In light of the comments on Kulok's art, I went back to look again and reconsider my views. I looked for the commentary on photography, and the insightful conceptualization, and, well, just looked again. Nope. (First, an inconveneint aside -- other work by KuIok (or this) I have found interesting, and I do recommend wandering around the site.) I don't see anyting interesting in the way of commentary on photography or processes in this project. First, because I still don't see what the process of creation has to do with or how it connects to photography. Collect a series of network names on a cell phone, list them in black on a black canvas (is it canvas or something other backing?). He used a cell-phone which may have had a camera. Or more likely, the capture of electronic information somehow relates to digital images. Alright, is a digital image (of a name). And then these images are printed in black on black. But that is not enough to get us to a comment on photography that is made by the objects displayed -- and the creation process is not distinguishable from this one, and so everything turns into photography and comment on photography. A poor result. I might buy a story about comment on printmaking, but not photography. Second, the presentation is opaque, and off-putting I think. There is nothing about the images or presentations that invites one to think further about the project. To put the point another way, the image do not lead to an investigation of the process or the concepualizing; instead the latter are necessary to care about the image. I think that is the wrong way round. (I admit to a predisposition against conceptual art work for reasons to be discussed another day.) All of the interest lies in the explanation, and that is failure. Third, I still do not think it much of an idea -- There Are a Million Stories in the Naked City, these are the names of a couple of dozen.
Having gone on about it, let me again note that there is other work by Kulok that I find more interesting and would recommend.