 |
 |
To further muddy the waters (and for fun), WHAT IF WE START WITH... http://www.computerscult.org/cult/ instead of http://new-aesthetic.tumblr.com http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Networks-Latour-Metaphysics-Anamnesis/dp/0980544068 instead of http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Fiber-Tracking-Critical-Electronic/dp/B006CDH40I http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Wire-String-Marcus/dp/1564781968/ instead of http://www.amazon.com/The-Difference-Engine-William-Gibson/dp/0440423627/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pataphysics instead of http://www.9evenings.org http://noemata.net/time%28%29.mt_rand/larding.php instead of http://www.flong.com http://www.ubu.com/sound/gysin.html instead of http://www.generatorx.no/ http://images.google.com/images?q=gaudi+model instead of http://www.nox-art-architecture.com/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/4056835/Distribution-Religion instead of http://processing.org/download/ http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/1999/muse/artist_pages/broodthaers_musee.html instead of http://whitney.org/www/bitstreams/ curt ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Goodness. Another long rant on wired, like a curate's egg, good and >bad in parts. > >But finally someone has said out loud that, >"The appreciation of generative art requires an aesthetics of process." >""Generative art" is not the be-all and end-all of art, or design, >or engineering, or coding, or architecture. It's an approach, a >technique, and a mode of perception." > >which, frankly, is what some of us have been saying more generally >about new media art (in relation to Art with a capital A) for quite >some time now. > >I like Olia's quip retold by Sterling that the new aesthetic is new >media without the media. which isn't exactly saying that it is only >new either. >But I also especially like Saul's comments - and Michael's and >Honor's - which have followed on this list, which tease these things >out a little further, agreeing that it is not worth discounting the >new aesthetic for not being new, but rather to consider how it sits, >both looking back _and_ looking forward -- so I wonder, for >instance, about the show BitStreams at the Whitney Museum from 2001, >could we look back and see the work in that show through the lens of >the new aesthetic? Is there scope for parallel history telling here >- as Roger Malina has suggested? Certainly lots of work in that show >was generative, if we are to follow Sterling's lead regarding one of >the places the new aesthetic has perhaps come from. > >I also deeply appreciate Armin's and Nick's comments about histories >and recouperation strategies (and I wasn't saying there was an >art/design dichotomy per se, for the record, I was rather feebly >pointing out how new media art has been understood and appreciated >sometimes more often across the traditional boundaries present in >museums, for example at MoMA, and that there are as a result, for >those of us observing these things, sometimes different crowds of >interest around works, and therefore different histories which get >noted). > >The human and the thing-i-ness of all this -- as art -- still is out >there to be described. (maybe that's what, on ten years reflection, >I didn't much like about the BitStreams show, the messy human got a >little lost in all the digital technical trickery of the glossier >works? So there you go Saul, another event to "be jury-rigged and >used to prop up New Aesthetics in a longer timeline"?). As Honor >said "Aesthetics and art are not interchangeable concepts" and yet a >problem with histories of new media art is that the works in >question have not been often considered as 'art' because they >perhaps didn't spend as much time engaging in aesthetic debates, as >in social/political/technical/economic ones, which is often what >good art does best. > >running out of steam... someone take over! >Sarah > > >On 19 Apr 2012, at 18:36, Dennis Moser wrote: > >> More from Mr. Sterling today: > > >> >>http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2012/04/generation-generator-new-aesthetic/ >> >> Best, >> > > Dennis