In reply to Rosanne Altstatt's query
Reasons why Banff was good
An amazing collection of interesting and important scholars, artists and activists in the new media art area
Some interesting and illuminating papers
Really good conversations at breakfast, lunch and dinner with people with the same kind of interests, outlook and references
The Art formerly known as New Media exhibition
The Poster Session
The mountains
The hot springs
Reasons why Banff was not so good
Too many papers, often crammed into sessions, with inadequate time for questions (and yes, I know I am guilty of this as the session Eddie Shanken and I chaired crammed six papers into two hours, plus our tuppeny ha' penny worth)
No absolutely outstanding papers, even from those I had expected to really do something amazing
Some really inadequate papers
Keynotes that ranged from pedestrian to disastrous (I won't labour this point, especially as I am likely to run into Sarat Maharaj again in the UK, but my last post made my feelings about his presentation clear)
The implied elitism of having an invitation only summit after the conference
A sense of there being too many agendas and investments among the delegates about the theme of the conference, yet without that theme being adequately defined or understood
Danger of being attacked by rutting elk of hungry grizzly
Charlie Gere
-----Original Message-----
From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/ on behalf of Rosanne Altstatt
Sent: Sun 10/9/2005 2:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] banff critique
To all who were in Banff:
Why was TAFKANM 'excellent' as Charlie Gere states? Since I wasn't present I
really need more information than the thumbs up or down.
Thanks to anyone who has the time to respond.
Regards,
Rosanne Altstatt
|