Lars Gustav Midboe said:
> When people are starting to
> talk about Derrida and others it seems like a desperate
> attempt to "hook up" with the things that are already
> accepted. If you follow this process you will end up in a
> dusty and boring place. Please dare to have your own thoughts
> and opinions. Go and see new art instead of dissecting "old-
> new media art". Put together some new exhibitions and meet
> and discuss.
> In the end it all
> boils down to a three letter word that don't spell money - ART.
Michael Day said:
> 'New media art' creates new meanings, contexts and modes of
> delivery, and whether we choose to define this stuff as
> 'interactive art' or just plain 'art', it's still just that-art.
If it is art, then it has a history and a place in the scheme of things that
we can examine and build on.
If we make art with technology, we should focus on the ART side of the
equation more than on the Technology side of the equation, otherwise we put
ourselves in a blind alley or we become programmers/scientists.
However, there are some specific issues that need to be dealt with when we
discuss and think about ART with TECHNOLOGY. We don't have to define what
this art is, but we know it is separate from, say, painting.
It would be interesting to, say, find a painting and a piece of 'new media'
art that addressed the same issue, and show them in the same space. Maybe a
painting that addresses painting and a new media work that addresses
painting. Or a painting that addresses technology and a new media work that
addresses technology. Or a painting that addresses love and a new media work
that addresses love. (This is rhetorical, I'm not really suggesting it).
Then we might see how to separate the art and the media/technology. Then we
might see that sometimes we want to talk about art and sometimes we want to
talk about how technology enables us to make art and sometimes we might even
want to talk about technology. (I use the word technology to encompass a
whole host of things, obviously).