Sarah:
Ah, sorry I missed or got shuffled. The question regarding the inclusion of
comments is quite interesting, especially (for me at least) when it comes
to thinking about the ownership of that content (do the comments belong to
the article author, the publication, the comment author, the social media
plug-in...?). Acknowledging the larger landscape is definitely important,
but I suppose I was responding to the idea that there is little "good"
representation in mainstream media - thus my pointing to Bridle's article
released the same day.
Marialuara:
My question regarding mainstream media was mostly rhetorical since I think
that The Guardian is much more mainstream than The Art Newspaper. Again,
trying to respond to the notion that reporting of this
media/discipline/field within said channels is inherently misrepresented
(or used as a punching bag). Though my question also implies - as maybe you
unintentionally point out - that seeking approval or faithful
representation within "authoritative press" is inherently a red herring. In
my mind the work should come first, and then press/circulation of that work
can follow. Why bemoan misrepresentation in public media of work that can't
contend with a larger cultural conversation that is making pointed
critical, aesthetic, and engaging statements? Thus my suggestion to the
list to offer up some pointed rebukes of the original article with a
curated/considered list of art works that fly in the face of its sweeping
generalizations.
very best
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Nic, I did mention the article, but perhaps you're reading the
> messages to the list out of order, or am I?
>
> My quick thoughts this morning is that articles in the mainstream media or
> the contemporary art press - often lead to those writers being asked to
> write chapters for books, which then become part of the literature of the
> field, and of art history. One hopes that the discussion which goes in to
> the comment thread after an article when it appears online or in a magazine
> (or both), might then influence that writer to reconsider when they get
> asked to contribute to a book down the road (or when their article gets
> invited to be reprinted in a book or exhibition catalogue). It is worth
> acknowledging the larger landscape of literature which supports this field
> (from which PhD students draw too!).
>
> cheers
> Sarah
>
>
> On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:18, Nicholas O'Brien <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> CRUMBers:
>
> What kind of mainstream media are we talking about. actually? Because while
> we have been commenting (dare I say harping?) on this, no one has
> mentioned:
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/18/-sp-why-digital-art-matters
>
> So while attention is being paid to both author and article for this
> negative representation, we're drawing attention away from something that
> could actually present more engaging questions/concerns within mainstream
> media published on the same day (I think...).
>
> as ever
> very best
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:10 PM, helen varley jamieson <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> good question. generally i don't care, because i think that mainstream
> media is always going to be like this & i'm busy enough already without
> worrying about that kind of thing; but i do get pissed off at how it
> invisibilises so much excellent work - whether through deliberate
> gatekeeping or sheer laziness; it is not that difficult to find out about
> digital art.
>
> h : )
>
>
> On 19/06/14 6:45 PM, Pau Waelder Laso wrote:
>
> Dear Sarah and everyone,
>
> I am following this conversation with great interest and it reminds of a
> similar controversy that arose in Sept 2012 with Claire Bishop's infamous
> article in Artforum. I think that at that time this list had an important
> role in opening up a debate, although to my knowledge it all ended in
> several messages written in the comments section of Artforum's website and
> a letter published in the next issue, alongside a reply from Bishop.
>
> At this point I ask myself: Should we really care that much? Is it so
> important what a journalist who doesn't know about digital art writes in an
> article?
>
> I am doing some research on these controversies and "blind spots" and I
> would really like to know your opinion. Why be upset/worried/concerned by
> these articles and how does it make you feel?
>
> I know the answer may seem obvious, but it would be interesting to give
> it some thought.
>
> I thank you in advance for any kind of feedback!
>
> Best,
>
> Pau
>
>
>
> Pau Waelder Laso
> Art critic, curator and researcher
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> site: www.pauwaelder.com
> skype: pauwaelder
>
>
>
> --
> helen varley jamieson
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.wehaveasituation.net
> http://www.upstage.org.nz
>
>
>
>
> --
> Nicholas O'Brien
>
> Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director
> Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute
> doubleunderscore.net
>
>
> ===
>
> Dr. Sarah Cook
> Reader / Dundee Fellow
> Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design
> University of Dundee
> 13 Perth Road DD1 4HT
>
> phone: 01382 385247
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish Charity, No: SC015096
>
--
Nicholas O'Brien
Visiting Faculty | Gallery Director
Department of Digital Art, Pratt Institute
doubleunderscore.net
|