 |
 |
This is a message forwarded from Jacob Lillemose --------- I am glad this topic came up on the list. Especially, because I, like many of you, am quite ambivalent about the term "new media art". I agree with Florian Cramer when he says that nothing is as old as "new media". "New" is a general and relative prefix that I think does not make very much historical or theoretical sense. In my work I prefer the broad but at the same time less ambiguous and more precise category or term "digital art" to describe the field as such as this is one characteristic that distinguishes it from earlier art forms and to conceive sub-categories like "internet art", "software art", "interactive art" and so on as important discursive fields within this field. To me the question whether a work is "internet art" or "software art" is of less importance (since it is often impossible to answer categorically without running into paradoxes or just stating the obvious) than opening up the works by discussing the different aesthetic dimensions and themes in them, whether they are formal, ethical, visual or conceptual. The recent Read_me festival is a good example of how a highly ambiguous category or term like "software art" or maybe more precisely "software aesthetics" can generate a very relevant discourse, theoretically as well as historically. It creates discoursive not nominal concepts, i.e. new ways of analytic and conceptual thinking (which over time will qualify the works). Software art is in one sense just another way of saying digital art but at the same time it allows a sharp focus on the software as a means of artistic practice. Thus I see "software art" as more of an open/inclusive aesthetic discourse filled with analytical tools than as an exclusive category of works; a discourse in which more precise and elaborate meanings can be assigned to a number of works that for instance the discourses around net.art or computer art are not capable of. The same works can naturally be approached from other discursive angles. And they should be. Compared to traditional art forms like painting and sculpture this is a fundamental aspect of digital art: It cannot be reduced to a question of medium. (Another reason why I think "new media art" is a problematic term.) And furthermore: Digital art retrospectively challenges our conception of medium-specific aesthetics. Categories are relevant and necessary but as dynamics of connection not as frames of enclosure. They need to work from the singular to the multiple, from the inside and out, not from the outside and in. From this point of view, the establishment of super specific sub-sub-sub-categories distorts and reduces the discussion (the aesthetic and critical perspective), and in the end only the insiders of the digital art community know how and why these categories are made. And they become means of power (control and suppression) as Josephine Berry notices in her posting (art as well as political history proofs that), both in relation to the art works and to the discourse. I completely agree with Josephine that this is an aspect that deserves critical reflection. Especially, because there is a strong tendency not just to accept categories but to hype them. "New Media Art" seems like a natural place to start. Of course, this discussion also contains an important strategical institutional dimension. I often hear Danish museum directors ask for a list of categories because it would make them feel more comfortable with digital art; it frames digital art in accordance with the principles of non-digital art. However, I think they misunderstand the challenges and do themselves an unintentional disservice. Digital art demands new ways of for institutional thinking about art works both in terms of curating and preservation; it's difficult, sure, but also a chance for the institution to develop. At the same time, I believe that the aesthetic discourse that the directors already know can connect to digital art works. Contrary to what the question of categorization implicitly is indicating they do not need to know a lot about technology to begin with to discuss these works. What it boils down to in my view is that we should begin to discuss what the works of digital art are about, what themes are at work, to practice as Geoff Cox suggests. Not least because this will help to establish frutiful connections to the non-digital art world and hopefully make it possible to see digital art works exhibited next to non-digital art works in the near future. Jacob Lillemose