>At 09:58 27/04/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>I think new media criticism is much more visible than it used to be. Some
>>selected snippets below.
>i think the argument was that writing *within* media art circles *has*
>started to develop a sophisticated vocabulary, but mainstream writing (like
>the artnet/village voice article that sarah posted) appears blissfully
>unaware of these critical developments ("this work is like painting. its
>and maybe this is because the vocabularies that have developed around media
>arts practise are too (to use patrick's phrase) societal for the
>mainstream, who prefer to locate art wholly within its own, hermetic context.
I think it's a little more complicated. Public art, live art and media art
are in varying degrees "societal" (it's a major characteristic of these
media after all) and the mainstream media certainly have problems with
societal vocabularies. However, there seems to be some societal criticism
and context in the mainstream media when it comes to more accepted art
forms. The Times and art magazines publish "think pieces" on
painting/sculpture, establishing a larger context and breaking through the
hermetic context of art. I wonder why there seems to be more resistance
when it comes to art forms that have a larger social context by nature.
Perhaps the inherent danger is that these art forms defy existence in a
hermetic context (you don't even have the option to safely seal them off).
I think it might be dangerous to adjust the discourse to something the
mainstream media can more easily digest.