Dear All,
As Beryl points out, there needs to be a practical
approach. There is no point in a theory without a
context. Over the years I have been the publisher of
both 21C and World Art magazines and executive editor
of Artbyte. All three covered new media art in
distinctly different ways. Artbyte specialised in art
and technology and was a spectacular failure, in part
because the publisher didn't really understand what
this new media was and didn't trust her editors (Mark
Dery and myself) to call the shots with freedom. World
Art placed new media happily alongside such
traditional media as painting and photography which, I
believe, worked admirably. Alternatively though, 21C
placed such art in a broader cultural context
alongside issues to do with technology and
communication. At times artists would crossover both
magazines, but World Art would use a writer with an
art background when the same artist covered in 21C
would be given a writer with, say, a literary
background such as Kathy Acker or Bruce Sterling. The
interesting thing is, both contexts worked. I think
this simply means we are talking about a period of
creativity that is open to interpreation - pinning an
exact theory on that would be, I think, gagging its potential.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|