Although there seem to be several threads to this conversation they can be 
connected through broader discussions of exclusion over the course of the 
20thC. What worked for Twombly may have worked against early new media 
artists. Although curators were willing to accept the monumental and what we 
might perceive as "male" characteristics in his art they were unwilling to 
accept in artists working with technology, which is ironic. The criticism of 
9 Evenings is a good example of this. The conflation of the machine with the 
"man" in the late 60s did not help artists who were incorporating technology 
into their art.

In my research around early new media in Canada, and in discussions I had 
with curators working in the 70s and 80s, I discovered a perception of new 
media being reduced to "boys with their toys." So, with the rise of feminist 
work this perception was brought into high relief. Thus, the resistance to 
exhibition of the work was doubly manifest. How did women making work with 
technology fare in all this? I would suggest they found themselves caught 
between two opposing forces, which made it difficult for women artists to 
make the decision to enter into the fray. Those who did were rewarded when 
women began to theorize the field and provide some of the most astute 
writing regarding technology and its effects (Haraway, Hayles...). At least 
they found a reflection of themselves in emerging theory.

All this is to say that we need to consider the various actors who were 
involved in exclusions or inclusions, not just the artists but the curators, 
writers, etc. Remember women were working in the museum as curators and 
directors long before they were on the walls (or floors...).

Another quick point - Eric Brown, the first director of the National Gallery 
of Canada (1920s...we are a very young country!), used his Christian 
Scientist beliefs to intentionally exclude any work that related in any way 
to technology - no Futurist or dada work was purchased. This policy was 
upheld by his successor and was more or less the case until the 1960s when 
the policy against buying any American art was also lifted.

Caroline


>From: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] "the art form lacks ...depth and cultural 
>agency"
>Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:41:05 +0100
>
>I donıt think Charlie was offering unconditional support for all media art.
>I know he has his likes and dislikes, just like anybody. He also has the
>right to dish Twombly. Personally I think Twombly is one of the most
>compelling of post-war artists ­ but such preferences are a matter of taste
>as much as anything else. Some people think Duchamp was just a poseur. I am
>not sure what I think of him ­ but he was clearly very clever, whatever he
>was. I am in the same quandry about Beuys, even though I know that in the
>contemporary neo-conceptual artworld these two guys are held in extremely
>high esteem.
>
>No artist deserves the sort of attention that some artists receive and very
>few are so bad they should be treated as poorly as they are. I am acutely
>aware of all the young artists I knew when I was young and how few of them
>are left standing. I am cogniscant that some of the most talented are no
>longer working whilst those who often that had the least talent (but 
>perhaps
>more attitude) are. Some of those that have achieved the greatest fame and
>fortune are (in my opinion, but the opinion of somebody who knows the 
>people
>involved) amongst those of the least talent (in fact some know they have no
>talent and think itıs a hoot they are now so successful). This isnıt fair ­
>but who expects life to be fair? It is a reflection of how preferences are 
>a
>matter of taste (and therefore fashion) and being in the right place at the
>right time (and knowing the right people) is more important than whether 
>you
>are a half decent artist or not.
>
>Before we note that this is off theme we could turn this line of thinking 
>to
>why men have traditionally had a higher profile in the visual arts than
>women? Twombly is a good example here, as his work belongs to the American
>heroic tradition that is associated with big things ­ big buildings, big
>men, big beards, Hemmingway, big fish and Pollock, etc. However, Twombly is
>gay so that sort of throws a spanner in the works. Sexuality and gender are
>not so black and white. Nevertheless, amongst many of those young artists I
>knew (many years ago) there was roughly a 50/50 male/female gender split.
>Amongst those continuing to practise I doubt that would be the case ­ even
>though I belong to that generation that saw far more women succeed than was
>previously the case. The artworld, the media artworld and the world
>generally does have a case to answer on this.
>
>Regards
>
>Simon
>
>
>On 23/10/08 14:08, "Josephine Bosma" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >
> > Talking about perplexing...
> >
> > Are we going to bash each others heads in with artworks we don't
> > like, in order to humiliate this or that art world now? Hope not.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > of the 'whatever art' and the 'whatever subject'. When I
> >> > contemplate this particular piece of new media art - http://
> >> > dogsears.ica.org.uk/ - I find your unconditional championing of new
> >> > media art even more perplexing, and even begin to sympathise with
> >> > Eshun's decision.
> >> >
> >> > J
> >> >
>
>
>
>Simon Biggs
>Research Professor
>edinburgh college of art
>[log in to unmask]
>www.eca.ac.uk
>www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>
>[log in to unmask]
>www.littlepig.org.uk
>AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>
>
>Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number 
>SC009201