Hello again list

I am glad we can carry on last month's discussion throughout June, as May
was a very busy month for me. I have a few thoughts on another of the
topics: criticism's judgements of quality.

What are the criteria? Do we have to come up with new ones? If so, how? What
is the relevance of new media theory for making judgements in, say, art
reviews?

In the same way that there seems to be a consensus this past month about the
need to establish theoretical frameworks dealing with new media art, surely
few would argue that the criteria of judgement of "old media" art criticism
(for lack of a better word) are sufficient in the new media art field (and
vice versa, we might add).

If we - as critics now and then writing for print media - want to bridge new
media art discourse and the usual printed press, we have to make any new
criteria evident to our editors and readers. Otherwise we might find
ourselves reading even more of those newspaper and magazine articles on new
media "phenomena" ending with the kind of question Saul Anton mentioned at
the beginning of May: "But is it art?"

Of course, the issue of criteria for the judgement of quality remains linked
to both the institutional frameworks of art criticism (as Pauline, Grant,
Josephine, and others, have discussed in interesting detail both in relation
to print and online criticism) and indeed also to the search for appropriate
theoretical perspectives: again, what is theory's relevance for making
judgements in art reviews? (perhaps also in curating shows, also based on
judgements of quality).

Crucial in avoiding the "But is it art?" question (which is based on
skepticism, indecision and perhaps simply habit) is not only new or at least
adjusted criteria for judgement, but also a continued critical dialogue
about new media art in printed criticism. As many have pointed out, it would
be great if we don´t have to start from the beginning every time we read or
write about new media art in print. In this sense, it is crucial that pieces
of criticism begin to be able to riff of each other like co-existing
magazines often do (Pauline made a very good point here with Kluitenberg,
and thanks also to Josephine for insisting on an increased awareness of
already existing, but at times neglected online criticism). The possibility
of a continued discussion in print - as is in fact the norm online! -
results in "quotability" and a build-up of knowledge, making references
possible without always losing the readers. From this kind of continued
criticism, sets of criteria will more easily come into being.

An interjection before I go on: Perhaps critics, print magazines and
newspapers would consider writing/printing/commissioning more articles about
"one-person shows", individual web sites or single "projects", rather than
round-table discussions or those articles covering entire festivals,
biennials, etc. (although there are great exceptions, the latter type of
articles is the one most often ending with the "So, is it art?" question,
because you can't possibly develop a full, well-argued critical judgement of
one art project when covering a whole festival).

To continue from above: An on-going in-depth writing about specific artworks
(or ²art processes" or "activities² if there is no recognizable ²art
object²), as I have argued for earlier (sorry to insist on this), is an
important step towards legitimizing judgements and arriving at criteria for
judgements - which theory is not always! For instance, Lev Manovich's
theoretical accomplishment "Language of New Media" does not directly help us
out with judgements of quality. It is not an "Aesthetics of New Media Art"
or a "Poetics of New Media" (indeed, Lev explicitly states in the beginning
that this is not the purpose of his book).

Perhaps I am stating the obvious, but I think it is important to avoid a
certain tendency to judge artwork primarily on the basis of how "new media"
it is (an echo of Greenberg's much-debated formalism can often be heard in
the enthusiasm for "medium specificity"), or based on how it lives up to
interesting points put forward in new media theory (perhaps this is one of
the reasons why criticism so often drifts off in a discussion of theory
rather than the individual art work/art process).

Still, I guess new media theory gives us a framework for what to focus on in
our investigation and in our judgements (what is different and new, what
does it do, how does it work, what could it mean?). Theory, in this sense,
can inform and keep criticism updated about its object (and, in their turn,
artists might actually force theorists to update their theories!).

I don't have an answer to the questions I began with. Perhaps someone else
will pick up the thread? What is the relevance of new media theory for
making judgements in, say, art reviews? What are the criteria? Do we have to
come up with new ones? If so, how?