its use as criticism tool is, so far, not limited to Droitcour and Yelp: Facebook too has been the place for a large discussion on this matter. To explain this, let’s consider the Jerry Saltz VS Facebook’s case.

On the 4th of March 2015, New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz was banned from Facebook[10].

According to his platform timeline, Saltz joined the social network in 2008; since, he is using his Facebook page to post images, comments and reviews that could be perceived as provocative to some audience[11]. The ban from Facebook lasted for a week, during which the international online press turned to Saltz’s case, wondering the reasons behind this block that made him unable to access his social profile nor interact with the other community members. It is still unclear why the ban happened; however, on the very same day Saltz commented on the event with a message from his Twitter account: “To all the purity police who complained to Facebook that my Medieval + Ancient pics were “sexist”, “abusive” and “misogynist”: congratulations!! You got me axed from Facebook. You pay in blood, but not your own. XXO”[12]. Furthermore, this case opened the Pandora’s vase of online comments about freedom of expression within social platforms: a lot of online writing about this case carried more or less evident accuses to Facebook and its censorship policies.[13] As the dimensions of the debate reached aspects that weren’t related to the truth, Saltz posted a public announcement when he got his Facebook account back, stating again what he claimed from the very beginning of the querelle: on the 22nd of March, he wrote (on Facebook) that “he didn’t run afoul of Facebook’s “community standards””, that Facebook informed him personally that he didn’t violate any community standards nor was it the fault of any censorship’s mysterious algorithm. Besides, “Facebook received so many complaints” about Saltz’s posted material from his ‘friends’ and followers that the company had to kicking him out[14].

The Jerry Saltz VS Facebook case is emblematic indeed about our perception of the social networks virtual world. Let’s keep in mind that the real causes of Saltz’s ban are, so far, still unclear since Facebook never released an official statement on the reason of the ban and all that we have is Jerry Saltz description. According to a 2014 article of Wired, the complex network of Facebook images’ monitoring system works quite efficiently in recognising and erasing from its database violent or pornographic images and videos thank to three levels of control. The first shield is done by mathematics: algorithms automatically detect potentially “dangerous” images, selecting them and sending them to the censorship centre. The machine isn’t yet sophisticated enough to judge if the picture of a naked woman has been realised with a pornographic stake or an artistic purpose. That’s why the second protection level is given by human labourers that sort the selected images and actually cancel or allow them on the platform. The third level of control is done by the users themselves. If Facebook received a considerable amount of protests regarding the material posted by one user, the company has the right to evict that particular user from its services for a restricted or prolonged time[15].

Jerry Saltz was banned because of the third level of control, according to his own statement. Furthermore, he pledged that “Facebook is far more open than the art world”[16]. As a matter of fact, the public image of Zuckerberg’s company took benefit from Saltz’s ban impact in public opinion. In public discussions, companies like Facebook can be often blamed for only caring about their own interests when taking decisions. Stating that the red flag was raised by the users implicitly contradicted this impression: it wasn’t the CEO dictator that banned Saltz, because Saltz was publicly judged by the people, the majority of whom apparently decided to kick him off. “Internet fanatics”, as Evgeni Morozov called them19, praise the power of the multitude online as a new and pure form of democracy, which is indeed problematic, although will not be discussed in here. What it is interesting for us is that  in Saltz case, the multiplicity of online voices (if, after all things considered, it was really the cause of his ban) showed   the limits of  this system, in which the figure and the authority of the expert is taken over by the blind magnitude of the crowd.   Simultaneously, the fact that Saltz never blamed Facebook as responsible for his ban and the fact that he was readmitted to the platform, put Facebook on the side of freedom of speech.

There is also something else that need to be pointed out: Facebook, as many other online companies, make its profits through the users, growing its income by the number of interactions on its servers. By having Jerry Saltz able to post and exchange with his many followers and friends, Facebook increases the platform’s users’ traffic, making it more valuable on the market for its owners and administrators. It was then in Facebook interest not to lose such a prolific and active member as Saltz.

Another example of Facebook marketing policy regarding its apparent engagement for plurality are the Facebook Instant Articles. Facebook Instant Articles are – for now – only related to the New York Times and National Geographic. The idea is very simple: this service offers the possibility for the publisher to write directly their articles within the social network, without redirecting the reader to an external source (as it is the case today). Facebook Instant Articles promotes a standardisation of the publishing format, a quicker uploading and a faster consume of the news by the users. This rhymes again with more traffic on the platform, meaning again more interactions and therefore increased incomes. New York Times and National Geographic publishers and writers aren’t then anymore interacting with the social network as independent forces, while using the platform to augment the traffic to their own pages: instead, they become generators of content themselves within the global platform[17].

This project, even if it is at its embryonic state at the moment, could eventually leads to the global annihilation of external sources, which today allow the reader to have a larger access to different point of views: independent sources are bricks in the construction of individualistic and original ideas which are necessary for a sane critical debate. Ultimately, independent sources are already hard to find since we are experiencing a Web that is based on the predictive system.

The predictive system is a system of algorithm designed to suggest products, activities, information sources, discussion groups, etc.; it is also used by search engines. This elaborated network works on each user’s browsing history. The purpose of the predictive system is to create a à la carte experience of the Web for every user, meaning that it isolates everyone from the global flow of information. If it was an offline place, the predictive system would be a strange library. Imagine to go to the library for the first time to research about a specific topic. The library attendant let you in and, since it is your first time there, you can move around freely. You browse in every library’s section and then you take what you need for your research and you left the library. The next day, you go back there, since you thought that you might need something else for your research. But this time, the library attendant recognises you and without you asking for them, it has already prepared a pile of books related to the ones that you took home the day before. When you ask to go yourself browsing between the shelves, he tried to convince you that you might really need only the books that he has already prepared for you, while giving you access only to a restricted area of the library. Frustrated, you took some of the books that he proposes to you, but you finally achieved to get something new. Time passes by, you go back to the library again after a little while, this time without any specific research request. The library attendant still recognises you and shows you already two piles of documents that might match your interests, according to any book that you touched in the two past visits. Suddenly, you don’t need to browse anymore, since the attendant is already partially fulfilling your needs. And so on, until you will forget what was the purpose of freely browsing around library shelves while expecting the library attendant to  answer to your expectations almost without asking him anything. Moreover, with the excuse that he is doing you a favour offering you a perfect service, he is actually preventing you to access some documents.

The predictive system has changed our way to live and perceive the Web, which became a personalised experience keeping each user within his or her own bubble. Eli Pariser already pointed this out in his 2011 book Filter Bubble: How the new personalized Web is changing what we read and how we think[18]. As Pariser writes: “Most of us assume that when we Google a term, we all see the same results – the ones that the company’s famous Page Rank algorithm suggests are the most authoritative based on other pages’ links. But since December 2009, this is no longer true. Now you get the result that Google’s algorithm suggests is best for you in particular -and someone else may see something entirely different. In other words, there is no standard Google anymore”[19]. In fact, in December 2009 Google announced through its blog that it would start using a “personalized search for everyone”[20] while radically changing the way search engines work.

These considerations aim to stress that the Internet as it is conceived and structured today is not the “ultimate land of freedom”[21], nor – to go back to Orit Gat – a place where “new blood” can be injected to the art criticism dying body, nor social networks are actually tools to “shake up” the present situation. Besides, it seems to me that today art criticism online in alternative platforms such as social media  have rather negative than positive consequences: as we could see, the problems relating to the collection and archive of what is written online  make it hard for us to access it and study it and therefore it might cause problems in terms of historiography of criticism; in addition to that, publishing on social platforms devalues the profession of the art critic, since there are too many voices online and no structure able to generate new globally agreed standard of writing and production; ultimately, the existence of the predictive system doesn’t truly open to new, unforeseen exchanges because the Internet experience of everyone of us is already too narrowly personalised -and if we don’t take action against this state of things, it is going to be even more in the near future. However, refusing to use the Web and its potential to write about art would not be the solution. As critics, writers and users, we need to find new approaches to the Web to challenge the actual trends. Only the use of alternative systems to access the Web, such as encrypted browsers, operative systems and platforms could defeat the current system and allow new ways to develop art criticism online. And this is not exclusively related to art criticism, it is an important step to build up a new online community that is conscious about the filter bubble problem and wants to resist it. The Internet is an amazing tool and should be used by everyone at its full potentialities. As journalist and hacktivist Jacob Applebaum stated at the World Forum for Democracy in 2015 right after the terrorist attacks of 13th of November in Paris: “We must be extreme in our openness, in our welcoming nature, we must be extreme in a commitment to justice. So there is technology today that helps us to confirm, to ensure, and to expand our liberties, where we have a right to read, and we have a right to speak freely, and a responsibility to be good to each other. These people

[international intelligence services, NdA] wish to weaken our infrastructure, they wish to enable private and government censorship on the Internet, they call for back doors, or front doors which would put us at risk. There are two things you can do right now if you would like. First, you can install (…) encrypted voice calls and text messages without backdoors, beating targeted and mass surveillance. (…) And you can install the Tor browser, which will give you the ability to browse the Web and to be anonymous on the Internet, where you’ll actually be able to do things without leaving a data trail where spies can twist it and harm you later. And where it will make it more difficult for people to target you for other kinds of cyber-crime. (…) We should secure the Internet, and to ensure that such things are more difficult, if not impossible. Our security situation today is not a matter of security versus privacy. Our security requires strong privacy, and our security requires autonomy, it requires transparency and accountability, it requires free speech, it requires fundamental human rights to be respected. And rather than less democracy, we need more democracy. Rather than less secure systems, we need more secure systems. And we need to use them, to run them, and to fund them.”[22]

As we can see in this quote, the problem related to the expression online and the use of the Internet as a tool for democracy is a larger one, from which I believe good and independent art criticism online depends. In fact, quality web criticism relays on the very same structure and general approach to the Internet by its users. As professionals, we should get together to find new and appropriate ways to use the Web and its potential in order to open new writing possibilities and to secure a proper archive of what is done online.

[1] You can read his reviews here: http://tcour.yelp.com

[2] Orit Gat, “Art Criticism in the Age of Yelp”, Rhizome, 12th November 2013.

[3] Jane Janeczko, “5 NCY Art Blog you should be reading”, Huffington Post, 26.09.2013.

[6] To write down and publish a contribution to a topic in an online-discussion.

[7] Heather Maddan, “Casting the Net: Yelp is on the way”, SFGate, 18 June 2006. 8 Orit Gat, “Art Criticism in the Age of Yelp”, Rhizome, 12th November 2013.

[8] Orit Gat, ibidem

[9] All these data are from Droicour’s Yelp account, visible here: http://tcour.com/index.php/present/yelp/11 Orit Gat, Op.cit

[10] Cait Munro, “Jerry Saltz got banned from Facebook”, ArtnetNews, 4th of March 2015; Randy Kennedy, “Jerry Saltz, New York Magazine Art Critic, Suspended From Facebook”, New York Times (ArtsBeat Blog), 4th of March 2015.

[11] Cait Munro “Jerry Saltz wins National Magazine Award for Commentary”, ArtnetNews, 3rd of February 2015; Andrew M. Goldstein, “Jerry Saltz on His (Brief) Exile From Facebook, and the Virtues of Medieval Torture Porn”, Artspace, 10th March 2015.

[12] Josh Dzieza, “Art Critic Jerry Saltz suspended from Facebook”, TheVerge, 4th of March 2015; Jerry Saltz, “I got kicked off of Facebook for posting images of Medieval Art”, Vulture, 6th of March 2015.

[13] Bojan Maric, “Why was Jerry Saltz banned from Facebook?”, Widewalls, March 2015; AA.VV, “Jerry Saltz on Medieval Art, censorship and Facebook”, Phaidon, 16th March 2015; Emily Greenhouse, “Facebook can’t tell the difference between art and porn”, BloombergPolitics, 12th of March 2015.

[14] “For the many who are posting stories and images about how FACEBOOK censors images: you who think that I too ran afoul of FACEBOOK “community standards” and had my account deleted: you who think I am a soldier against FACEBOOK’s censoriousness around images: You got the whole thing wrong. 1. I did NOT run afoul of FACEBOOK’s “community standards.” 2. Facebook very specifically informed that I did NOT violate FACEBOOK “community standards.” 3. I violated ART WORLD “community standards,” which are far more conservative and puritanical and stringent than a company like FACEBOOK. 4. Facebook received so many complaints about so many of my images from MY Facebook “friends” and followers, that I got kicked off Facebook. 5. That is why I am deleting all these continuous posts about Facebook’s outrageously conservative policies about posted images. 6. Facebook is far more open than the art world. 7. Smiling Facebook friend and follower faces tell lies; and I got proof….” (From Jerry Saltz Facebook account, posted on March 22nd 2015)

[15] Adrian Chen, “The laborers who keep dick pics and beheadings out of your Facebook feed”, Wired, 23rd October 2014; Adrian Chen, “Inside Facebook’s outsourced anti-porn and gore brigade, where “Camel Toes” are more offensive than “Crushed Heads”, Gawker, 16th of February 2012.

[16] Jerry Saltz, “I got kicked off of Facebook for posting images of Medieval Art”, Vulture, 6th March 2015. 19 Evgeni Morozov, The Net Delusion, 2011.

[17] Daniele Rielli, “Se Facebook si mangia tutto”, Quit the Doner, 31.7.2015.

[18] This book was also the inspiration for the exhibition Filter Bubble curated by 89plus (Hans Ulrich Obrist and Simon Castets) for LUMA Westbau Kunsthalle Zürich, 31.10.15 – 28.02.2016

[19] Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble – How the new personalized Web is changing what we read and how we think., London: Penguin Book, 2011, p.2.

[20] Eli Pariser, Op.cit, p.2 and following.

[21] “Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland” (“The Internet is for us all a New-Land”) is a sentence that German chancellor Angela Merkel pronounced on 19th June 2013 during a meeting with U.S president Barak Obama; Merkel wanted to stress the fact that the Internet is a quite new political territory where there are a number of new possibilities. This sentence resonated within the Web: showing the ignorance with which politicians often talk about the Internet (which has existed for more than 30 years and is far from being a new territory) it was used to create satirical images against the colonisation of the Net by governments and corporations.

[22] Jacob Applebaum, “We need more, not less democracy”, Open Democracy,  20 November 2015 https://www.opendemocracy.net/wfd/jacob-appelbaum/more-not-less-democracy


AA.VV, “Jerry Saltz on Medieval Art, censorship and Facebook”, Phaidon online, 16.03.2015,


Applebaum, Jacob,  “We need more, not less democracy”, Open Democracy,  20.11.2015.


Art and the Internet, edited by Adler Phoebe and al., London: Black Dog Publishing, 2013. Chen, Adrian, “The laborers who keep dick pics and beheadings out of your Facebook feed”, Wired, 23.10.2014. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation

Chen, Adrian, “Inside Facebook’s outsourced anti-porn and gore brigade, where “Camel Toes” are more offensive than “Crushed Heads”, Gawker, 16.02.2012. http://gawker.com/5885714/inside-facebooks-outsourced-antiporn-and-gore-brigadewhere-camel-toes-are-more-offensive-than-crushed-heads

Dzieza, Josh “Art Critic Jerry Saltz suspended from Facebook”, TheVerge, 04.03.2015.


Gat, Orit, “Art Criticism in the Age of Yelp”, Rhizome, 12.11.2013.


Goldstein, Andrew M., “Jerry Saltz on His (Brief) Exile From Facebook, and the Virtues of Medieval Torture Porn”, Artspace, 10.03.2015. http://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/qa/jerry-saltz-onfacebook-and-medieval-porn-52674

Greenhouse, Emily,“Facebook can’t tell the difference between art and porn”, BloombergPolitics, 12.03.2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-12/facebook-can-t-tell-the-differencebetween-art-and-pornJaneczko, Jane, “5 NCY Art Blog you should be reading”, Huffington Post, 26.09.2013.


Kennedy, Randy,“Jerry Saltz, New York Magazine Art Critic, Suspended From Facebook”, New York Times (ArtsBeat Blog), 04.03.2015. http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/jerry-saltz-new-york-magazine-artcritic-suspended-from-facebook/?_r=0

Maddan, Heather, “Casting the Net: Yelp is on the way”, SFGate, 18.06.2006. http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/CASTING-THE-NET-Yelp-is-on-the-way-2494549.php

Maric, Bojan, “Why was Jerry Saltz banned from Facebook?”, Widewalls, March 2015. http://www.vulture.com/2015/03/facebook-ban-art.html Munro, Cait, “Jerry Saltz wins National Magazine Award for Commentary”, ArtnetNews, 03.02.2015.


Metahaven, Black Transparency. The Right to Know in the Age of Mass Surveillance, Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2015.

McLuhan, Marshall, Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man, Cambridge, Massachusets: The MIT Press, 1994 (1964).

Morozov, Evgeny, The Net Delusion. The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, New York: Public Affairs, 2011.  Munro, Cait, “Jerry Saltz got banned from Facebook”, ArtnetNews, 04.03.2015.


Pariser, Eli, The Filter Bubble – How the new personalized Web is changing what we read and how we think., London: Penguin Book, 2011. Rielli, Daniele, “Se Facebook si mangia tutto”, Quit the Doner, 31.7.2015. http://www.quitthedoner.com/se-facebook-si-mangia-tutto/

Saltz, Jerry “I got kicked off of Facebook for posting images of Medieval Art”, Vulture, 06.03.2015.


The Internet Does Not Exist, ed. by Julieta Aranda, Brian Kuan Wood, Anton Vidokle, Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2015.

n° 41 – Ano XV – Março de 2017  →   VOLTAR

Leave a Reply




English EN Português PT Español ES