 |
 |
Dear list, Matt Locke said that: >i think the argument was that writing *within* media art circles *has* >started to develop a sophisticated vocabulary Other list members have also mentioned the importance of vocabulary. Something that came up at the Museums and the Web conference was "what do we call these kinds of art?". New media theory certainly has a sophisticated vocabulary, but there still seems to be some confusion over different types and intents of artworks. Time and fashion seem to have suggested a slow veer from 'computer art' via 'digital art' to 'new media'. Is 'new media' a good enough name? What about categories within that? ... Net.art and 'other'? Turing Land and Duchamp Land? (see Sarah Cook's posting) Non-interactive, Interactive, or Participative? Communication art, data art, cybernetics, robotics or kinetics? Time-based or static? 2D , 3D or more? Do we need categories which are led by artistic practice, or categories which might relate to existing curatorial departments (I'm rather interested in the way in which 010101 at SFMOMA crossed several departments)? Would anyone care to suggest workable categories for 'the naming of parts'? Beryl _________________________________________________________ Curatorial Resource for Upstart Media Bliss http://www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/ Co-Editors: Telephone: +44 191 515 2896 Beryl Graham: [log in to unmask] Sarah Cook: [log in to unmask]