Hi Andreas and all
thanks so much for the clarification which is super useful (this may be 
a good strategy - post an ellipsed? synopsis in order to get the 
speaker to post their actual argument - very productive!) ;-)
Those of us _still_ here in Banff are struggling through complete 
exhaustion/intellectual collapse/bun fights at lunch (tempered only by 
a visit to the hot springs last night), but hope to report back again 
soon... a text from Charlie is on its way.
Sarah


On 3 Oct 2005, at 17:54, Andreas Broeckmann wrote:

> dear sarah, dear friends,
>
> in sarah's report about the Refresh/Methodologies panel, sarah writes:
>
>> As for Anna's comment about the show in Australia, yesterday Andreas 
>> said that what is of interest in the break between digital aesthetics 
>> and analogue aesthetics is that the understanding of digital 
>> aesthetics hinges on technicality of production...  and that it may 
>> be better to spend time thinking about the experiential qualities of 
>> art, and identify the qualities of its reception.
>
> i said it a little bit differently, trying to insist that a strict 
> distinction between analogue and digital aesthetics only makes sense 
> on the technical level of a production aesthetics. here's the passage 
> from my manuscript: 'There is a notion of the digital which posits a 
> deep break of a digital aesthetics, away from the aesthetics based on 
> analogue techniques. I will not pursue this discussion here, yet, I 
> hope that the following will help to suggest that such an 
> understanding of a digital aesthetics hinges on the technical aspects 
> of artistic production. In contrast, an approach that highlights the 
> experiential qualities of art, and the aspects of reception, is more 
> likely to identify a continuum between analogue and digital 
> aesthetics, and emphasises that in this respect media art should not 
> be discussed in separation from contemporary art practice in general.' 
> - we have had this argument before on this list, but what i tried to 
> do in my paper was to make a case for developing aesthetic categories 
> which can indeed be applied productively, disrespecting whether a work 
> or project has been developed using digital or non-digital techniques.
>
> i also said that whatever is 'new' about 'new media' is what is the 
> least interesting for art. can the 'newness' of apparatuses or other 
> techniques really be a relevant criterion for study and cultural 
> engagement? (this implies that this engagement, and the scholarship, 
> becomes obsolete when the device loses its newness?) and does it make 
> sense to use the blanket term 'new media' without clarifying, at 
> least, whether you mean one of the many, many technical 
> manifestations, or one of a set of theories, or one of the many forms 
> of 'new media art'? is it in any way satisfying, or sufficient, if 
> Anna positions herself by saying, 'I've written about and made new 
> media work'? - in the early 1970s, 'new media' meant 'video'. - how 
> productive is it to make such a shifting signifier as 'new' a 
> cornerstone of one's thinking about art and media cultural practice? i 
> believe that it is plainly short-sighted. i also believe that it is 
> part of the problem of this cultural engagement with technologies that 
> its proponents continue to use sweeping terminologies and cluster 
> stuff together which does not belong together, or which does not fit 
> the supposed classifications of so-called 'new media'. one thing that 
> the Refresh! conference has made clear is that we are in need of a lot 
> more rigorous scholarship in the history of media art and media 
> technologies, scholarship that does more than blindly and uncritically 
> celebrate any mediocre, so-called creative application of such 
> technologies as 'art' - and scholarship that places media-based art in 
> its techno-historical, art historical, social anthropological, etc., 
> context. that's simply - work to be done. and i get the feeling that 
> the use of the term 'new media' mostly signifies a laziness in 
> thinking. the term is just too broad.
>
> greetings,
> -a
>