A quick reply before I catch up with some more of the email. I did answer about the book but perhaps I haven't been clear. There is only one book. I am working on a book tentatively titled Art History Online and as it pulls at many different strands, I set out to pick at many of those through out this month and stand back a bit to see what ideas issues were forthcoming. I hoped this discussion would provide a parallel for the print-published book when it comes out, allowing those threads to be more complicated and collaborative than my book. I had planned to share some sections from the research I've already completed and written up, but discussion has been so busy I didn't want to over-burden the list with my writing - perhaps that was the wrong decision. Certainly colleagues at my new position advised me to allow the discussion to take a natural course. More soon... On 27/10/2013 02:06, "Johannes Birringer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >dear all > >Bronac's observation/comment, quoted in the header, was funny wouldn't >you agree? >and yet after some pondering, I would say this month has been a >riveting affair, if one observed the outpourings, and much much more than >a Grateful Dead reunion tour. >even though there was that, too. > >I appreciated learning much, also noting the care with which list members >tried to remember and fill gaps or point to others, the was a real >collective spirit amongst the showing of the personal collections. > >Then there were some reflective postings that I found tremendously >thoughtful, for example Johannes Goebel's "what's art history got to do >with it?" >on October 10; and Tom Sherman's "Way Back in 1995!" on October 20; but >also the critical feedback regarding differences between >art critics, historians and theorists was very helpful - and here someone >[Simon Biggs I think] evoked the problematic idea that new media >artists/digital artist best write their [own] histories >themselves or have in effect done so, well, in extension, also curated >themselves - and then written/indexed their exhibition histories ......? > >and undoubtedly there is or has to be a link to the academy, then, and to >places where we teach or get invited to show our work, or where requests >may come from >regarding our work that someone is studying as if we were already >gratefully dead etc , and then Simon Biggs added some provocative >comments on the conservativism of university >art schools or art history departments or organizations (the CAA was >mentioned a few times). > >Trying to look back at the "crowd-sourcing" idea behind Charlotte's "call >for papers" this month, there are still some open questions to me (about >Charlotte's TWO books/Arts Future Book project, which, as I had asked >her, seemed already written-to-be-published after peer review to be >accompanied by a second book to be peer reviewed? and so the Crumb >discussion this month, how does it effectively become the second "book", >while the very notion of book is questioned here directly using a list >for research/writing.... , and what are these here collection-energies >now manifesting, at this point? Charlotte also mentions a list >archivisation project as a third meta thing! [a propos, a mentioning of >Jon Ippolito and "Unreliable Archivist project" - i think most archives >are unreliable, and I love the scene in "Rollerball" where John Gielgud >as keeper of the world's centralised computer memory bank in Switzerland >has to confess that a slight mistake had happened and the 13th century >got deleted). > >también I observed the net that was thrown by Charlotte was getting wider >and wider and maybe >this widening of practices, on and off line, and 'histories' (language >stubbornly remainng english, strangely, and perimeter was USA-Europe >largely, I saw no posting from colleagues in Japan and S Korea for >example, surprisingly, also very few or no reference to new media art >history and online action in Brazil and Latin America) , is most likely >uncontainable and unwritable. > >I propose this proposition (this month) cannot go anywhere except into >countless fragmenting alleys and stories, re/collections and myths, >incomplete just as other older "art history" ever was [whose art history? > whose "repressed exhibition histories," to cite Beryl's comment of Oct. >16], western, european? published in whose service? Thanks to Sally Jane >for mentioning some others, like the "non-cultural" world..] > >At one point Honor Harger says that a list (Syndicate) changed her life, >which is an astonishing comment (and one that I could never make); after >noting that people have migrated to other lists or social media, Honor >bemoans the >discursive quality that's missing ("I think that's probably as much down >to the way that people's behaviour on mailing lists have changed, in the >wake of social media" - interesting, can you please say more about that? >my behavior hasn't changed at all, I hope) > >Charlotte brings Renee McGarry's letter forward, and Renee bluntly says: >"When I think about digital art history I'm left with a lot more >questions than answers....". > >Yes, that is also the case for me. > >When Charlotte added questions ("what's art history got to do with it?") >and then half way through the month again, more questions ("Half-time >discussion refresher"), I did think they were often of course to the >point and well asked, such as the point about who is writing art >criticism today (and where)["Anyone can take on the role of the critic in >our digital age, with online art journals, blogs and other sites," Lori >Waxman thinks) or who are the historians/forensicfactfinders (and, thanks >Rob, why not more wheel sharers?).... but ultimately now I felt the month >was overwhelmingly dislocating, we were turned to very many directions, >and the debate about critics/bloggers not able to be critical of work >created in their community is disheartening. Charlotte, had we seen your >book we could have been more critical here. > >I also sensed a tremendous sense of melancholia. > >How do others feel about it? > >respectfully >Johannes Birringer >DAP-Lab >http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap > > >[Goebel schreibt] >>> >What could be a positive consequence for us little people (the ones >without power to port what we discovered) out of this? Liberation from >creating our own monuments and making and living time-based arts which are >only good for the moment when they are happening. (So now we are thinking >performing email lists!) >>>