I'll throw my two cents in.
I have a nagging feeling that "New Media" is going to sound like the word "Information
Superhighway" does now - corny and dated. It is also probably a disservice to people have been
employing networks, telecommunications, and analog/digital technologies in artworks since way
before the Internet (as we know it today) existed or before anybody at a modern art museum cared
about the medium.
For Instance, Norm White's "Hearsay" event was done on I.P. Sharp's global network in 1985.
(http://www.normill.com/Text/Hearsay.txt) How would this piece be categorized? Not as internet art,
or web art, or even "new" media. Though it also still really defies most older categorizations as
well.
I realize that categorizing it under any name is likely to make somebody out there disagreeable. It
just seems like we should examine the term "new media" and realize that it's pretty undescriptive.
It probably best works to sum up "computers n' shit" but is that really helpful?
If the use of a networking technology is core to the piece then "Network Art" then might be more
appropriate instead of "New Media"
If the blending of mechanical, electronic, software, and control theory engineering
then maybe "Mechatronic Art" might be more applicable.
Far too often press releases and the like go out saying it's a "new media" exhibit which really
does a disservice to the show. It would be like stating a bunch of painters and sculptures are
showing and not saying that they paint or sculpt but that they are "old media" artists.
In a nutshell, specifics are probably neccessary to differentiate the results of someone who has
spent 400 hours working with Photoshop versus someone whos spent 400 hours PIC programming...
tnx,
Rob
Beryl Graham wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Matt Locke said that:
>
> >i think the argument was that writing *within* media art circles *has*
> >started to develop a sophisticated vocabulary
>
> Other list members have also mentioned the importance of vocabulary.
> Something that came up at the Museums and the
> Web conference was "what do we call these kinds of art?". New media
> theory certainly has a sophisticated vocabulary, but there still
> seems to be some confusion over different types and intents of
> artworks. Time and fashion seem to have suggested a slow veer from
> 'computer art' via 'digital art' to 'new media'. Is 'new media' a good enough name? What about
> categories within that? ...
>
> Net.art and 'other'?
> Turing Land and Duchamp Land? (see Sarah Cook's posting)
> Non-interactive, Interactive, or Participative?
> Communication art, data art, cybernetics, robotics or kinetics?
> Time-based or static?
> 2D , 3D or more?
>
> Do we need categories which are led by artistic practice, or
> categories which might relate to existing curatorial departments (I'm
> rather interested in the way in which 010101 at SFMOMA crossed
> several departments)?
>
> Would anyone care to suggest workable categories for 'the naming of parts'?
>
> Beryl
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss
> http://www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/
>
> Co-Editors: Telephone: +44 191 515 2896
> Beryl Graham: [log in to unmask]
> Sarah Cook: [log in to unmask]
|