 |
 |
Hi Rosanne & all, I think that what you have brought up is a pretty interesting point. Just for the moment, I would like move the discussion away from the Banff 'conference/get-together', not only because I was not present (amongst shape-shifters of media consciousness), but because I feel that there is a larger picture that needs exploring in a pragmatic sense. Lately, we have been interested (at furtherfield.org) in visiting net art and media art exhibitions and reviewing them, so to bring about in contributing in some way approachable critiques/dialogues to a wider audience beyond the confines of 'peer review' alone. In a sense, we are from our own perspective, reviewing peers and their work, which can put us in an awkward position and it is not necessarily introducing a perfect paradigm. Yet, we have felt that it is important for someone to actually make an effort in reviewing this stuff and offer potentially different perspectives, that bring an alternative view point to the work that does not exploit or over use, already defined histories and protocols. This can sometimes (not always) block understanding the authenticity of a work. We feel that engaging in the materiality (stuff), as in the context, contemporary concepts, notions of what the creative group or artist is trying to communicate and explore through the chosen medium, mixed with their voice/intentions, is an essential part of seeing what is there- and sometimes it is important for us to put aside our own baggage (as much as possible) so to acknowledge the various nuances that are at play in such works. We recently visited an exhibition (Ruth Catlow & myself) and decided to create a collaborative review/article of the Low-fi exhibition of net art commissions, which opened during the Edinburgh Festival (finished now). It was a rewarding experience and we will continue visiting other venues around the UK (and elsewhere if asked), and write reviews that will be featured on furtherfield and other appropriate sites/publications accordingly. So, if you are interested - some info below: Low-fi gets physical at Stills - Low-Fi. Artists/groups in the exhibition: Kate Rich, Radarboy, UK Museum of Ordure's (UKMO, Mauricio Arango, James Coupe & Cavan Convery. Furtherfield: http://www.furtherfield.org/displayreview.php?From=Index&review_id=157 Mazine: http://www.mazine.ws/Low-fi Also would be interested in discussing further ideas around reviewing similar works on venues and public environments. thanks everyone marc >Dear Charlie (and all), > >Thanks for your quick response, but I was trying to prod you (or anyone else >who was there) into more depth about the exhibition. What I am looking for >is some real critique - good or bad. Just saying 'It was excellent.' doesn't >further the discussion. As a matter of fact, much has been said about the >lack of critique on (new) media art exhibitions. This is a chance to change >the situation. I do understand, however, that the group of people curating >media art is relatively small, so no one wants to step on anyone's toes. For >that matter, who wants to step on an artist's toes when you know you will >probably see that person on the media art conference/festival circuit? Thus, >most stay silent or complain that too much sunshine is blown (into dark >places) amongst the media art crew - and few actually publicly name >names (or kick butt). > >A critique does not have to be negative. If someone were able to >articulate exactly what was 'excellent' about an exhibition it would >lead by example. > >I must also say that there is a better history of lecture-critique for new >media. Does this indicate that we really are exhibitionally challenged? >Perhaps so few are willing to dissect an exhibition because so few in our >field are able/qualified/talented enough... to do it. >Prove me wrong. > >We on this list are the ones who are most qualified, not necessarily those >writing for the commercial press - so let's put those qualifications to work. > >Thank you, Edward Shanken, for taking up the gauntlet. Anyone willing to >expand on his critique? >Anyone else willing to give an alternative critique a go? > >Kind Regards, >Rosanne > > > >