Hi skawennati,

I wanted to respond to your mail in a more thoughtful way, but I am in the
middle of teaching Net Art today at Greenwich University UK. And I am off
to Edingburgh tomorrow for 3 days and will not be writing emails till next
Monday - so I'll say thanks now...

marc

p.s

I wish i had more time for dialogue here, because there are a few things
that i wanted to discuss, for instance the idea or issue of 'good & bad'
which I personally to do not agree with, such polarities are not really
touchable or reachable, but will discuss more another time perhaps...

bye again


Dear Marc & Rosanne and All,

Thank you so much Marc for your post.  I too think that we need more
reviews of
New Media exhibitions (and less discussions about whether or not it is new
--a
rose by any other name *would* smell as sweet).  We need more talk/writing
about what is good and why it is good.  I need to know how to write about
new
media artwork.  How much of a 2000 word curatorial essay should be devoted
to
the technologies used in the works and how much to their content?    I'll be
visiting yor site regularly.  

Rosanne, did you see this post: 

    * another forward from judith rodenbeck re Refresh (235 lines)
      From: Sarah Cook <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:13:21 +0100 

It had a good critique of the WPG/Banff show.

Sincerely,
Skawennati

 
--- marc <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


> Just for the moment, I would like move the discussion away from the 
> Banff 'conference/get-together', not only because I was not present 
> (amongst shape-shifters of media consciousness), but because I feel that 
> there is a larger picture that needs exploring in a pragmatic sense.
> 
> Lately, we have been interested (at furtherfield.org) in visiting net 
> art and media art exhibitions and reviewing them, so to bring about in 
> contributing in some way approachable critiques/dialogues to a wider 
> audience beyond the confines of 'peer review' alone. In a sense, we are 
> from our own perspective, reviewing peers and their work, which can put 
> us in an awkward position and it is not necessarily introducing a 
> perfect paradigm. Yet, we have felt that it is important for someone to 
> actually make an effort in reviewing this stuff and offer potentially 
> different perspectives, that bring an alternative view point to the work 
> that does not exploit or over use, already defined histories and 
> protocols. This can sometimes (not always) block understanding the 
> authenticity of a work.
> 
> We feel that engaging in the materiality (stuff), as in the context, 
> contemporary concepts, notions of what the creative group or artist is 
> trying to communicate and explore through the chosen medium, mixed with 
> their voice/intentions, is an essential part of seeing what is there- 
> and sometimes it is important for us to put aside our own baggage (as 
> much as possible) so to acknowledge the various nuances that are at play 
> in such works.


> >Dear Charlie (and all),
> >
> >Thanks for your quick response, but I was trying to prod you (or anyone
else
> >who was there) into more depth about the exhibition. What I am looking
for
> >is some real critique - good or bad. 

> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >Rosanne
> >

> 


Skawennati Tricia Fragnito
http://www.ThanksgivingAddress.net --new!
http://www.skawennati.net
http://www.CyberPowWow.net
http://www.ImaginingIndians.net


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .