 |
 |
The move from media to "behaviors," as it's been labeled here, seems to be more a move toward contemporary art discourse. This seems tactical if we're talking about longevity and continued funding for artists (or cultural producer, or whatever) working with "New Media." It also reflects the training and investments of some of the participants (in the art world and the historical legacy it offers). How long will any particular micro-technology be relevant? How much data is lost to obsolescence (stranded on magnetic tape)? Art with a capital "A," while under attack from multiple fronts in the US, at least has a track record of being "relevant." A lot of this discussion seems very related to the ones that took place around "post-studioism" - and other artists working with various forms of performance (recombinant theater) and discursive events. In this respect, Dietz's call for more inclusion in media-based events makes total sense - if you're not being invited to the table - why not do the inviting yourself. The "pinning of the butterfly" is possibly an unavoidable condition when someone's looking to make a career, but not one that you have to surrender to indefinitely. i've been working on an exhibition called YOUgenics that, because of it's ideological and topical focus, isn't concerned with media specificity or boundaries between different modes of working, and hence includes works across the media spectrum. What have been others' experiences dealing with such models (theme shows including digital and analog works)? thanks + take care, ryan > So, to return to our very first starting point of Multimediale, was > this move from media to behaviours a deliberate one? Are we really > 'post-media' and Lev Manovich or Steve Dietz > <http://www.yproductions.com/WebWalkAbout/archives/000578.html > have > suggested? Are 'behaviours' flexible enough to be the way forward > without pinning the butterfly? > > Yours, > > Beryl > >