I think those criteria could offer much more interesting points of
entry to a discussion then just a simple self-beating. I would just
like to make a quick point, after reading some of the responses:
The self-critical criterium which points at the artists having to
stand next to the work to 'explain' it seems a bit amateurish to me.
Only an amateur would think all art can be understood at first
glance. In 'traditional' art circles art works were explained and
contextualized by critics and curators, in catalogues, exhibition
papers and in newspapers. The tendency in new media art to involve
the artist in this process should maybe be seen in the light of an
increasing importance of the artist audience relationship. If the
artists prefer critics to be the sole opinion-makers of their works,
then by all means: make the installation and then go home to read
the newspaper.
;-p
regards,
J
*
On 8 Sep 2008, at 17:48, Sarah Cook wrote:
> the criteria to define interactive new media art:
>
> http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/09/05/top-15-criteria-
> define-interactive-or-new-media-art/
>
|