Dear Charlie (and all),
Thanks for your quick response, but I was trying to prod you (or anyone else
who was there) into more depth about the exhibition. What I am looking for
is some real critique - good or bad. Just saying 'It was excellent.' doesn't
further the discussion. As a matter of fact, much has been said about the
lack of critique on (new) media art exhibitions. This is a chance to change
the situation. I do understand, however, that the group of people curating
media art is relatively small, so no one wants to step on anyone's toes. For
that matter, who wants to step on an artist's toes when you know you will
probably see that person on the media art conference/festival circuit? Thus,
most stay silent or complain that too much sunshine is blown (into dark
places) amongst the media art crew - and few actually publicly name
names (or kick butt).
A critique does not have to be negative. If someone were able to
articulate exactly what was 'excellent' about an exhibition it would
lead by example.
I must also say that there is a better history of lecture-critique for new
media. Does this indicate that we really are exhibitionally challenged?
Perhaps so few are willing to dissect an exhibition because so few in our
field are able/qualified/talented enough... to do it.
Prove me wrong.
We on this list are the ones who are most qualified, not necessarily those
writing for the commercial press - so let's put those qualifications to work.
Thank you, Edward Shanken, for taking up the gauntlet. Anyone willing to
expand on his critique?
Anyone else willing to give an alternative critique a go?
Kind Regards,
Rosanne
|