I find this topic rather curious when taken under my own particular context,
as I have taken on all of these roles. To consider Steve's comments on
Newman, perhaps it is to be a bird that is also an ornithologist. However,
there are humans who are anthropologists (not a 100% metaphor translation,
but so it goes).
To bounce back and forth between Josephine and Steve regarding taxonomy, I'm
being confronted with the issues of classification for an upcoming talk at
CAA on quiestioning historiogrphical practices inlight of New Media. On
one hand, the versatility of the media and rapid innovation by artists
denies easy classification by genre, as many works make the boundaries
between net art, web art, telepresent art, and so on quite porous. Manovich
describes new media not so much in terms of the hardware, software, and
such, but more in the area of function and structure, and I think this is
something that I am considering in this project in considering new media
historiography. But this draws a fine line between the definition of
taxonomy and the structuring of curatorial and historical praxis, and for me
the jury's still out, as I am in a periodic reevaluation of my core
strategies at this time.
On one hand, it opens the door for those without discernment to argue that
such distinctions are now irrelevent. I, on the other hand, would argue
that the discussion has just become far more localized, as Dietz mentioned
in his "Temporary Autonomous Nomenclature" quote. In fact, as Christiane
and I have talked about on occasion, it is difficult to classify the
completion of work if it is in a state of process, and in many cases, I
believe that the nature of the work shifts across conventional boundaries
So, what is there to do? I am thinking of describing work in terms of
negation (what it is not), historically in terms of interstitial traces
caused by a series of moments of development over time taken in context with
the culture of the moment of consideration, which might fit with either a
serialized TAN, or even a Variable Historiography, to paraphrase Ippolito.
In short at the moment it might be more useful to consider works in a much
more nebulous metagenre while considering the particular work in very
specific terms with only moderat necessity for placement within genres.
To throw my two cents in regarding curatorial philosophy, I think at this
time that my practice is based on the consideration of emerging memetic
forms of art that may or may not express their potential in larger venues,
or fields (I won't use 'genres' here, as that suggests a canonized taxonomy)
of expressive engagement. Computability to me is not as important, as in
the media with which I engage, it is almost a default assumption, but I like
the idea odf distinction and difference when considering the work. However,
right at the moment a certain call towards a certain subjectivity as a
curator has been an intersting experiment, although hard to define.
The idea behind code and language as being intrinsic to new media art would
lead me back to a semiotic interpretation of same, and that semiotics works
marginally well at times leads me to believe that this linkage, once again,
brings us into a localized discourse, but far from any unified practice as
ctirics, curators, et al.
I am still considering the other issues in this thread, but am not ready to