Josephine's fears are by no means unfounded and 'academization' is certainly not desirable (or dangerous). But all of the 'practioners' I know in the field of 'new media art history' (if you can call it that) are in fact pushing for a multiplicity of histories that are driven by artistic practice and 'living culture,' trying to avoid rigid taxonomies and striving for redefining a traditional -- institutionally, scientifically, and academically driven -- approach (in how far that's possible, is another question). But it's very important to ask how a conference could reflect a more open approach in its 'structure' (or lack thereof)...
________________________________
From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/ on behalf of Josephine Bosma
Sent: Tue 2/22/2005 7:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rhizome Opportunity / meta-database
dear crumbs, Oliver,
OG> We will try to bring together those researching and teaching digital
OG> art scientifically with those, who work scientifically in the field
OG> of documentation. Full of hope we are suggesting to found an
OG> international meta-database project/movement, where as many of our
OG> partly highly specialized initiatives as possible could be part of.
This sums up my fears for this conference, and I can only pray they
are unfounded. The problem is that defining media art and writing
media art history is no longer a purely scientific enterprise. It is
really largely out of the hands of the academia. This conference
should therefore avoid the common set up and organization for academic
conferences. So far it does not seem to do that.
At Transmediale there was a attempt to counter this 'academization' of
what Robin Murphy called a gonzo criticism I believe, by trying to
organize a collaborative definition of media art through the use of
wikipedia. I am not sure wikipedia would be the proper place for it,
but this idea shows that there is the need for a different approach to
creating media art histories.
best wishes,
J
*
|