Sorry all. Here is what I meant to send:
Charlie et al,
I know I'm behind on everyone's posts, but here's my devil's advocate
question, which I tried to imply with my question about photography, film,
Gene Youngblood's Expanded Cinema is germane to this discussion, it seems,
but certainly predicated on the existence of a history of cinema that _does_
have technology as a distinguishing characteristic (and does continue to
exist as contemporary practice??). Just because flipbooks
and zoetropes existed, doesn't mean that cinema wasn't invented, of course.
I wonder why it isn't appropriate to postulate a "new media" based on
computation and networks--i.e. technologically-based. This doesn't mean that
new media art is or should or for ever has to be about the technology.
So, in relation to your question whether new media is a genre, movement,
etc., those seem to me to be subcategories of a new medium, and I want to
have it both ways. I want to have a new media(um) that is also a new way of
thinking about "just art" based on things like feedback, etc. (More on
interactivity - a hot topic here at Ars - in a different post).
On 9/3/04 3:22 AM, "Charlie Gere" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Not particularly succinct, but helped to define my understanding of
> the field for the discussion then. Since then I have thought about
> the above in terms of an overarching concept, that of 'feedback',
> meaning any art that either makes or elicits a response, whether
> from its own operations, its environment, the system in whcih it is
> embedded or to which it is attached, or from the user/viewer. I like
> this definition because, again, it avoids thinking in terms simply
> of technology. Thus a work such as Hans Haacke's Condensation Cube,
> which involves nothing more complex than a perspex cube containing
> some moisture that condenses and evaporates in a cycle, could be
> included, because it incorporates issues of feedback, process and
> other cybernetic ideas, despite the fact that it doesn't use 'media'