This conversation is getting really meaty.
Let's consider one thing.
Sooner or later, _someone_ is going to create a classification that will
stick in the history books, regardless of how distasteful that might
sound. It might take 5 years, 20, or 100, but it will happen, and
eventually we will all be quite dead, and unable to object.
Power and control - I have no answer to this, but will we as
technological artists (note I'm not using NM, as I'm talking more
broadly), come to some social contract regarding our own
taxonomies/classifications, or Powers forbid, announce a 'Movement'? In
this project, there will have to be a lot of negotiation and compromise
if we are to define ourselves (hopefully quite broadly). If not, the
'we' who are historians and curators will classify the technological
genres in the artists' stead.
I know several historians who are in the gates getting ready to do just
this. And when they publish, that's that, or at least as more of them
publish, it will become more of a fait accompli. The pin will be
through the thorax of the butterfly.
Some of you may object to this, and to an extent, so do I. However,
this is historiography, and are we going to be Smithsons or Bierstadts
(shaping the terrain, or masterfully representing it)?
Intelligent Agent Magazine
1556 Clough Street, #28
Bowling Green, OH 43402
225 288 5813
[log in to unmask]
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ivan Pope
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: power/control
> Subject: power/control
> While conceding that, of course, taxonomies are made in the
> service of power and control, simply to imagine that we can
> dispense with them seems to me to be problematic. I suggest
> the alternative is not the occupation of some space beyond
> the control of categories and so on
Personally, I've been waiting for this discussion to get to grips with
taxonomies, rather than with discussion of terms such as 'new media' and
I guess if we are discussing taxonomies we should discuss the taxonomy
our field and not get bogged down in the 'is new media a good term for
is there a better term'.
The problem with taxonomies is that they require some groundwork and
that that groundwork be generally accepted, and then that there be some
of categorising entries into that taxonomy. Do we really want to go down
that formal route?
What could a taxonomy be for the field that Crumb covers?