Hi Fin,
I absolutely agree with your below comments. I don't think it's a matter of
not having any suggestions as to how to implement a theory (I have tons of
them and I know many, many other people do ;), it's a matter of finding the
time to write that book on top of all the other lectures, teaching, writings
etc. we are already engaged in. So far, Lev's book is pretty much the only
one that explicitely addresses 'The Language of New Media' (of course, many
other books relevant to the field in general have been published) -- and we
need a dozen more of new media aesthetics / language books to lay the
groundwork.
>You wrote:
Christiane and all,
Hybrid discourse for a hybrid form, yes,good; also a dynamic discourse
for a dynamic form, yes. And No, we do not have to have one model, one of
the things art has thrived on is challenge, argument, tension. And of
course, what we get as a critique of , say, impressionsism, is very much
with the filter of time and hindsight. Those same filters will probably
homogenise a single theory eventually, and meanwhile there is plenty of
scope for a clumsy, multi-faceted truth. I just get frustrated with the
number of times people (and this is not a critisism of either Christiane or
Saul BTW)say we need a theory which will do... but don't have any real
suggestions for how.
Im guilty too, but my excuse is I am in early stages of PhD, so a bit of
a theory virgin.
Fin
|