The reemergence of concern with the 'New Media' nomenclature is
interesting and curious.
In my opinion, here is the development of the term...
Pre-2000: New Media defined a genre created by an emergent community.
2000+: New Media is now considered a class of 'Media', which I find odd,
but seems to be the case
2010+(?): will be defined as a Movement, like the New Objectivity (Neue
Sachtlichtheit). This is a function of the current move toward
historical framing happening now.
Personally, I'm not that worried about the terminology of New Media, as
it will develop over time as our community and the larger culture come
to define it. In some ways, it appears to be a desire to control the
construction of history as it happens, or to construct historical
narratives in the adolescence of the movement, which I also find useful
in the short term, but will prove potentially problematic in the long.
However, in a culture that has such a short memory as ours does, these
books (like the Thames and Hudson series) are useful, and perhaps even
necessary.
Patrick Lichty
- Interactive Arts & Media
Columbia College, Chicago
- Editor-In-Chief
Intelligent Agent Magazine
http://www.intelligentagent.com
225 288 5813
[log in to unmask]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
|