 |
 |
Hi Everyone Sorry to be late on this. Paul Brown drew my attention to it - I think he knows that I have long held strong views! I missed the Moot because I was at an event talking about writing o and making art ... Anyway, my pennyworth: I largely agree with Charlie's points, but perhaps have a a more specific focus. To put it bluntly, 'digital' is not the point. The incredible 20th Century transformation was the advance in our understanding of the world through computability and computation. The conceptual leap depended on discrete mathematics, of-course, and so was 'digital'. However, much so-called 'digital art' is only about using digital technology as a tool and has almost no relation to this conceptual transformation. The exploration by artists of this new world mostly users computers, but that is not vital in every case. When a computer is used, we are not talking tools, but software as a mew medium, surely. However, it is computation, not the computer, that is at the centre. At this moment of time it so happens that we have Manfred Mohr's show at Carroll/Fletcher in London and mine at Site Gallery in Sheffield illustrating this very point. As well as computer driven works, my show, in fact, includes paintings, drawings and notes that are all about computation but did not employ computers directly at all. See http://research.it.uts.edu.au/creative/eae/www/Art/LightLogic/LightLogic.htm Ernest > From: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and through web-based platforms > Date: 22 November 2012 05:31:55 GMT+10:00 > To: [log in to unmask] > Reply-To: "Gere, Charlie" <[log in to unmask]> > > Hi all > > Just to add a few more thoughts on the Moot, which I also attended. My major problem with what is a well intended move on the part of the AHRC - to fund work on digital transformations - was that, on the evidence of the Moot at least, there is little real engagement with actual transformations brought about by these new technologies. Part of the problem was the relentless focus on kit, as if the issues of how digital technologies are changing our lives could be reduced to what academics could do with snazzy hardware and software. There was little sense that these technologies are potentially transforming the arts and humanities out of all recognition or that the real transformations are not taking place at the level of equipment but rather at the structural level. > > Katrina on the other hand expressed it beautifully in her contribution to the panel I chaired, when she described the changes in the very ontology of the image brought about by digital social networks, as well as in our reception of such images. I thought that her contribution and those of other panelists on the panel took the debate to a different level, as did some other contributors at other times in the day. But the general tone of the event mostly militated against this kind of thinking. > > WIth all due respect to the organisers to some extent it felt like the kind of event that happened in the early 1990s, when excitement over the technological possibilities of the digital was the main focus. But rather than carp perhaps this might offer us opportunities, virtually or otherwise, to debate what a genuinely critical approach to digital transformations might look like, and how the AHRC might fund that. Otherwise my major fear is that the limited number of funding opportunities offered will go to instrumental projects involving the application of data mining, visualization etc... rather than the, in my view more needed, focus on the transformative effects of these media on culture and society > > Charlie > ________________________________________ > From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Sarah Cook [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 21 November 2012 18:23 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: November Theme: Curating on and through web-based platforms > > This message from Katrina was meant to go to the list... so I am forwarding now... > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "Sluis, Katrina Patricia" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Date: 21 November 2012 08:34:07 GMT > To: Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] November Theme: Curating on and through web-based platforms > > Hi all > > Just to add briefly to Sarah's comments, I think one of the issues with the way the AHRC 'moot' was framed is that there was an absence of self-reflexivity about how 'digital transformations' apply to epistemologies, ontologies and practices within disciplines and not just 'wider culture'. Although there was a great buzz about new 'methods' (especially as it potentially gives humanities scholars the ability to do quantitative research and embrace positivism) and disseminating 'research in progress ' it felt at times that 'method' filled in for critical thinking about the politics of software and related tools. > > Secondly, for those CRUMBsters in London, you may be interested in an upcoming panel on 4th Dec at The Photographers' Gallery: "All your cat memes are belong to us" where speakers will explore key questions around the image economy of the web, from LOLcats to Flickr, 4Chan to twitter, as well as issues arising from the curation of online photographic practices within the gallery/museum. > > The panel includes Dr Lop Lop, who established the popular Flickr group Somebody else's cat, Dr Alexandra Moschovi, Lecturer in photographic theory and history, University of Sunderland, Dr Olga Goriunova, Assistant Professor at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, Warwick University. > http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/all-your-cat-memes-belong-to-us > > Looking forward to the rest of the discussion. > Katrina > > > University of Sunderland - Shortlisted for the Times Higher University of the Year 2012