In the interview Larry Rinder says:
"Someday, traditional museum departments based on media may be
replaced by departments based on software (Photoshop, Illustrator,
Form Z). However, this is not likely to happen for a while, if ever.
The vast majority of artists continue to work in nondigital ways."
I suspect Larry was being polemical, but I am intersted in people's
ideas about a related question. Some institutions, for instance,
insist on photography as a separate field of endeavour while for
others (such as the Walker), it is essentially a subset or a merged
set of visual art. Is "new media" just contemporary art or does it
need/deserve/require/better off as a separate (but linked) field?
s
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Sarah Cook
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: new media in institutions
>
>
> point your browser to the following to read an interview about
> Bitstreams, which opens on Tuesday at the Whitney Museum in
> New York.
>
> http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/henry/henry3-16-01.asp
>
> comments?
> Sarah
>
|