as far as I know -- and I may be wrong -- this exhibition actually is a 'collection show,' featuring the new media works in MoMA's collection. These shows are often / usually called 'Recent Acquisitions' (not a very sexy concept to market). I think in this case a concept has been wrapped around a show of collection works, which is apparently leading to confusion.
From: Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org on behalf of Sarah Cook
Sent: Wed 6/20/2007 6:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: automatic update exhibition
Thanks for your thoughts thus far... what seems interesting about
this exhibition is how little of it is actually about the net at all
(never mind the dotcom boom and the death, or not, of online art
activity)... and if MoMA is rewriting history (which I don't think
they are), I'm not sure to whose agenda. (They're not crediting
dotcom boom to a rise in net art, but to a rise in technology-based
arts, of which net art is one, which this show seems to leave out).
To be frank, on first glance at the website, I can't see anything
which ties these five installation works together, with the films,
and with the 'shorts' programme (and the 'artist and the computer'
section which also appear to be screening based, a mix of animation,
film and video... a bit like a OneDotZero programme, but with better
quality work, though not necessarily a stronger curatorial thread. I
would argue that very few of the artists in the 'Artist and the
computer' section identify themselves with the field of new media art
at all - by dint of the fact many of these works have been seen at
places like the Tate). The presence of anything net is their
del.icio.us links, so I'm not sure there will be an interface for the
web in the physical show at all.
Is it simply a 'range of newly invented art forms' at the expense of
any history or theme - aesthetic, political, economic or otherwise -
to bind them? Sorry if that seems overly harsh (I am in extra-
critical writing mode at the moment!). Is 'ambivalence to art'* a
defining characteristic of new media art? That could be a very
Also, not to be pedantic, but the link says 'view the online
exhibition', which I think is a bit generous, as the website -- super
cool looking in a retro Walker Art Center kind of way ;-) -- is more
of an online catalogue, with links to the artists sites, than an
actual exhibition (i.e. Paul Pfeiffer's work is not online). Does it
*the marketing text on the website reads:
Now that "new media" excitement has waned, an exhibition that
illuminates the period is timely. Automatic Update is the first
reassessment of its kind, reflecting the artists' ambivalence to art,
revealed through the ludicrous, comical, and absurd use of the latest
I'll drop an email to Barbara and invite her to comment - especially
if you all want to start a list of questions (she's not subscribed to
the list at the moment).... meantime your perspectives are very
welcome of course.
On 20 Jun 2007, at 09:08, _manu Luksch wrote:
>> The momentum of the dot-com era infused media art with a heady
>> energy, artists,
>> many switching from analog to digital equipment, tried their hands
>> at a range
>> of newly invented art forms.