dear johannes, dear friends,
>A pragmatistic proposal: "new media" needs a source for electricity.
>And then let's move on to the implication of this seemingly naive
>statement e.g. for the production of art and for the perception and
>reflection on art and the feed-back loop between the two).
two crucial questions for me are, (1) whether the fact that something
has an electric plug, or uses an electronic or digital system, puts
it into a realm entirely (or significantly) different from what
artists of all those fields have been doing before or without
electricity; and (2) whether it makes any sense to group all these
practices under one single umbrella ('new media'). i believe that it
is interesting to discuss 'net art', 'software art', 'machine art',
'video', etc., as fields of artistic activity; but just because
practitioners in such fields as architecture, music, graphic design,
and software art, are today all using computers, does not in itself
create sufficient ground for discussing them as an ensemble in a
meaningful way.
greetings,
-a
so-called 'new media' (some rough guesses, revised):
Animation, 80 years
Architecture, 10.000 years
Curatorial work, 5.000 years
Cyber Art, 40 years
Film, 110 years
Video, 43 years
Game Design, 44 years
Graphic Design, 5.000 years
Installation Art, 100 years
Interactive Art, 40 years
Interdisciplinary Art, 1.000 years
Performance Art, 2.500 years
Photography, 160 years
Sound / Music, 30.000 years
|