Dear Ernest I agree with you entirely - one of the things John Naughton
said in his opening keynote last Monday was how surprised he is at how
almost everyone in the arts world tends to call everything to do with
computation and technology 'the digital'. Encouraging focus on
transformation and seeing the field as hybrid, plural and transversal has
been something we've been advocating at a number of levels. Labels like
new media or digital will of course also become redundant very soon.
In terms of observing how language is used and evolving you may find it
revealing to read the introductions to the Moot programme and indeed the
line up of activities which you can see at
http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-Opportunities/Research-funding/Themes/Digital-Transformations/Documents/AHRC_Moot_Programme.pdf
My own thoughts on the week are at:
http://www.boundaryobject.org/id5.html
I'd like to thank Susan and Saul for yesterday's priceless uprooting
...roll on more nineties revelations.
Bronac
On 24 November 2012 12:16, Ernest Edmonds <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> Sorry to be late on this. Paul Brown drew my attention to it - I think he
> knows that I have long held strong views! I missed the Moot because I was
> at an event talking about writing o and making art ...
>
> Anyway, my pennyworth: I largely agree with Charlie's points, but perhaps
> have a a more specific focus. To put it bluntly, 'digital' is not the
> point. The incredible 20th Century transformation was the advance in our
> understanding of the world through computability and computation. The
> conceptual leap depended on discrete mathematics, of-course, and so was
> 'digital'. However, much so-called 'digital art' is only about using
> digital technology as a tool and has almost no relation to this conceptual
> transformation. The exploration by artists of this new world mostly users
> computers, but that is not vital in every case. When a computer is used, we
> are not talking tools, but software as a mew medium, surely. However, it is
> computation, not the computer, that is at the centre.
>
> At this moment of time it so happens that we have Manfred Mohr's show at
> Carroll/Fletcher in London and mine at Site Gallery in Sheffield
> illustrating this very point. As well as computer driven works, my show, in
> fact, includes paintings, drawings and notes that are all about computation
> but did not employ computers directly at all. See
> http://research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/eae/www/Art/LightLogic/LightLogic.htm
>
> Ernest
>
>
>
> > From: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and
> through web-based platforms
> > Date: 22 November 2012 05:31:55 GMT+10:00
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Reply-To: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Just to add a few more thoughts on the Moot, which I also attended. My
> major problem with what is a well intended move on the part of the AHRC -
> to fund work on digital transformations - was that, on the evidence of the
> Moot at least, there is little real engagement with actual transformations
> brought about by these new technologies. Part of the problem was the
> relentless focus on kit, as if the issues of how digital technologies are
> changing our lives could be reduced to what academics could do with snazzy
> hardware and software. There was little sense that these technologies are
> potentially transforming the arts and humanities out of all recognition or
> that the real transformations are not taking place at the level of
> equipment but rather at the structural level.
> >
> > Katrina on the other hand expressed it beautifully in her contribution
> to the panel I chaired, when she described the changes in the very ontology
> of the image brought about by digital social networks, as well as in our
> reception of such images. I thought that her contribution and those of
> other panelists on the panel took the debate to a different level, as did
> some other contributors at other times in the day. But the general tone of
> the event mostly militated against this kind of thinking.
> >
> > WIth all due respect to the organisers to some extent it felt like the
> kind of event that happened in the early 1990s, when excitement over the
> technological possibilities of the digital was the main focus. But rather
> than carp perhaps this might offer us opportunities, virtually or
> otherwise, to debate what a genuinely critical approach to digital
> transformations might look like, and how the AHRC might fund that.
> Otherwise my major fear is that the limited number of funding opportunities
> offered will go to instrumental projects involving the application of data
> mining, visualization etc... rather than the, in my view more needed, focus
> on the transformative effects of these media on culture and society
> >
> > Charlie
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [
> [log in to unmask]] on behalf of Sarah Cook [
> [log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 21 November 2012 18:23
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: November Theme: Curating on and
> through web-based platforms
> >
> > This message from Katrina was meant to go to the list... so I am
> forwarding now...
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Sluis, Katrina Patricia" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>
> > Date: 21 November 2012 08:34:07 GMT
> > To: Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>>
> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and
> through web-based platforms
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Just to add briefly to Sarah's comments, I think one of the issues with
> the way the AHRC 'moot' was framed is that there was an absence of
> self-reflexivity about how 'digital transformations' apply to
> epistemologies, ontologies and practices within disciplines and not just
> 'wider culture'. Although there was a great buzz about new 'methods'
> (especially as it potentially gives humanities scholars the ability to do
> quantitative research and embrace positivism) and disseminating 'research
> in progress ' it felt at times that 'method' filled in for critical
> thinking about the politics of software and related tools.
> >
> > Secondly, for those CRUMBsters in London, you may be interested in an
> upcoming panel on 4th Dec at The Photographers' Gallery: "All your cat
> memes are belong to us" where speakers will explore key questions around
> the image economy of the web, from LOLcats to Flickr, 4Chan to twitter, as
> well as issues arising from the curation of online photographic practices
> within the gallery/museum.
> >
> > The panel includes Dr Lop Lop, who established the popular Flickr group
> Somebody else's cat, Dr Alexandra Moschovi, Lecturer in photographic theory
> and history, University of Sunderland, Dr Olga Goriunova, Assistant
> Professor at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, Warwick
> University.
> > http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/all-your-cat-memes-belong-to-us
> >
> > Looking forward to the rest of the discussion.
> > Katrina
> >
> >
> > University of Sunderland - Shortlisted for the Times Higher University
> of the Year 2012
>
--
Bronaċ
|