 |
 |
I don't like 'new media art' necessarily, but I can certainly think of some works which I do like and would regard as 'good', and putting my money where my mouth is, I will name two; Short Films about Flying by Thomson and Craighead, and Fenlandia by Susan Collins. I write about the former in my book Art, Time and Technology. That said neither elicits in me the passionate feeling, pro or contra, I might get from a work by Twombly, or Guston (whose response to the impossibility of Art I find far more engaging than that of Twombly) or Kiefer to give a few examples of artists that do make me feel something. But the question is should art always be about that kind of emotional response? Is the fact that we expect these kind of responses problematic? Maybe new media art offers us a way out of this demand, which is fundamentally religious in my view, for art to give us an elevated experience of some sort. It maybe that it is this refusal of the theological dimension of art, for me so evident in Josie's reaction to Twombly, that is both NMA's strength and the source of its lack of acceptance in institutions which are themselves places of a kind of secular worship of Art, such as the ICA. That said, and following Josephine's description of the conference in Amsterdam, the same question posed by Bourriaud might well be asked of 'relational art' and the same point made, possibly with greater force. >Bourriaud took the microphone and said something like: "Well, the problem is there is no good media art. Can you name one good media art work? No? That is the reason."