Hi Nina, Simon, and list:

I guess from my perspective, I'm a bit more dissatisfied with the
actual content of the conferences rather than how they are
organized. But I understand what might be difficult about trying to
touch upon the critical issues that everyone's talking about, at the
same time please the masses.

Unfortunately, what gets lost in the midst of all this is the reason
why conferences should be held in the first place-- not to make
money, but ideally to bring people together whose work can inform
and extend the parameters of scholarship in general. But this
doesn't happen when the themes are set in stone and organizing a
panel means plugging people into pre-configured slots, or when
everyone is working from the same body of knowledge because we all
took the same media courses in school. Somehow many of the
conferences on media art/history (particularly academic
conferences) that I’ve attended and participated in have felt
hermetically sealed in some way.  Too much emphasis was placed on
the "presentation" of projects rather than on the sharing of ideas,
and the exchange one might hope for at a conference never
sufficiently emerges as a result. Very often the work is completely
redundant, and to sit in on a panel is effectively to sit in a
vacuum.

Because I live and work in Berlin at the moment, the distinction
between what and who gets presented and discussed over here—as
opposed to in North America and the major international
festivals--has become relatively clear. There seems to be a split
between content (political, historical, cultural) on the one hand,
and style (form, technique and notions of originality) on the
other. The more focused we are on content (which seems to be the
case over here), the less important aesthetic and technical
sophistication seems to be, and visa versa. However, it is clear
that there really are no platforms that manage to address this
divide successfully. And curating new media follows along the same
lines, supporting the work of artists who generate work that is
cool to look at for about a minute but ultimately does not live up
to the revolutionary potential it claims to have. I think in many
cases this is why so many people are dissatisfied with the
direction that new media scholarship and new media curating has
taken. It may also be why so much that is being written or
organized fails to resonate beyond the walls of this very insular
field.

So I wonder if standardizing this field would actually lead to
better scholarship, exhibitions, etc, when media studies tends to
become either grossly imprecise or overwhelmingly self-reflexive
the more removed it is from other disciplines (politics, history,
anthropology, comparative literature, art history, philosophy, area
studies, etc)?

Maybe its better if we resist the urge to institutionalize our
field, in the way that the discipline of art history has already
been. Maybe the orientation of one’s work (toward technology and
media) from within another discipline like anthropology,
comparative literature, etc can be a way of getting out from under
the
traditions and terminologies which define these pre-existing fields.
I have to say I’m not too interested in meeting people at
conferences who know everything that I know—which is exactly what
would happen at these conferences if the field continues along its
current path. I’m a bit more interested in meeting people from
other disciplines who really introduce something new to the table.
People who also work on the margins of other disciplines, and whose
work comes out of other intellectual traditions that meaningfully
inform their practice. This would introduce more differentiation
into the field, and might also preserve the use value of
conferences devoted to media.

Cheers,
Alena

> Hello All,
>
> i fully appreciate Josephine's argument
> concerning conferences and Simon Biggs'
> reluctance to pay for showing artwork
> at events such as ISEA.  My question is
> how to solve these issues pragmatically?
>
> Is there an example for a practical
> framework and format to discuss and
> analyse various issues beyond an informal
> (and successful) mail list, such as CRUMB?
> Even in select countries where Council funding
> is available, the organization of a
> forum (conference&exhibition) such as
> the latest ISEA2004 becomes very difficult
> - how to solve these concerns pragmatically and
> to the satisfaction of participating artists?
>
> nina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >hello Crumbs and Oliver,
> >
> >
> >Oliver Grau wrote:
> >OG> To begin with the correction: I was not talking about
> academia, but about
> >OG> science, speaking of methods.
> >
> >Well, so was I, but maybe not clearly enough. This could be
> where my
> >mistake lies, if I made one. I saw the call for papers to this
> >conference, and did not apply because it had the look of an
> academic
> >conference. This means in practice: one can maybe get selected
> to give
> >a paper, but then one is to organize one's own travel and
> accommodation
> >fee, plus often one has to pay to give the talk as well, the
> >'conference fee'. This is the reason I never respond to calls
> like
> >this one. To me it feels like a cheap trick, get all the
> content, and
> >have the people pay to work for you really. (ISEA works like
> this too,
> >but it has a different history, it was an artist initiative and
> seems
> >more like hacker confs, where everyone pays to make the event
> >possible. A bit like:
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_meetup_2005 , but this
> is
> >even more open in structure) I understand this is the way
> academic
> >conferences have worked for a long time, and I think it is not
> >appropriate anymore. If you are not part of a system or
> structure that
> >pays all this for you, you can more or less forget attending.
> The new
> >media have brought about new institutions and professionals
> which fall
> >outside of this system or which now have to find ways to squeeze
> >themselves into it in order to survive. The latter is something
> which
> >makes me very wary, especially since the 'academics' which try
> to deal
> >with the same matter have a comfortable advantage position in
> this,
> >whereas their knowledge (excusez if the remark seems an insult,
> it is
> >not meant this way) and work methods do not always fit the bill.
> >
> >But I can't find any info on the fees etc on the Refresh site,
> so my
> >comments might not make any sense at all.
> >
> >
> >best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >J
> >*
>