Hi all,

In some ways (new) media art been suffering from its success in
connecting across different practices and industries. Creative industry
and commercial games quarters admire how the technology is producing for
them magnificent avenues of technologically determined products that
have lined their pockets, mainly via a highly focused, capitalist
agenda. The technological tools also cross-over. Design education has
flourished through the process of lecturers including in their lesson
plans internationally, net art and media art knowledge as a way of
introducing skills and ideas to students. Yet in traditional art
colleges and universities this has not been as successful, due to
lecturers within these institutions not having a grip in understanding
the potential and use of the technology - other sectors have had a head
start. This has contributed to some of the attitudes that we have come
across from those who do not feel comfortable in understanding the more
deeper nuances of media art and its variants, challenges and critical
approaches. Right across the board, as technology has progressed, much
of (new) media art has developed with it, as well as networked related
culture and the Internet. It is always changing.

We are immersed in an ever shifting hybrid, meta art-culture, expansive
by its nature and it does not rest in one camp, but in many camps. The
issue is really not about whether it has depth, it is probably more to
do with having too much depth. This is why traditionally orientated art
institutions curators and artists shy away from appropriating (new)
media art, because they have to engage and become part of an extremely
dynamic and complex set of cultures, interlinking with so many variants.
They just find it too difficult to frame it next to a singular practice,
such as 'art'. Not only that, they are they faced with a complex
history, interlaced with so many genres - an art form that uses
technology as an integral part of its essence. Then there are the
various polemics and influences that inform the content and reason why
the work is created in the first place.

Some of my curator friends/artists, who have come from a more
traditional art lineage would love to get involved somehow, yet they
feel that they would have to cover so much ground. It is not just about
people being ignorant, it is mostly due to people having dedicated an
awful lot of their time learning other things. Also, there are many
individuals, groups and institutions who are actively involved in
expanding their approaches, methods and models of engagement, in
incorporating (new) media art into their practices and future
developments. I really do not think that we are dealing with an absolute
doom and gloom scenario here. The world is still turning and I can
imagine everyone on here is deeply involved in projects, most of the time.

We just have to be open in questioning our own approaches in how we
engage with others, when discussing (new) media art. To each other of
course a critical discourse is essential to move things along. Yet I
know of people who are so caught up in their gargon, based trappings,
they refuse to relate and communicate to those outside of their own
practice, which is not only boring but elitist. Personally, I think that
this is not an effective stance and more reflects the failure for such
individuals to critique their own behaviour beyond mannerist comforts.
So we need to keep ourselves in check, become more earthed, really
connect - Gulp!

The last thing that we need to do is give power or any credence to an
ill-informed opinion and mythology. It has been known for a long time
that the ICA has had many troubles, not just with its focus with
integrating (new) media art, but because its main concern has been
directed around trying to get as much funding as it possibly can. If one
takes a step back and considers its main function, real motives for
existence, surely it has been more about money than art. Of course, this
is a reality that all artists, curators, programmers, theorists,
organizations, institutions have to deal with in order to exist, receive
and pay wages, get projects happening etc. Yet, it is important for any
group involved in the arts to remember why they exist in the first
place. And if it mainly becomes about the money and less about the art,
then the ideas that they once valued then become less culturally
transferable and less interesting.

marc