JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  October 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: flat space

From:

Sean Cubitt <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sean Cubitt <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:19:26 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (237 lines)

More flatness: one big issue is the codec wars beginning under the bonnet of
HTML 5: Google (proud owners of On2 since late 2008) and Mozilla
champiioning open source Ogg etc; the MPEG-LA patent pool led by the once
i=unlikely coalition of Apple and Microsoft declaring that On2 own no
patents, ALL relevant patents belong to the pool for all codecs

Under that bonnet lies anotherr engine: the centrality of vector prediction,
which h is - an argument made in my essay in Video Vortex
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/inc-readers/videovortex/
- a spatialising aesthetic, which h reads moving images as migration from
keyframe A to keyframe B,

Much aesthetic argument to make there, but to my mind as threateneing as the
flat and the individualised is this potentially universalised (and
commodified) denial of the intrinsic nature of vectors, wh is that they are
time-based and future-oriented geometries. In place of the free unfolding of
image / line in time we get the same process which turned the chronology of
exchange into the space of spreadsheets; the history of internactions into
the space of databases

The glitch is a beautiful and temporary effect - like the "nostalgia for
quicktime" vivian sobchack wrote about. We need both to exploit the internal
contradictions (eg daniel Crooks) and to build the alternatives (eg Adam
Hyde)

S



On 22/10/10 5:26 PM, "Melinda Rackham" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> hi all,
> as a gallery interventionist and a network-taught curator im
> fascinated in whats evolving tangentially in this months discussion
> about space and control.
>
> Ele's comment about the web flattening cinematic space jolted me out
> of lurking..:
> "Forgive me for being old-school, but art museums are 3D collective
> spaces
> and not individually viewed laptops....
> YouTube spatially flattens our viewing of moving images"
>
> Is it even older skool to think that the web is a collective
> sculptural space bursting with multi-dimensional potentiality,
> and that it has been limited, underutilized and conceptually eroded
> since its inception by 2d thinking?
> flattened by the ubiquitous web page, and hijacked by the many
> static and streaming derivatives of cinema..
> and the inability of a brick and mortar mindset to inhabit the
> infinitesimal space that is available?
>
> the emergence of glitch and its parallel discussion this month is
> stupendous--
> - glitch eats into the flattened, clean, cinematic, controlled
> curatorial content and intent,
> revealing layers, codecs, ugly, messy, unresolved, non narratives,
> with no money shot..
> as if youve smashed up plaster board walls, leaving exposed broken
> beams and dangling wires sparking,
> at last - something is about to happen...
>
> youve just got to admit --- it is a little bit exciting !
>
>
> warm regards,
> Melinda
>
> Melinda Rackham (PhD)
> Emerging Artforms Curator
> Adjunct Professor of RMIT University
>
> a P.O. Box 1109
> North Adelaide
> South Australia 5006
>
> e [log in to unmask]
> m +61 410 596 592
> h +61 8 7127 5037
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 22/10/2010, at 10:14 AM, Sarah Cook wrote:
>
>> Hi List
>>
>> thanks to Ele for posting so many good questions about what exactly
>> is going on with the question of video art work online, and making
>> curatorial selection using the online world. I completely agree with
>> her sentiment that jury selection processes feel outmoded online in
>> this way when there is the possibility to exploit social networks,
>> draw in specialist knowledge AND be transparent about how it all
>> works. Can anyone give examples of when curatorial jury processes
>> work well online? I'd like to think we have good models within our
>> community -- RunMe.org? Rhizome commissions? Is curatorial jury
>> transparency just about sharing the voting process with the masses?
>>
>> Apologies for these jetlagged thoughts - I am in Toronto today and
>> earlier this afternoon I sat in and listened to a panel about
>> Curatorial Consciousness at the ImagineNATIVE festival -- a film
>> festival which is increasingly incorporating new media art, both
>> 'programmed' and 'curated' in separate strands. While the panel was
>> stacked with some absolutely excellent curators I was still
>> disheartened to discover that we are still talking about the same
>> things as 20 years ago - how video art changed to fit the gallery -
>> but now, because of the plurality and affordability of technology we
>> are celebrating and lauding that very variability. An esteemed
>> museum curator (who fought for the acquisition of media art into
>> national art collections, and so is very well versed in formats) who
>> is now running a commercial gallery, commented that because her
>> gallery space is small she and her artists come up with creative
>> solutions, showing works on 'exquisite' little screens or even 'old
>> style' monitors, even when the exact same work is projected large
>> scale in concurrent museum shows. Of course this is the choice of
>> the artist, but surely curatorial suggestion is at play here too -
>> video wouldn't have been projected if there weren't big rooms to
>> fill with art, and if museums weren't better placed to afford bigger
>> projectors. now that anyone can afford many types of presentation
>> technology, and we're all used to seeing thumbnails of works online,
>> it doesn't matter if the work changes again - scaled for the space
>> in which it is presented, with no concern for which is the 'real'
>> version? This of course relates to the great letter from Kenneth
>> Goldsmith which Charles posted about the role of Ubuweb.
>>
>> I suppose I'm left with the question of how online filesharing and
>> the necessary compromises/compression isn't helping our argument
>> about maintaining best possible quality for the artists when
>> curating media work.
>>
>> But all that aside, the live stream from the Guggenheim starts in 15
>> minutes! Set your browsers to full screen!
>> sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 Oct 2010, at 11:52, Ele Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> YouTube spatially flattens our viewing of moving images, which is
>>> why it's
>>> great for selecting thumbnails, but useless for making final
>>> curatorial
>>> decisions unless your presentation format is YouTube itself. And if
>>> that is
>>> the case - then the spatial networked potential of YouTube could
>>> offer a
>>> number of selection and exhibition models. What seems clear - is
>>> that the
>>> work has been selected for a YouTube audience without challenging
>>> the medium
>>> or expectations of YouTube itself (except perhaps the film calling
>>> us to
>>> unplug). This uncritical approach and lack of knowingness about the
>>> medium
>>> seems incongruous with the level of critical expertise of the
>>> selection
>>> panel. But most importantly, the open-submission and jury selection
>>> is an
>>> outmoded curatorial model loathed by most curators as a token fop to
>>> pseudo-democratic transparency. It's a model which ignores the
>>> strength of
>>> social networks and specialist knowledge, it ignores the
>>> impossibility of
>>> viewing thousands of artworks, and denies the opportunity to really
>>> be
>>> transparent about the selection process at all.
>>>
>>> Has anyone seem the presentation of the films at the Guggenheim(s)
>>> - I'm
>>> very curious to know how they were installed and accessed. I guess
>>> many of
>>> the works were shown in their full 'feature' length at a higher
>>> resolution?
>>>
>>> Bestest,
>>> Ele
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 October 2010 14:19, Charles Turner <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:24 AM, Sarah Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... can I request that the conversation come back to the practice
>>>>> of
>>>> curating?
>>>>
>>>> In case y'all didn't catch this:
>>>>
>>>> <http://ubu.com/resources/frameworks.html>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ele Carpenter
>>> Curator
>>>
>>> Lecturer, MFA Curating, Dept of Art, Goldsmiths College,
>>> University of London. New Cross, London SE14 6NW
>>>
>>> m: +44 (0)7989 502 191
>>> www.elecarpenter.org.uk
>>> www.eleweekend.blogspot.com

Prof Sean Cubitt
[log in to unmask]
Media and Communications Program
Faculty of Arts
Room 127 John Medley East
The University of Melbourne
Parkville VIC 3010
Australia

Tel: + 61 3 8344 3667
Fax:+ 61 3 8344 5494
M: 0448 304 004
Skype: seancubitt
http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/media-communications/
http://www.digital-light.net.au/
http://homepage.mac.com/waikatoscreen/
http://seancubitt.blogspot.com/
http://del.icio.us/seancubitt

Editor-in-Chief Leonardo Book Series
http://leonardo.info

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager