Off to a bad start:
> A frustrating piece of art that challenges how your brain thinks about the internet.
No, the web, surely.
I was able to load the page by using this js code at the browser console:
You may need to add 1 after the division by 1000 (inside the parenthesis) for better result.
window.location.href = 'https://permanent-redirect.xyz/pages/' + Math.floor(Date.now() / 1000)
Given enough time you can find a shortcut instead of having to follow every redirect.
I got to the end and it looked like this https://imgur.com/a/Wt5Gi
Net Art defined; Having fun making useless technology.
Here's a clone of the art, from https://permanent-redirect.xyz/pages/1515769473:
Here's a quick-and-dirty script to find "the art" (I haven't found it yet, if there is anything to be found): https://gist.github.com/jdiez17/db4f87fc4dad7b0d855017358bf4...
Of course, by publishing this script I'm making "the art" harder to find...
> I won’t describe the art, though you can easily find it on Twitter, because it might threaten the joy of discovery.
Isn't the hero image of the article a screen shot of it?
This would be kinda cute if it weren't for all the posturing about it being art. "challenges how your brain thinks about the internet" is an overstatement.
I got one of these:
Looks like it is literally creating a new PHP page for every single redirect.
Not Found The requested URL /pages/123.php was not found on this server.
It's value as "art" aside, there are much better ways to architect that. Eventually doing a directory listing on that folder is going to take minutes.
Art hasn't always been about scarcity there's a long history of public art, in ancient Egypt far from being scarce art was everywhere but art was effectively sponsored by the government in ancient Egypt. You didn't sell art to a collector you were sponsored by the government to make art that was everyone to enjoy.
Anyone noticing that the user count is off? Like REALLY off. I'm only seeing it in the thousands. Currently it at 2546, but clicking the redirect I get 2434, 2380, 2306, 2075, 4011, etc. Seems like the counter surely broke.
As of January 12th 15:40 UTC https://permanent-redirect.xyz/pages/1515769905
Since it issues a redirect can’t you simply do curl -L and let it makes its way through them all? In which case every one of these “transient” urls is actually, de facto, stable
URL is a timestamp
2018-01-08 14:27:33 -0500
In the end, is it an art or is it a tech demo project?
...and what's the difference?
Ah, contemporary art. In which the goal, per Duchamp, is to produce the least art-like thing you can and still get away with calling it art. And if that doesn't bake your noodle, remember this: you're not creating art unless you're trying to pass off non-art as art! For what is the meaning of art, but that which challenges and questions what is the meaning of art? This is how we get pickled sharks and books instructing you to dig holes for clouds and hide until everyone dies.
The asymptote of this development is art which is completely inaccessible, for if we think of art as something to be appreciated, then the truest art is art which is impossible to appreciate!
So this is where we are: a web page designed to be, literally, pert-near inaccessible, containing only a banal message when you succeed to access it, being hailed as an avant-garde work of profundity. I'm a bit reminded of Maurizio Bolognini's "Sealed Computers" piece, which features computers programmed to algorithmically generate images but not display them (their video ports having been sealed with wax) and strewn about a floor. The audience gets the notion that something aesthetically interesting is being produced, but doesn't get to see it or know what it is because fuck you, audience. All they get is the sight and sound of those haphazardly strewn beige boxes, slowly adding to the entropy of the universe. (One could, presumably, exfiltrate the images via side channels, as in Van Eck phreaking, but I get the vague sense that would be considered cheating and earn you a swift boot right out of the gallery.)
Why put art in quotes in the article as if to suggest it is not? Seems like the piece got the author to participate and share their experience. Sounds like pretty successful "art" to me.
> So far, -23660 people visited the website but did not see the art. Only 188.36% of visitors were able to view it. You are indeed very special.
Not sure if it was HN frontpage, but something broke it down.