The Fragment Project

Max Receives A Dinner Invitation

2004-06-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:21:10 -0500
From: "California Area Dinner Conferences" Add to Address Book
To: max_punkt@yahoo.com
Subject: You're invited to a Dinner Conference in California...

Beverly Hills Torrance
Santa Monica and more...
This June, a select group of people like yourself from the Beverly Hills area have been invited to join us at the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel for dinner and a local business conference. Please make every effort to attend for this important semi-annual event.

"People like yourself", and who is that? Max? How can Max attend this dinner? Do they expect Max to appear at the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel? Do they have the power to make him appear? Are they magicians? They claim that Max can have a lucrative blog, isn't that magic?

The Foundation of Blogging

2004-06-10T19:48:00.000-07:00

Max Punkt's The Blog Review signifies the empty content that floods web space. The blogosphere's shape is determined solely by response. The unanswered question is: who is responding. However, it is most often dismissed and curious identities form a presence that participants take for granted. In fact, the process itself requires assumption, or else it would loose the speed on which it must run. Blogs are quick and temporary; there isn't time for a lengthy comparison or analysis within its own sphere.

Case Study 8: a comment

2004-06-07T17:32:00.000-07:00

From the comment page at the Hot Ambercrombie Chick blog:

Max:
"Your citizenship reeks from the title of your blog, facetious or not. Not many people in the Congo are shopping at their local Abercrombie, nor ranting about how it is shamelessly commercial. Another privileged white "chick", who claims there is no such real thing as citizenship: try telling that to the mexican workers."

I agree completely, they're using American terms, benefits of being American, but they do not want the responsiblity that comes with that. It's a note prevalent in society these days, they want benefits but no responsibilities.
Peter Dodge

Here Peter Dodge addresses Max and qoutes him as a real source to which he is responding. Without a clue, Peter is conversing with a transparent identity. He believes he is having a real dialogue; taking the time to write a comment in response to someone he doesn't know. In fact, he even agrees with Max; and this is occuring on innumerable blogs, let alone 'chat' rooms and so forth. Is there not an empty din in these voices? Who are they really speaking to?

Case Study 7: e-mail

2004-06-04T23:06:00.000-07:00

"Drew" e-mails Max, "I love it!" He continues to say the blogoshpere is too self-congratulatory. Isn't Max guilty of the same offence? How can "Drew" agree with someone he doesn't know to exist?

Case Study 6: Wankette

2004-06-04T22:22:00.000-07:00

The anonymous post commenting on 'Wankette' seems enraged. Again, one is put in the position of wondering who it is. Wankette herself? A friend? Devout reader? Or another upset Blog Review follower? The comment suggests that their feelings were hurt, the ad hominem argument against Max, focusing on a syntactical mistake while skirting the larger issue that Max pointed at: people making money off of other people's reporting and claiming, as was done in the June issue of Wired, to have an inside tip. It is strange that one would feel compelled to comment, nonetheless, on such an anonymous blog. It begs wondering about the person behind that 'anonymous' identity and the insurmountable task of taking any of this in earnest.

Case Study 5: Boing Boing

2004-06-03T14:56:00.000-07:00

Here is an email from the bloggers at Boing Boing:
"Maxie-Waxie!

I forgot all about this! As one of the "new breed of people in denial,"
I forgot it was my turn to "gentrify a neighborhood and evacuate the
old residents."

Thanks for reminding me. I'll get right on it!

Big wet sloppy kisses to you -- Mark"

Facetious and proper in its boundaries against taking Max Punkt serious, yet the urge to reply in and of itself takes Max seriously enough to respond to him. Mark focuses on a fallacious observation of Max's, which humorously reveals something about Mark's vulnerability: his sense of truth and where he is choosing to display it. Or does he, whoever 'he' might be, not believe anything that he is writing? If one considers the Boing Boing site suggestion page, which is where Max erroneously placed his review (in effect, recommending to not recommend their own blog on their recommendation page; in other words, the title must've displayed to them that someone was recommending their own site to them) on purpose, to illustrate his desperate attempt to make them read his review of them, then having considered their suggestion page one reads that they have little time for they are very busy. Thus, this email must mean more to them since they do have such little time. A curious thing indeed, especially for a blog that claims to show all that is beautiful, implying they spend their time on such things, rather than bitter blogs from random identities.

Case Study 4: Kinky Carinne

2004-06-03T12:37:00.000-07:00

A blogger emailed max and asked him about how he selects blogs to review. Max thought that it would be best to review her blog as a case in point. Amazingly, Anonymous came in, angry with Max. The wide assumptions and language suggest their anger, but its impossible to know. Perhaps, Carinne writes a few anonymous comments herself, whoever he or she might be behind this 'identity'. On her blog, one commentator gave up her personal email and blog as well, responding to Max's prodding, "are you afraid?" This has been the most absurd exchange yet, and if one can take these comments seriously, which I'd never recommend doing, it reveals people whose boundaries are extremely permeable. That an identity, Max, could anger them is remarkable. It causes one to wonder to what extent they believe what they encounter on the internet. If a site looks official, do they automatically believe in its authority or search engine's capablities?

Case Study 3: College Life

2004-06-02T19:40:00.000-07:00

Receiving an email that asked for a review of their blog, College Life, Max went ahead and did his usual bit. The blogger emailed Max again and thanked him while asking for his approval for the changes they made to their blog after considering his review! They changed their blog substantially, based upon the critique by some mystery identity. Why would they take Max's advice? Or even treat him like an authority?

Case Study 2: What I Did Not Buy Today

2004-06-01T07:25:00.000-07:00

A comment on this review of Bunny Gull's blog asks for Max Punkt's method. Carinne assumes that "you" exists. Meanwhile, on Bunny Gull's site, she takes the review with good humor, enjoying her newfound fame of being found on the web. What is hilarious is that she responds to the comment at all. Is it a pure joke for the blog's real author? Or is its author actually responding to what was written? Is Anonymous Hieronymous guilty of the same thing now? Is Anonymous Hieronymous the real author of this blog?

1. Case Study: Cellar Door and Howard

2004-05-31T13:13:00.000-07:00

Max Punkt reviewed Cellar Door and posted it as a comment on Howard's blog. Here is Howard's response:
"Hey whoa. I've been "max punkt"!
Kinda cool that I am the first ever blog trashing for this "Blog Review."
Thanks for sending the extra hits, max. Even if most of them appear to be you rereading your masterful work.
# posted by Harold : 11:36 AM."
He took the harsh criticism playfully; yet all under the misapprehension that Max is real. Or does he comment without believing that he is commenting to anyone? I think not, because Harold proceeded to visit Max's political site (no longer exists) and comment. It seems earnest with such comments as "Talk about throwing away your vote!…You underestimate how much the rest of the planet hates our president." Here is Harold, whose blog has friends on it chatting and pictures of their group, responding seriously to someone he doesn't know, let alone someone he can't be sure even exists. Yet he seems sure by the effort of commenting. Or does Howard just view the blogspace as somewhere to be seen and it doesn't matter whether or not the content is true and the supposed blogger exists?

The Project

2004-05-31T12:34:00.000-07:00

It all began with Max Punkt and the idea of a blog that reviews blogs who also posts his post as a comment on their blog.

Basically, most blogs are constructed with some element of earnestness. Whether straightforward diaries or cynical, sarcastic spoofs, there remains an absurdness about its intended effect upon a invisible, unknowable "audience". Many seem to be desperate attempts to connect to other people, suspending the discrepancy of web indentity and who the person of that identity might be outside of the web. In this hyper-real state, this project attempts to intensify this sense of strangeness. We've never met, I can't see you, and yet we both are going to e-mail each other. This precarious situation can elevate both the sense of play and danger. Who is taking it serious? Who isn't? And how can that be determined? I can affirm that nobody actually knows Max; yet people(?) respond to him.