>Why must it be defined? Because the human mind likes to iconify. Curators
>need to tell the patrons that "this" is the hot new thing. People like to be
>able to hear that what they are seeing is "this", and not "that". Reduction
>for comprehension and accessibility, simple as that, just like soundbites on
>CNN.
i agree ... mapping is common ground
>I ask what would be an alternative way of describing technological art? Would
>we not define anything, and continue on a piece-by-piece fashion, eliminating
>schools, movements, etc? I am not asking this on a confrontational level; I'm
>more interested in perceptions of classification at the curatorial and artist
>level as well as pondering what would be the methodological shifts necessary at
>the instituional level that could change these practices.
>
>Personally, I'm not sure about feasibility, etc.
open source history seems to be the evolving thing - the timeline at the
Telematic art exhibition & now " Martin Wattenberg is currently working on
an "Idealine" for the Whitney's artport website. The "Idealine" is meant to
be a map of net artworks created over the past six years -- visualizing a
"history" of net art in terms of the ideas and concepts the works are based
upon. A crucial aspect of the project is the idea of context and
visualization of relations/thematic connections between net artworks. The
map is a visualization of a database that has been created for this
project."
artists are invited to map the relationships between their work & others works.
historical subjectivity is formally recognised!
with common ground the interface environment...
http://www.content-type.org.uk
~~~~~~format="flowed"
|