A couple of thoughts on the topic (and my deepest apologies for posting an
announcement last week):

Ashley makes a very good point, however I'm not certain about Lovink's
characterisation of Zizek. Lovink seems to make one of the frequent (and
easy) errors that occur in arts/humanities research in that he's judging
Zizek outside his research parameters, and fundamentally misunderstanding
the Zizek project. While to many in the Ars Electronica audience it may have
appeared they were attending a talk about film/new media given through a
Lacanian framework, I would say we received a talk about Lacan read through
the metaphorical lens of media. It's worth noting that "Looking Awry",
Zizek's most accessible work, is subtitled "Jacques Lacan through Popular
Culture", not the other way around.

I only point this out as a broad metaphor for the way New Media is often
read, that is, outside the framework of the individual works or practices of
the artists (Andreas has made this point well). There are many points that
new media works share, but one that stands out is a strong root in
structural frameworks, and development by the artist of linguistic systems
within the works.

Lunenfeld, in the same Lovink volume, commented that new media art arrived
uniquely, with fully-formed theories in place (albeit inadequate -- and a
spurious notion regardless). But Lunenfeld has a point in that new media art
seems for the moment to reside broadly in the theoretical (even when deeply
"personal") in much the same way as leading architecture.

Real-world issues in new media creation make this inescapable. The gestation
period of a new work of architecture is particularly long, and plans are
made public at conception, leaving ample time for theories to develop around
the new work. In new media, the time it takes to access technologies, climb
ever-more-steep learning curves, and execute the work itself demarcates a
period of time for both the maker and the theorist to develop a theory
around the work, long after the funding has arrived and long before the work
has begun.

Within this period, there is even more opportunity for the imposition of
"alien" systems on the artist. Some have to do with what the interface of
your building tools limit you to (if you lived in Prague in 1995 for
example, chances are you worked with Unix systems -- this would affect your
work). Some with political economies of manufacture (Sun donated systems to
AVU and other institutions in Prague) or display (witness events at the
Walker).

The most fruitful system to discuss, however, might be the system the artist
creates for the work itself (Kate's letter is a great example). There are
many ways to read the gesamptkunstwerk of Matthew Barney, but one of the
more rewarding points of access is through the self-enclosed system of
language and reference Barney has created for his works. The same can be
said of Matthew Mullican or Chad McCall. Or in new media, Mongrel or
Blast Theory.

There are many starting points for examining new media art: Lev's theory,
Marx/Lacan, interface theory, political economies, etc. Perhaps the best
starting point, however, are the new media artists.

By climbing into the artists' systems, understanding the phenomenal quality
of each, and distinguishing their differences from one another, I think we
might be onto a good starting point for developing broader and less
pedagogical theories of new media, but also of avoiding Lovink's misreading
and out-of-hand dismissal of Zizek. At least until we get to "classical"
period in new media art.

Charles


--

Charles Kriel
BBC Resident VJ
Research - London Institute
[log in to unmask]