To further muddy the waters (and for fun),
WHAT IF WE START WITH...
http://www.computerscult.org/cult/
instead of
http://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com
http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Networks-Latour-Metaphysics-Anamnesis/dp/0980544068
instead of
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Fiber-Tracking-Critical-Electronic/dp/B006CDH40I
http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Wire-String-Marcus/dp/1564781968/
instead of
http://www.amazon.com/The-Difference-Engine-William-Gibson/dp/0440423627/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataphysics
instead of
http://www.9evenings.org
http://noemata.net/time%28%29.mt_rand/larding.php
instead of
http://www.flong.com
http://www.ubu.com/sound/gysin.html
instead of
http://www.generatorx.no/
http://images.google.com/images?q=gaudi+model
instead of
http://www.nox-art-architecture.com/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4056835/Distribution-Religion
instead of
http://processing.org/download/
http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/1999/muse/artist_pages/broodthaers_musee.html
instead of
http://whitney.org/www/bitstreams/
curt
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Goodness. Another long rant on wired, like a curate's egg, good and
>bad in parts.
>
>But finally someone has said out loud that,
>"The appreciation of generative art requires an aesthetics of process."
>""Generative art" is not the be-all and end-all of art, or design,
>or engineering, or coding, or architecture. It's an approach, a
>technique, and a mode of perception."
>
>which, frankly, is what some of us have been saying more generally
>about new media art (in relation to Art with a capital A) for quite
>some time now.
>
>I like Olia's quip retold by Sterling that the new aesthetic is new
>media without the media. which isn't exactly saying that it is only
>new either.
>But I also especially like Saul's comments - and Michael's and
>Honor's - which have followed on this list, which tease these things
>out a little further, agreeing that it is not worth discounting the
>new aesthetic for not being new, but rather to consider how it sits,
>both looking back _and_ looking forward -- so I wonder, for
>instance, about the show BitStreams at the Whitney Museum from 2001,
>could we look back and see the work in that show through the lens of
>the new aesthetic? Is there scope for parallel history telling here
>- as Roger Malina has suggested? Certainly lots of work in that show
>was generative, if we are to follow Sterling's lead regarding one of
>the places the new aesthetic has perhaps come from.
>
>I also deeply appreciate Armin's and Nick's comments about histories
>and recouperation strategies (and I wasn't saying there was an
>art/design dichotomy per se, for the record, I was rather feebly
>pointing out how new media art has been understood and appreciated
>sometimes more often across the traditional boundaries present in
>museums, for example at MoMA, and that there are as a result, for
>those of us observing these things, sometimes different crowds of
>interest around works, and therefore different histories which get
>noted).
>
>The human and the thing-i-ness of all this -- as art -- still is out
>there to be described. (maybe that's what, on ten years reflection,
>I didn't much like about the BitStreams show, the messy human got a
>little lost in all the digital technical trickery of the glossier
>works? So there you go Saul, another event to "be jury-rigged and
>used to prop up New Aesthetics in a longer timeline"?). As Honor
>said "Aesthetics and art are not interchangeable concepts" and yet a
>problem with histories of new media art is that the works in
>question have not been often considered as 'art' because they
>perhaps didn't spend as much time engaging in aesthetic debates, as
>in social/political/technical/economic ones, which is often what
>good art does best.
>
>running out of steam... someone take over!
>Sarah
>
>
>On 19 Apr 2012, at 18:36, Dennis Moser wrote:
>
>> More from Mr. Sterling today:
> >
>>
>>http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/04/generation-generator-new-aesthetic/
>>
>> Best,
>>
> > Dennis
|