hi all,


For the record: I am not against academic research at all, or not
seeing its benefits, I am simply saying: do not forget the work
that has been done in the field of new media art practice,
criticism and even theory online. I keep being surprised (and the more
it happens: annoyed) at how in panel discussions on art, culture and
(media) politics people ignore (or are ignorant of) what happens or
has been discussed or presented already. We should not fall into the
same trap, simply because we need to connect to people who are not
familiar with any online culture. Keep quoting, keep referring to your
favorite discussions or online magazines! It could help people who
actively involve new cultures into their work (like Steve Dietz) to
keep their job.

I find Pauline's mail about the difficulty of constructing a new
criticism (because that is of course really the theme here now) very
interesting, especially since I have followed Mute with great
enthusiasm since its beginning. Mute has accomplished a great deal,
especially in the english language area (in the german language you
can find a lot more interesting magazine and book publications on
new media art criticism and even.... theory), but it seems to me
that Mute has somehow found itself a bit paralyzed by the need to
be politically correct sometimes. Of course talking about culture in
an environment in which technology is often an overlooked and
underestimated tool of power makes it important to take political
structures into consideration at the very least, when looking at art
and design. But it seems Mute is a bit swamped by the responsibility
the editors feel they have in revealing how much influence political
issues really have over everything around us, and thus art too. So
much of Pauline's dilemma seems to be this desire to be 'better then
the pope' sometimes. I like Johnny Danger's (Sue Golding aka
<[log in to unmask]>) plee for a more sensuous theory, and am
absolutely convinced we need more 'sensuous criticism'. I am totally
fed up with all the politically correct art criticism which leaves
very little room for unexpected developments in art and culture. Of
course art criticism has for most of its history focussed on either
aesthetics or downright 'marketing' of art works. I don't think that
taking it to the other extreme (of utter democratic responsibility)
is really going to do us all much good though. So maybe Mute simply
needs a bit of slack, a bit of going with the flows (note the
plural) more often. Go crazy! (Btw: this problem of
over-problematizing culture and especially art is of course part of a
large tendency in especially some European media cultures, but it
looks like it is now connecting to a larger discourse in art centered
around post-collonialist theories. Even if I am happy about any
broadening of narrowminded cultural strategies, I am rather worried
about the witchhunt-like, oversimplified attitude towards art this
sometimes brings forth)

There is something I would like to say about criticism. I once was at
a panel discussion where Kodwo Eshun was attacked by Peter Weibel for
being too liberal, and basically being uncritical. Eshun replied he
thought the difference between criticism now and criticism say thirty
years ago is that nowadays critics no longer "hoover above" the world
but are "in the middle of it". In his view critics today criticize by
taking part in the shaping of perception, so to say. I found both
Weibel's and Eshun's comments very interesting. The first one because
I am not a fan of Eshun's too personal writing (I cannot read his book
for instance, it irritates me, it is like going into someones private
trip too much), and maybe Weibel hands me an important reason why this
writing is the way it is. But on the other hand I also can understand
Eshun, because writing HAS changed, in my view mostly because of the
informal publishing on the internet. (Maybe the different way of
writing is not something one has to look for in the shape or form of
the text then, as Micheal Gibbs suggests). The challenge in my point
of view is to combine the 'hoovering' or distance of earlier criticism
with the sensitivity of a more personal or intimate writing. Maybe the
sensitivity would lie in the fact that one has to be more aware then
ever of ones personal, subjective choices when creating new thought or
theory?

I'd like to end this mail with translating the first words of a book I
am re-reading, which is the Media Archive (media archief) of Adilkno,
basically Geert Lovink, Arjen Mulder. My translation could be shaky
sometimes, as they like to play with words.

"Wriitng about media raises the question what gives writing the idea
it can speak for other media. Language pretends to be a meta-medium
which contains all past and future media. In western culture the
phenomenon of text is only then understood when it is shaped in a
finished story. Theory is said to have a special gift, which audio and
video lack, to demystify the secrets that push the world of
appearances forward. (...)
Writing about media should position itself inside the media network.
Also s/he who thinks s/he can position her/himself, in some heroic
gesture, outside of it, remains one amongst many media shapes
(gestalten in Dutch). This puritan, artisan ambition results just like
any other in an end product that will be taken in by the universal
media archive."


wishing you all a very good day,


J
*