 |
 |
From what I've read, this conference's primary aim to sell a book (I love the use of the word 'coincides with' - as in "oh my goodness this conference is on as it just so happens that in my pocket ....":) so on one level is probably IS a waste of time to worry who and what has been included. On the wider issues, what I find disappointing about the this event as both an artist, curator and viewer (In exactly the same way as last years User_Mode conference or even BALTIC) is the usage of the well tailored phrase "Complex, fast-moving and constantly evolving, new media work by artists can often be difficult to grasp' which seems to me a blanket cover-all. It could be more honestly translated as ' media art is so varied and prolific that we have deliberately limited it to only a few already recognized projects, artists and artworks so as to achieve a cohesive timeline, progression and context. New Media Art actually follows a non-linear timeline, often paradoxical progression and has multiple contexts but we are worried that you might not 'get' this (and it would be bloody difficult to explain)' however, in an equal mix of cynicism and idealism it would be great to have this footnoted with the statement 'we understand that by historicalising new media in this limited capacity we are taking the risk that it will be generally understood (by viewers, students and curators new to New Media) that only the projects in the book are truly contextual to new media or have historical significance. In addition we apologies in advance of any boundaries, excessive formalisation or expectation places on new media artists and curators in response to this books formalisation of the practice thematics.' (!) As the number of these major UK conferences increase, I have been generally disturbed by seemly institutional obsession with following the american lead in curation and conference thematics, despite the recognized short comings of this model (need I refer to the Walker dialogue on CRUMB?). The fact that Dietz is the keynote speaker reflects this (Lev not available for this one eh?:) Don't get me wrong, I respect Dietz work and his many achievements but as I am sure many on this list will agree, curating new media in the UK is really quite distinct from curating in the US. We also have articulate, inspiring and experienced UK curators so couldn't one of them be asked as the keynote on a conference of British New Media practice? Simon Biggs has mentioned that he is not included and I think we could all think of a number of other similar significant British innovators of whom are conspicuously absent. Disappointing again, this conference (with all the authority of the Tate) simply does not well reflect British new media practice curatorially or artistically. Even Arts Council funded projects are not well represented, as many of the significant new media practitioners who have run or contributed to high profile ACE funded ventures and works (well within this 'historical' timeframe) are also strangely absent. And yes, in all honestly, like marc (furtherfield) and like (possibly) Susan or Simon, I too would have liked a mention but then very few from the UK are viewing my work or projects because it doesn't (and is unlikely ever to) fit formulations of new media such as this. Outside the UK I am 'one of the leading female net.artists' and in the UK I could wheel naked through the Tate with a laptop on my head on April 3rd and still go unnoticed. (hmm should I try that?:) I guess if this is 'a series of snapshots' of British New Media practice then there will always be those on the edges of an image only whose feet, elbows and waving hands are visible... jess. o /^\ rssgallery.com ][